Asking the right questions
Anyone will tell you consuming sugar in large quantities is unhealthy; eating more calories than you burn will cause weight gain. The real question remains, is high fructose corn syrup any worse than its leading competitor, table sugar?
What’s in a name?
High fructose corn syrup entered the American food supply in the early 1980s, just as the nation’s obesity rate started to soar. When looking for something to blame, it makes for an easy target.
We consume, on average, 42 pounds of the stuff per person per year – mostly in the form of soft drinks. HFCS rivals table sugar as our leading sweetener.
If high fructose corn syrup were launched in our era, the company responsible might take a cue from McNeil Nutritionals, international vendors of trichlorogalactosucrose - also known as Splenda - in devising a consumer conscious brand name.
High fructose corn syrup is not high in fructose; it’s nearly identical in composition to table sugar (sucrose). HFCS is only high in fructose when compared to corn syrup, a sweetener that contains no fructose.
HFCS is created in a process that rearranges the molecular structure of corn starch, the result of which is a substance that’s 90% fructose. The fructose is then combined with regular corn syrup, which is 100% glucose, to produce HFCS.
HFCS was engineered to provide the same sweetness as sugar, so that consumers would notice no difference in taste. Sucrose and HFCS have the same caloric density as carbohydrates with four calories per gram. In terms of chemical structure, sucrose and HFCS differ only in the bonding of their sugars. Once absorbed, the two sweeteners are metabolized in similar ways.
Fructose and appetite
When nutritionists criticize fructose, HFCS inevitably bares the brunt of the blame, in spite of the fact that table sugar and fructose claim similar amounts of the sugar.
Fructose has a lower glycemic index so it causes a lower rise in blood sugars for people with diabetes. But because it has less affect on insulin levels, it does not control appetite as well as glucose.
Peter Havel, a nutrition researcher at UC Davis, has shown that fructose fails to increase the production of leptin, a hormone produced by the body’s fat cells. Says Havel,
“Because fructose in isolation doesn’t activate the hormones that regulate body weight as do other types of carbohydrate composed of glucose, consuming a diet high in fructose could lead to taking in more calories and, over time, to weight gain.”
But Havel remains skeptical that HFCS is solely to blame. The sweetener commonly used in soda is composed of 55% fructose and 45% glucose; for all practical purposes, identical to the 50-50 composition found in table sugar.
Studies have shown that beverages sweetened with sucrose and HFCS have similar effects on hunger, satiety, and short-term energy intake. Two and a half hours after drinking milk, soda with HFCS, diet soda and soda with table sugar, only milk dulled the appetite. No difference between table sugar and HFCS was found.
If soda is to blame for the rising tide of obesity, high fructose corn syrup was only along for the ride. Table sugar is just as culpable.
The latest “research”
Last week, Science Daily noted,
“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. 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.”
Such alacrity in spreading low quality information is partially responsible for tainting public opinion.
- The study lacked a control. Dr. Ho tested 11 HFCS-based sodas, but no table sugar based sodas. There are numerous things in soda other than the sweetener (like the carbon-dioxide) that may contain carbonyl groups. And while fructose and glucose are bonded in granular sucrose, the bonds are broken in acidic conditions (such as might be found in soda).
- Analyzing substances outside the body is far from definitive. Carbonyls, a reactive chemical group consisting of a carbon-oxygen double bond, are formed in the normal course of sucrose digestion, when enzymes split the fructose-glucose bond.
- The study established no link between cell damage and diabetes.
The Bright Side
For all the disparagement, HFSC has some unique benefits when compared to table sugar. HFCS inhibits microbial spoilage and extends shelf life through better moisture control. The substance reduces freezer burn, gives cookies their the soft, chewy texture and provides greater stability of flavors.
I’m not advocating sugar - HFCS or otherwise. I’m only stressing reason as a decision making guide.
21 comments ↓
Great article! I think what has happened is that people equate sugar with getting fat and companies, due to a molecule change, “hide” sugar in their products. I just know that I have had products with 1 grm sugar, but it was HFCS and my sugar hit the roof. Just the way I reacte to it.
Thanks for coming by my blog!
High Fructose Corn Syrup may not be different from table sugar in its effects, but it remains the most-ingested of the sugars. Furthermore, the energy required to create High Fructose Corn Syrup is exponentially greater than the energy required to acquire sweeteners that occur naturally, like honey or fructose in fruit. The benefits of High Fructose Corn Syrup, if there indeed are any benefits, are outweighed by the energy necessary to convert corn into sugar.
I have encountered High Fructose Corn Syrup in everything from sodas to townhouse crackers. Why do townhouse crackers require High Fructose Corn Syrup? The truth is that “companies” have used sugar to addict us to their products, instead of making ecologically and nutritionally sound products. Sugar makes it all better — but ecologically expensive, nutritionally deficient sugar only makes us sicker.
Thanks Jo
Rachel, I agree that HFCS’ use is complicated - I was only attempting to analyze the issue from a very narrow angle - comparing HFCS to its closest cousin, table sugar.
