Sugar vs. High Fructose Corn Syrup: Court Battle Begins

• Actually you do not have it right. Your body most definitely knows the difference between HFCS and Sucrose. I would be happy to correct this journalist and guide some real scientific readings. First to my readers, google something called PubMed. Search high fructose corn syrup. The most recent article in March 2012  finds a fairly high level of something called alpha dicarbonyl contaminants which result from the process of making high fructose corn syrup.  These are known toxic compounds which cause diabetes. They are not found in sucrose (table sugar). Seconds, HFCS has free fructose and sucrose does not. Free fructose is known to cause elevated triglycerides and to contribute to a fatty liver (ie., Metabolic Syndrome). Please do not do your readers an unhealthy disservice by attempting to simply things. They are not idiots. Yes empty calories are bad. No sugar does not = bad. If you do not maintain a normal blood sugar level (glucose) you will die. From Dr. Dee (yes, really)

• Sugar is not bad and is required as fuel for muscles.  You cannot live without sugar any more than you could live without water or oxygen.

• I DON'T CARE WHAT THE CORN-WHOLERS (pun on Wholesellers...knuck,knuck,knuck) think or say.  High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is the 'LOW TAR CIGARETTE' of Sweatners.  Although CIGARETTE SMOKING is hazzardous to your health, LOW TAR CIGARETTES cause worse health effects than Regular Cigarettes.  Even though SUGAR is highly toxic to your health, HFCS is worse.  Plus the taste sucks royally!!!   I grew up in the 1980s. 1980 was the date when MOST sugared products (Soft Drinks, candy, cold cerial, pasteries) converted to HFCS because HFCS was cheaper than Sugar. Prior to 1980, you had maybe one FAT KID (morbidly obese) high school kid per campus (3-4K students). In 2011, almost 40% of students are obese and up to 6% are mobidly obese.  I never seen a FAT Chinese or Japanese girl prior to 1980---now they are all over the place!!!    So why is America FAT?  It's a synergy of unhealthy life styles that converged at the same time: 1. The Coke v. Pepsi wars 2. The JUNK FOOD franchise explosion 3. The profit push for larger proportions (Coke use to be sold in 6oz glasses or 12oz cans. Single servings now come in 20oz bottles. Why? MOST human beings can not consume 24oz of pop at a single seating and will leave around 4oz if they open two 12oz cans) 4. The advent of Personal Computers, the internet and the IPOD/iPad/iphone=seditary lifestyle!!! 5. The switch from sugar to HFCS   As a GOURMONDE (Epicure) I dispise the taste of HFCS. Open up a regular Pepsi and a Pepsi throwback and swirl & spit them.  NOTICE how the HFCS Pepsi tastes b-l-a-n-d.  You can taste the cola nut and the tea flavouroids (Tea is the secret ingrediant of Pepsi) but not the sweetner.  Now pop open a Pepsi Throwback and take a swig.  Notice how the Pepsi now tastes slightly tart and sour?  Now rince & spit.  Notice how your tongue sences the taste of sugar?  Now lick some raw sugar.  Notice how the sweetness sensation of the raw sugar approximates the sugary taste of the Pepsi Throwback? You can taste the sugar notes of the Pepsi Throwback but not the Regular Pepsi (HFCS).  Since SUGAR is a reward drug in nature, I think people consume more bland Pepsi Regulars to get the same kind of SUGAR BUZZ from Pepsi Throwback.   I hope BIG SUGAR WINS!!!  The Corn Wholers (I mean Wholesellers) are trying to deflect the consumer's hatred of HFCS by bate & switch wordplay 'CORN SUGAR?) I mean why stop there? Since Big Sugar does not diffienciates between Cane Sugar and Sugar Beets---Why doesn't BIG CORN simply call HFCS 'sugar'.  I mean Budweiser has the nerve to call itself BEER when it has rye, rice and other adulterants in it?  Budweiser m-a-y contains NATURAL PRODUCTS but it cannot pass the German Puriety laws of 1516 in terms of BEER content in its BEER!!!  This is the EXACT scam BIG CORN is now trying to pull here.   ONCE AGAIN:  Sugar IS TOXIC for you---consume too much of it and it WILL destroy your health as alcohol or opiates will.  With that said, it is better to go with the 'real deal' than the artifical kind irrespective of their closeness in chemical make-up.  SIGNED Bevis on his Sugar Buzz!!!    

• In an ongoing poll on MSNBC’s online health, over 90% of American's believe genetically modified foods should be labeled. Unfortunately this will not happen until consumers choose to get informed about what they are eating and stop consuming genetically modified foods.  

