
Why high fructose corn syrup replaced sugar in US - mike_esspe
http://shkrobius.livejournal.com/411007.html
======
btilly
It is worth noting that here, as is typical in politics, a focused interest
(sugar growers) beats a diffuse interest (the general public). We would all
benefit from ending this ridiculous practice. But we would individually
benefit very little, and it isn't worth much from us to do so.

But it gets worse. Because there is a second layer of beneficiaries here. Corn
growers. And they have great political power, as is seen in the subsidies they
get and the ethanol additives that are legally require (which damage engines,
and are a net negative on energy once you consider the costs of growing that
corn).

Not the least among the advantages that corn growers have politically is the
simple fact that they are important in Iowa. Which means that any national
politician who dreams of being President, or of working with any other that
has that dream, has very direct incentives to keep corn growers happy.

~~~
rhizome
Then I'd think it's not a coincidence that Iowa is designated as a swing
state, since both parties have to play into this scheme.

~~~
patmcguire
It's mainly that it's always the first primary election and the presidential
primaries are very much momentum-based. If you crash and burn in the Iowa
caucus you're basically done.

~~~
saraid216
I wonder. Why is it first? Should we randomize the order?

~~~
ycombobreaker
> Why is it first?

Because it starts with an 'I'.

------
tptacek
This debate has come up on HN repeatedly; it is again worth pointing out that
HFCS is "HF" relative to "CS", not to table sugar. Table sugar is ~50%
fructose, HFCS 55%.

The point isn't that HFCS is good for you --- it isn't --- but that a flight
to "natural" sugars isn't a good response. The problem is hyperpalatable foods
and (even moreso) liquid calories, not _which_ sugar is being used.

HFCS alarmism probably works to the advantage of junk food companies, who can
simply market equally unhealthful products built on table sugar as a premium
alternative.

~~~
MostAwesomeDude
Sucrose is _exactly_ half-and-half fructose and glucose; it is composed of one
of each, bound together. This is important because it means that it can't be
immediately absorbed into the bloodstream. It has to be broken apart first,
and the enzyme that does so is in the intestine. This means that its
absorption rates and effect on the glycemic index are different from HFCS.
Diabetics care about this.

While I can't really argue against you, partially because you're tptacek and
partially because you're not wrong here, it's quite irritating to see somebody
have a good conclusion and faulty premises.

Also, stop with the scare quotes.

~~~
Udo
While sucrose absorption is certainly slower than pure glucose absorption, the
amount of sugar that eventually goes into your bloodstream is equivalent, and
the energy yield is also roughly the same (splitting that one glycosidic link
isn't really that energy-intensive).

I guess an argument could be made that fast-acting monosaccharides are more
problematic for diabetics since their bodies can't deal with spikes easily,
but for the rest of us there is really no (scientifically accessible)
difference at all. Our food just contains too much readily accessible energy.

~~~
rjzzleep
wasn't there a yale study that tied fructose to appetite regulation recently?
I never actually found and read the main study, but i think there have been
prior studies suggesting similar things

[http://news.yale.edu/2013/01/04/study-suggests-effect-
fructo...](http://news.yale.edu/2013/01/04/study-suggests-effect-fructose-
brain-may-promote-overeating)

<http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1738S.full>

~~~
tptacek
The first article concerns fructose in general, not HFCS in particular. Cane
sugar contains comparable amounts of fructose.

The second article says, in its abstract, "However, when HFCS is compared with
sucrose, the more commonly consumed sweetener, such differences are not
apparent, and appetite and energy intake do not differ in the short-term.
Longer-term studies on connections between HFCS, potential mechanisms, and
body weight have not been conducted".

~~~
rjzzleep
yup, i read that. that older study doesn't really argue for or against,
though.

one thing that really bothers me though is that having grown up in germany i
have big problems swallowing hfcs. mostly because it tastes dull, and feels
very acidic in my throat. i've asked other people from overseas and they
reported similar things.

the only thing I could find though is the addition of sulfuric acid. if you
have some information on that, i'd be grateful.

------
rayiner
The page linked in the article is worth a couple of chuckles: "The US sugar
industry is almost as important to our economic vitality as is a steady supply
of affordable energy. Subjecting sugar to the unpredictable forces of global
laissez faire capitalism would likely lead to 'dumping' by countries whose own
sugar industries are much more protected than is ours."

In a sense, this quote isn't wrong. That's exactly what the sugar producing
countries would do. The U.S. almost certainly does not have a competitive
advantage in sugar production, and if the industry were deregulated domestic
sugar production would end, and we'd become sugar importers. And that would be
okay, because sugar isn't the strategically important commodity it once was.

But the same reasoning applies to steel and arms manufacturing too. The
difference is, it wouldn't be okay if all our domestic steel production went
overseas.

