Studies find mercury in much U.S. corn syrup

Former FDA scientist finds detectable amounts in 9 of 20 samples

updated 6:47 p.m. CT, Tues., Jan. 27, 2009

WASHINGTON - Many common foods made using commercial high fructose corn syrup contain mercury as well, researchers reported on Tuesday, while another study suggested the corn syrup itself is contaminated.

Food processors and the corn syrup industry group attacked the findings as flawed and outdated, but the researchers said it was important for people to know about any potential sources of the toxic metal in their food.

In one study, published in the journal Environmental Health, former Food and Drug Administration scientist Renee Dufault and colleagues tested 20 samples of high fructose corn syrup and found detectable mercury in nine of the 20 samples.

<snip>

More here.

Is there anything safe to eat anymore? :scared:

Aside from the mercury, I mean. Thx.

Table sugar (sucrose) contains 50% fructose and 50% glucose. HFCS contains 55% fructose and 45% glucose.

Glucose is the preferred energy source of the body, so it rapidly enters the blood stream for use by cells. This elevates your blood sugar levels, and causes insulin to be secreted (among other hormonal changes). Insulin also stimulates the manufacture of LDL ("bad" cholesterol) which increases prescribing of statin drugs.

Fructose takes a different biochemical pathway and is stored directly as body fat, contributing to weight gain.

This is why eating tons of sugar - be it sucrose or HFCS - is evil and contributes to obesity through weight gain, diabetes (through weight gain and decreased insulin sensitivity) and heart disease (weight gain, increased LDL production).

:eyes:

I guess you never hear this side of the story on those pro-HFCS commercials; just a bunch of people who give dumb looks when asked why it's bad for you, like none of us read or anything.

The thing is, table sugar can be eaten in moderation. With the inclusion of HFCS in even things like bread (??), it makes moderation kind of difficult.

I bought into the early scare on HFCS but after studying the issue more, I think the problem is overuse of sweeteners in general - ANY kind - not just HFCS.

I mean unlike HFCS, our food chain has not adopted Honey as the primary sweetener in the majority of products. If we did so, the extra 5% fructose change in our diets might spur the same complaints. Supposedly, the average American consumes 12 teaspoons of HFCS every day.

One difference though, in relation to this Mercury study, is that HFCS is pretty complicated to produce. It requires many chemical steps and enzymes to create. All those extra steps introduce things that can go wrong. In this Mercury case, two of the reagents they use to manufacture the HFCS may have contained Mercury. Of course the HFCS trade association says they purchase Mercury free reagents (and/or they have done so 'in recent years') so the study is 'outdated'.

The highest level of contamination found in the study (http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/2) was 0.57 micrograms of mercury per gram of HFCS. The EPA says that an average-sized woman should consume no more than 5.5 micrograms per day of mercury, meaning that the average American consumer may be eating five times the upper safety limit of mercury every day due to high-fructose corn syrup consumption if they consume the foods tested in the study.

Me personally, I try to avoid it, but like you say, moderation is important too.

Just because sugar cane and sugar beets winds up as 50% glucose, 50% fructose, that does not mean that it's better than the 45% glucose, 55% fructose from corn, apples, or honey.

"The highest level of contamination found in the study (http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/2 ) was 0.57 micrograms of mercury per gram of HFCS. The EPA says that an average-sized woman should consume no more than 5.5 micrograms per day of mercury, meaning that the average American consumer may be eating five times the upper safety limit of mercury every day due to high-fructose corn syrup consumption if they consume the foods tested in the study."

It would be nice if this author, or anybody else, could report the actual numbers in a proper, peer-reviewed journal.

First, it seems that increasing the entire populations daily fructose intake by 5% is worse. As I mentioned before in a post before it has been shown to have negative impacts on the some peoples bodies. Obviously high sugar intake can be bad, but this seems worse.

Second, are you saying the article is junk science?

Here is the link to the actual article with actual numbers. The article claims that is was peer-reviewed. I cannot vouch for the quality of that review.

