HFCS: How Sweet It Is

12/2/2008 6:00:00 AM By John S. White, Ph.D., Contributing Editor
ARTICLE TOOLS

Since its introduction, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has been valued as a versatile, safe sweetener. But recently, it has been mischaracterized by some as being significantly and uniquely responsible for the ongoing obesity crisis. This mischaracterization has been fueled by fundamental misunderstandings about the name, composition, uses and metabolism of HFCS. Significant efforts are underway to correct these misunderstandings and provide consumers with science-based facts to aid them in making informed daily food choices.

The properties and functionality of HFCS have made it one of the most valued sweeteners by food formulation scientists in the United States, because of its desirable taste profile and versatility in a wide range of food systems. What’s more, evidence related to the metabolism of HFCS and other caloric sweeteners leads to the conclusion that there is nothing unique about the safety of HFCS in comparison with sucrose and other nutritive sweeteners.

Search for a better sweetener

HFCS was introduced to the food and beverage industry in the late 1970s, the result of a search by corn wet-milling companies for a liquid sweetener to compete with dry sucrose, matching sucrose in sweetness and providing superior functional qualities. The industry had produced a variety of cornstarches and glucose (otherwise known as dextrose) based corn syrups since the early 1900s and was seeking a new ingredient to provide entry into markets previously dominated by sugar, while still capitalizing on the industry’s considerable corn-processing and syrup-refining experience.

By blending fructose and glucose together in various ratios, the corn wet-milling industry developed two types of HFCS: HFCS-55 (55% fructose) and HFCS-42 (42% fructose). Glucose and a minor amount of glucose polymer (from incomplete cornstarch hydrolysis) make up the difference in both product types. Small quantities of HFCS-90 (90% fructose) and crystalline fructose (+99.5%) are also produced by the industry for specialty applications.

A valued sweetener

The liquid nature of HFCS provides manufacturing convenience and labor economies in comparison to dry sucrose, since it is readily pumped from delivery transport to holding tank. At time of use, it is pumped to the mixing tank, where dilution with water to final desired solids is rapidly accomplished with minimal labor or mixing/heating energy expenditure.


« Previous123Next »

Comments

1

Carl Willis 12/04/2008 19:07

Dr. White writes, "[a] greatly underappreciated consideration is that HFCS, sucrose [etc.] are all metabolically indistinguishable from one another [...]." This runs contrary to my understanding that sucrose must be enzymatically hydrolyzed in the gut, whereas the monosaccharide mixture that is HFCS effectively bypasses this absorption-limiting metabolic step. Perhaps he could qualify or amend his very general statement or point out where I'm wrong.

That issue out of the way, I tend to agree with the article's point that, based on the available evidence, HFCS seems no more dangerous to life and health than sugar. However, widespread HFCS in the American food supply is emblematic of our society's embrace of industrial synthetic foodstuffs--itself a symptom of certain widespread food-related psychopathologies. As industry knows well, we have devolved into having only three criteria for our food: If it's cheap and tastes good and the package placates us with positive body-image thoughts, we'll stuff our blissfully-ignorant white faces with it all day long and pay good money for the experience. Many of us couldn't be bothered with whether our "chik'n cutlet" really is chicken, or whether it is a clever simulacrum made from vat-grown soil protozoa. We'd rather be "wowed" by the fat-free, non-Rosie-O'Donnell-body-image implication of olestra chips, than be teed off over a bit of slippery post-snack fecal incontinence. Some of us chlorinate our sugar these days to make it non-caloric, but because that chlorinated sugar tastes good and gives us delusions of having a dancer's physique, we don't postulate what kinds of persistent organochlorine congeners might stow away in that yellow bag at the ppm level. And HFCS burst onto the American diet in the '70s and '80s because of its virtuosic cheapness to manufacture. We rarely care that it is a recently-invented synthetic substance, chemically a far cry from the starch it is made from; we slam it down our throats by the pail.

In the interests of taste-driven hedonism, a pathological body image obsession, and (particularly applicable to the commercial success of HFCS) depraved gluttony for a "Supersize" drink large enough to drown a horse, Americans have lost touch with the aesthetic of wholesomeness in our food.

2

Bill King 12/03/2008 11:10

I am surprised that this outdated set of arguments is still being treated as news. The idea that HFCS is safe because of its equivalence to sucrose is a red herring. The reality is that HFCS led to a dramatic increase in sweetened soda consumption, due to economic advantages of HFCS over sucrose. This led directly to the "super-sizing" phenomenon, which has been used as a way to lure consumers into excessive consumption. While sucrose consumption has remained roughly flat in the US (~ 60 lbs/yr), HFCS has gone from 0 to ~ 60 lbs/yr/person. This incremental addition of fructose to the American diet cannot be asserted to be a good thing. We know that fructose is metabolized differently in the liver than glucose, leading to fat synthesis rather than to glycolysis. In addition, recent work by Kimber Stanhope and Peter Havel at UC Davis proves an association between increase of abdominal fat and fructose consumption. I am not saying that sucrose is necessarily better, but that any promotion that increases fructose consumption is a gigantic experiment on US health. This is an experiment that we cannot afford in these days of out of control Diabetes Type 2.

Post a Comment

 

announcements