• 5 years ago, I started living more permanently in the USA. Previously as a hobby (because I am eccentric) I avoided MSG (partly because, despite not necessarily always being able to taste it, no matter what food it was in, my consequent burps had its trademark taste and it became distasteful and boring) I also now avoided HFCS - its in the ketchup, and in so many other things that avoiding it has become a form of (weight restricting) diet. One advantage of the US increase in obesity, is the reduction of major crime (murder, robbery etc). Although this has been attributed partly to the introduction of abortion, my crazy theory is that too many potential criminals are simply unable to commit these physical offenses. (a little lol)

• Hear, hear! Some fruits, for example, have been genetically modified to contain more sugar, so theirs will sell better. Or probably be mistaken for ripe. How do they get away with gassing unripe fruit, so that it will be mistaken for ripened fruit, which is miles better for you? If someone painted over any other product in order to make it look like something else, they'd be jailed for fraud. How did they get away with irradiating all our fruits and vegetables, to do away with pesky nature, and make food last way longer while looking freshly-picked? (Those bags of salad greens, for instance, that stay "fresh" all week.) American food production ("Agri-business") has become all about money, and is delivering the American people into the arms of the Medical Industry. (Medi-business?)

• What you said is true of processed, refined sugar. Sugars are the fuel for our bodies' energy, but better derived from slow carbohydrates, which (according to Oxford American dictionary) "contain hydrogen and oxygen in the same ratio as water (2:1), and ... can be broken down to release energy in the animal body." 

• LIE: "Your body can't tell the difference." It's precisely because your body CAN tell the difference that the corn syrup product is bad for you. Despite the seeming similarities in the chemical makeup, it's metabolized very differently in the body, because the fructose and glucose molecules are not bonded in the corn syrup as they are in the sugar. The health effects are way nastier with corn syrup, as shown more in more in current studies by obscure little groups like Princeton University, for instance. Corn syrup causes more weight gain of central body fat (the dangerous kind), and leads to increased appetite by suppressing the things that would normally shut it down, and increasing the thing that revs it up. The only people saying corn syrup is no different (and they're saying it loudly and frequently) are the people losing money because customers are catching on and are declining to injure themselves for Big Corn's profits. Shame on Big Corn!

• " If only people would READ THE INGREDIENTS.  If you see HFCS listed, DONT BUY IT.  I realize its cheap to make hence why cheap companies throw it in there.  I buy bread and things that do NOT have  it in it. " It must be nice being a rich snob that can spend hours a day sifting endlessly through ingredients on the labels finally ending up at some outrageously pricey gourmet food store where it cost $5 for a loaf of bread and other things that DOESN'T/don't contain some form of sweetener.  Can I have your income and job?  Sorry, this wasn't intended to bash you directly but the fact remains, MOST americans aren't wealthy enough to be so cautious/discerning.  My question is what incedious conspiracy allowed HFCS to become SOO cheap while natural sweeteners become SOO expensive and both to be SOO widely previlent as to cause epidemic levels of obesity, diabetes and heart disease?And besides, if the HFCS people WIN, won't it mean the label will BE misleading even more?Sugar DOES equal BAD, but I TOO love it and can't avoid it. I personally would like to see more 'natural' sweeteners used and I am TERRIFIED to know that "Corn Sugar" might replace HFCS.  I'd like to know how we can help the Sugar side win.

•  If only people would READ THE INGREDIENTS.  If you see HFCS listed, DONT BUY IT.  I realize its cheap to make hence why cheap companies throw it in there.  I buy bread and things that do NOT have  it in it.   

• My body knows the difference....HFCS makes my blood sugar drop---sometimes dangerously so. Sugar doesn't. I'm talking about one can of soda or one item.... and artificial sweetners often give me a migraine...so yes, regular sugar is my sweetner of choice. I have other odd reactions to food additives, etc. that I used to think were almost unique until I started reading more and talking to other people...listen to your body's reaction to what you eat.

• It scares me seeing how many people here think sugar is a required part of a healthy nutritional plan.  Let's face it.  Sugar offers no nutritional value and we eat it because it tastes good, not because its good for us.

• Except fat is not bad and whether salt is bad is debatable.  The author is right in saying that all sugar is bad for you.  Period.

• I have to disagree on one aspect. Actually, some foods are bad simply because they are chemically made instead of naturally grown. Coca Cola is a "food-type" (not actual food)that is made straight from their manufacturing plant consisting of various chemicals combinations to give taste and texture. It has no nutritional value to the body whatsoever other than just taste only. Good food provides not only nutrients, but it also strengthens our immune system for various attacks as well as helps the body heal itself after an injury. Food types like Coca Cola could never do that. To conclude that almost anything can fit into a healthy diet simply if you do it in moderation is one of the main reason the Western culture is consistently and continually failing in their attempts to reverse obesity, hypertension, diabetes, etc. We still feel we can eat "almost anything" and still reap the benefits of being healthy. Sorry, but nature won't allow it.