~~~
bitops
_> The difference is, it wouldn't be okay if all our domestic steel production
went overseas._

I think I know the rationale behind this statement, but I'm always curious as
to why we hold on to these beliefs. If we let industries move around based on
true competitiveness, stripped of subsidies and other anticompetitive
practices, we might find that to be a force for good.

That said, I've come to believe that this is most likely a minority view.
Everyone believes in free markets until it starts affecting their bottom line.

~~~
Guvante
Think about it like this, lets say we let people make Steel wherever they want
and everyone starts making it in China, causing the local production to grind
to a halt due to being unable to compete.

Now a year later, China decides it doesn't want to export to us anymore and
bans exports of Steel to the US, now we are screwed for at least 6 months,
since we don't have the ability to create the product anymore.

The difference with sugar is we do have an alternative available (corn syrup)
so the loss wouldn't be as big.

~~~
ztoy
There are three good solutions:

1\. Maintain a 6 months (or whatever time is necessary to restart production)
stockpile

2\. Have a highly credible policy that, if any foreign country actively
opposes free trade of anything important, an ICBM loaded with a nuclear
warhead is launched on their main government building or biggest city

3\. Change things so that there is no advantage to producing abroad, if
possible (e.g. allow unlimited immigration, remove taxation, remove minimum
wages, remove regulations, etc.)

~~~
Dylan16807
Surely you're joking about 2/3 of those being remotely close to good ideas.
And you made an account just to post this??

------
nickff
The government-backed sugar cartel in the US simply drove up the cost of (cane
and beet) sugar, resulting in a comparative cost advantage for HFCS. I am
surprised at how many people think HFCS is a corporate conspiracy, and are
wholly ignorant of the government's role in the matter.

Here's a similar article with an interesting graph:
[http://mjperry.blogspot.ca/2011/01/big-sugar-cartel-cost-
con...](http://mjperry.blogspot.ca/2011/01/big-sugar-cartel-cost-
consumers-45b.html)

------
grecy
In the documentary King Corn [1] they suggest that HFCS is ubiquitous because
of the government subsidies for growing corn. The surplus of corn was so
large, they started looking for creative ways to use it all up. HFCS was one
of those, as-is feeding it to livestock (which traditionally don't eat corn).

The subsidies are such that a cattle farmer can actually make a profit buy
growing corn, selling it (with subsidies), then buying corn back to feed their
own livestock.

[1] <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1112115/>

~~~
Guvante
> The subsidies are such that a cattle farmer can actually make a profit buy
> growing corn, selling it (with subsidies), then buying corn back to feed
> their own livestock.

I fail to see how this is enlightening, of course growing corn creates a
profit. If you are excluding the base profit of the corn, why wouldn't a
subsidized market create additional profit?

~~~
grecy
To be able to grow, sell, buy, use and still come out ahead, you must be able
to sell the corn for more than you can buy it for, which is nonsensical.

~~~
Guvante
That is the way subsidizing works, you get more than just the purchase price.
You could subsidize production, but it is easier and has other benefits to
subsidize sale.

------
xSwag
I read researched this a few days ago.

You have to consider the taste, it tastes nicer because fructose has only 5
carbon in it's ring instead of 6 which leads to more pleasurable experience as
it makes it fit better into the sweetness sensing in the mouth[1]

With Corn Syrup you get both glucose and fructose together whereas with sugar
you just get sucrose. Another reason would be that more corn is grown in the
US than sugar cane which makes it more efficient to produce corn syrup
instead.

[1]<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23537367>

~~~
vetinari
FYI, sucrose aka saccharose is 50% glucose and 50% fructose ;)

