Comments on: Hype Fructose Corn Syrup

Hype Fructose Corn Syrup

jock@law — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:49:53 -0800

High-fructose corn syrup is a corn-based sweetener that has been blamed for being partially responsible for the obesity epidemic in the United States. Some producers of HFCS products have responded in the PR war over its health effects. Others may finally be giving anti-HFCS consumers what they want.

By: Talez

Talez — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:55:35 -0800

Just to be fair, they're giving you guys sugar sweetened beverages because the HFCS sweetened stuff tastes like shit not because of any obesity concerns. Sugar sweetened cola is going to make your ass just as fat. Sometimes I'm glad we have a powerful sugar lobby. I've tried HFCS sweetened stuff and it's garbage compared to the cane sugar Coke and Pepsi that we have here in Australia.

By: The Light Fantastic

The Light Fantastic — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:57:06 -0800

I love the Mexican Coca Cola I buy at my local taqueria - the sugar based sodas taste soooo much better.

By: notsnot

notsnot — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:58:21 -0800

Oh god. The Dublin (texas) Dr. Pepper is a special treat when my best friend visits family down that way and brings some back. Real sugar, all the way.

By: jock@law

jock@law — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:01:27 -0800

Right. Some people have blamed HFCS, others have defended it. I don't take a position on that question. I would point out that if HFCS is less satisfying, people might seek higher quantities to satisfy the same craving. Personally, I'm looking forward to it. I hope they bring back stevia in Vernors too.

By: Mister Cheese

Mister Cheese — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:01:42 -0800

Yes, both will do you badly if over consumed (like anything else that has calories) but cane sugar tastes so much better. Screw you HFCS! I don't care if you don't make me any more fatter than other sweeteners, you just taste bad, power to cane sugar! WRAAAAH!

By: cortex

cortex — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:06:24 -0800

To what degree is this move prompted by corn syrup prices? I've heard folks make the argument that between corn crop issues and the recent corn-ethanol push, moving back to cane sugar is (or will soon be) no longer cost-prohibitive in the way it had been previously, but I don't know if that was just speculation or if there's good hard evidence of that price shift as a solid motivation for the manufacturers.

By: No Robots

No Robots — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:08:42 -0800

Through homebrewing, I have recently become acquainted with powdered malt as a sweetener. Awesome!

By: Ron Thanagar

Ron Thanagar — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:08:58 -0800

By: vuron

vuron — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:11:43 -0800

Not really that different than Pepsico getting into the bottled water craze with their aquafina brand. Basically they see an emerging market and hope to capitalize on it. However doesn't cane sugar cost more per unit than HFCS? Does that mean that Pepsico is willing to cut their profits on a drink (seems unlikely) or are they aiming to offer this at a higher price point?

By: absalom

absalom — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:13:56 -0800

Yeah, since having real sugar sprites abroad, the domestic product is just a pale imitation.

By: clearly

clearly — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:14:13 -0800

Sometimes in my dreams it's 1973 again and I'm chugging an ice-cold Pepsi while flying down Sycamore Road on my metallic purple Stingray, three brand-new comic books rolled up in my back pocket, allowance spent! I can't believe you bought a purple Corvette, Ron. And since when do teenagers get allowances that afford the purchase of a new sports car?

By: scody

scody — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:14:39 -0800

Forget the argument that HFCS causes obesity; start linking it with autism. The shit will be off the shelves in 18 months. God bless sweet, delicious cane sugar.

By: absalom

absalom — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:15:09 -0800

Oh, Vuron. I was under the impression that HFCS was cheaper artificially - because of high tariffs on Sugar and all kinds of pro-corn protectionism. I mean, sugar doesn't cost shit in, say, Brazil.

By: Ron Thanagar

Ron Thanagar — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:18:59 -0800

I can't believe you bought a purple Corvette, Ron. And since when do teenagers get allowances that afford the purchase of a new sports car? posted by clearly HA! It was a different time.

By: vuron

vuron — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:20:03 -0800

Yes, I'm aware that the sugar subsidies make cane sugar much more expensive in the US than it would be on the world market (after all we need to support the Florida sugar growers - small family farms ya know). I was simply wondering why Pepsico would use a more expensive ingredient for the domestic US market when cutting production costs insures more profit. After all isn't that one of the primary reasons for pushing diet sodas so much- that artificial sweeteners are substantially cheaper per unit than HFCS or cane sugar?

