HFCS: Is it Really "Just Sugar"

We all know consuming too much sugar is not good -- obesity, diabetes, etc. come to mind.  But . . . what you may not know is that the composition of sugar has changed radically in the last twenty years or so.  More and more we consume sugar in the form of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) rather than natural sugar from fruit, sugar cane and beets. Currently HFCS make up about 1/2 of sugar consumption in the U.S.

So what's the big deal?  Is there a difference between HFCS and cane or beet sugar?  Both consist of nutrient poor, but sweet, calories.  Both are composed of fructose and fructose. HFCS, however, is not natural, being a processed sugar from corn.   See what Wikipedia says  for a quick introduction to HFCS -- a good place to start if you are not familiar with it.  Back to the controversy.  Lets look at both sides of the issue.

Claims that HFCS is "Just Sugar"

See the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) website to start.  The CRA, not surprisingly, has a vested interest in selling HFCS so take their statements with a grain of salt (er . . . I mean sugar).  Also, see this article from the Mayo Clinic which finds little difference between natural sugar and HFCS.

Claims that HFCS is a Major Cause of Obesity

See this article from Princeton University which finds a strong relationship between obesity and HFCS consumption.  Also, see here for a damning indictment of HFCS, apparently the journal of Obesity found sodas like Coke, Pepsi, Sprite may contain up to 65% fructose --- the fructose component of HFCS has been demonstrated to cause rapid weight gain.

Then, see this: Fox News has weighed in (pun intended) on the potential link between HFCS and diabetes which is increasing rapidly in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Some Perspective

For thousands of years sugar was only available to humans in the small quantities found in fruit and vegetables.  This is what humans adapted to over thousands of years.  Only in the last 150 years or so sugar been concentrated and added to foods.  We get large quantities in a small package - think of soda.  A medium soda (20 ounces) from Mc Donalds contains the equivalent of 17 packets of sugar -- the HFCS kind.

The Genetic Component in Diabetes

We are not all created equal.  Some people (such as many north Europeans) can eat lots of sweets and never develop diabetes while others (such as Hispanics and Native Americans) seem much more susceptible.

You Can't Easily Escape it

It is almost impossible to escape HFCS, as it is added to all kinds of processed foods.  HFCS, being a liquid,  made adding sugar to food even easier, so it is a great way for processors to sweeten and make more desireable food such as catsup, relish, canned vegetables, and a vast host of other processed food.  Is any of this good for us?  No, but we are seduced by the sweet taste and the food industry knows it.

Currently, the U.S. government subsidizes corn crops in places like Iowa, Nebraska and throughout the U.S.  A major part of this crop goes for cattle consumption (another story) and HFCS production.  It is scary to thing but if HFCS does cause obesity our government is promoting it with subsidies.

Conclusion

I feel the evidence is quite strong HFCS is worse than sugar.  Even if it is not true, I would avoid HFCS and most natural sugar in any case.  Most everyone likes sweets to some extent, but try to limit them and keep to the natural sugars.  Your tastes adapt.  At first I didn't like unsweetened tea, now I much prefer it.  Last week McDonalds, by mistake, gave me sweet tea.  I found it sickly sweet and threw it out.