

High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar' - kreek
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/14/corn-sugar-high-fructose-corn-syrup_n_716007.html

======
MartinCron
Back when I was in Business School, I did some strategic analysis role-
modeling as if I were in charge of Monsanto. At the time, Monsanto was best
known for the "terminator gene", suing farmers allegedly stealing their
agricultural IP, and BT corn that killed monarch butterflies.

I suggested that they change their name as the first part of their strategy to
turn over a new leaf in both PR as well as core business activity. My peers
mocked me, saying that no big evil corporation would be so brazen as to just
change their name to clean up their brand, as their critics would see right
through it.

The very next week, Philip Morris rebranded itself to Altria.

~~~
poutine
It's a good strategy. Interestingly Blackwater changed their name to Xe to try
and shake off the bad image.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide>

Still a nasty organization, name change or not.

~~~
hyperbovine
I think the trick is in choosing a new name that actually sounds nicer than
the old one, and not that of an alien overlord.

~~~
poutine
Well, they are mercenaries after all...

I half suspect they picked a difficult to pronounce name so nobody would talk
about them.

~~~
gojomo
Neither of the names are PR gold. 'Blackwater' is the plumber's term for
sewage. 'Xe' sounds alien or like a B-movie villain accent: "We have xe plans,
nothing will prevent xe final solution now!"

~~~
pohl
The genius behind 'Xe' is that some people will say 'zee', others will say
'ecks-ee'. If someone hears something bad about the organization by mouth,
they won't know what to type into Google to read about it, and even if they do
know how to spell it they'll get hits about a noble gas and a currency
exchange site.

------
tptacek
And?

Sugar is what's bad for you. The "high fructose" in HFCS is "high" relative to
_other corn syrup_ ; table sugar breaks down into glucose and fructose during
digestion.

"Big Corn" is probably right, here; "HFCS" is a misleading term (for one
thing, it doesn't mean anything --- different HFCS blends have wildly
different amounts of fructose), and more importantly, the notion that it's
just "the bad kind of sugar" that's hurting people is dangerous.

What is it with health reporting on the Huffington Post, anyways?

~~~
nimai
Fructose has proven to be particularly harmful - your liver shuts down while
it's being processed, leading to all sorts of fun side effects.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Liver_disease>

~~~
tptacek
And, like I just said, table sugar breaks down into fructose during digestion,
and "HFCS" isn't "HF" compared to "all other sweeteners"; it's "HF" compared
to plain corn syrup, which is unpalatable.

HFCS alarmism is knee-jerk wishful thinking from people who want to blame some
boogeyman industrial process for all the nation's health problems. The problem
is our addiction to sweetness. HFCS obviously abets this by making it cheaper
to sweeten things, but get rid of HFCS and it'll just get replaced with some
other sugar. _Sugar_ is bad for you.

[http://www.ama-
assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/443/csaph3a08-sum...](http://www.ama-
assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/443/csaph3a08-summary.pdf) -

 _The primary difference is that these monosaccharides exist free in solution
in HFCS, but in disaccharide form in sucrose. The disaccharide sucrose is
easily cleaved in the small intestine, so free fructose and glucose are
absorbed from both sucrose and HFCS._

~~~
Xurinos
The way I learned it from the nice professor in the video
(<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM>) was simply:

fructose = bad, poison

glucose = good

sucrose = fructose + glucose, unsafe because the composition preserves the
fructose portion

HFCS = 25% fructose, not as bad as sucrose (IIRC)

Mitigate fructose intake with fiber. apple juice = bad, but apple = good
because of the fiber countering the effect of the poison at a higher point in
our internal food processing chain.

I noticed you were getting downvotes, and I suspect it is because of the
general "Sugar is bad for you" statement, which is -- as far as the studies go
-- half correct. The rest of your text makes the distinction, so I hope it is
not wholly ignored. HFCS _is_ a scapegoat, as you point out, and it would help
if we focused on the one part that is important: fructose is poison. And it
can be mitigated with fiber.