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/1476-069x-8-2.pdf

Corn goes through a lot of chemical changes to morph into HFCS. Scary - and also scary that it's used in so many products. I gave up eating anything containing it about a year ago.

Sugar cain goes through a lot of chemical changes to morph into table sugar.

Nobody with a high school education should be afraid of a little science.

Sugar cane goes through a lot of processing steps (not chemical); the only additive is lime juice to remove impurities.

Nobody thinks of sugar when they see a field of corn; it takes a lot to turn it into 'sugar'. Corn goes through 5 or 6 various steps of fermentation and chemical treatments. Alpha amylase and glucose isomerase - enzymes used in the process, are genetically modified to up the stability of HFCS.

Bad stuff.

Sugar cane is shredded and treated with water, and the solids removed.

The liquor is treated with calcium hydroxide to prevent the natural hydrolysis of sucrose to fructose and glucose (which is what happens in the stomach, btw, or with HFCS).

It's then bleached with sulfur dioxide.

Filtered, centrifuged, and concentrated.

Then refined by treatment phosphoric acid and calcium hydroxide to form precipitates of undesirables. Or alternatively, treatment with with carbon dioxide and calcium hydroxide.

It's filtered through activated carbon, and crystallized under vaccum.

"Nobody thinks of sugar when they see a field of corn"

The people who understand the natural world do. Farmers, scientists, and food lovers.

"it takes a lot to turn it into 'sugar'. "

Sweet corn contains a lot of sugar. That's why it's sweet. As soon as it's picked, enzymes in the corn stick sugar molecules together to make starch molecules. With the production of HFCS, you take corn starch and enzymes and reverse the process.

"Alpha amylase and glucose isomerase - enzymes used in the process, are genetically modified to up the stability of HFCS. "

These enzymes, which are also naturally occuring, btw, are sometimes genetically modified to increase the efficiency of the process. They have nothing to do with the stability of HFCS, and they are not in HFCS once it leaves the plant.

"Bad stuff."

Only to the ignorant.

Go ahead and believe that crap is OK to ingest; up to you. Not nice to call someone ignorant just because your views are different.

"Not nice to call someone ignorant just because your views are different."

I suggest remedial science courses at your nearest community college.

I believe that it is the calcium hydroxide version of lime - but whichever form it is, it is not remotely related to lime juice.

There are several other chemicals added along the way. HFCS is definitely not good for you, but to act like sugar from cane is some pure, natural good for you substance is ridiculous.

Bad stuff.

The cocacola corporation is sitting on a study that shows a definitive link.Unfortunately that report is buried deeper than ingredient X.

Do you have any proof whatsoever, or are you just spreading unfounded rumors? If the report is so buried, how did YOU find out about it?

who worked for them(reported directly to the Board).
I was asking him if it was true that the new coke/classic coke fiasco in the eighties was just a disinformation campaign to hide the swithc over from cane sugar to HFCS.{This was also sort of confirmed by an acquaintance who was on the board of cocacola.He would not actually admit it but his reaction and body language told me I was on the right track}
He said it was true.He also told me that I am one of a handful of people in the world to figure that out.
Then he told me the rest of the story.That people in the federal gov knew about the link also and wanted hfcs in the food supply for their own reasons.
Cocacola may not like the fact that I am saying this but they will never sue me over it.The LAST thing they want is letting people have the power of discovery in such a suit.

My friend also told me of quite a few interesting tidbits concerning coke.
Did you know they have a team whose only job is to bury by any means possible(usually by throwing around tons of money) any stories about product contamination and/or food poisoning caused by their product?That such occurances happen on a regular basis?

Thanks for confirming.

My son doesn't have ADHD and was not allowed to drink soda until he entered school and begged for it.

To this day, though, he's still not allowed to have tons of the stuff - it rots the teeth, makes kids spin out of control and is, well, not as good as water, milk or juice.

I added some info from Wikipedia that substantiates what you said and also adds more info about the influence of the corn agri-growers and corporations like Archer Daniels Midland who produce the HFCS.

