From the article:

A new study in mice sheds light on the insulin resistance that can come from diets loaded with high-fructose corn syrup, a sweetener found in most sodas and many other processed foods. The report in the March issue of Cell Metabolism, a Cell Press publication, also suggests a way to prevent those ill effects.

The researchers showed that mice on a high-fructose diet were protected from insulin resistance when a gene known as transcriptional coactivator PPARg coactivator-1b (PGC-1b) was "knocked down" in the animals' liver and fat tissue. PGC-1b coactivates a number of transcription factors that control the activity of other genes, including one responsible for building fat in the liver.

"There has been a remarkable increase in consumption of high-fructose corn syrup," said Gerald Shulman of Yale University School of Medicine. "Fructose is much more readily metabolized to fat in the liver than glucose is and in the process can lead to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,"

Okay, there's a fair amount of science in there. And I should remind everyone that other science findings in the past were found later to have made improper assumptions. So, as with all things science that I mention on this site, use this information has additional evidence rather than the Holy Grail.

Additionally, there seems to be some misunderstanding (whether through the reporter or through Dr. Shulman) surrounding HFCS. HFCS is not pure fructose. Rather it is "mixed" with glucose at varying percentages. There are other questions (as yet unanswered) the differences between bounded and unbounded sugar molecules play any role in how the body reacts to sweeteners. So in other words, when it comes to the above, caveat emptor.

But what does the above mean if true? If the Wikipedia article on Insulin Resistance is to be believed:

Symptoms of IR:

1. Fatigue.

2. Brain fogginess and inability to focus. Sometimes the fatigue is physical, but often it is mental.

3. High blood sugar.

4. Intestinal bloating. Most intestinal gas is produced from carbohydrates in the diet. Insulin resistance sufferers who eat carbohydrates sometimes suffer from gas.

5. Sleepiness. Many people with insulin resistance get sleepy immediately after eating a meal containing more than 20% or 30% carbohydrates.

6. Weight gain, fat storage, difficulty losing weight. For most people, too much weight is too much fat. The fat in IR is generally stored in and around abdominal organs in both males and females. It is currently suspected that hormonal effects from such fat are a precipitating cause of insulin resistance.

7. Increased blood triglyceride levels.

8. Increased blood pressure. Many people with hypertension are either diabetic or pre-diabetic and have elevated insulin levels due to insulin resistance. One of insulin's effects is on arterial walls throughout the body.

9. Depression. Because of the deranged metabolism resulting from insulin resistance, psychological effects are not uncommon. Depression is said to be the prevalent psychological symptom.

In other words, if the findings in the article are true, then HFCS can play a role in any of the 9 symptoms of insulin resistance. My question - does cane sugar provide similar results?

h/t to Jack @ Fork & Bottle

It's not often I get to say "I was right!". However gauche it may be to do the following, I've had a bad week and could use a little self-congratulations in order to make me feel better.

In 2006, I said this:

The rise in obesity is a direct result of over-production of a government subsidized sweetener.

In 2009, Alicia Harvie, a Masters candidate in Agriculture, Food, and the Environment at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy and a Research Assistant, along with Timothy A. Wise the Director of the Research and Policy Program at the GDEI said this in their policy brief Sweetening the Pot: Implicit Subsidies to Corn Sweeteners and the U.S. Obesity Epidemic (NOTE: PDF):

"While this (corn subsidies) may not have reduced soda prices to an extent that would account for rising consumption, there is little doubt U.S. agricultural policies have indirectly subsidized a sector that may be contributing to health problems."

Okay, it's not quite the same position, but it's close enough for jazz. And if I could figure this out, it shouldn't be that big of a problem for the rest of the nation to make that correlation. HFCS may not be, in of itself, less healthy than cane sugar. But adding HFCS to a diet already rich in sugar is just begging for problems.

via U.S. Food Policy

Rare is the news story that leaves me speechless. This story, from the Ethicurean, is one of those rare few.

