High Fructose Corn Syrup

There has been a lot of controversy in the past few years over a common ingredient called “high fructose corn syrup” (HFCS). HFCS has been blamed for everything from causing the obesity epidemic to diabetes, especially in children. According to the International Food Information Council, HFCS is similar to table sugar in its effects in the body. Honey, many fruits, vegetables and nuts naturally contain some fructose.

High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a combination of two sugars: glucose and fructose, and contains about 25% water. HFCS is produced when corn starch is treated with enzymes that make it sweeter. More enzymes are then added to this syrup to convert some of the glucose to fructose, which increases the sweetness even more. Sucrose (table sugar) is a 50/50 combination of glucose and fructose. HFCS is a variation of this ratio, with fructose ranging from 42-90% of the mixture. HFCS with 90% fructose is most commonly used in soft drinks, HFCS 42% is found in baked goods. So, most foods containing HFCS actually don’t contain more fructose than those sweetened with table sugar. HFCS began to replace sucrose as the main sugar in many processed foods and regular soft drinks for a couple of reasons:

1) Money talks. HFCS is cheaper than sugar due to government subsidies for corn producers and tariffs on sugar;

2) HFCS is easier to blend into products because it is a liquid;

3) HFCS has a longer shelf life.

The controversy surrounding fructose and HFCS

Much of the debate surrounding fructose and HFCS center around the fact that fructose is digested differently in the body. Some studies have shown that the liver converts fructose to fat more easily, which may add fuel to the obesity fire. It’s true, HFCS is in many more products than 30 years ago, and about the same time as it’s debut, obesity rates began to creep up, but so did our consumption of high sugar, high fat foods in general. Those who read my blog regularly know that I’m not a fan of much science messing with our food supply, but as of yet there just doesn’t seem to be conclusive evidence that HFCS alone is causing harm. Were HFCS to never exist, I believe we’d be seeing the same problem if sucrose (table sugar) were used in the same overzealous fashion. Whether or not HFCS has other negative effects such as altering metabolism, well, the jury’s still out on that one. There has also been one study published in the journal of Environmental Health this year that found HFCS was commonly tainted with mercury (up to a third of the products tested), due to chemicals used in the manufacturing. Although mercury in food is always alarming, the amount found was still much less than that commonly found in fish and seafood.

What about fruit?

I have heard of many people avoiding fruit because they have heard that fruit is “high in sugar” and contains fructose, the same sugar notorious sugar that’s getting the bad publicity in pop. To put things in perspective: One can of soda contains 26g of fructose, 140 Calories, and zero nutrients! Compare that to a medium apple, which has only about 9g of fructose, about 1/2 the Calories of a can of pop, plus added fiber and other nutrients. Nutritionally speaking, there is no comparison.

Corn producers have spent millions fighting this negative publicity and claim that HFCS is a natural product. However, the Center for Science in the Public Interest argues that the production of HFCS involved a high level of processing and use of at least one genetically modified enzyme. Although HFCS may not contribute more to obesity than other sugars, don’t let the corn industry convince you that it is all natural or by any means healthy. I think it’s safe to say it’s a no-brainer here: the less HFCS and all other types of sugar that we take in, the better off we’ll be.


http://www.ific.org/foodinsight/2008/ja/fructosefi408.cfm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823094819.htm

Share