By: Zambrano

Zambrano — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:22:56 -0800

Pepsi Europe

By: padraigin

padraigin — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:27:48 -0800

Not really that different than Pepsico getting into the bottled water craze with their aquafina brand. Basically they see an emerging market and hope to capitalize on it. I don't care what their motivation is. I don't care if they're doing it to get into my pants. Which, by the way, would work, because of how much i love cane sugar. I already pay $20 or so for a case of Mexican Cokes at Costco so a higher price point for a more easily available sugar-sweetened cola would not scare me.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:28:56 -0800

Pepsi "Throwback"? That sounds like some awful branding to me, that term doesn't exactly have positive connotations. Why not "Old school"? Yeah it's cliche but this is pepsi we're talking about.

By: monkeymike

monkeymike — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:30:43 -0800

Speaking of sugar water, you owe it to yourself to try Boylan's Cane Cola.

By: PeterParker

PeterParker — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:33:21 -0800

And this breaking news? Seriously? Did anyone believe that HFCS wasn't bad for you? God I avoid it like the plague!

By: troy

troy — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:41:53 -0800

Sugar sweetened cola is going to make your ass just as fat While I'm a general believer in the calories-in/calories-out approach, I've also read that HFCS and sucrose sugars have different metabolism paths; something like the liver can handle ~50g of fructose -> glucose per day before it gives up and just starts making triglycerides from it. While the science behind these assertions may be crap, it wouldn't surprise me if your statement was provably false.

By: filthy light thief

filthy light thief — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:43:45 -0800

Soda so icy, you don't have to like me sippin' a throwback Pepsi, with the throwback nikes ...

By: weston

weston — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:44:20 -0800

The weird thing for me isn't HCFS in soda or other beverages that are essentially liquid candy. It's the stuff popping up in places where there's no earthly reason for it, like canned tomato sauce. Or apple sauce. The former doesn't need to be sweet in and of itself (and can be easily sweetened if a recipe calls for it), the later doesn't need a sweetener in order to be plenty sweet. I'm really glad for labeling laws when it comes to stuff like this.

By: Bookhouse

Bookhouse — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:45:43 -0800

I am a soda-fiend, and while there's little I like more than going to BevMo and picking up a new type of soda to try, I've stopped even experimenting with HFCS sodas. No matter how hand-crafted the label looks, if they use HFCS it's almost certain to be crap. By the way, want a fantastic soda? Mr. Q Cumber!

By: drjimmy11

drjimmy11 — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:46:38 -0800

i am trying to cut back on all types of sugar but yes, for you Californians, Mexican Coke is the way and the light.

By: filthy light thief

filthy light thief — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:48:59 -0800

Have any of the home-brewers noticed a difference between cane and beet sugar? Or does it not matter when dissolving the sugar in a mix? And thanks to the comments on the Consumerist article, I now the term "Mountain Dew Mouth."

By: Nattie

Nattie — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:50:16 -0800

Sugar soda forever. I can get Mexican Coke here in Texas, and in California where we are moving in a month. The mere existence of soda made with HFCS is an abomination, though.

By: gurple

gurple — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:50:51 -0800

HFCS is a great "canary in the coal mine" ingredient. That is, if I see that a food has HFCS in it, I know that I don't want to buy it. Of course, if the food has a label on which to tell me it has HFCS, that's already one strike against.

By: Talez

Talez — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:51:40 -0800

PLEASE BRING THIS ON IN 16-ounce returnable bottles! Sometimes in my dreams it's 1973 again and I'm chugging an ice-cold Pepsi while flying down Sycamore Road on my metallic purple Stingray, three brand-new comic books rolled up in my back pocket, allowance spent! We've started getting sugar sweetened Coke in 11oz glass bottles over here. It's about 20-50% more expensive than the 20oz plastic bottles but worth every cent. I don't care what anyone says. Coke coming from a glass bottle just tastes better.

