Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/15/2010 6:58:00 PM EDT
http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/14/high-fructose-corn-syrup-might-get-a-makeover/

High Fructose Corn Syrup Wants A New Name



By Meredith Melnick Tuesday, September 14th, 2010 | 0 comments

High fructose corn syrup — an ingredient in everything from soda to ketchup to pickles — has such a bad reputation that the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) wants to change the name of the popular sweetener to "corn sugar.”

The CRA argues that high fructose corn syrup is simply sugar and is no more harmful than any other popular full-calorie sweetener, like sugars derived from beets or sugar cane.

While some data links high fructose corn syrup to higher rates of obesity, some cancers and diabetes, compared with sugar, the evidence is inconclusive — though that doesn’t ease the public’s fears. The AP reports that "Americans’ consumption of corn syrup has fallen to a 20-year low on consumer concerns that it is more harmful or more likely to cause obesity than ordinary sugar, perceptions for which there is little scientific evidence.”

But some nutritionists and endocrinologists who specialize in diabetes argue that high fructose corn syrup tricks people into eating more food. When glucose (contained in sugar) enters the bloodstream, it stimulates production of insulin and of a hormone called leptin, which signals to the brain that the body has eaten enough. By contrast, the fructose contained in high fructose corn syrup doesn’t stimulate the production of leptin. Studies also show that fructose is processed into fat more quickly than is glucose.

Due to manufacturing, high fructose corn syrup contains 45% glucose, which is found naturally in corn, and 55% fructose. The body processes these sugars differently.

The American Medical Association says there is not enough evidence to suggest that high fructose corn syrup is linked to poor health. And other experts argue that other full-calorie sweeteners are no better.

"Soda pop sweetened with sugar is every bit as conducive to obesity as soda pop sweetened with high fructose corn syrup,” Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told the AP.

The real problem is getting sugar — of all kinds — out of our diet. Because high fructose corn syrup has a long shelf life and is cheaper to produce than cane sugar, it’s a popular ingredient in wide variety of processed and packaged foods. The U.S. Department of Agriculture calculated that the average American consumes 35.7 pounds of high fructose corn syrup per year.

For more, see the Mayo Clinic’s advice on high fructose corn syrup consumption.

Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:00:12 PM EDT
FATTYSAUCE
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:02:57 PM EDT
is it really cheaper to produce than cane or beet sugar? or is that just because of the fucking subsidies?
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:03:13 PM EDT
Very subsidized sugary corn product
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:04:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By lokt:
is it really cheaper to produce than cane or beet sugar? or is that just because of the fucking subsidies?


Probably subsidies.
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:04:05 PM EDT
Standard Capacity Corn Syrup
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:06:10 PM EDT
Crap
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:06:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2010 7:08:01 PM EDT by Jmmoney]

Originally Posted By Lancair:
Originally Posted By lokt:
is it really cheaper to produce than cane or beet sugar? or is that just because of the fucking subsidies?


Probably subsidies.

Its a combination of subsidies and sugar tariffs. Protectionist idiocy at its finest.
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:08:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By lokt:
is it really cheaper to produce than cane or beet sugar? or is that just because of the fucking subsidies?


Plenty of subsidies and it is also cost effective due to its stability (extends the shelflife of many products considerably).

Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:08:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jmmoney:

Originally Posted By Lancair:
Originally Posted By lokt:
is it really cheaper to produce than cane or beet sugar? or is that just because of the fucking subsidies?


Probably subsidies.

Its a combination of subsidies and sugar tariffs. Protectionist idiocy.

Last I heard Americans pay about double the world market price for sugar due to tariffs.

Thanks uncle sam.
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:10:26 PM EDT
Call it whatever you want. Crap is crap.

I'm sticking with real sugar.
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:11:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DanTSX:
FATTYSAUCE


at your reply, and at the thought of your avatar saying it.
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:12:48 PM EDT
"Sugar" is technically sucrose. "Corn sugar" is mostly fructose. So yes, it is a sweetener, but it's not plain ol' sugar as the CGA would have you believe.

Fructose is for fruit, you need the fiber with the fructose to effectively metabolize it. Fructose sans fiber is bad mojo.

Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:16:04 PM EDT
Lardasspartame
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:18:19 PM EDT
This is a poorly conceived campaign...

CORNY is a lot easier to say than HFCS.

Mark my words.
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:18:24 PM EDT
How about poison?
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:20:10 PM EDT
peak corn syrup


Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:20:17 PM EDT
The fact that they want to change the name just affirms that they acknowledge nobody wants it in their food, or more broadly, nobody wants it to be in 90% of everything you buy that wasn't dug up from the ground or plucked from a tree before hitting the shelves.
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:23:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GC7:
The fact that they want to change the name just affirms that they acknowledge nobody wants it in their food, or more broadly, nobody wants it to be in 90% of everything you buy that wasn't dug up from the ground or plucked from a tree before hitting the shelves.

