Time to classify high fructose corn syrup as an "artificial sweetener?"

Senate lawmakers have been weighing the possibility of a tax on carbonated sodas that aren't considered "artificially sweetened" in order to help fight obesity. Strangely enough, sodas sweetened with HFCS would not be taxed.

This proposal is fundamentally flawed and should be scrapped entirely, but I think it also brings up a valid question on how our government should treat HFCS. It's made from the same two sugars as sucrose is, but it does not occur anywhere in nature - it has to be manufactured in a laboratory, where the whole mess is subjected to various bacterial and fungal baths in order to produce HFCS.

So what's your take on all this?

I think it will cause companies to start using real sugar again.

:hi:

Sadly, even many medical professionals, much less other scientists, still have not digested (pun intended) the studies showing HFCS is "not just another sugar." Its effects on insulin and insulin sensitivity are quite different than sucrose or glucose or even fructose (in whole fruit).

can't make pecan pie without it. the key, as in most things, is moderation. I don't drink nasty sodas. I don't buy prepared food. I didn't feed that crap to my kid, but sorry, I want Karo on my grocer's shelf.

HFCS is not a naturally occurring substance though it is made from corn. Regular corn syrup (Karo, which my Grandmother used) was around long before HFCS. Banning the unnatural, man-made High Fructose variety shouldn't effect Karo, so not to worry. Pecan Pies everywhere will still flourish.

HFCS wasn't introduced into the food supply in great amounts until the 70s I believe. The Nixon administration wanted to bring down the cost of food (at all cost) so they allowed HFCS to be used in great quantities because it is cheaper to use than real sugar. After that we saw the fast rise in obesity and diabetes, many people believe there is a direct cause and effect while the corn industry wants them to simply shut the F...k up. Others believe that HFCS is absolutely no different from sugar and believe any study showing that it is different and harmful is obviously flawed.

It has been a long time since I read up on how HFCS was introduced so I don't have total recall.

While it contains some HFCS for sweetening effect, it is predominately plain ole corn syrup that is not under scrutiny... I have little doubt the small amount of HFCS in Karo could be replaced by sucrose or similar without affecting it at all. But, even if they did not, it is not considered to be a similarly high risk product.

but it would be a huge blow to farmers and agribusiness. It would have to be done very slowly.

all those government farming subsities made corn really cheap and HFCS a cheaper alternative than sugar for sweetening things.

levels the way glucose etc do. In fact, they are diabetic safe.

Why we want to say "let's go back to using sugar" when it's better than HFCS but STILL not desirable eludes me.

I think people don't realize that there are better alternatives.

Like Xylitol and Eyrithritol

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5012916_dangers-of-erythritol.html?ref=fuel&utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=ssp&utm_campaign=yssp_art

Not everybody, just some people like me :(

of proper enzyme.

For instance, chewing gum with Xylitol will help your gut and system get used to it.

I've already cut down on all sugars though. I just hope I don't get high blood pressure because if I have to cut out salt I'll be in trouble.

sick.

I can't touch the stuff.

Give it the special status HFCS supporters want- give it its own special tax.

Highly addictive and a major reason for childhood obsesity.

any type of added sugar and any amount of transfat to say so in 1/4" red lettering. My SIL is a prime candidate for type 2 diabetes, but she buys processed foods such as spaghetti sauce that contain a lot of sugar. Why would she expect to find sugar in spaghetti sauce? None of her home recipes call for sugar? How many goods out there now proclaim in large letters NO TRANS FATS but list hydrogenated vegetable oil in tiny letters on the ingredient list? The manufacturers set the portion size small enough to ensure that each portion contains less than 1 gram of trans fat.


For that matter, how many foods out there are mis-labeled, for example "whole wheat" bread that is mostly white flour?
If there is a difference between simple carbs and complex carbs, maybe that proportion should also be prominently displayed.

Especially with Tom Vilsack as Sec of Ag.

and ADM is a big contributor to senate and house candidates, HFCS will get a pass.

corn-based ethanol for fuel. Iowa would not have to lose out on this.

Corn has enough legitimate use in society without bastardizing it into Frankenfood and dumping it in our kids' soda cans.

All of which I'm going to tell you about right now.

But if they legalized hemp, they could grow that in Iowa instead, and use it for biofuels, and countless other things. So if the individual farmers got a new crop and MonSatan lost money on two fronts, all the better for everybody.

ban the shit instead.
It is a poison and should not be in our food supply.

My wish will never come true of course, but I personally HATE the stuff.

That's why I think it should be banned and taxed.

When I'm eating healthy for a while--and then I gorge on something with HFCS--I pay for it.