By: drjimmy11

drjimmy11 — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:57:39 -0800

Pepsi "Throwback"? That sounds like some awful branding to me, that term doesn't exactly have positive connotations. Yes it does. it means something old that is new and cool again, as in a classic sports jersey or pair of shoes.

By: box

box — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:57:46 -0800

I think 'Pepsi Throwback' is a great name--I've been looking for a soda to match my Air Force Ones.

By: Rykey

Rykey — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:58:15 -0800

I heard Michael Pollen on a podcast (NPR's?) recently, talking about how, in addition to having dubious health effects, the politics of corn syrup has interesting environmental and agricultural dimensions.

By: Kloryne

Kloryne — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:05:10 -0800

Throwback sounds like throw-up. That's the only problem I see with the brand name.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:06:05 -0800

Using data from nearly 9,400 adults in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 1999 to 2004, they tracked consumption of sugary soft drinks, a major source of high-fructose corn syrup in the United States, and protein in the urine, a sensitive marker for kidney disease. Ugh, so much of the anti-corn syrup material takes evidence that lots of sugar is bad for you, and then implies that fructose is somehow worse then sucrose.

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:11:10 -0800

"Throwback" makes me think of fishing.

By: aquafortis

aquafortis — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:13:02 -0800

I participated in a few metabolic research studies, and was told that some of the major research on high-fructose corn syrup is sponsored by the Atkins Foundation. Make of that what you will, but it's still devil water. Sugary drinks in the pathogenesis of obesity and cardiovascular diseases. High-fructose corn syrup, energy intake, and appetite regulation. Sugary soda consumption and albuminuria: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004. Twenty-four-hour endocrine and metabolic profiles following consumption of high-fructose corn syrup-, sucrose-, fructose-, and glucose-sweetened beverages with meals.

By: buzzman

buzzman — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:13:05 -0800

I'm very concerned about bottom shelf liquor. And artificial sugar. So I avoid both. Lunch today: Apple, banananana, salted in the shell peanuts, and a pair of Boddingtons. Mixed in a 70 push ups and 140 sit ups. Yum. This chemical crap. Sedentary lives as if it was a neuvo religous movement of Janes. No wonder folks get sick. Fools.

By: cortex

cortex — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:14:38 -0800

"Throwback" makes me think of fishing. I misread that last word.

By: dirty lies

dirty lies — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:15:00 -0800

To everyone who thinks they have tasted real sugar in Mexican coke: About half of Mexican Coca Cola bottling plants use HFCS, and their coke still tastes different than US bottled coke. You have to find out where your coke was bottled to know if you have tasted the real thing.

By: chrisgregory

chrisgregory — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:16:21 -0800

Seriously, if they'd just called it 'friendly fructose nature juice' or something similar nobody would care. It's just a frickin' sweetener. It's not Satan's sperm. It's not going to kill you, or even hurt you. Living with crazy paranoid fears about toxins in your foods is stupid. We have never had it so good, and we have never lived longer. But some time ago, the self-righteous bullying types realised that if you claimed there was a public health risk associated with whatever behaviour it is they didn't like people doing, they could mobilise the uncritical masses into siding with them. Because there's nothing the unthinking bigot likes more than feeling better than somebody else. So if you don't like smoking, or fast food or wifi or whatever, you claim it's a health risk and causes autism or toxin build-up or has mercury in it. But we're living longer than ever. The proof is in the pudding. Spending half your time worrying about invisible dangers is no way to go through life.

By: Thorzdad

Thorzdad — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:17:37 -0800

Most granulated sugar made in the US is beet sugar, not cane sugar. Beet sugar is way cheaper than cane.

By: !Jim

!Jim — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:19:50 -0800

And thanks to the comments on the Consumerist article, I now the term "Mountain Dew Mouth." Shocking story yes, but how in the Christ do you drink so much soda that your teeth are rotting out, and not at some point think maybe you should brush your teeth sometimes?

By: bhnyc

bhnyc — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:20:29 -0800

Since I read about the HFCS-autism link I always drink Boylan's sodas with pure cane sugar. Their Birch beer is a treat.

By: scody

scody — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:21:14 -0800

Living with crazy paranoid fears about toxins in your foods is stupid. Eh, I don't care about toxins or weight gain (I'm perpetually trying to gain five pounds anyway). I care purely because HFCS is less tasty than sugar.

