Sugar vs. High Fructose Corn Syrup: Court Battle Begins

sugar and HFCS are about as the same as salt is to chlorine and sodium and the body does know the difference as it not digested the same way and it even banned from baby food

sorry

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)

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!!!  

Inan ongoing poll on MSNBC’s online health, over 90% of American's believegenetically modified foods should be labeled. Unfortunately this will nothappen until consumers choose to get informed about what they are eating andstop consuming genetically modified foods.

 

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

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)

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.   

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

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 aregistered dietitian who counsels individuals and families struggling withobesity, diabetes and other health concerns.  Many nutrition experts wouldagree that sugar is sugar no matter what source it comes from – corn, beets,sugar cane or other sources.  And health professionals like myself alsoencourage people to look at the overall picture instead of focusing on oneingredient. We teach our patients to read food labels for total carbohydratecontent, fiber, protein, and other nutrients, not just the amount ofsugar.  I always counsel my clients that the most important piece ofinformation on the food label is the serving size. While it is easy to getwrapped up in the details of specific ingredients, we need to be focusing moreon how much we are eating and practicing portion control.  When I counselmy clients, including Coca-Cola, I stress the role of balancing caloriesconsumed with an active lifestyle.  There truly is no such thing as goodfoods and bad foods.  Almost anything can fit into a healthful diet aslong portions are reasonable and nutritious foods take the front seat at mealtime.

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?!

Yes all sugar is bad but I think HFCS is the biggest offender and something the world can do without. The worst part is the hidden HFCS that is in almost everything, people don't put a couple of squirts of HFCS in their morning coffee. No one would chose it over regular sugar, only manufacturers trying to increase their profit. If the corn refiners say there is nothing wrong with HFCS then why the name change?

More on going organic http://greenandlovely.org/2011...

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.