But that's just what I learned from some video. One thing that always bugged
me: glucose is known commonly as "grape sugar". Do grapes have fructose?
Without any fructose added, is grape juice a healthy fruit juice?

~~~
Xurinos
For my learning, aside from my 25% figure being misleading, can anyone explain
their disagreement with my comment? Is the video a bad source?

~~~
gte910h
Sucrose in generally shown to be less harmful than HFCS in many tests, which
in the alternative show _at best_ it's only _as_ harmful.

Here is one study: We're talking pre-bloodstream, and the mechanism is
understood science (everything does this process, it's a widely taught part of
biology) It's how everything (bacteria to humans) digests all non single
molecule sugars and starch (i.e. sucrose on up).

Here it is: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycoside_hydrolase>

It is a non-instantaneous process which is limited by the reaction catalyzed
by the enzyme. Some diabetic drugs work off this enzyme by inhibiting it's
function (as do some antimicrobial drugs/substances).

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acarbose>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miglitol>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voglibose>

So I'm going to point at the existence of drugs working off this mechanism
instead of finding the research that established them.

As GH works off _complex carbohydrates_ and HFCS is a mixtures of simple
carbohydrates, it is not slowed by any inhibition of the GH reaction in the
stomach.

As my comment said: _While this may be difference between drinking a pint of
100 proof alcohol vs a cup of 200 proof (i.e. not much), it may prove
significant._

It appears to effect rats differently at least for instance:
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0P-4XCYJF8-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12/07/2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=be4bafa9e6e6ee627dd7b21ec81f0d43&searchtype=a)

~~~
tptacek
Can you cite _one human test_ that shows HFCS to be more harmful than sucrose?
Because I'm not going to suggest that the AMA is at all the end-all of medical
research (it's clearly not even close), but the AMA says " _Because the
composition of HFCS and sucrose are so similar, particularly on absorption by
the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other
conditions than sucrose._ ".

~~~
gte910h
Read the full statement. They're just saying "Don't pass laws yet, but keep
studying it, preferably in an independent manner":

REPORT 3 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-08) The Health Effects
of High Fructose Syrup EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Objective: To review the chemical
properties and health effects of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in comparison
to other added caloric sweeteners and to evaluate the potential impact of
restricting use of fructose-containing sweeteners, including the use of
warning labels on foods containing high fructose syrups. Methods: Literature
searches for articles published though December 2007 were conducted in the
PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the
search terms “high fructose corn syrup” and “high fructose syrup.” Web sites
managed by federal and world health agencies, and applicable professional and
advocacy organizations, were also reviewed for relevant information.
Additional articles were identified by reviewing the reference lists of
pertinent publications. Results: HFCS has been increasingly added to foods
since its development in the late 1960s. The most commonly used types of HFCS
(HFCS-42 and HFCS-55) are similar in composition to sucrose, consisting of
roughly equal amounts of fructose and glucose. The primary difference is that
these monosaccharides exist free in solution in HFCS, but in disaccharide form
in sucrose. The disaccharide sucrose is easily cleaved in the small intestine,
so free fructose and glucose are absorbed from both sucrose and HFCS. The
advantage to food manufacturers is that the free monosaccharides in HFCS
provide better flavor enhancement, stability, freshness, texture, color,
pourability, and consistency in foods in comparison to sucrose. Concern about
HFCS developed after ecological studies, using per capita estimates of HFCS
consumption, found direct correlations between HFCS and obesity. In addition,
human and animal studies have found direct associations between fructose and
adverse health outcomes. However, the adverse health effects of HFCS, beyond
those of other caloric sweeteners, most of which contain fructose, are not
well established. Consumption of added caloric sweeteners in general has
increased over the last 30 years, as has total calories. Likewise, rates of
obesity have risen even in countries where little HFCS is consumed. Only a few
small, short-term experimental studies have compared the effects of HFCS to
sucrose, and most involved some form of industry support. Epidemiological
studies on HFCS and health outcomes are unavailable, beyond ecological
studies, because nutrient databases do not contain information on the HFCS
content of foods and have only limited data on added sugars in general.
Conclusions: Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose are so similar,
particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS
contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose. Nevertheless,
few studies have evaluated the potentially differential effect of various
sweeteners, particularly as they relate to health conditions such as obesity,
which develop over relatively long periods of time. Improved nutrient
databases are needed to analyze food consumption in epidemiological studies,
as are more strongly designed experimental studies. At the present time, there
is insufficient evidence to restrict use of HFCS or other fructose- containing
sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on
products containing HFCS. RECOMMENDATIONS The following statements,
recommended by the Council on Science and Public Health, were adopted by the
AMA House of Delegates as AMA directives at the 2008 Annual Meeting: 1\. That
our American Medical Association (AMA) recognize that at the present time,
insufficient evidence exists to specifically restrict use of high fructose
corn syrup (HFCS) or other fructose- containing sweeteners in the food supply
or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS.
(Directive) 2\. That our AMA encourage independent research (including
epidemiological studies) on the health effects of HFCS and other sweeteners,
and evaluation of the mechanism of action and relationship between fructose
dose and response. (Directive) 3\. That our AMA, in concert with the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans, recommend that consumers limit the amount of added
caloric sweeteners in their diet. (Directive)

