HFCS, Fructose, Apples and Oranges

A debate about the health effects of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has been raging for some time. So it would be helpful to see some science that proves or disproves the theory that HFCS is responsible for our current obesity epidemic.

On one scientific side are those who point to studies that indicate human metabolism of fructose leads to obesity and correlate that effect to consumption of high fructose corn syrup. Those ranks are swelled by those who implicitly believe that HFCS is unhealthy because it is “not natural,” processed with “chemicals” and/or a product of the “evil” corporate entity known as “Big Corn.”  (And many of those also think that the proof is that HFCS is used as a sweetener in “everything”—whether levels are consequential or not.) On the other side are those who point out that from a carbohydrate and nutritional perspective, HFCS and sucrose are basically the same. And generally this equates to the calories in vs. calories out theory.

Although I feel the calories in and out concept is the most valid, I try to keep an open mind. So when Princeton University published a press release on a study relating HFCS to body fat and weight gain, I was ready to become more sympathetic to the HFCS/obesity theory. After all, rather than the apples and oranges approach of studies that compared sucrose to pure fructose, and then translated fructose to “high-fructose corn syrup,” this one actually used high fructose corn syrup (Huzzah!)”

But wait...the Princeton press release might have overstated the study’s findings. I would expect the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) to be skeptical—and they are, claiming “gross errors” in the Princeton study, however, they received corroboration from an unexpected source—Dr. Marion Nestle, a well-respected scientific voice, who is no cheerleader for the processed-foods industry.

In her Food Politics blog, Nestle said: “I can hardly believe that Princeton sent out a press release yesterday announcing the results of this rat study.  The press release says: ‘Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.’ How they came to these conclusions is beyond me.” (Note the rebuttal from one of the Princeton researchers down in the comment section of the blog.)

It sounds likely we are seeing another case of science comparing apples to oranges (both of which naturally contain fructose, by the way). So, I’m still going with the concept from Occam’s razor: The simplest solution is usually the correct one. Ergo, a basic law of thermodynamics should apply: Calories in need to be balanced by calories out.

   -Lynn A. Kuntz