The next day, I am bloated, lethargic and I look like I've aged about 10 years. I'm literally
in an emotional fog for a day or so and I feel like my energy has been zapped.

I look totally like shit.

What the hell is in this stuff?

Enzymes are added to 100% corn syrup, and they convert the fructose into glucose (same thing your body does when you consume corn syrup, like Karo). Then, the fructose is cut into 100% corn syrup, to make a mixture. HFCS90, for example is about 90% fructose/10% glucose. HFCS42 is about 42% fructose/58% glucose.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012601831.html

"The use of mercury-contaminated caustic soda in the production of HFCS is common. The contamination occurs when mercury cells are used to produce caustic soda.

'The bad news is that nobody knows whether or not their soda or snack food contains HFCS made from ingredients like caustic soda contaminated with mercury. The good news is that mercury-free HFCS ingredients exist. Food companies just need a good push to only use those ingredients,' Wallinga said in his prepared statement."

The most recent (http://ehjournal.net/content/8/1/2) published this year, found that samples "contain levels of mercury ranging from below a detection limit of 0.005 to 0.570 micrograms mercury per gram of high fructose corn syrup. Average daily consumption of high fructose corn syrup is about 50 grams per person in the United States. With respect to total mercury exposure, it may be necessary to account for this source of mercury in the diet of children and sensitive populations."

They found that 31% of their samples had detectable levels of mercury (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/587466), but that's no more surprising than 11% of sampled water wells in New Jersey having high levels of mercury (http://www.balanceyournutrition.com/In_Focus_mercury_toxicity.htm).

Heavy metal poisoning is certainly a risk, and it should not be taken lightly. These studies suggest, but do not conclude, that a measure of caution is warranted for the consumption of some HFCS foods in large quantity, just like caution is warranted for those who eat large quantities of fish.

:puke: ! Admittedly HFCS wouldn't be such a problem if it weren't so pervasive.

Everybody needs to read the labels of the food they buy, so that they have a better idea of just how much HFCS they and their kids are consuming every day.

Our bodies don't get that we think HFCS is supposed to be a food, they think it's a toxin and attempt to process it that way.

And this is interesting, there are as many neurons in our digestive system as there are in our spinal cord. Brings new meaning to "trust your gut"!

Kids aren't getting fat on soda with real sugar in it, because soda with real sugar is almost impossible to find in the US.

If you eat real sugar, pretty soon your body tells you that you've had enough. With HFCS, it doesn't.

at least one synthetic chemical. While it's strictly true that HFCS doesn't occur in nature, I think it connotes a misleading impression. Bees, while making honey, catalyze sucrose in a similar fashion; honey is a fructose/glucose/sucrose mix that has a sweetness profile similar to HFCS53. Also, our bodies catalyze sucrose similarly, breaking it down into glucose and fructose.

The problem is, I think, not HFCS the product, but the prevalence of sugar (of any kind) in boxed and processed food and the overconsumption of those foods. Sucrose has about 4 kilocalories per gram but very little nutritional value. That means large quantities will fill you up, but offer no nutritional benefit. That is, sugar displaces nutrients in the diet.

While HFCS has less calories (about 3 kilocalories per gram) than sucrose, its consumption has increased. USDA data suggests that the Americans consumed on average 28.4 kg of HFCS in 2005, versus 26.7 kg of sucrose. So consumption is up (owing likely to its revalence in boxed foods), even though HFCS has fewer calories per gram. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/FoodAvailQueriable.aspx

Using that same USDA data, in total, our consumption of sugar has been increasing over time, which I think is the root of the problem:

. . . to the economy, families, culture, society in general, the middle class, poor, workers, etc. . . . happened AFTER 1979?

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM . . . :think: :think: :think:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/HughBeaumont/86

SATAN(s)?

on soda with HFCS! Promoting the tax as if it was a tax on HFCS...which it is not. And you aer saying that HFCS would not be taxed at all?
Which one is correct?

It would tax any soda without "artificial sweeteners," which presumably means diet soda would not be taxed. But HFCS has been demonstrated to be an artificial sweetener, itself, although it is definitely not for use by diabetics or dieters.

I honestly don't know, is some of it from sugar beets or something like that? Is it purely a chemical concoction? I thought it was just corn processed somehow to pull out all the sugars they could find, but that it was still basically a natural product in much the same sense that olive oil is a natural substance.

Corn syrup occurs natually in small amounts, but the high-fructose variety can only be found in laboratories. It does not exist in nature as far as I'm aware. Same goes for crack - you can find the raw cocaine material in coca leaves easily enough, but it still needs to be chemically processed in order to produce the purified form of cocaine known as crack.