------
Tangurena
Trying to eliminate what I consider "bad" foods from my diet is becoming
harder as the producers change the name. I really don't care if it has been
proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be bad - because that process took over
100 years for tobacco. I want X out of my life, I should be allowed to detect
items containing X.

~~~
araneae
You eat tons of things every day that are equivalent to X without realizing
it.

Would you shy away from foods that have list of ingredients that included
fructose and glucose? That's all corn syrup is (and a few random corn solids
here and there.)

Apples have a really high fructose content too, so technically drinking apple
juice can be worse than drinking a dilute corn syrup solution (depending on
the kind of HFCS), but almost no one thinks twice about that because it's
"natural." (Although there is a growing anti-juice movement.)

Data from Wikipedia (remaining content is glucose):

HFCS90: 90% Fructose

Apple Juice: 63-78% Fructose

HFCS55: 55% Fructose

HFCS43: 43% Fructose

~~~
Tangurena
Maybe I'm Jewish and I want to keep kosher. Maybe I'm not. It is _my_ decision
what goes into my body. Not yours. Not some company's.

There are a lot of foods I don't eat anymore. I happen to love chocolate. But
I don't want to eat chocolate with PGPR in it, therefore I don't purchase
Hershey's anymore. Is PGPR "bad" for me? Umm, no. When you were a child, you
had (and ate) "wax lips" which are PGPR with some color added. It doesn't
belong in my chocolate, therefore I refuse to eat it, and refuse to purchase
foods with PGPR

~~~
araneae
>It doesn't belong in my chocolate, therefore I refuse to eat it, and refuse
to purchase foods with PGPR

You're weird. Chocolate originally comes in bean form; some brilliant South
Americans got the idea to grind it up with sugar and water and drink it.
Chocolate in solid form is a pretty damn new idea and hardly even counts as a
food; it's a pretty weird concoction to be a "purist" about. Where does your
platonic idea of chocolate come from?

I have a few friends that keep pretty strict kosher, and I think they're weird
too. But at least I can get a handle on it because it's written in book they
feel like following the rules of. I don't really understand this extreme
fetishism we have for what we eat that people pull out of their anal area.

~~~
blackguardx
It's called a preference, dude. Having a preference doesn't make you weird. I
happen to prefer chocolate bars with over 75% cocoa content. It is just what I
prefer.

Blindly consuming anything put in front of you is weird.

Also, chocolate as a drink originated in Mexico and they didn't mix sugar with
it. They mixed ground chili peppers.

~~~
potatolicious
I don't think he's denying your right to have a preference - that being said,
avoiding things with a rational reason seems mighty weird to me.

So you prefer chocolate bars with >75% Cocoa, I can get that - so do I. I like
the taste of pure dark chocolate more than the taste of milk chocolate, say.

So, if you were avoiding HFCS for health reasons, or taste reasons, I totally
get that. But "I just dont' want it in my food, mmm'kay?" seems weird to me.

> _"Blindly consuming anything put in front of you is weird."_

Oh come on, now you're just taking this personally and getting rude. At no
point did previous poster suggest that either you or him "blindly consume"
anything put in front of you.