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:25:39 -0800

'friendly fructose nature juice' Sounds too much like "certified organic evaporated cane juice"

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:33:25 -0800

Beet sugar is way cheaper than cane. It also requires less water than cane, and WAY less than corn.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:34:02 -0800

I can unreservedly recommend rather neat little indie documentary King Corn, and not just because at one point the two guys actually try making their own HFCS out of their own corn... although that too. A fascinating film from beginning to end, though not a little depressing in the story it tells about what farming is really all about today.

By: turgid dahlia

turgid dahlia — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:37:21 -0800

Cortex: To what degree is this move prompted by corn syrup prices? Good point, and some interesting reading here and here.

By: porn in the woods

porn in the woods — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:51:50 -0800

Posting Pepsi™ news on the blue takes guts, kudos for that. I remember the sugar-sweetened pop of yore and the returnable bottle cage at your local supermarket. So much better. Today's pop has me drinking Newman's Own grape juice.

By: krinklyfig

krinklyfig — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:52:17 -0800

"But we're living longer than ever. The proof is in the pudding. Spending half your time worrying about invisible dangers is no way to go through life." Uh .... so you don't think smoking or poor diet is a health risk, or is an "invisible danger?" You should meet my uncle, who is toting around oxygen tanks. He only recently managed to quit smoking, although he's been on oxygen for a few years now. Science is proof enough. When you say, "We're living longer than ever," on average, yes. If you smoke, drink heavily and eat poorly, well, I'd say your chances aren't great to even get to the average lifespan. And cirrhosis, lung cancer and strokes are not to be taken lightly. It's not like we don't know what happens. If you're lucky, you can take your chances and maybe beat the odds. Who knows? But this isn't magic. It's medical science, and calling these things invisible dangers is sort of like denying the idea that some microbes could cause disease because you can't see them with your naked eye. I mean, there is worrying too much, and then there's willful ignorance.

By: chrisgregory

chrisgregory — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:52:44 -0800

Flavour is the *only* reason to avoid corn syrup (well, maybe the politics of production is another reason, if you swing that way). Some people just prefer other sugars in certain applications. At the same time, corn syrup is useful stuff because even a little bit of it completely stops sugar crystals forming in candy and icecream and so on. If you're cooking or baking it's handy stuff to have around, even if you just use a little. I think in Australia we mostly use cane sugar because I suspect it's the cheapest local sugar. But seriously, I have no idea if, as someone claimed, the local soft drinks are made with the one or the other. Not bragging, but I have a fairly developed palate and I doubt I could taste the difference in a blind test, which is the only way to really judge.

By: diogenes

diogenes — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:59:09 -0800

Living with crazy paranoid fears about toxins in your foods is stupid.... Because there's nothing the unthinking bigot likes more than feeling better than somebody else. You clearly aren't familiar with the majority of arguments against HFCS. If you were, you'd know that they aren't based on a fear of toxins. There's unthinking bigotry here, but it's not coming from the anti-HFCS crowd.

By: straight

straight — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:03:16 -0800

It's the stuff popping up in places where there's no earthly reason for it, like canned tomato sauce. This. This is the real reason to hate on HFCS. It's the fact that processed food manufacturers have gotten into the habit of shoveling more and more sweeteners (and salt) into their food to try to make up for the fact that processed foods don't have much flavor. And thanks to the corn subsidies, HFCS is dirt cheap, much cheaper than any of the better alternatives for making food taste good.

By: lampoil

lampoil — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:04:02 -0800

I'm under no illusions that any kind of soda is any better for me than any other. But domestic sodas using sugar instead of corn syrup? They can deliver a case directly to my mouth. And I will pay CASH MONEY for a reliable supply of not-flat, European-style Fanta Naranja. And then I will get very, very chubby.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:05:50 -0800

My girlfriend and I howl with laughter at those pro-HFCS ads, especially the one where the girl confronts the guy and he can't think of any reasons not to consume HFCS, implying that there aren't any. Well, y'know, it tastes like ass, and since I stopped eating it, I feel better. High-fructose corn syrup has a worse (sharper) glycemic index than fructose itself, and I find that things that use fructose or regular ol' sugar tend to put less of them in there. HFCS is just kind of an overpowering blast of sickly sweet that makes me feel ill. But hey, they didn't ask me to be in any of their ads.