After one set of scientists found mercury — yes, everyone’s favorite brain-impairing element — in almost half of commercial HFCS, another bunch of scientists decided to get specific and tested 55 common consumer products that use HFCS. And guess what? Almost a third of them contain mercury.

How did the heavy metal get in there? In making HFCS — that “natural” sweetener, as the Corn Refiners Associaton likes to call it — caustic soda is one ingredient used to separate corn starch from the corn kernel. Apparently most caustic soda for years has been produced in industrial chlorine (chlor-alkali) plants, where it can be contaminated with mercury that it passes on to the HFCS, and then to consumers.

I'm horrified, speechless, and not all that surprised.

The whole story is worth the read, as are the links in the story.

UPDATE: From the comments, Tom adds the following:

...the average high-end dose from HFCS is 28 micrograms per day, and the dose from a dental amalgam is 1 microgram per day. Canada and other areas do not recommend dental amalgam (silver fillings) for children.

So, this looks like something to be concerned about. Ordinarily we don't eat processed food, just out of habit, but now it's a very good reason to seriously limit the amount of HFCS consumed by kids.

h/t to Jack at Fork & Bottle

...and Splenda to boot.

Ladies and gentlemen - In continuation of my long running series of posts detailing foods we do not need, I bring you...

Capri Sun Roarin' Waters Fruit Flavored Water Beverage, Tropical Fruit

Ingredients?

Water, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Citric Acid, Sucralose (Splenda Brand Sweetener), Natural Flavor.

Granted it only has 35 calories, but c'mon..can't a parent simply served watered down Kool-Aid? It worked for my siblings and myself when we were young.

(via MeFi).

I haven't posted about HFCS in a long time, for a variety of reasons. But you should be aware that the folks who profit most (That'd be Archer Daniels Midland and other companies of similar ilk) are in the midst of a campaign to alert consumers that "No, really, honest, there's nothing wrong with the stuff".

Here are a few of their campaign spots. Yes, these are political ads for food, which in of itself is noteworthy.

If you want to key on any phrase in these spots, it's the "when used in moderation" line, because, as we know, HFCS is in damn near everything, including products that don't need sweetener, such as yogurt, bread, and cough syrups.

But, if you want to push the issue, if anyone ever asks what's wrong with HFCS besides the fact that we indulge in way too much of the stuff, here are a few other talking points.

1) There is debate going on HFCS's role in the upswing in diabetes cases. In may be related to our increased consumption of the sweetener (as per above), or it might be something else. The science is still working this argument out.

2) It isn't natural. Oh, they may meet the letter of the law in defining itself as natural, but they haven not only broken its spirit, they stepped on it, jumped on it, and ground the law into dust. Unless a person has ready access to centrifuges, hydroclones, ion-exchange columns, and buckets of enzymes, there's simply no way for a regular lay person to make high fructose corn syrup. None. Zero. It's not natural, no matter how they dress it up.

3) They didn't perform long-term tests on the product before putting it on the market.

4) It tastes different than cane sugar. Compare Jellies made with sugar against those made with HFCS. Or Cola.

But really, regardless of these four points, the overabundance of the sweetener is the one that truly needs to be addressed.

Thanks to Ken over at Fast Food Facts

From the New York Times:

In a small study, Texas researchers showed that the body converts fructose to body fat with “surprising speed,'’ said Elizabeth Parks, associate professor of clinical nutrition at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. The study, which appears in The Journal of Nutrition, shows how glucose and fructose, which are forms of sugar, are metabolized differently.

It is important to remember that High Fructose Corn Syrup is not 100% fructose. Depending on the product (there are several varieties of HFCS), it can be comprised with as much as 58% glucose, so your mileage may vary.

And of course the standard caveats apply... HFCS is only one variable out of many regarding obesity, you shouldn't eat too much of any sugar, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.

Oh, and it still makes soda taste dull and lifeless.

As always, thanks to Jack at Fork & Bottle

Uh-Oh. This can't be good.