We already know sugar is bad for us.

Maybe I did not explain it well...

HFCS contains 5% more fructose compared to cane sugar. The body converts fructose differently than glucose. Glucose goes to the muscles for energy,
Fructose goes to the liver. When the body has excess Fructose it converts it to Triglycerides which can be bad for you and it is more easily stored in fat.

Thus, this extra 5% contributes more to weight gain and such.

Fructose can be advantageous for people with diabetes since it has a lower Glycemic Index though.

There's no evidence that it's any worse than table sugar. And plenty of evidence that it's no more worse.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3639008

Some highlights..but the whole thing is worth reading. Google "history of high fructose corn syrup" and see what you get. Make sure to check the source of the articles so as to be aware of any bias. It is always good to know who sponsored any studies that you read about.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup



<snip>

<snip>

It is truly killing us all.

N/T

Around here, you can get Chronic Wasting Disease from deer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_wasting_disease

... urban animals of any kind. Look at what they eat.

Not like it wasn't already killing people as it is, but now mercury poisoning on top of the rest?

It's going to be rough because I'm kind of addicted to Dr. Pepper. But I'd rather go through withdrawal than die of mercury poisoning.

but my body metabolizes sugar much, much better than HFCS. I still drink sweet tea (I'm in the south & make my own; been cutting down on the sugar for that bit by bit & trying stevia instead, but it's slow). I actually don't miss soda as much as I thought I would.

It is hard to keep from eating HCFS when you don't know it. Some items I don't suspect have it in them.

If I get a craving for 'bubbly' tasting beverage, I use a small amount of seltzer water in some fruit juice.

So far so good..best of luck for you. OH! and partially due to cutting out HCFS as much as I could; I have dropped from a size 10 jean to a size 6.

I quit drinking pop for almost a whole year, but then I got back on it. This time, I'm going to quit for sure. It's not the sugar or caffeine I crave in pop. It's the carbonated water I crave. But I'll try seltzer water. I've never had it before.

Thanks for the advice. :hi:

Awesome soda.

Dublin is a small town with the only Dr. Pepper bottling plant that still uses sugar.

They contain sugar - not HFCS - and taste about a brazillon times better.

The problem is that when you have our ag industry subsidized for producing corn, then HFCS-based sugar products can be made that much more cheaper for export to other countries too, like Mexico, when they in effect "dump" HFCS-sweetened soft drinks there at prices cheaper than other cane sugar-based soft drinks can be produced locally, putting Mexican farmers out of work so that they either:

a) sell off their farms to the government and work at an outsourcing company there.

or

b) move up here for work.

The following articles talk about how the WTO has claimed that the tariffs that Mexico tried to impose on HFCS-based American exports into Mexico were a trade barrier, when in fact the U.S.'s subsidized exports at artificially lower prices I would submit are the culprits.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EUY/is_/ai_n16110567

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EUY/is_/ai_n14941047

http://www.geocities.com/jonclark500/stories/coke.html

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/Mexico-may-appeal-WTO-decision

http://www.rushfordreport.com/2003/11_2003_Yankee_trader.htm

I've been told that the kosher-for-passover variant of coke doesn't have HFCS, so that might be something to check, when it's "in season"

Seems to only go to areas with higher Jewish populations. Which is logical, given the intended market of the product and it's limited quantity, but not good news in this one-synagogue town. I still have yet to actually see a bottle or can of this now legendary product.

The Mexi-Coke probably still tastes a little better though, as it's in glass bottles and not plastic. I've heard most of the Kosher Coke is in 2-liter bottles.

I'm sure you have...but it seems like a reasonable alternative. It
tastes much like the original.