By: orme

orme — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:07:07 -0800

I'm just glad to know that I can start using "HFCS" from now on instead of saying it the looong way in my daily conversations. Thanks, anti-HFCS folks!

By: nat

nat — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:08:31 -0800

Flavour isn't the only reason to avoid corn syrup, even if you discount the politics involved, and still isn't even if you also discount various studies cited above regarding effects of fructose. My major reason for avoiding HFCS is that I don't want that much sugar in my food in general. I don't want tomato sauce with HFCS already added (of course I buy unsalted butter too, so maybe I'm a control freak). But it is irritating that so much of the food you find in a grocery store is sweetened beyond need; HFCS is a cheap way of adding calories but does not add nutritional content. It's not the difference between soda with cane sugar and soda with HFCS; it's the difference between crackers, pastries, lunchables, etc with HFCS, and similar products with less added sugar overall. (Of course I should admit I do have some belief in differing response to various sugars, and I do have some major political issues with the politics behind HFCS. But I think the "HFCS encourages too much sugar in packaged foods" argument is independent.)

By: diogenes

diogenes — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:12:07 -0800

"Since 1985, an an American's annual consumption of HFCS has gone from forty-five pounds to sixty-six pounds. You might think that this growth would have been offset by a decline in sugar consumption, since HFCS often replaces sugar, but that didn't happen: During the same period our consumption of refined sugar actually went up by five pounds. What this means is that we're eating and drinking all that high-fructose corn syrup on top of the sugars we were already consuming." - Michael Pollan

By: Talez

Talez — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:15:10 -0800

But seriously, I have no idea if, as someone claimed, the local soft drinks are made with the one or the other. Not bragging, but I have a fairly developed palate and I doubt I could taste the difference in a blind test, which is the only way to really judge. You can see it on the ingredients label. Coke is sweetened by "cane sugar" and Pepsi has "sugar" listed. I guess the closest way to test the difference in taste in mostly HFCS-free Australia would be using honey instead of table sugar to sweeten your coffee. Not entirely accurate but not that dissimilar.

By: pompomtom

pompomtom — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:16:27 -0800

In Aus a "throwback" is a small (250ml) bottle of beer, which can be quite handy on a hot day. I prefer our definition.

By: lampoil

lampoil — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:16:56 -0800

Oh, and also: Beet Beet Sugar Beet.

By: turgid dahlia

turgid dahlia — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:22:28 -0800

In Aus a "throwback" is a small (250ml) bottle of beer, which can be quite handy on a hot day. This. And after enough throwbacks, the throwdown then the throwup.

By: krinklyfig

krinklyfig — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:29:20 -0800

Yeah, I got a Dublin Dr. Pepper connection, too. But I hope they bring it back on a larger scale. I can't handle too much sugar anymore, but a Dr. Pepper with real sugar is worth having every so often. The stuff with HFCS is really not worth it.

By: krinklyfig

krinklyfig — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:33:07 -0800

"of course I buy unsalted butter too, so maybe I'm a control freak" Dude. Salted butter from pasture-grazed cows. Seriously. Never tasted anything better, but it's seasonal.

By: milquetoast

milquetoast — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:40:19 -0800

I think the Dr Pepper bottler in West Jefferson, NC still makes Mountain Dew sweetened with sugar cane in glass bottles. It's some pretty wonderful stuff.

By: Mister Cheese

Mister Cheese — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:47:46 -0800

Someone needs to youtube up some parodies of them ads. When they get to the part where the pro HFCS person is going all "what, what, you don't have any reasons for hating corn syrup because it's fine in moderation and categorically the same as regular sugar" the person who's supposed be stumped and confused should say, "I don't want that shit because it tastes like butts. Liquid. Butts. Gimme real sugar any day, at least it doesn't taste like the slow erosion of my childhood memories."