~~~
blackguardx
Rude? I'm not sure I follow you.

My point is that the opposite of having preferences is just consuming
everything. It is just as "weird" as having very distinct preferences.

I also think it is rude to call someone weird but maybe I am alone in this.

~~~
potatolicious
I can't speak for the previous poster - but many people I know (including
myself) take pride in being weird; after all, what is there to be proud of in
simply being the same as everyone else? I doubt "weird" was meant as an insult
- I certainly didn't get that tone from the previous poster.

The rudeness comment is in reference to your rather aggressive response to
what I perceived as a bit of idle observation. He indicated that preference
without rational reason is weird (and to be honest, I'm inclined to agree),
and you responded by insinuating that he would blindly eat anything presented
to him, which is clearly not the case.

------
MartinCron
The grammar geek in me likes the parallel construction between "corn sugar"
and "cane sugar".

No matter what they call it, I will still prefer the taste of my imported
Mexican Coke made with cane sugar.

~~~
gruseom
Wow, you know what, I bet that's exactly why they picked the name. "Corn
syrup" and "cane sugar" are comfortable and familiar. What could fit in with
those better than "corn sugar"? One has to make a cognitive effort to
distinguish them, and people don't make that kind of cognitive effort very
often. This is brilliant marketing. The tobacco industry must be green with
envy.

~~~
nopassrecover
Just like distinguishing baking soda from baking powder.

~~~
philwelch
Have you ever eaten something baked by someone who missed that distinction? It
is an unpleasant experience.

------
mdasen
Personally, I'd like to see Sugar Alcohols get more widely used
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_alcohol>). Sugar alcohols are not
metabolized by oral bacteria so they're much better for dental health (and
used in many chewing gums today such as Trident). They also have fewer
calories and are metabolized slower by the body. That means there's less
chance that they'll contribute to obesity (fewer calories) and they have a
lower impact on the body's blood sugar levels (with a low glycemic index due
to the way it's slowly metabolized).

I'm guessing the reason that they're not widely used would be cost and
difficulty. Still, if we could figure out a way to produce sugar alcohols
cheaply, we could keep our sweet food while having a meaningful and
scientifically proven positive impact on our bodies.

~~~
rbranson
Sugar alcohols create a cooling sensation on the tongue, so they aren't
appropriate for everything. They've also got somewhat of a stigma from causing
digestive problems. Erythritol, which doesn't cause digestive problems, is
starting to gain popularity though.

------
warfangle
I don't eat HFCS because of semi-dubious claims as to health.

I don't eat HFCS because I refuse to help the industry that is most to blame
for the algae bloom in the Gulf, and I don't believe that government subsidies
should be what makes a given industry profitable (outside, say, weapons
research, development, and manufacture - but that's an entirely different can
of worms that I oppose on an entirely different reasoning).

~~~
jcl
(I guess you mean "I don't _not_ eat HFCS..." in the first sentence.
Substituting "avoid" for "don't eat" might be clearer.)

------
marknutter
What's the big deal? If people are being "hurt" by HFCS or "Corn Sugar" or
whatever you want to call it, then they can avoid eating it - it says right on
the label what's in the food. If you drank 10 beers a day it'd probably be
harmful as well. We shouldn't be focusing on the "evil" companies, we should
be focusing on ourselves and our own diets. We allowed these "evil" companies
to grow this big in the first place by willingly and eagerly buying their HFCS
saturated products.

(Not that HuffPost said companies are "evil" but that's the commonly held
belief among HuffPost readers)

------
lookACamel
Accoding to wikipedia, honey is about 38% fructose and 30% glucose. HFCS 55
(mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 42% glucose.

Why aren't people rally against honey? Because it's "natural".

------
wccrawford
Good. Now that it's easier to say, maybe it'll be easier to get people to
rally against it.