Science Daily — Researchers have found new evidence that soft drinks sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) may contribute to the development of diabetes, particularly in children. In a laboratory study of commonly consumed carbonated beverages, the scientists found that drinks containing the syrup had high levels of reactive compounds that have been shown by others to have the potential to trigger cell and tissue damage that could cause the disease, which is at epidemic levels.

(snip)

In the current study, Chi-Tang Ho, Ph.D., conducted chemical tests among 11 different carbonated soft drinks containing HFCS. He found 'astonishingly high' levels of reactive carbonyls in those beverages. These undesirable and highly-reactive compounds associated with "unbound" fructose and glucose molecules are believed to cause tissue damage, says Ho, a professor of food science at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. By contrast, reactive carbonyls are not present in table sugar, whose fructose and glucose components are "bound" and chemically stable, the researcher notes.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the first study that has determined that the differences between HFCS and cane sugar are not inconsequential. Adjust your perspectives accordingly.

I'm not going to say this is the smoking gun, as I've yet to find any transcripts of the symposium. But if the findings of Chi-Tang Ho are true, it's a fairly big deal.

And not to toot my own horn or anything, but way back in 2005, I noted the difference between the "bound" and "unbound" molecules.

But there is a difference between sugar and HFCS. Sugar is a naturally occurring substance. The glucose and fructose that make up sugar are comprised of bonded molecules. HFCS, a man-made product, is comprised unbonded molecules. Stating that HFCS is the same as sugar is the same as saying that cake batter is the same as cake.

Toot! Toot!

Of course I didn't know that this difference could lead to the upswing in diabetes, so I'm no Nostradamus. But back to HFCS...

The biggest issue surrounding HFCS over the past generation was not that it was bad for us. The problem was that there was little to no evidence to prove that it was bad (or good) for us. Apparently that has started to change.

So what's the total evidence against High Fructose Corn syrup so far? It doesn't affect the appetite any differently than cane sugar, but it does seem to increase the risk of diabetes.

...at least to a study published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

From a news article in regard to this study:

The researchers investigated if there was any difference between commercial beverages containing sucrose or HFCS on hunger, satiety, and energy intakes by assigning 37 volunteers (18 women, age range 20 to 29) to consume cola beverages.

The drinks contained the same amount of calories (215 kcal) sweetened with sucrose, 42 per cent HFCS, or 55 per cent HFCS. The drinks were compared to three controls: diet cola (2 kcal), milk containing one per cent fat (215 kcal), and no beverage, and measurements taken at 20-minutes intervals after consumption.

"We found no differences between sucrose- and HFCS-sweetened colas in perceived sweetness, hunger and satiety profiles, or energy intakes at lunch," wrote the researchers.

Now.. that being said, there's a few things that still are true.

• 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.
• The meme "HFCS is the root of the obesity problem" is still true, not because it's less healthy than cane sugar, but because it's in an obscene amount of processed foods.
• The Federal Government still subsidizes corn, and thus the production of HFCS.
• HFCS in soda, quite frankly, tastes like ass, is inferior to the taste of soda that uses cane sugar.

There you are, the concerned parent-consumer, looking at a box of Edy's Whole Fruit Strawberry Fruit Bars. You already read the ingredients on the box of Popsicles and it scared the bejabbers out of you, but the Edy's box looks like this:

Ingredients:
Water, Strawberries And Strawberry Puree, Sugar, Natural Flavors, Citric Acid, Color (Beet Juice Extract, Turmeric Color), Vegetable Stabilizers (Carob Bean Gum, Guar Gum), Which Inhibit Ice Crystal Growth.

Terrific! you think, and happily buy them. Your kid loves them, you love them, your family eats them all, and you congratulate yourself for having appeased everyone's need for frozen summertime treats without questionable ingredients and without needing to visit another store. You are so great.

You return to the store the next week, just wanting to get your groceries and get the hell out of there before you end up with a bunch of stuff you don't really need, and then you pass the frozen foods.

Gee, you think, those strawberry ones were good. Let's get tangerine this time. You buy them, bring them home, and as you're ripping open the box in your kitchen, you see the ingredients:

Ingredients:
Water, Sugar, Tangerine Juice From Concentrate, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Citrus Pulp, Citric Acid, Tangerine Oil, Natural Flavor, Vegetable Stabilizers (Guar Gum, Carob Bean Gum), Which Inhibit Ice Crystal Growth, Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C), Yellow #6, Red #40.

