Informing the Sugar vs. HFCS Debate

I’ve been seeing those ads in magazines my wife reads on parenting, kids, etc. of late with interest—you know, two people facing each other with dialogue balloons overhead saying something along the lines of: “The other day my barber was talking about how high-fructose corn syrup causes obesity and heart disease,” and the other person retorts, “Your barber is a registered dietician?”

The efforts by industry associations to debunk this word-of-mouth colloquial advice disguised as factual information in the consumer’s mind is certainly needed, and I’m interested to see what sort of real-world impact it has on general perception of the ubiquitous sweetener.

Along similar lines, I was interested to see a piece in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune on this very subject—and was surprised to see that it actually spoke some truth—namely that sugar and HFCS are virtually identical and that both should be consumed in moderation (perhaps someday we’ll finally realize that pretty much everything should be consumed in moderation…). (Caveat: I wish I could say the same for the article’s sidebar on sugar substitutes—a fair amount of specious, science-light misinformation there…)

Maybe the message will finally start getting out that swapping HFCS for sugar is by no means a health issue. It’s a fuzzy, cuddly perception issue du jour. It’s preferences—namely a growing preference for what people feel they can justifiably call “natural.” Make no mistake: That latter bit is a horse to bet on in the coming months and years. But in the process, let’s be honest with ourselves and stop this “let’s pick on the food industry because it’s an easy target and I need something to complain about and blame all my woes on since my last scapegoat ran away” business.

Knowledge is power, and arming consumers with real information, proven via hard science, is a noble pursuit.