I am of the belief that it really does not matter what sugar you put in your body at high levels. HFCS is just the easy target for people that over eat and become fat.
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:24:57 PM EDT
Being allergic to corn syrup and spending a fortune over my lifetime buying products without it, I say fuck'em!
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:25:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2010 7:26:47 PM EDT by GC7]

Originally Posted By E-Mag:

Originally Posted By GC7:
The fact that they want to change the name just affirms that they acknowledge nobody wants it in their food, or more broadly, nobody wants it to be in 90% of everything you buy that wasn't dug up from the ground or plucked from a tree before hitting the shelves.

I am of the belief that it really does not matter what sugar you put in your body at high levels. HFCS is just the easy target for people that over eat and become fat.

Agree, but too much is too much, especially when government subsidies and a sugar embargo are largely to blame. I'm all for free market capitalism, but when an entire industry has exploited politicians for decades to get its product into every.fucking.thing, enough is enough.

Look familiar?



Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:29:28 PM EDT
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and a poison by any other name would be still as toxic.

Okay, HFCS isn't really poison, but you get the point.

I just can't bring myself to fathom that these people seriously believe calling it "corn sugar" will make people say "Well! At least it's not high fructose corn syrup! Johnny, ring me up for a pallet!"

_MaH
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:31:14 PM EDT
How about Farm Welfare Syrup?
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:34:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mhoffman:
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and a poison by any other name would be still as toxic.

Okay, HFCS isn't really poison, but you get the point.

I just can't bring myself to fathom that these people seriously believe calling it "corn sugar" will make people say "Well! At least it's not high fructose corn syrup! Johnny, ring me up for a pallet!"

_MaH



yea but a Hitler mustache didn't hurt anybody, and you can't have one still to this day
It's no worse than sugar, but yet everybody thinks it is, too much is too much, even too much arfcom is bad (did I just say that)
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:36:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By KentuckyGunGuy:
Originally Posted By mhoffman:
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and a poison by any other name would be still as toxic.

Okay, HFCS isn't really poison, but you get the point.

I just can't bring myself to fathom that these people seriously believe calling it "corn sugar" will make people say "Well! At least it's not high fructose corn syrup! Johnny, ring me up for a pallet!"

_MaH



yea but a Hitler mustache didn't hurt anybody, and you can't have one still to this day
It's no worse than sugar, but yet everybody thinks it is, too much is too much, even too much arfcom is bad (did I just say that)


Aaaaaannnnnnnddddddd that's where you lost all credibility

_MaH
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:37:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mhoffman:
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and a poison by any other name would be still as toxic.

Okay, HFCS isn't really poison, but you get the point.

I just can't bring myself to fathom that these people seriously believe calling it "corn sugar" will make people say "Well! At least it's not high fructose corn syrup! Johnny, ring me up for a pallet!"

_MaH

Yet that's exactly what they did with MSG.
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:38:21 PM EDT
Maybe it really isn't any more harmful than table sugar. I don't know. There is some evidence which suggests otherwise, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt for a sec.

If you're guzzling shittons of sucrose daily, if it's jammed into everything from juice and soda to fucking sandwich bread, you're still going to get fat as fuck. There is no good reason to be chowing down on as much sugar as we, as a nation, do. Why is America so fat? Because we make sugar into a goddamn lifestyle.
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:42:22 PM EDT
Product rebranding happens all the time. Kentucky Fried Chicken became KFC when popular sentiment decided that fried things were bad. Rapeseed oil wouldn't be a big seller, so it became canola oil.

Since everything in food today needs be "low" - calories, fat, sugar, etc, having a product called High Fructose anything gives off a negative vibe, so I can certainly understand why they are changing it.

However, I agree with the common thought that HFCS is worse than cane or beet sugar. Whether that is ever proven for certain remains to be seen.

Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:44:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Melvinator2k0:
How about Farm Welfare Syrup?


Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:46:09 PM EDT
Lots-o'-fructose syrup of maize.
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:46:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By gonzo_beyondo:

Originally Posted By mhoffman:
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and a poison by any other name would be still as toxic.

Okay, HFCS isn't really poison, but you get the point.

I just can't bring myself to fathom that these people seriously believe calling it "corn sugar" will make people say "Well! At least it's not high fructose corn syrup! Johnny, ring me up for a pallet!"

_MaH

Yet that's exactly what they did with MSG.


And I still don't buy any food products with Madison Square Garden in the ingredients.

