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 2
The composition of HFCS—roughly half fructose and half glucose—is similar to that of sucrose, honey and many fruit juice concentrates. It should be apparent that equivalent amounts of each of these sweeteners deliver equivalent amounts of free fructose and glucose to the blood stream and thence to the body’s metabolic processes. A greatly underappreciated consideration is that HFCS, sucrose, honey and fruit juice concentrates are all metabolically indistinguishable from one another and, therefore, are nutritionally interchangeable.

There is a misconception that HFCS is somehow less healthy than other sweeteners because of the processes used to make it from corn. It must be pointed out, however, that sweeteners isolated from botanical sources—and this includes sucrose from sugar beets or sugar cane and fruit-juice concentrates from various fruits, as well as HFCS—all require similar refining processes in order to separate the desired carbohydrates from other plant materials, and color, odor, flavor and particulate impurities. And the use of enzymes is by no means unique to the production of HFCS; enzymes have been used for many years in the production of wine, beer, baked goods, cheeses and other diary products, and they are useful processing aids in some sucrose and fruit-juice manufacturing processes.

There is no demonstrable difference in safety between HFCS and other fructose-containing sweeteners such as sucrose and honey. And there is no supportable reason for removing HFCS from a product and replacing it with sucrose, honey or fruit juice concentrates. Such sweetener exchanges simply result in a metabolic wash—often with loss of desired functionality — yet with no net change in nutritional benefit.

John S. White consults for a variety of food and beverage companies and trade organizations in the area of nutritive sweeteners. He has worked with nutritive sweeteners for 27 years and established his consulting firm, WHITE Technical Research, in 1994. Dr. White is best known for his writings on fructose-based sweeteners. He holds a B.A. in Biology from the University of California at San Diego and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Utah. He was a Postdoctoral Fellow and Visiting Assistant Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign before entering industry.

Web Resources

The New York Times: “A Sweetener With a Bad Rap” 

Carbohydrate Sweeteners

Corn Refiners Association

“HFCS Not Linked to Obesity, Says Study”

“Similarities Between HFCS and Sucrose Revealed”

Other resources

Corn Sweeteners, High Fructose Corn Syrup

« 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