By: dw

dw — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:01:20 -0800

Just so we're all clear on a chemistry basis: The HFCS used in making sodas (HFCS 55) is 55/45 fructose/glucose. (The "HFCS" part comes from the fact that classic corn syrup is almost entirely glucose.) Sucrose consists of a fructose molecule and a glucose molecule sharing an oxygen atom. It's roughly 50/50 fructose/glucose. When the sucrose hits your system, your body can't use it straight away; it has to break it down into fructose and glucose. So, essentially, the only difference between two equivalent amounts of HFCS and sucrose is that HFCS has a little more fructose. There is also HFCS 42, which is roughly 42% fructose. When you buy bread with HFCS, this is typically the HFCS being used. It actually has LESS fructose than table sugar. I tend to think the HFCS scares are overblown. I like my Mexican Cokes, but I tend to think they taste better because I'm drinking them out of glass bottles, not aluminum cans.

By: bunyip

bunyip — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:13:22 -0800

There's also a product exclusive to the Mexican market called Pepsi Retro. It's made with cane sugar and kola nut extract and has a really nice sweet tingle to it, which I attribute to the magic of the kola nut. It's totally become my favourite cola, despite not being a Pepsi fan in general and having ready-access to sugar-cane Coke. I wonder whether Pepsi Throwback is going to include the kola nut too; for America's sake, I hope so. Yum!

By: zengargoyle

zengargoyle — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:20:58 -0800

I don't know what it is, but I was off sodas for years (preferring iced tea or hot teas or water). Then... "Thank the Gods" I live in a place with a heavy dose of Mexican Coke. It's so much better. It has a bite, and the fizz stays. I Won't drink anything else soda wise. It's old Coke before the "New Coke" before the "New Coke was a disaster and we're going back to Coke Classic". It's so much better in glass bottles with real sugar. This coming from a boy raised in a town with a Pepsi plant, where we went and picked up truckloads of crates of Pepsi. (no literally, we had crates of bottles on the back porch, bought in bulk from the plant, shot BB guns at kids trying to steal them to return to the store for the 5 cents per bottle refund). HFCS is evil because it tastes nasty, health issues aside, it's nasty. And get off my lawn.

By: caddis

caddis — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:27:33 -0800

Yay! Continues to sip Diet Coke.

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:42:47 -0800

There is also HFCS 42, which is roughly 42% fructose. When you buy bread with HFCS, this is typically the HFCS being used. It actually has LESS fructose than table sugar. That's probably true enough. But what's that HFCS doing in that bread in the first place?

By: ascetic

ascetic — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:59:53 -0800

I figured I would post this link because it is relevant: Another Reason to Avoid High Fructose Corn Syrup: Mercury

By: aquafortis

aquafortis — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:01:37 -0800

But we're living longer than ever. The proof is in the pudding. Spending half your time worrying about invisible dangers is no way to go through life. Neither is being morbidly obese, crippled by diabetic foot ulcers, or gasping for air strapped to an oxygen tank. Do we really need to talk about the health care costs consequent to the American public's shitty nutrition and exercise choices? The way I see it, my "proof in the pudding" is that I was told I have the heart rate of a professional athlete, I'm the only person I know who has more good cholesterol than bad, and an insulin response that's so sensitive, the researchers administering the study actually took the time to interview me and take notes on my diet and exercise regimen to see what I'm doing right. If you think you can have a good quality of life living on twinkies deep-fried in bacon grease and drizzled with Karo, more power to you. But I'll be more than happy to put my health stats up against yours any day.

By: BabySeven

BabySeven — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:04:36 -0800

I had a Power Bar for lunch today, and (stupid me) was stunned to find it had high fructose corn syrup in it. What other HFCS products have I been blithely eating without looking at the ingredients?

By: box

box — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:07:00 -0800

Sugar Daddys.

