HFCS: How Sweet It Is

12/2/2008 6:00:00 AM By John S. White, Ph.D., Contributing Editor
ARTICLE TOOLS
Continued from page 1
At 55% or 42% fructose, HFCS roughly matches the 50/50 fructose/glucose content of sucrose, honey and dozens of fruits, juices, vegetables and nuts (percent of total sugars basis). Contrary to popular myth, HFCS-55 is not sweeter than sugar. In fact it was specifically designed to have the same sweetness as sucrose, so that the switch from sucrose to HFCS in carbonated soft drinks in the mid-1980s would cause no noticeable taste difference to consumers. Its superior flavor and sweetness stability in acidic soft drinks was of particular value to the bottling industry. Sucrose, by contrast, which is a disaccharide, hydrolyzes to free fructose and glucose at low pH, resulting in undesirable quality changes during post-manufacturing transport, warehousing and grocery store shelf storage.

Food and beverage manufacturers also value the stable supply of HFCS. Its availability is not vulnerable to hurricanes that frequent sugar cane growing climates. Before the availability of HFCS, incidents of severe tropical weather created cane sugar scarcity and wild price fluctuations; both caused hardships for the food and beverage industry.

A versatile selection

A common misconception of shoppers after a trip up and down the supermarket aisles is that HFCS is in everything. Many would be surprised to learn that there is substantially more sucrose used in non-beverage foods in the United States than HFCS. The reason for the confusion is fairly straightforward: HFCS is the primary sweetener in soft drinks, and soft drinks constitute the highest category use of added sugars; sucrose continues to be the primary sweetener in remaining non-beverage food categories.

HFCS does appear on many food labels, however, the reasons are not always clear to consumers, who may not be aware that HFCS has several non-sweetener-related attributes which add to its versatility.

For example, HFCS has flavor-enhancing properties, particularly for fruit and spice flavors. Formulators can spare flavor additives and maintain current flavor impact or achieve greater flavor impact while maintaining traditional flavor-addition levels.

Granola and energy bars are products with high fiber, low flavor and very low moisture. They are made more palatable with the addition of HFCS, which also maintains moisture, retards microbial spoilage and extends shelf life.

The reducing sugars in HFCS promote the formation of the tempting aromas and pleasing brown crust that are so characteristic of breads and cakes.

Soft, moist cookies are a relatively new product category, made possible by the use of HFCS. The monosaccharides in HFCS do not readily crystallize and, thus, produce moist cookies with a pliable texture. Traditional sugar-sweetened cookies have a drier, brittle texture with a characteristic ‘snap.’

Fructose and glucose are highly available and fermentable sugars, and are thus well suited for use in yeast-raised baked goods. They not only furnish fermentable sugars to yogurts, but enhance fruit and spice flavors, control moisture to prevent separation and moderate the tartness of unflavored yogurt.

HFCS is used in spaghetti sauces, ketchup and condiments to enhance spice flavors and balance the unpredictable tartness of tomatoes.

Health issues debunked

Despite numerous reports purporting to link HFCS in some unique fashion with increased risk of obesity and related medical conditions, there is simply no credible scientific evidence to substantiate these claims. Virtually all research seeking to implicate HFCS is based on experiments comparing consumption of pure fructose versus pure glucose — both highly contrived diets, neither of which represents the fructose/glucose mixture provided by HFCS or the human diet. Furthermore, many such experiments test fructose at extraordinarily high levels — levels exceeding typical consumption by two-to-six times. Clearly such experiments cannot be applied to HFCS, since the composition and dose tested do not represent the composition or typical use levels of HFCS.


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