~~~
pohl
It hasn't broken down yet at the taste receptors. That happens in the
duodenum, doesn't it?

~~~
vetinari
Yes, but it does not really matter. It tastes differently than HFCS, but not
that differently and both are sweet :)

In practice, nobody is bothered by very slightly different taste. Coca Cola
uses different sweeteners (including artificial ones) in different parts of
world and mostly nobody notices.

------
codereflection
Relevant: The Rise of Mexican Coca-Cola
[http://kalinnacheff.com/2012/03/01/the-rise-of-mexican-
coca-...](http://kalinnacheff.com/2012/03/01/the-rise-of-mexican-coca-cola-
and-why-it-tastes-better/)

An interesting point in the article: "Coke suppressed demand for cane sugar
formula because it would cost more to produce and consumers would not pay the
extra cost."

------
aaron695
>Once in a while I come across an animated debate on health benefits of sugar
vs. high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). It is enzymatically produced mixture of
glucose and fructose that approximately matches the chemical composition of
sucrose, aka sugar. It is not this debate that is my concern;

Why are people discussing what the article specifically says it is not about?

------
baddox
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_failure>.

------
pdknsk
There is an interesting conspiracy theory suggesting that New Coke was
released to mask the switch of sugar to HFCS in the then re-introduced Coke
Classic.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke#Conspiracy_theories>

~~~
T-hawk
A theory that has been roundly debunked. Coca-Cola already had HFCS five years
earlier, since 1980. Here's Snopes on the topic:

<http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp>

And the whole category of Cokelore:

<http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cokelore.asp>

------
fein
HFCS is almost in the same place as sugar if we look at it in terms of
regulation.

Both are victims of price fixing through government subsidies. It doesn't
matter if you don't contribute to the purchase of the product, as your tax
dollars already fund its creation.

------
pasbesoin
I skimmed the article, but I did not see mention of the U.S.'s petro-chemical-
based agriculture. Without the outsized contributions that petro-chemicals
make to the production process of corn and corn syrup (engine fuel,
fertilizer, distillation, etc.), corn syrup and HFCS production would be much
more directly (as opposed to externalized costs) expensive.

I guess we should also toss soil erosion into the mix. Productive topsoil is a
finite resource, and modern agriculture -- while it has improved somewhat,
recently -- is expensive in this regard.

------
triplesec
Even though too much refined sugar is bad for you (there was very little tooth
decay before 1850), I don't like ingesting HFCS because it makes things taste
horrible. It doesn't taste the same as sucrose, which has much better flavour.

OTOH the more things have HFCS the fewer sugary products I eat, which is good
for my health. Wouldn't work if everybody did that, of course.

------
stfu
What do you guys think of Stevia[1]? Has been recently approved in the EU for
use as an all natural sweetener and I see products popping up here and there
pretending to be based on it.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia>

~~~
jwn
I've used Stevia a few times, but am not a fan. While it's definitely sweet,
it's a very different sweet compared to sugar. When drinking something (like
coffee) with Stevia, I notice that it's sweet on a different part of my
tongue, and it's a latent sweet - initially the drink tastes completely
unsweetened until it reaches the back of my mouth.

This is just my experience, maybe I'm weird.

------
defen
The linked page on sugars.com is hilarious.

"sugar is an indispensable part of everyday life."

"The US sugar industry is almost as important to our economic vitality as is a
steady supply of affordable energy. "

They could at least come up with some reasons that don't insult our
intelligence.

------
ericcumbee
same as Corn Ethanol- the Iowa Caucus

~~~
Florin_Andrei
Fuel made from food is a terrible idea, in more ways than one.

~~~
ericcumbee
Especially when it can be made from things like Switchgrass or from industrial
byproducts like saw dust and wood chips.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
A field covered with solar panels produces _orders of magnitude_ more energy
than same field covered with any kind of plants.

Saw dust and wood chips are not food (unless you're a mushroom).

~~~
ericcumbee
I am well aware of that...why make ethanol from corn, or sugar , when you can
use switch grass, which is cheaper, requires less energy to grow, is more
resistant to adverse weather than your other cash crops. Or when you can take
a byproduct of an existing industry such as from saw mills or cotton gins.
Sugar Cane and Corn is very expensive compared to these options.

------
jmspring
The article says nothing about corn subsidies which affect both HFCS and
ethanol.

------
yoster
I live in a state where Coke with sugar is widely available. The taste between
that and HFCS is like night and day. Too bad the rest of the states do not
have that choice.

~~~
triplesec
I used to like Coke in the UK but then I think they switched. Night and day
indeed. Great news for my health, though!

~~~
jimzvz
I am not sure what they were using in the UK in the mid 2000s but it was way
too sweet for me. Same with chocolate over there.

------
gcb0
The only thing i can't grasp... If sugar is such a certain deal, why there is
even one person investing in a HFCS factory instead of yet another sugar came
farm?

------
wcunning
LiveJournal is still a website? Since when...?

~~~
eatitraw
In Russia, LiveJournal is popular and serious blog platform.