The notion that companies are trying to ‘addict us’ to their products seems a bit reactionary and unfounded. Sugar may be the route to repeat business, but your stance seems dependent on conspiracy theory.
Thanks for a great post—there is much confusion about various food additives and it’s important to look at the specific elements of these products. I don’t think the food conglomerates set out to “addict” us to their products, they’re probably doing business with the cheapest ingredients they can find—something that’s been going on since the dawn of time (or capitalism). Rather than fault the food companies, I suggest it’s the government who’s been turning a blind eye to the impact certain food products might have on people’s health and well being. chefjp
I am wary of HFCS because of the molecular process of conversion. Just as we recently found out that we shouldn’t turn normal vegetable oil into trans fats, I believe we might learn something similar about HFCS and any other chemically altered food substance. Our bodies were meant to digest foods that occur in nature, not the chemicals that come out of a science lab. However, it should be noted that most table sugar has been processed beyond recognition, and isn’t really any more superior than anything else that comes out of the labs known as the American food industry.
And while Rachel may be taking an alarmist reaction to the HFCS in Tollhouse crackers, I would like it if someone could please explain why any company would put sugar in their crackers. Maybe they didn’t set out to turn us into addicts, but these major food processors have completely changed American’s palates over the years. Well, them and the farm bill. There is no one bad guy to blame.
This is quite incorrect. Sucrose and fructose are metabolized completely differently. There are different feedback loops that are omitted during the metabolism of fructose with major, and unwanted biological implications. Please be aware that a “slightly different molecular structure can have negative effects, ie, cis and trans fatty acids; same exact molecular structure, just isomeric geometrically.
I think the issue here is that our diets have changed so dramatically from simple (vegetables, grains, fruits, meat) to complicated (boxes of prepackaged food, with manufactured, unrecognizable ingredients).
HFCS is one of those manufactured ingredients. That we ingest too much sugar be it HFCS or the table variety (and starch, and meat for that matter) is obvious. I agree with foodette that these companies have gradually changed our palates - and I agree that the government has turned a blind eye. So what do we do about it? Is education the key?
I find it worrisome that more prepackaged foods have HFCS than don’t, even crackers. As I see it, there needs to be more education about prepackaged foods and the dangers they pose. Only time will tell what effect these altered foods will have on us.
[…] of the calories in Frosted Flakes come from cane sugar and high fructose corn syrup - more than 36 grams of which can be found in a single cup of the […]
All I can tell you is that when I was eating HFCS it caused me to break out in very painful boils. So when that was brought to my attention as the possible cause, I stopped eating it and BINGO they went away almost overnight and didn’t return until I ate the HFCS again. Which I had to do to prove it was the villian. It sure was, so now I am not bothered by the boils unless I forget to read a label. I can eat sugar in “regular” natural foods without problems. I think our society needs to reconsider this. We could always stop refining sugar so much too, how about that. In this country everything has to be so “pretty” for the consumers. Remember when they had the pretty girly cigs to keep the ladies hooked as well??
thanks,
Karen
One fact is often left out of the HFCS vs. sucrose debate and this is when corn starch is enzymatically changed to HFCS, there is also 5% of maltose oligosaccharides left in the mix. I have never seen a single study on the effects of these additional longer chain sugars on health. It would be of great interest to see if there are indeed health effects from ingesting these abnormally created sugars.
[via email]
Hi Doug,
Thanks for the response. I am a retired heart surgeon/biomedical engineer, who is married to a dietitian and we debate the issue of harmful effects of HFCS constantly with agreement by a mutual friend who is a PhD food scientist. I firmly believe that HFCS is awful and creates untold hazards to the human body and are soft peddled by the agribusiness. The difficulty is to scientifically prove harmful effects. This I have found to be very difficult to do. However, failure to prove the problem doesn’t make it the same as saying there are no harmful effects.
One example of the difficulty is that fruit sugar which is the common “fructose” or levulose never occurs to my knowledge (or to the knowledge of my food scientist friend) in pure form. The is no crystalized naturally-occurring fructose. However, there is an enzymatically manufactured crystalized fructose. Thus, all studies on HFCS basically don’t have a natural comparison product to judge effects on metabolism. To parrot the statements by the food industry that since succrose is a 50-50 mixture of glucose and fructose and this isn’t much different from the 54% “fructose” in HFCS is a bogus argument as they are not the same fructose. Also, as I understand it, manufactured fructose has reversed isomerization to the naturally occurring levelulose. It is well known that isomerization produces different metabolic effects on the body and in some cases makes it impossible to metabolize one isomer of a racemic mixture. Thus, trying to excuse HFCS as a “fall guy” seems bogus to me. It is probably more likely than not that this reverse isomerization leads to liver-only metabolism and the resultant hypertriglyceridemia and fat storage.
I continue to search for scientific proof of these things but I don’t think the studies have ever been done.
I don’t know your background in this matter but would appreciate your thoughts on this.
Sincerely,
Lee D. Griffith, M.D.
Beautifully said, Lee.
I hope you don’t mind my having put the comment here.
You’ve raise some interesting points.
It’d be intresting to see some studies exploring enzymatically manufactured crystalized fructose, which look at HFCC metabolism.