•   "we need to be focusing more on how much we are eating and practicing portion control." .  .  .  "There truly is no such thing as good foods and bad foods.  Almost anything can fit into a healthful diet as long portions are reasonable and nutritious foods take the front seat at meal time." So lets see . . . I eat only grassfed meat, wild caught fish, poultry, nuts, scads of vegetables and a reasonable amount of fruit.   I eat exactly as much as I feel like eating.   I lost 40 excess pounds seven years ago when I started this protocol and haven't gained a pound of it back.  My recent electron beam coronary artery scan showed a calcium score of zero.   But I am in terrible violation of learned dietetic principles by not focusing on "how much" I am eating and by not practicing "portion control."

• Sugar is not bad for you in moderation (i.e. 1 tsp. In my coffee). If you have a pound a day it will become bad for you. Sugar in and of itself is natural and awesome. Corn syrup is not. And shouldn't be called sugar, or any name that implies it is natural. The minds of the American Sheeple however are not discerning enough to know any of this, hence a court battle has emerged. I hope Sugar wins.

• I think people are missing the point and yes the author destroyed his article at the end with the infintile "Sugar = bad".  The corn producers are trying to hide their product's true nature by renaming it.  This is simply a matter of honesty and they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.  As to whether sugar is better or not, probably not but I do know that a Coke in Canada tastes way better then a Coke in the US because its using sugar versus some corn derived syrup.  So not all sugars are the same, there is a difference.  That said if I want to stay on a healthier track I simply don't drink Coke. Don't get me started on Coke Zero.

• "Tough shit if consumers are taking a disliking to your product- that's the free market in action." Free market my arse, it's a fixed market via lawyers.... thumbs down

• Sugar != Bad.  Excess consumption of sugar beyond energy needs = Bad.  Author = Dumb.

• Forget about whether or not one tablespoon of refined cane sugar is "worse" for you than an equal serving of HFCS which is not the issue.  The issue is that HFCS is so cheap that food manufacturers put far too much of it in every processed food which in turn contributes to overconsumption of calories and creates the health problems that come with obesity.

• While I'll agree that problem lies in moderation.....a term the average american can neither spell or understand. This article was completely wasted as the authors knowledge of a little thing called biochemistry was on par with the average playmate bunny....

• Saying Sugar = Bad to close out this article really kills the article for me. May as well point out that fat = bad and salt = bad and whatever else is bad when consumed in excess. 

• I am a registered dietitian who counsels individuals and families struggling with obesity, diabetes and other health concerns.  Many nutrition experts would agree that sugar is sugar no matter what source it comes from – corn, beets, sugar cane or other sources.  And health professionals like myself also encourage people to look at the overall picture instead of focusing on one ingredient. We teach our patients to read food labels for total carbohydrate content, fiber, protein, and other nutrients, not just the amount of sugar.  I always counsel my clients that the most important piece of information on the food label is the serving size. While it is easy to get wrapped up in the details of specific ingredients, we need to be focusing more on how much we are eating and practicing portion control.  When I counsel my clients, including Coca-Cola, I stress the role of balancing calories consumed with an active lifestyle.  There truly is no such thing as good foods and bad foods.  Almost anything can fit into a healthful diet as long portions are reasonable and nutritious foods take the front seat at meal time.

• I completely agree with greg b.  It is as much about math as anything, if HFCS = Sugar, than why not make Chlorine + Fluoride = milkshakes; or bicycle = chocolate for that matter? It is complete false advertising to say HFCS is sugar. Not only that but there is no need to even produce HFCS, they use it to jazz up cardboard and sell it to us as "fruit bars" that contain no fruit. But sure lets repackage HFCS, lets call it something more fitting like High Fructose Corn Mucus; i mean have you seen this stuff?!

• This article's closing argument is a composition fallacy: 1. Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc. 2. Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc. F things in this case are sweeteners.  Glucose, Fructose, and Sucrose are natural sugar molecules. The problem with HFCS is it is NOT a naturally-occurring molecule, and we have not evolved an efficient way to use it as fuel, converting it instead first to fat.

• problem with hfcs is that it is in everything!!! how do you limit it when it is in...milk, bread, crackers, vitamins, cereal, cookes......think about what you eat in a day? cereal and milk for breakfest...hfcs, sandwich with pretzels and milk for lunch...hfcs, spag w/ spag sauce, garlic bread nd milk..hfcs. everything you ate that day...which see healthy has hfcs in in!

• How did the corporations get away with not labeling "genetically modified food" as such? At least let the consumer know what he is eating and give him the freedom of choice. Answer they give politicians money!

• I really hope the article's author does not eat anything sweetened outside of its natural state. Because this article is biased and written with a "negative (aka poison) keyboard."

• Sugar = bad? But just imagine what the world would be like if the most-advanced nations were populated primarily by focused, kick-ass, energetic warriors instead of by obese, diabetic, and otherwise chronically sick people ... Even warmongers like the Democrats and Republicans wouldn't be able to keep up. Be careful what you wish for.

TotalComments: 29