What’s the deal with high-fructose corn syrup?

by Christopher Wharton

On the Scale of Food Ingredients We Now Consider to be Pure Evil, it seems that high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a solid 9.8.  It makes some sense, I suppose.  You find the stuff (nearly without fail) in sodas and sweets; it contributes calories, but not nutrients, to the foods and beverages it’s in; and it’s the perfect representative of our Processed Food Culture, the antithesis of a diet based on fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.

Then again, it’s just carbohydrate, no different in caloric density than any other naturally-occurring sugar, like the fructose found in fruits.  So, should we hate the stuff, talk about it behind its back, and shun it at social gatherings?

I say yes.  Well, kinda.  Consuming HFCS consistently every single day will not kill you, assuming it’s something like a single soda or sweet of some kind.  If it’s more like two sodas and two sweets, well, you better be eating healthy otherwise and getting activity on a regular basis.  If it’s multiple sodas and a variety of sweets (or even fewer numbers of these things but in larger portions)…well, now it’s not really about HFCS.  Now it’s about a dietary pattern associated with weight gain and increased risk for various other conditions and diseases.   

I see HFCS just like any other food component that’s been singled out and demonized in the recent past.  It’s not really bad all by itself. But, if it’s predominant in the diet and thus a marker of a poor dietary pattern, then it’s a bad guy by association.  At the population level, the high rate of HFCS consumption IS suggestive of a poor dietary pattern.  So, if demonizing it helps people to decide which foods to minimize in the diet (thus slightly changing their overall dietary pattern), I’m all for it.

Comments

[Shefaly]

Christopher:

From the point of view of a person criss-crossing over the Atlantic, the ABSENCE of HFCS as a sweetener in drinks and sweets in the UK is the big deal about HFCS to me. It is a uniquely North American thing to most of us in Britain, one with at least some unpleasant associations with agricultural subsidies.

Measure for measure, HFCS may be comparable to sugar but it is much cheaper than sugar, and definitely contributes to a longer shelf life in products. *That* is, economically speaking, a very big deal.

I know your post focuses on nutrition and sweetener value of HFCS and why it should be the flogging post for all. But I am sure you agree that no food related decisions and discussions are as simple as that. Combine that with the population level aggregate consumption and incipient correlation with health metrics, and the picture is, if not complete, getting there.

[Mara]

Well, I'm not sure "demonizing" HFCS will matter much. Why? Because it's really the type of food that often contains HFCS that many people like to eat a great deal of. Demonizing HFCS might mean that if someone eats a lot of cake that is made without the stuff, they may think: hey, it's not such a big deal. At least it doesn't contain HFCS! Then again, I think most people know that those foods and desserts that often taste like heaven are also (sigh) the very same ones which must be carefully limited in one's diet. Demonizing HFCS could turn out to be a distraction from the main focus: limiting sweets and other simple carbs. Unless HFCS is worse for health reasons than sugar, I don't really see what all the bother over it is about. I also don't think sugar should be demonized either. The real problem is this: people really like to eat high fat/high sugar foods because they taste good. Dr. Rocchio makes a case for them being addictive, and I think she is right (although I do not think they match the level of addictive potential of, say, heroin). Demonizing anything can begin to seem too rigid, so I think the path of moderation (boring as it can be, without the extremes of either none or too much) is much more reasonable to people.

[David Specter]

This attitude that "a little bit" of junk food "in moderation" is okay has got to stop. a) It has been scientifically proven that people do not know the meaning of moderation. b) A little bit of poison is too much poison.

A single 12 oz. can of soda contains the equivalent of 10 teaspoons of sugar and over three times the calories of a serving of chicken noodle soup. If you serve a child Campbell's chicken noodle soup and an A&W root beer for lunch, that child is getting over 3/4 of his calories from HFCS--and that's a typical meal for American kids. They may even have two sodas, some "fruit snacks," and an ice cream. Maybe mom will cook some Kraft macaroni and cheese, thinking the kids haven't gotten enough "food" in their fat little stomaches.

We need to demonize HFCS. It's junk food. Non-nutritional poison. There is no good reason anyone should be drinking or eating it.

You don't see an obesity problem in North Korea. Do you know why? The U.S. embargo doesn't allow them to import sugary sodas.

It's time we impose an embargo on U.S. citizens. Ban the wholesale commercial distribution of junk food outright.

[WG]

Before ostracizing HFCS consider a few salient facts not mentioned in your post. First (and rarely mentioned) HFCS has a lower glycemic index than sucrose. Not that I’m a huge proponent of the glycemic index as a clinical or dietary tool for the average consumer, but fructose by itself does not require insulin for entry into the cell and in fact falls lower in the glycolytic pathway producing somewhat less energy than glucose. Let’s see, doesn’t require insulin, enters the cell lower in the energy chain (fewer calories) is sweeter gram-for-gram than other carbohydrate sweeteners . . . who would deny its place in the food chain? Oh but I digress, HFCS as the post reflects upon, is Pure Evil.

Second, fructose is the primary component of honey and many naturally occurring sweet fruits and fruit juices. Apple juice is primarily sweet due to the fructose content. Should we refer to apple juice as High Fructose Juice of the Apple or HFJOTA? To say it’s evil in cola and industrially produced cakes and fine in honey or apple and orange juice is tantamount to food component discrimination. More than that it’s a form of denial; the sweet food product is less the problem than the conditioned eating (and drinking) reflex most Westerners have adopted.

The proximate cause of over-consumption is not the component drawing our ire in this post, i.e. HFCS, but rather our conspicuous consumption of nearly everything sweetened, flavored, deep fat fried, raised with hooves and topped with whipped cream. HFCS is a proxy for our persistent focus on foods and beverages. After all, ethanol is a horrible component of wine if over-consumed; that said I’m not avoiding a glass of wine with dinner tonight.

[Chris]

Hi WG,
Thanks for the comment. Sounds like we actually end up agreeing, after all is said and done. We both recognize a dietary pattern, rather than a dietary component, is what is at issue. You make the point that the problem is over-consumption of sweetened, fattened foods. I make the point that prevalence of HFCS in the diet is a marker of over-consumption of these same foods. Either way, limiting HFCS in the diet probably means eating fewer processed foods, and that's never a bad goal.

[Mara]

WG writes: "Let’s see, doesn’t require insulin, enters the cell lower in the energy chain (fewer calories) is sweeter gram-for-gram than other carbohydrate sweeteners..."
Interesting, as this seems to suggest that HFCS is actually better to consume than sugar (although both should be consumed in limited amounts, as Dr. Wharton points out). I disagree about the "hooves" thing, however: for many, eating meat actually helps keep sugar levels stable while also keeping appetites in check. I do not wish debate this, (people against eating meat and Pro eating meat can be very hostile to each other's ideas). I just want to point out that everyone has a different way of reacting to foods.

[Jack]

Christopher -

Here's the thing: HFCS beverages, like Coke, seem to be consumed in ever-increasing quantities (unlike, say, orange juice - people don't consume 44oz or even 16 oz it). Explain how this isn't because there is HFCS in it?

Also, it's not because of marketing, sloth lifestyle - sure, those contribute a bit, but it's not primary reason people went from drinking 6 oz or 8 oz to multiple bottles or cans a day of HFCS beverages.

[KC]

It is everywhere! Even in food that contains sugar, like CORN FLAKES .. and Why put in in Rice Krispies? (Snap, krackle and bland)..It is beyond soda, it is in bread, condiments, sugar, kids juices, some nutrional bars, etc.........This is a poison......... A genetically modified one!