_MaH
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:48:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GC7:
The fact that they want to change the name just affirms that they acknowledge nobody wants it in their food, or more broadly, nobody wants it to be in 90% of everything you buy that wasn't dug up from the ground or plucked from a tree before hitting the shelves.


Nobody wants it because they're idiots who are gullible enough to think that HFCS is making America fat.
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:50:07 PM EDT
How about diabetic inducing sweet stuff.

Bilster
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:51:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SNorman:
Originally Posted By GC7:
The fact that they want to change the name just affirms that they acknowledge nobody wants it in their food, or more broadly, nobody wants it to be in 90% of everything you buy that wasn't dug up from the ground or plucked from a tree before hitting the shelves.


Nobody wants it because they're idiots who are gullible enough to think that HFCS is making America fat.


HFCS does not cause the same feeling of "being full" that cane sugar does. The result is an over-consumption of the product that contains it, which results in weight gain.

Now, it can be argued that this over-consumption is not the fault of HFCS, but the fault of the consumer's lack of personal discipline.

Along that same line of thought, however, it can also be argued that the consumer eschewing products containing HFCS is a demonstration of their (perhaps newfound) personal discipline.

_MaH
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:52:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sic_ness:
Originally Posted By Melvinator2k0:
How about Farm Welfare Syrup?




Huge Farming Corporation Subsidies-sauce?

Why not just call it what it is...

Communism
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:54:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Sixpack595:
Originally Posted By sic_ness:
Originally Posted By Melvinator2k0:
How about Farm Welfare Syrup?




Huge Farming Corporation Subsidies-sauce?

Why not just call it what it is...

Communism


Soylent Green is people!

High Fructose Corn Syrup is communism!

Kind of has a nice ring to it, but I gotta have more cow bell...

_MaH
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:55:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2010 7:56:25 PM EDT by jrollins]
It's time to declare WAR on the CORN FARMERS.

First they steal our money with government subsidies.

Then they poison us with HFCS. Which is of course cheaper than cane sugar only because of the subsidies.

Then they poison the air and, damage our cars, empty our wallets faster, and destroy the environment with their corn-derived ethanol in the gasoline.

Oh, and then to make matters worse, they create a genetic mutant of the corn we all knew and loved. All hail the glory of Monsanto, who commits genocide against natural corn and creates a mutant that poisons the body of those who eat it, and enslaves the few independent farms that are left.

DEATH TO CORN!!!!!! LEAVE NO EAR UNTOUCHED!!!!

Have you ever seen a commie eat an ear of corn? We must destroy Monsanto and save our precious bodily fluids from this poison!
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:56:23 PM EDT
They did that with MSG too.

It's not good for ya... tell ya that much.
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:57:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KentuckyGunGuy:
Originally Posted By mhoffman:
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and a poison by any other name would be still as toxic.

Okay, HFCS isn't really poison, but you get the point.

I just can't bring myself to fathom that these people seriously believe calling it "corn sugar" will make people say "Well! At least it's not high fructose corn syrup! Johnny, ring me up for a pallet!"

_MaH



yea but a Hitler mustache didn't hurt anybody, and you can't have one still to this day
It's no worse than sugar, but yet everybody thinks it is, too much is too much, even too much arfcom is bad (did I just say that)


Yes, it is worse than sugar per metabolic methods, but we digress since it seems you have worse issues to deal with .....
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:57:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By grasshoppercowboy:
Being allergic to corn syrup and spending a fortune over my lifetime buying products without it, I say fuck'em!


I bet you're not overweight.

Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:57:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mhoffman:
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and a poison by any other name would be still as toxic.

Okay, HFCS isn't really poison, but you get the point.

I just can't bring myself to fathom that these people seriously believe calling it "corn sugar" will make people say "Well! At least it's not high fructose corn syrup! Johnny, ring me up for a pallet!"

_MaH

I think you're underestimating the intelligence the majority of US consumers.
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 7:59:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TheGunCollector:

Originally Posted By mhoffman:
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and a poison by any other name would be still as toxic.

Okay, HFCS isn't really poison, but you get the point.

I just can't bring myself to fathom that these people seriously believe calling it "corn sugar" will make people say "Well! At least it's not high fructose corn syrup! Johnny, ring me up for a pallet!"

_MaH

I think you're underestimating the intelligence the majority of US consumers.


You know, you bring up a good point.

It actually brings up a question that haunts me on a daily basis...

"Does not exploiting the hell out of incompetent people to get filthy rich make me a good person or an absolute idiot?"

_MaH
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 8:02:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lokt:
is it really cheaper to produce than cane or beet sugar? or is that just because of the fucking subsidies?