By: Talez

Talez — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:35:21 -0800

Sucrose consists of a fructose molecule and a glucose molecule sharing an oxygen atom. It's roughly 50/50 fructose/glucose. When the sucrose hits your system, your body can't use it straight away; it has to break it down into fructose and glucose. So, essentially, the only difference between two equivalent amounts of HFCS and sucrose is that HFCS has a little more fructose. N.B. I'm not a biologist, a nutritionist or anything in a relevant field but I play one on TV. This is how it was explained to me. Feel free to debunk me or prove me wrong. When you ingest sucrose it's not that your body can't use it straight away, it doesn't want to use it straight away. There's a very vast difference. Your digestive system will regulate the release of sucrase which will break down the glycosidic bond pretty much on demand and supply free glucose and fructose ready to be absorbed into the bloodstream. HFCS on the other hand isn't a disaccharide. It's two separate monosaccharides that just happen to be together in relatively the same ratio as sucrose. The difference is that your body doesn't have a chance to regulate its absorption because it's slammed into the digestive system as free gluecose and fructose and will be absorbed into the bloodstream as fast as it will come in. This means you take a much higher blood sugar level much quicker. Now, your pancreas is sitting there and normally the glucose brigade would knock and wipe their feet (sucrase breakdown). Instead you've basically sent them into your intestine with a battering ram to the door into your blood stream. Since you've just caused a blood sugar spike that would soon cause a small child into a hypoglycemic coma the pancreas immediately starts releasing insulin to cope. This has two immediate effects: 1) You stop burning triglycerides from fat and switch back to burning glycogen from sugar. 2) You've overwhelemed the bloodstream with glucose which the cells in your body don't have a snowball's chance in hell of taking up which means your body is going to start lipogenesis (fat creation) straight away to stop the whole coma and death thing. Normally lipogenesis wouldn't start typically unless you cram yourself full of sugar because small amounts of sucrose are typically broken down with some sense of decorum. You'd switch over to glycogen (as you do when your body has the easy route) for a little while but in general it's not going to get converted to fat if you're eating food like a normal human being. At any rate, HFCS certainly isn't ideal but let me make it clear, excess amounts of HFCS or sucrose is going to make your ass fat so don't go blaming HFCS for your love handles when you're just need to put down the Twinkie. It's just that HFCS is going to have a much easier job of convincing your body to become a blob and probably wreaks more havoc on your pancreas (go insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes!) and liver than good old sucrose.

By: dw

dw — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:36:02 -0800

But what's that HFCS doing in that bread in the first place? Sugar is hygroscopic, so it keeps breads and cakes moist (while retarding rot). Most brand-name sandwich breads contain a little of it. Artisian bakers, of course, don't use it, because there the assumption is you're going to eat the whole loaf today, not make sandwiches with it over a number of days. HFCS is cheap, so they use that instead of sucrose.

By: Talez

Talez — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:36:58 -0800

Also, apologies for the inexcusably bad grammar in places.

By: rubah

rubah — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:14:20 -0800

Arrrrgh, no, the cola companies can't do this! We've been saving that can of original formula (pre New-Coke) Coca Cola for YEARS. (I've always had a sneaking desire to rip that masking tape "Do Not Open" and drink it. . .)

By: HopperFan

HopperFan — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:15:30 -0800

World Market started selling Bubble Up, and man is it good stuff. I didn't realize that cane sugar made such a difference.

By: Bookhouse

Bookhouse — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:16:43 -0800

But domestic sodas using sugar instead of corn syrup? They can deliver a case directly to my mouth. See the Mr. Q Cumber I linked to above. Really, it's a delicious cucumber soda. And it's pure cane sugar. And I'm right now drinking a Thomas Kemper Vanilla Cream soda. Their whole line is pure cane sugar as well. So is Boylan, as someone noted above. They do a very good grape. California's 101 Soda, which makes the best strawberry soda I've ever had, is cane sugar as well. I'm sad to report that Dr. Brown's does in fact use HFCS, which is really too bad. They ought to quit. I have the palate of a sophisticated six-year-old.

By: Bookhouse

Bookhouse — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:17:56 -0800

Oh, and Apple Beer. That stuff is good.

By: chrisgregory

chrisgregory — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:30:55 -0800

Sugar is in bread and a surprisingly large number of processed foods because it acts as a preservative. You've got a market that has decided that 'preservatives' are evil, but they still want the foodstuff to sit on a shelf and not perish, ideally forever. So lots of sugar is used, because then you can claim a product is preservative-free, but it will still have a long shelf-life. That's pretty much it. While I feel like I'm defending fast food and processed food I almost never eat anything I haven't made myself, just because I enjoy cooking. I suspect that most people who are horrified by the amounts of sugar in things don't actually cook for themselves. Sugar is needed to make most things taste good. Substitutes are usually terrible. (Regarding my earlier comments about smoking: sure, smoking is bad for you. I was referring to the whole second-hand smoke thing...I'm not a smoker, but I'm not scared to spend time in a smoky room.)