Dublin, Texas that is. It's a long story, but the bottling plant in the little town of Dublin, TX is not a part of the great Dr. Pepper conglomerate (which I believe is a part of the Bush/Carlyle portfolio). The little plant is independently owned and still uses cane sugar in its Dr. Pepper. For years, you could pay through the nose to get their small glass bottled Dr Pepper. Now they also can it for competitive prices. For those of us who drank the beverage in our long ago childhood, the drink is a taste of home. Sure I know sugar is bad for you, but I know I digest and deal with sugar better than corn syrup. Plus it is less cloying and nasty. I have been known to purchase a Mexican Coca Cola every once in a while because they are usually made with cane sugar. (Mixes with bourbon really well.)

Here is a link to the history of the Dublin Dr. Pepper company. http://www.dublindrpepper.com/history.aspx

But now I like a nice cold glass of water much better than I ever liked Dr. Pepper. I used to drink about 4 cans a day.

Well, diet dr pepper presumably has no HFCS...

Wikipedia on Sandy Szwarc, who writes that blog:


from Wikipedia on Tech Central Station:



http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute



Check out who funds this "Think Tank" in addition to tobacco companies and gasoline companies

Can you dispute the FACTS, please?

That says it all.

She is the one who claims Mad Cow disease doesnt affect humans. She write and speaks for conservative think tanks, etc. She falls into the category of industry shill, in my opinion.

I am skeptical of her whole 'environmental mercury' is fine for you claim. That is one of those doublespeaks. I do not think 'environment mercury' is what is contaminating the caustic soda (lye) that is used to make HFCS.

"I do not think 'environment mercury' is what is contaminating the caustic soda (lye) that is used to make HFCS."

So then where do you think the mercury is coming from?

Bear in mind, there was no detectable mercury at all in most of the samples.

Bear in mind, there was no detectable mercury at all in most of the samples.

Did you read the study? I posted to link in a previous respone to you. Goto the last page, Table 1. It shows many samples that exceeded the DL.

'environmental mercury' sounds like 'clean coal', doesnt it? Your source claims it does not harm anyone and that is is not really absorbed in the intestinal track. However it is transferred via the placenta to the fetus. That is why doctors warn woman of child bearing years to avoid fish that can be high in mercury.

Where do you think the mercury comes from?

11 out of the 20 samples had no mercury.

"'environmental mercury' sounds like 'clean coal', doesnt it? "

No. "Clean coal" is a sales pitch. Environmental mercury is a real thing.

"Your source claims it does not harm anyone and that is is not really absorbed in the intestinal track."

My source says no such thing.

1) The manufacture of HFCS uses caustic soda (also known as lye). Creation of the caustic soda can be done in several ways. One way uses the mercury cell process.

Here is a neat animated diagram of the process.

http://www.eurochlor.org/animations/mercury-cell.asp

2) You claimed NO samples had detectable levels, that was not true if you read the info. 9 out of 20 samples tested positive for mercury!

3) Your source, and I quote from her webpage said:

"But an important fact the media has left out of this story is that elemental mercury is not a health threat when ingested (or handled) because virtually none (less than 0.1%) is absorbed through the digestive tract (or skin)."

You are very defensive about just the facts. Do you have a vested interest here?

"1) The manufacture of HFCS uses caustic soda (also known as lye). Creation of the caustic soda can be done in several ways. One way uses the mercury cell process."

That's certainly a possiblity, although you haven't got any evidence. If that's true, then it'd have nothing to do with HFCS. Anymore than any other food products which use lye.

Regular, old fashioned table sugar, for instance.

"2) You claimed NO samples had detectable levels, that was not true if you read the info. 9 out of 20 samples tested positive for mercury!"

No, I didn't. Read better.

"But an important fact the media has left out of this story is that elemental mercury is not a health threat when ingested (or handled) because virtually none (less than 0.1%) is absorbed through the digestive tract (or skin)"

Again, read better.

You said: 'Bear in mind, there was no detectable mercury at all in most of the samples.'

Your finely crafted sentence of 'at all in most of the samples' is what you stated. You did not say NO samples, so I apologize. The phrasing seemed to minimize the fact that 45% of the samples tested above the detectable levels. Fair enough.