It's all about the subsidies.
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 8:03:55 PM EDT
There is a very, very big CORN LOBBY in our Gov. All the Libs are trying to turn it. Maybe for the better? Maybe for the LAND, kinda like with beef? I still prefer Cain sugar myself. I've been using sorghum syrup lately. Not too bad, and made in MS.
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 8:07:33 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 8:08:28 PM EDT
How about "Diabeetus"?
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 8:17:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2010 8:18:30 PM EDT by E-Mag]

Originally Posted By GC7:

Originally Posted By E-Mag:

Originally Posted By GC7:
The fact that they want to change the name just affirms that they acknowledge nobody wants it in their food, or more broadly, nobody wants it to be in 90% of everything you buy that wasn't dug up from the ground or plucked from a tree before hitting the shelves.

I am of the belief that it really does not matter what sugar you put in your body at high levels. HFCS is just the easy target for people that over eat and become fat.

Agree, but too much is too much, especially when government subsidies and a sugar embargo are largely to blame. I'm all for free market capitalism, but when an entire industry has exploited politicians for decades to get its product into every.fucking.thing, enough is enough.

Look familiar?

http://www.treehugger.com/idiocracy-gatorade.jpg


Funny I could argue that you are falling into "it's what plants crave" group just in reverse. Seriously it is all bad for you the key is moderation! FHCS or sugar will not adversely affect you if you rarely drink sodas it will become a problem if you drink a 6 pack or more a day. Now you will get no argument that the government has fueled the spread of corn products from HFCS to ethanol with subsidies and tariffs. I think the underling problem is people like sweet things and consume too much of them.


EDIT> also it is the electrolytes that are fucking up the soil in that movie no mention of HFCS
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 8:23:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2010 8:24:47 PM EDT by GC7]

Originally Posted By E-Mag:

Originally Posted By GC7:

Originally Posted By E-Mag:

Originally Posted By GC7:
The fact that they want to change the name just affirms that they acknowledge nobody wants it in their food, or more broadly, nobody wants it to be in 90% of everything you buy that wasn't dug up from the ground or plucked from a tree before hitting the shelves.

I am of the belief that it really does not matter what sugar you put in your body at high levels. HFCS is just the easy target for people that over eat and become fat.

Agree, but too much is too much, especially when government subsidies and a sugar embargo are largely to blame. I'm all for free market capitalism, but when an entire industry has exploited politicians for decades to get its product into every.fucking.thing, enough is enough.

Look familiar?

http://www.treehugger.com/idiocracy-gatorade.jpg


Funny I could argue that you are falling into "it's what plants crave" group just in reverse. Seriously it is all bad for you the key is moderation! FHCS or sugar will not adversely affect you if you rarely drink sodas it will become a problem if you drink a 6 pack or more a day. Now you will get no argument that the government has fueled the spread of corn products from HFCS to ethanol with subsidies and tariffs. I think the underling problem is people like sweet things and consume too much of them.


EDIT> also it is the electrolytes that are fucking up the soil in that movie no mention of HFCS

I quit soda 2 years ago and haven't looked back, but even iced tea, green tea, peach iced tea, fruit juice... it all has HFCS. Then, if I want to get some snack bars to keep around for when I get hungry at work, I have to sort through boxes and boxes of HFCS-infused shit at the grocery store before I find something that uses regular sugar.

I'll expand my dislike of HFCS to include artificial sweeteners like sorbitol and splenda... apparently the only way companies can make "healthy" food is by substituting regular sugar with synthetic or plant-derived sweeteners. How about using sugar, but only half or 1/3?

Lately I've been buying this stuff because it gives me a flavorful drink and 1 serving (8 oz) is only 50 calories vs. 180 of a typical O.J.



*edit - And a preemptive "screw off" to the "water only" crowd. Some of us enjoy drinking liquids that have "flavor".


Link Posted: 9/15/2010 8:24:29 PM EDT
I was reading this at work in the paper...

I raged so goddamn hard...
Link Posted: 9/15/2010 8:25:51 PM EDT
Soylent Yellow.

Link Posted: 9/15/2010 8:26:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2010 8:27:21 PM EDT by keroppl]
Originally Posted By E-Mag:

Originally Posted By GC7:
The fact that they want to change the name just affirms that they acknowledge nobody wants it in their food, or more broadly, nobody wants it to be in 90% of everything you buy that wasn't dug up from the ground or plucked from a tree before hitting the shelves.

I am of the belief that it really does not matter what sugar you put in your body at high levels. HFCS is just the easy target for people that over eat and become fat.


No, the problem with hfcs is the fact that while its made from the same molecules as sugar, fructose and glucose, it lacks the bond between them that sugar has. This means it takes less work for the body to metabolize and if you aren't expending energy it goes straight into storage (fat).

Plus it encourages stupid subsidies and tariffs.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top