Banner
    Does Corn Sugar Make You Fatter Than Sucrose?
    By News Staff | May 25th 2011 04:13 PM | 8 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    Does high-fructose corn syrup, a common ingredient in soft drinks and snacks and too many products to count, make you fatter than sugar?   The Sugar Association, Inc., which represents sugar growers, certainly wants you to think so.

    But, like cultural pundits who insist Ronald McDonald makes kids fat, there needs to be more than one study funded by an interested party to make the case.    A review of studies analyzing research on High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) and other sweeteners found there is no evidence of any significant variation in the way the human body metabolizes HFCS as opposed to standard table sugar, or any difference in impact on risk factors for chronic disease.

    It found no evidence of adverse impacts from consumption of normal levels of either sucrose or HFCS on weight, ability to lose weight, or increased risk factors for chronic disease, nor were other differences found between the two sugars.  An individual is no more likely to experience obesity or chronic diseases by consuming HFCS as opposed to other sweeteners such as table sugar.

    Obviously too much of either makes you fat, of course.   And various groups with an agenda (either against science or against business) will note that James M. Rippe, MD, founder and director of the Rippe Lifestyle Institute and professor of biomedical sciences at the University of Central Florida and reviewer of the literature, has received funding from groups like PepsiCo, which uses a great deal of high fructose corn syrup, but we are forced to note that engaging in such selective ethical waypoints means no research funding during a Democrat presidency need be accepted by Republicans - various others analogies are equally accurate.

    However, high fructose can't seem to be the cause even from a common sense viewpoint because while obesity has risen due to more calories - in the mid-1970s the average American diet contained less than 2,200 calories per day but by 2008, that average increased to nearly 2,700 calories per day, a 22 percent jump - sugar-added (sucrose or HFCS) calories have dropped 10 percent since 1999.

    The spike in caloric intake is from added fats and a consistently high calorie intake from flour and cereal products, not sugars of either the sucrose or HFCS kind.

    "While there has been a lot of media attention lately focused on the claims that HFCS is somehow more likely to cause obesity and chronic disease than other sweeteners, "the evidence simply does not support those claims," said Rippe. "Recent research shows that individuals who consumed normal levels fructose have seen no adverse effects on their weight or triglycerides.

    "In the case of HFCS, while consumption increased steadily over two decades in the United States beginning in the 1970s, it peaked around 1999 and has been declining ever since. Yet, we see the incidence of obesity and diabetes in the U.S. continues to rise or remain steady during that time.   Meanwhile, we have seen obesity and diabetes epidemics in regions of the world where little or no HFCS is available."

    The corn sugar industry has been on the defensive in a marketing campaign against them by the sugar industry and attempts to rebrand themselves as 'corn sugar' are being met with lawsuits from the sugar farming industry because they note that HFCS is made from corn starch, though it contains roughly equivalent amounts of glucose  and fructose, just like sucrose does.

    Plus, as noted in The Atlantic, the FDA already has a regulation for corn sugar, which may make them move onto a new campaign to fight back against the culture war unleashed by sucrose manufacturers.   

    (a) corn sugar (C6H12O6, CAS Reg. No. 50—99—7), commonly called D—glucose or dextrose, is the chemical [alpha]—D—glucopyranose. It occurs as the anhydrous or the monohydrate form and is produced by the complete hydrolysis of corn starch with safe and suitable acids or enzymes, followed by refinement and crystallization from the resulting hydrolysate.

    (b) The ingredient meets the specifications of the Food Chemicals Codex, 3d Ed. (1981), pp. 97—98 under the heading "Dextrose..."

    (c) In accordance with 184.1(b)(1), the ingredient is used in food with no limitation other than current good manufacturing practice.