But your two other points I do not concede. To claim that if mercury contaminates a products used in the production of HFCS, it lets the HFCS manufacturer dismiss responsibility, is absurd. That would be the same a allow a US Pharmaceutical company to claim ignorance of Melamine contamination from their Chinese suppliers. In fact the trade lobby for HFCS claimed in a recent press release using carefully worded language much unlike your sentence above that they switched suppliers sometime in 2005. This implies that some they are getting caustic soda from suppliers who use other methods like membrane technology instead of the mercury cell technique.

I'm not sure what your last 'Again, read better' even refers to. I directly quoted the website you sourced. I stand by my point that she claims it is not a health threat and due to intestinal absorption but negates to mention transmission to the fetus during pregnancy.

mmmm Meeeeeeeercury!!

are Satan's tools!!!! (not seriously, don't believe in God or the Devil)

But really: most people don't read the labels when they buy their nutrition in boxes with expiration dates 50 years from now! How can that possibly be good for you? And every year, there's something else those greedy corporations throw into our food supply which makes us sick and eventually kills us.

It's up to us to question: the same way we questioned Bush's policies in Iraq or the no-bid Halliburton contracts, by looking into the agendas of those dispensing info. If it seems hinky, it probably is! And we need to leave those boxes on the shelves and start buying food that you can recognize again.

I don't believe we can eskew all processed foods all the time--and our bodies are pretty adaptable if we encounter a few toxins here and there--but a steady diet of boxes and plastic soda bottles full is like signing the last part of your life over to Big Pharma. We have to educate ourselves re nutrition--trusting the Corporations to give us good, safe food is as destructive as trusting Bush's foreign policies.

Now those people in those "it's OK to eat high fructose corn syrup" commercials can have a definite answer when those other idiots try to foist it on them in cereal or soda or Popsicles and ask why they don't want it.

I HATE those commercials and always shout "Obesity" or "Diabetes" when the idiots ask what is wrong with HFCS!

Most searches I have made give the properties for fructose and sucrose or glucose.
However,I found one(only one) site saying this is the chemical makeup- C8H3Mg2

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_molecular_formula_of_High_Fructose_Corn_Syrup

In a dihydrogen monoxide solution.

as it would be written out.

C₆H₁₂O₆(aq) + C₆H₁₂O₆(aq)

in H₂O.

Or are you looking for chemical properties? Which chemical property are you interested in?

I found one site that says the formula is C8H3Mg2.
I am trying to confirm this.

That's some high school kid fucking around with you.

Nowadays, analysis tools are so sensitive that you can probably
find "detectable amounts" of just about anything in anything.

Exposure to the air downwind of a coal-burning power plant
*UNDOUBTEDLY* puts "detectable amounts" of mercury into
everything exposed to that atmosphere (including you and me).

Tesha

Regardless, in this study, it was not some 'trace' amount:

The highest level of contamination found in the study (http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/2 ) was 0.57 micrograms of mercury per gram of HFCS. The EPA says that an average-sized woman should consume no more than 5.5 micrograms per day of mercury, meaning that the average American consumer may be eating five times the upper safety limit of mercury every day due to high-fructose corn syrup consumption if they consume the foods tested in the study.

Corn comes out of the ground?

The ground has mercury in it?

And no, the ground just doesn't have mercury in it. Mercury comes from volcanic sources. Do you see any sign of volcanism in the Midwest, where most of our corn comes from? I don't.

"Mercury comes from volcanic sources. Do you see any sign of volcanism in the Midwest, where most of our corn comes from?"

Oh sweet jesus.

Those things that have to be regularly tested for poisonous metals in the ground.

Mercury, for instance.

The manufacture of HFCS uses caustic soda (also known as lye). Creation of the caustic soda can be done in several ways. One way uses the mercury cell process.

Here is a neat animated diagram of the process.

http://www.eurochlor.org/animations/mercury-cell.asp

and I'm sure the "detectable amounts" found will be eventually declared to be "safe levels" by the FDA.

*sigh*

:grr:

if they kill us all from buying their crap?