Did you see this study that links HFCS to clogged arteries in overweight men?

Fructose linked to fatty artery deposits, study says

Also, when I looked at these studies (and I may be remembering them incorrectly) they mentioned that their survey groups were NOT overweight, so perhaps not representative of the general public.

There are quite a few health problems associated with HFCS (see this post) and in addition to corn-grower subsidies, here is an interesting article on the overall economics of sugar and corn:

If you can magically turn HFCS into a source of fuel for vehicles that currently consume gas, then I am in. Otherwise you can keep it far, far away. This study reminds me of all the studies that talked about how much better hydrogenated margarine was for you than real butter.

Don't we already to HFCS into fuel??? I think that is part of the reason the cost of food stuffs have climbed exponentially this year.

I had a couple of additional thoughts about this study. As HFCS is so prevalent in our food supply, does this study stipulate that all subjects were removed from ANY OTHER source of HFCS in their diet before they began their study? And that these participants had been removed fromo HFCS for how long before the study? As someone who has dumped this stuff, I can testify that it takes a great deal of attention to make sure you're not inadvertently consuming it. From cold remedies, commercial baked goods, almost any industrial "box" food, and the list goes on and on. It is entirely possible that all their subjects had HFCS in their normal day-to-day diets (in some way). Based on what was reported here, this could have been a one-day taste test. I would like to see a thorough and complete analysis of the effects of HFCS in the food system. I'm betting this isn't it.

The study cybele referenced compared a drink with 100% fructose to a drink with 100% glucose. So HFCS wasn't studied. This is a common misperception - it is well established that fructose is metabolized differently than glucose. But HFCS has roughly the same content of glucose and fructose as table sugar.

As a population, we have increased our intake of fructose, but that's because we eat more sweetened food, not because HFCS has more fructose than regular sugar.

It's likely that because HFCS is a cheap ingredient, its availability has led to our food supply, especially kids' food, being over-sweetened. But who knows - maybe if HFCS was never developed, food makers would have been adding more regular sugar to foods to meet consumer demand.

It would be very telling to see who had funded this study. The corn industry? The soda industry? Our own NIH (ha!)? It's amazing how funding affects the design, and therefore the results, of any study.

Typical. When your first argument (HFCS is bad for you) is scientifically discredited, you jump to argument B, or C, or D, just because you want SO badly to believe it's bad. If it's in so many processed foods, big deal. It still doesn't affect you any differently than sugar would. Would those foods be any better for you if they contained cane sugar? Not according to this study. Do you have to eat excess amounts of them and get fat, just because they contain one sweetener versus another? No. This blog post and most of the comments I've ready just prove that people believe what they want to believe, and people just LOVE to buy into the anti-corporate conspiracy theory. Puh-leeze! Get a brain.

Clearly you haven't read this blog for any great length of time, as a year ago, I stated my position very explicitly in this post:

http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2006/07/05/the_hfcs_and_obesity_argument_redefined

Note that I did not say that it was worse than table sugar. Excessive amount of any sweetener, is bad for you, be it honey, cane sugar, or HFCS.

It's probably foolhardy to jump into such an emotionally-charged debate but that's never stopped me before.

The results of the study are consistent with good science and the prevailing theory.

As Kati has pointed out, it's very easy to confuse HFCS with fructose if you aren't a chemist. The two are not the same.

HFCS is not 100% fructose -- it contains a mix of glucose and fructose, and this mix can be manipulated in production. That's why it's crazy to make sweeping generalizations about HFCS without specifying what kind you're talking about.

Also, people need to understand that cane-derived table sugar (sucrose) is 50% glucose and 50% fructose naturally.

The study looked at two mixes: HFCS42 and HFCS55, which respectively contain 42% and 55% fructose. It's pretty much established that because the body processes fructose differently to glucose, a high fructose diet might lead to differences in hunger and satiety, and therefore increased risk of obesity and related metabolic health difficulties.

But HFCS55 contains, to a good approximation, the same glucose-fructose mix as cane sugar. HFCS55 is the kind used in most sodas and that's why the authors used it in their study.

So anyway, if the current theory is correct, you wouldn't expect much difference in the effects of HFCS soft drinks vs. cane sugar-sweetened drinks. And guess what -- that's exactly what the study found. Science works, again. Doctors and nutritionists are not (all) idiots.

In other words, the scientists found nothing to rule out the present theory, which is that there's nothing magic about HFCS per se, it's the amount of fructose consumed that might present a problem. And this study suggests that substituting HFCS55 for cane sugar shouldn't lead to the kinds of issues (e.g., increased hunger) that would result in significantly higher fructose intake, all other things being equal.

Now, it's still worthwhile to worry about baked goods, which often use HFCS90 for its higher sweetness. But as far as beverages go the alarmists can tone it down -- there may be taste-related reasons to seek out cane-sugar-sweetened soft drinks but right now it looks like as long as the industry sticks to HFCS55 in sodas the impact on health should be minimal.

Oh, and I'd differ just a bit on the "root of the obesity problem" thing -- I suspect it's not necessarily that the amount of HFCS as much as the kind used that leads to problems.

If processors are using lots of HFCS90 rather than sucrose-equivalent sweetner, then, even if the HFCS food has a lower calorie density per sweetness-equivalent serving, there are additional effects that could lead to higher consumption, poorer blood sugar control, obesity and related health issues. See this for background: http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/5

So high-fructose HFCS (but not all HFCS) is probably less healthy than cane sugar, and might make you fatter and more prone to metabolic problems even if the producers don't go out of their way to make things obnoxiously sweet.

Because I just don't know enough about HFCS I am not ingesting them or feeding them to my family.
It amazes me how frequent HFCS is in "everyday foods". I could be wrong and 5 year from now be kicking myself because HFCS is so gosh darn healthy. However, my experience is that the more a "food" product has been altered from a "natural" state the less healthy (and even disease-causing) that thing is.
That said, some people believe strongly that HFCS is BAD and others that it is pretty "even" with other sweeteners and still others (like myself) just don't know.
I am looking for a documented list of foods that contain HFCS. Does anyone know where I can find such a list?

"There is a small percentage of people who react poorly to HFCS, most likely due to some allergy or other similar reaction to the product."

This is not true. Double blind study citation, please?