If, as you assert, it is “not the same fructose” I wonder if such a chemical difference (especially when you look at actual caloric impact) could lead to “hypertriglyceridemia and fat storage” in a real-world setting.
[…] the company’s development efforts is a sweetness enhancer that can amplify the taste of sugar and high fructose corn syrup, reducing the amount of sweetener required and potentially curtailing the use of oft-disputed […]
Thank you for your comments, Lee. Ive been wondering about the isomerization issue myself, but I’m a G.P. and its been 30 years since biochemistry, so I haven’t much to go on. Has there been any actual research on this subject? I haven’t found anything myself, so far, except for this blog, which I just came accross. I am sure the food industry itself hasn’t put any info out on it.
Very nice article; well-researched, well-written, and scientific. I came to similar conclusions about HFCS in an article I wrote on my own site (if interested: http://www.naturalcondition.com/2008/01/23/on-high-fructose-corn-syrup/).
Reading this all with great interest. But no-one seems to come down to the obvious question: Desiring a certain subjective level of sweetness for my breakfast cereal (flaked wheat) and hot beverages, should I use ordinary table sugar, or (much less) crystalline fructose?
High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is produced by processing corn starch to yield glucose, and then processing the glucose to produce a high percentage of fructose. It all sounds rather simple–white cornstarch is turned into crystal clear syrup. However, the process is actually very complicated. Three different enzymes are needed to break down cornstarch, which is composed of chains of glucose molecules of almost infinite length, into the simple sugars glucose and fructose.
First, cornstarch is treated with alpha-amylase to produce shorter chains of sugars called polysaccharides. Alpha-amylase is industrially produced by a bacterium, usually Bacillus sp. It is purified and then shipped to HFCS manufacturers.
Next, an enzyme called glucoamylase breaks the sugar chains down even further to yield the simple sugar glucose. Unlike alpha-amylase, glucoamylase is produced by Aspergillus, a fungus, in a fermentation vat where one would likely see little balls of Aspergillus floating on the top.
The third enzyme, glucose-isomerase, is very expensive. It converts glucose to a mixture of about 42 percent fructose and 50-52 percent glucose with some other sugars mixed in. While alpha-amylase and glucoamylase are added directly to the slurry, pricey glucose-isomerase is packed into columns and the sugar mixture is then passed over it. Inexpensive alpha-amylase and glucoamylase are used only once, glucose-isomerase is reused until it loses most of its activity.
There are two more steps involved. First is a liquid chromatography step that takes the mixture to 90 percent fructose. Finally, this is back-blended with the original mixture to yield a final concentration of about 55 percent fructose–what the industry calls high fructose corn syrup.
HFCS has the exact same sweetness and taste as an equal amount of sucrose from cane or beet sugar but it is obviously much more complicated to make, involving vats of murky fermenting liquid, fungus and chemical tweaking, all of which take place in one of 16 chemical plants located in the Corn Belt. Yet in spite of all the special enzymes required, HFCS is actually cheaper than sugar. It is also very easy to transport–it’s just piped into tanker trucks. This translates into lower costs and higher profits for food producers.
http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/cornsyrup.html
All the information here is about all I have ever been able to find on the web. If you take everything to the level of fundamentals you have start with the dirt. Most corn is Yellow dent. The ground preparation for growing is adding anhydrous ammonia. I do not know what that is, but have not used on my garden. Yellow dent corn has been modified to tolerate growing closer together. So one acre can yield 240-260 bushels(?).
Any post food processing from such a product will only be of less and less quality with more processing. What it does to the body probably can not be measured well enough in the short term.
I suggest watching 3-films; “King Corn”, “The Future of Food”, “The Bad Seed…”. These films will give you an idea of our food quality before processing.
I think most people here hve it right. HFCS is not the same as natural equivalents simply because the chemicals are completely different optical isomers.
The effects of the wrong fructose can be likened to a chemical mimic.
The closer to the healthy chemical the more dangerous it becomes in our body.
Carbon monoxide is a mimic of oxygen.
Here we are on clear ground.
For the wrong types of fructose there is virtually no work done for obvious reasons.
HFCS is truly poisonous to us.
I found this site interesting because it is one of the few that you can Google looking for racemic fructose references. I know when I looked into the topic five or ten years ago there was alot more info in racemic sugars. I am a little suspicious about the decline in info on this topic. I understand that the earlier produced high fructose syrups were racemic mixtures of equal amounts. Extra steps have been added to reduce L-fructose, obviously because it poses health risks.
My interest has been in the variability of L-fructose binding affinity to various enzymes and receptors. It is my working assumption that L-fructose interferes in metabolism, as the pancreas my not recognize the moiety in the same way as natural occurring sugars leading to obesity and diabetes.
Um I think your research is a bit off. HFCS started back in 1972 in the Nixon era. Japan made it for us in 1969. I don’t know where you did your research but I would use reputable research articles. You have some unfounded information in your writing. The point is HFCS does not needed to be in everything. If they remove it we shall find the truth. So help to remove it from our diets then you can prove your points.
Leave a Comment