It IS purified and crystallized from coca plants.

It's the same process that's used for table sugar.

I understand that cocaine is made using a paste from the plants and then some other chemicals (why am I thinking terpentine?) in processing into a brand new material that is whever it is they get next and then they do whatever until it becomes a powder. As you can see I don't know jack shit about it other than its a crude but basically manufactured product that did not exist in nature before. When I said olive oil I meant just that sort of comparison, where generally a press or even a chemical separation process is used but the oil was in the plant and no new chemical was produced that became the final product.

Cocaine leaves are macerated into a paste, you're correct. Since cocaine has a tertiary amine, it can be seperated from the crude plant material by forming the salt with sulfuric acid.

In free basing or crack cocaine production, the amine is deprotonated to precipitate the cocaine out of solution.

Either way, you wind up with pure cocaine, the same stuff that's in coca leaves.

Kind of like cane sugar, only from corn.

It's perfectly natural.

That stuff's natural, I believe, and I have no beef with it. HFCS is a completely different critter.

HFCS is just fructose and glucose. Perfectly natural sugars. Just like what you get in honey, or orange juice, or apples.

Sucrose is a disaccharide of glucose and fructose with an α 1,2 glycosidic linkage. The molecular formula of sucrose is C12H22O11.

HFCS, on the other hand, is produced by milling corn to produce corn starch, then processing that corn starch to yield corn syrup which is almost entirely glucose, and then adding enzymes (including alpha-amylase, glucoamylase, and glucose isomerase) which change the glucose into fructose. The resulting syrup (after enzyme conversion) contains approximately 90% fructose and is HFCS 90. To make the other common forms of HFCS (HFCS 55 and HFCS 42) the HFCS 90 is mixed with 100% glucose corn syrup in the appropriate ratios to form the desired HFCS.

Fresh corn has sugars- glucose, fructose, etc. When you pick the corn enzymes in the corn begin to turn the corn sugars into corn starch. The corn starch is harvested and enzymes are used to turn the starch back into simple sugars.

So by the time it ends up in your product you've got 55% natural fructose, and 45% natural glucose.

As opposed to table sugar, which is 99% sucrose, which like wiki says becomes 50% fructose and 50% glucose when you eat it.

Or orange juice, which is about 55% fructose and 45% glucose (i.e. high fructose orange syrup).

Or apples, also about 55% fructose and 45% glucose.

Or agave nectar, big hit among the woo woo crowd, 95% fructose, 5% glucose.

Corn (natural) + grinding (natural) = corn starch (natural)
Corn starch (natural) + blending & aerating (natural) + water (natural) = corn syrup (natural)
corn syrup (natural) + enzymes (natural) + hydrolyzing catalysts soda & acid (natural) = fructose (natural)
fructose (natural) + corn syrup (natural) = HFCS (natural)

He's fine with Karo syrup, which is a trade name for enzymatically hydrolyzed corn starch. It's high glucose corn syrup.

Hoo boy.

And new combinations, even from ingredients that are benign by themselves, may not be either.

But it means that it's not an artificial sweetner, as the OP suggest.

It's also not a toxin, as some very silly people suggest.

It's not like they hide it.

That shit causes no end of problems.

I say tax it.

:dem:

-Laelth

from being labeled "natural".

7 UP, for example... now advertises itself as "100 % natural flavors". Well they might use "natural" lemon & lime extracts, but there's nothing natural about the poison sweetener in it.

But then 7 Up is now owned by the Bush Crime Family/Carlyle Group, so you probably shouldn't drink it anyway.

water: natural

carbonation: natural

fructose: natural

glucose: natural

citric acid: natural

potassium citrate: natural

natural flavors: natural

natural when it comes out of a male Bovine ass... not so much when it comes off a Monsanto shill's keyboard.

Here's an example of shill chemistry 101:

Hydrogen is highly combustible. Oxygen aids combustion. Therefore, water (H2O) must be the most explosive substance on earth. :crazy:

Water's the end product of the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen.

Completely natural and safe.

Just like fructose, glucose, citric acid, potassium citrate, carbon dioxide, and so on.

"Here's an example of shill chemistry 101"

Shill chemistry? What the hell is that?

Chemistry is either right or wrong. I'm right, you're wrong.

They are at least as harmful and as likely to cause obesity as are the non-diet ones.

If they want to tax soft drinks, go ahead - but tax the whole lot of them, including all those nasty diet drinks. These are not healthy!

And yes, I think there's something to what you say about HFCS. At least something to look into, but I imagine there's a powerful group ready to fight that one.