By: parudox

parudox — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:37:08 -0800

Another reason to avoid HFCS: it is very likely to be made with genetically modified Bt corn.

By: sineater

sineater — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:05:12 -0800

Mexican Coke in Arizona has both sugar and HFCS on the list of ingredients

By: piedmont

piedmont — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:11:28 -0800

Oh, Pepsi has finally found out how to pry me out of Coke's grasp. Here's hoping Dublin Dr. Pepper goes nationwide to compete!

By: PhoBWanKenobi

PhoBWanKenobi — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:14:47 -0800

Huh. Strange to be reading this while drinking a Jones Berry Lemonade .Second ingredient? "Inverted Cane Sugar"--whatever that is. I just felt like drinking something blue.

By: darkstar

darkstar — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:55:08 -0800

That link that ascetic posted is not only relevant, it neatly addresses three trains of thought in this thread: 1. It offers evidence for possible systemic mercury contamination in HFCS production, 2. In that article is also a spoof of the Corn Refiners Association commercials, as suggested up-thread by Mister Cheese, and 3. Said spoof was made by the guys who made the documentary "King Corn", as recommended up-thread by George_Spiggott. Hat trick, ascetic! By the way, thanks Talez for the biochem breakdown. And I'll add my recommendation to George_Spiggott's on the "King Corn" documentary. Definitely worth watching and very informative about modern agriculture and corn.

By: Deathalicious

Deathalicious — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:56:43 -0800

What excites me most is the FDA has finally agreed that Stevia can be used as a sweetener, which means it can finally be added to foods (instead of just being a nutritional "supplement"). I'm looking forward to an all-natural calorie-free cola.

By: Rhomboid

Rhomboid — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:22:02 -0800

So, can someone just confirm for me: when the ingredient list says "evaporated cane juice", that's regular sucrose, not a mixture of fructose+glucose with the resulting higher glycemic index?

By: gyc

gyc — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:07:54 -0800

I've been drinking Whole Food's 365 store brand cola, which is sweetened with cane sugar. The only downside (or upside) is that it's a caffeine-free drink.

By: Lazlo Hollyfeld

Lazlo Hollyfeld — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:22:23 -0800

A surprising number of local restaurants here sell our locally-produced sugar-sweetened Foxon Park Kola (and root beer, and birch beer, etc) instead of Coke or Pepsi.

By: Deathalicious

Deathalicious — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:15:42 -0800

just need to put down the Twinkie My cold, dead, pudgy hands.

By: Hactar

Hactar — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:25:26 -0800

Another vote for King Corn. Which is not influenced in any way by having met them and thinking they were fantastic people who were happy to talk to an audience of high schoolers about making their movie. (One of the teachers at the place I worked was friends with them.) When I asked them what raw HFCS taste like, I was told they had done their best to remove the memory from their minds, but something along the lines of dirty sneakers. The insides of dirty sneakers. When I was 17, I spent two weeks in Mexico. I remember being astonished by how good their soda (I was drinking mostly 7-up there) tasted. I figured it was because I'd basically stopped drinking soda and so wasn't used to the taste. Then I got back to the US and figured that they were putting some magical pixie crack in it because the US soda still tasted like ass.

By: ryanrs

ryanrs — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:48:56 -0800

"Inverted Cane Sugar"--whatever that is. Sucrose that has been split into glucose and fructose. Basically HFCS, but made from sugarcane, not corn.

By: PhoBWanKenobi

PhoBWanKenobi — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:52:26 -0800

Sucrose that has been split into glucose and fructose. Basically HFCS, but made from sugarcane, not corn. Haha, funny! Good thing I don't care about this stuff.

By: limeswirltart

limeswirltart — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:03:55 -0800

It looks like Snapple got the anti-HFCS memo, too, and will be using sugar starting in the spring. ... and they're owned by Dr Pepper!