Whoa! What the frig? How did these go from sugar and beet juice color to high fructose corn syrup and a food dye banned in at least eight countries — within the same line of products?

With a heavy heart, you resign yourself to making your own natural frozen fruit treats, but thinking back to your youth, you remember when that Time for Timer blob convinced you frozen orange juice on a toothpick would be just as good as a popsicle.

"Sunshine on a stick," my ass, you think, because you are now an adult and are allowed to use the word "ass" whenever you like. It separated into a hard, icy stratum of orange pulp and water, it was sour, and, your mother informed you, a waste of perfectly good orange juice.

And now, you stand there in front of the open freezer, wondering if you can make the trip to the all-natural, slightly-more-than-you-really-wanted-to-pay grocery store and back in the August heat without having the popsicles melt en route. Your heart sinks. Maybe if I bring a cooler...

My comrades-in-parenting-arms! Fear not the all-natural frozen treat! In honor of Mothers' Day, I'm here to help.

First, let's revisit the Time for Timer guy's "popsicles" — specifically, why they suck. The reason: no sugar. Sugar acts like antifreeze, lowering the freezing point of your popsicle, keeping it softer and slushier, as opposed to the hard, icy, so-called Sunshine on a Stick. Additionally, cold mutes our ability to taste sweetness, so something that tastes fine as a liquid will often taste sour or bitter when frozen.

That being said, making your own popsicles is shockingly easy. Here it is:

Fruit. Sugar. Water.

The fruit: you could use fresh summer fruits for this, but that just seems like a waste. Fresh summer fruits should be enjoyed, well, fresh. I used a 10 oz. bag of frozen peaches for this.

The sugar: did you not hear what I just said? You need sugar — or sucanat or agave nectar or something — for this.

The water: nothing special about this. You need to make a simple syrup, which is a 1:1 ratio of granulated sugar and water. (Agave nectar folks, you're on your own on this one.)

And now, I put it all together in this recipe, which you can clip out and paste on your freezer for easy access:

Frozen Fruit Pops

• One 10-12 oz. bag of frozen fruit, thawed
• 0.5 cup sugar
• 0.5 cup water

Combine the sugar and water in a saucepan and stir. Heat until the water is no longer cloudy and no sugar crystals remain. Place fruit in blender, add half the simple syrup, and blend until smooth. Taste. If it tastes sweet enough, it's not. Add more syrup until it's just a little too sweet, then pour into molds and freeze 24-48 hours to ensure the pops are solidly frozen.

[Addendum: In Popsicle's defense, they have introduced a line of popsicles with "Natural Colors and Flavors." They all still have HFCS, but y'know, baby steps. I guess.]

Okay! Still waiting for suggestions for next week's post! Get 'em in by tomorrow or suffer in silence while I write up someone else's idea.

With just two posts left before I fade away into AH obscurity...

I've bashed High Fructose Corn Syrup here a fair amount, and I've explained why it's used more often that cane sugar in American Soft Drinks. My basic stance is still the same as it was last year - The rise in obesity is a direct result of it's over-production of this government subsidized sweetener; there's some minimal anecdotal evidence of health issues surrounding it's usage; it's being added to items that have no business having it; and it tastes differently in the products that previously used cane sugar.

So imagine my surprise when I read the following on Business Week:

Deutsche Bank downgrades Corn Products amid concern that soft drink makers are evaluating a switch from high fructose corn syrup to sugar

If you're a soda fan, this is compelling news. The basic gist is that since corn prices are rising as farmers the market is demanding more corn for the ethanol gravy train, companies are looking to cut costs where they can. This may include returning to cane sugar.

HFCS is currently 60% cheaper than cane sugar, so it seems unlikely that this will happen any time soon, but it is interesting to see the idea being brought to the table. This seemed impossible as recently as two years ago.