    "Generally Recognized as Safe" (GRAS).  Code of Federal Regulations Section 184.1857 

    Source: "High Fructose Corn Syrup, Sucrose and Fructose: What Do We Really Know?" at the American Society of Hypertension (ASH) Annual Meeting 

    See also:

    Dispelled - High Fructose Corn Syrup Causal Link To Obesity

    Appetite: Sugar No Better For You Than Corn Syrup, Says Study

    Confused About Sugar And Calories? You're Not Alone

    High Fructose Corn Syrup Causes Obesity? Not So Fast

    Comments

    Hank
    We received this email from Audrae Erickson, President of the Corn Refiners Association, clarifying  that last bit in the article about corn sugar so I am printing it here:

    The Corn Refiners Association’s petition to the FDA includes a request to modify the “standard of identity” for dextrose, an ingredient made by our industry, to disallow the use of the term “corn sugar” for dextrose.  An extensive label survey performed by Mintel, a prominent market research firm, found that the term “corn sugar” is rarely used to describe dextrose on the ingredient label.  In fact, about one half of one percent of products containing dextrose list it as “corn sugar” on ingredient labels according to Mintel.  Importantly, consumers better understand the composition and caloric content of high fructose corn syrup when the term “corn sugar” is used to describe it, according to an independent nationwide survey of consumers.  The “corn sugar” petition to the FDA provides greater clarity to consumers about high fructose corn syrup and enables them to more easily identify added sugars in the diet.  
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Good points about the surplus in calories coming from fats rather than sugars. I never thought that HFCS was necessarily unhealthy, but more to do with the idea that fructose is less sweet on the palate than sucrose. If this is the case, that it takes a higher concentration of fructose to achieve the same level of sweetness as sucrose, then wouldn't a food item with its sweetness derived from HFCS rather than sucrose higher in calories? Have any studies taken this perspective?

    Hank
    The difference is rather slight (sucrose is 50/50 glucose and fructose while HFCS ranges from 45-55 ratios)and soda manufacturers switched primarily because of cost - but sugar no longer has a growing cereal market so perhaps they can bring the cost down again.  

    HFCS actually has more sweetness - it is something Coke drinkers complained about after 1980, when they started migrating to HFCS from cane sugar.    In other countries where they make fewer sugar foods and the cost is more reasonable, Coke, for example, still uses cane sugar or sucrose.  The calorie difference is negligible.  And because of Passover, when nothing with chametz (prohibited cereals and grains, like corn) is used, some bottlers make it with cane sugar for that period (I guess Jews drink a lot of Coke?)   Anyway, you can try it yourself then, if you are a Coke person.  Or go to Mexico, they still use sugar there.

    Back on topic, the studies showed that HFCS was no worse than sugar for things like diabetes, obesity, etc., not that too much of it wasn't still pretty bad. 
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    What concerns so many Americans is the fact that the corn processors want to hide this ingredient in food products. Americans are making choices, and many choices are to avoid HFCS--whether it's called "corn sugar," or more truthfully, "Frankencorn sugar." HFCS is synthesized, and not naturally occurring in nature.
    The arrogance of the corn processors is also awakening Americans to what is happening in the food industry. They are trying to force it down the throats of those of us who do not want it in "all" food choices.
    How many corn processors, like Audrae Erickson, really consume that artificial red drink, or give it to their children, (that stuff from the commercials)? And yet, they would change the name to force feed it to their fellow Americans--just to make a profit. Like dictators, they are finding a way to dominate and control their subjects.
    People still use tobacco. Some people will also consume HFCS. However, don't change the name to confuse people, and eliminate choices. And check out the corporate sponsors of the American Dietetic Association:

    http://www.eatright.org/corporatesponsors/

    What a crock of shit! It's common knowledge to anyone who has taken biochem and organic chem classes that the body processes different sugars differently.... This FACT has been around for generations and has been extensively tested and proven! Consumers need to be allowed to choose, not duped into the FALSE propoganda that "sugar is sugar"!!!

    BTW... The FDA, for coutless decades, also said the carmel color of colas is "Generally Recognized as Safe"... They have recently labeled it as "Cancerous". Lesson: Don't put much faith in the FDA's concern for your health... They will just do whatever they are bribed to do!

    Audrae Erickson's "shit-tistics" is all based on funding from biased sources.... Look it up if you don't believe me!

    Hank
    Isn't all funding from biased sources? I mean, all science done during the Obama administration is invalid to Republicans just like all research done during the Bush years was wrong to Democrats, right?
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind