Chemical sweetener

How do you take your sugar?

By
June 29, 2007

In her 1992 book The Story of Corn, Betty Fussell wrote about corn from many perspectives, including that of her Midwestern family: “Like the Indians, we too were the people of corn, but our corn was synthesized at the molecular level and extruded into the marketplace as the coin of the realm.”

She continued:

By manipulating the glucose units [in corn] with an enzyme derived from — unlikely as it sounds — Streptomyces bacteria, the refiner can get a supersweet fructose called High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). Today, this is where the king’s share of cornstarch goes, because this syrup is the sweetener of choice (as long as it is cheaper than price-supported cane sugar) for the soft drink, ice cream and frozen dessert industries.

In the 15 years since Fussell’s book appeared, little has changed — except that we now consume HFCS in all kinds of processed foods, not just desserts and drinks. As Michael Pollan wrote in The Omnivore’s Dilemma, “Read the food labels in your kitchen and you’ll find that HFCS has insinuated itself into every corner of the pantry: not just into our soft drinks and snack foods, where you would expect to find it, but into the ketchup and mustard, the breads and cereals, the relishes and crackers, the hot dogs and hams.”

Pollan is no fan of HFCS, and neither is Marion Nestle; in her book What to Eat, she reported, “In 1980, when rates of obesity were just starting to rise, the U.S. food supply provided an average of 30 gallons of sugary soft drinks per capita, but the amount rose to 35 gallons in 2003. The food supply now provides an average of 200 calories per person per day from the high-fructose corn syrup in soft drinks alone.”

Nestle isn’t so worried about the fact that HFCS is synthesized; as she points out, when you eat it your body simply breaks it down like any other sugar. But both Nestle and Pollan are bothered by the fact that we eat ever-increasing amounts of the stuff. And some folks are really bothered by the fact that HFCS is not, well, natural.

As Melanie Warner reported in the New York Times last summer, many consumers now link high-fructose corn syrup to our rising rates of obesity. “In the news media and on myriad websites, high-fructose corn syrup has been labeled ‘the Devil’s candy,’ a ‘sinister invention,’ ‘the crack of sweeteners,’ and ‘crud,’” Warner wrote. “But is it really that bad?”

Warner quoted Walter Willett as saying, “There’s no substantial evidence to support the idea that high-fructose corn syrup is somehow responsible for obesity.” Rather, along with Pollan and Nestle, Willett is worried that we’re simply eating too much junk in general. Because corn is a subsidized crop in the U.S., HFCS is cheap for manufacturers to use, meaning that products containing it are also cheap. We buy more, we eat more. And hey, big surprise, we get fat.

Advertisement
How to Cook Everything ad

Refined cane sugar, as Warner points out, actually has more fructose (the sugar that supposedly makes us pack on the pounds) than HFCS. But cane sugar, in many camps, has the virtue of age:

Among natural-foods enthusiasts and many nutritionists, there is a belief that the foods humans have been consuming for hundreds or even thousands of years are better handled by our bodies than many of the modern and chemically derived concoctions introduced into the food supply in the last 60 or so years.

So maybe HFCS really is “the crack of sweeteners,” a relatively new, untested product with unknown long-term effects on the human body.

In May, the Economist reported that scientists have identified causal links between HFCS and obesity. “Fructose apparently tricks the brain into thinking you are hungrier than you actually are,” the magazine stated.

“It’s not that the fructose itself is bad for you,” the Economist continued. “After all, that’s what you get from eating fruit. But there’s just so much of it around these days that it’s hard to avoid consuming it to excess.”

Subscribe
Comments
There are 4 comments on this item
Add a comment
1. by Jack on Jun 30, 2007 at 10:59 PM PDT

I think it’s pretty clear that HFCS is the crack of sweeteners; drinks made with it now come in 48 oz single serving containers. But note how water, orange juice, apple juice, milk, chocolate milk, and, well, most every drink not sweetened with HFCS comes in MUCH smaller single serving sizes. Still. Perhaps, perhaps, PERHAPS it’s because HFCS creates thirst for more HFCS beverage rather than quenching thirst?! (Melanie Warner ?somehow? missed this!)

And this, ““It’s not that the fructose itself is bad for you,” the Economist continued. “After all, that’s what you get from eating fruit. But there’s just so much of it around these days that it’s hard to avoid consuming it to excess.”” is pretty laughable. Fructose is not HFCS. People didn’t go “Wow, there’s a lot of soda around, so let’s consume 5 or 10 times as much as we used to.” No, the ingredients changed from sugar to HFCS and, well, it became so addictive they put lots of CUP HOLDERS(!) in your car so that every person in your car can drink it while traveling! (I could go on...)

2. by anonymous on Jul 2, 2007 at 12:03 PM PDT

I think the statement by the economist is pretty laughable as well. The other thing on top of all this is that these sweetners are so chemically altered to resemble real sugar that in fact for some bodies their brain believes it is sugar. So instead of processing the no calorie sweeteners as chemical, some bodie’s process it as sugar. This is maybe why people are obese, what one person thinks as “good” for them, in fact isn’t.

3. by radish on Jul 3, 2007 at 12:33 PM PDT

i’ve been trying to create a HFCS free household by slowly getting rid of foods with the ingredient - and we’re mostly done. With the exception of ketchup and a handful of other stuff, I think we’re doing pretty well. We eat whole foods only, so that helps. I have a sneaky suspicion that there is a direct correlation bw the overly abundant presence of HFCS in our foods and the spike in cases of Type II diabetes.

4. by Holly on Jan 3, 2008 at 6:42 AM PST

I read in Good Calories, Bad Calories that HFCS is particularly easy for the body to process into fat--something about insulin levels being particularly sensitive to the high fructose levels, and the sucrose being particularly easy to convert into fat. I think I got that right.

This I do remember: When the brain perceives that we are tasting something sweet, even a non-caloric sweetener like aspartame, it figures we’re eating and triggers the pancreas to dump insulin into the blood. This 1) stops the release of energy from our body’s fat stores and 2) clears out any sugars already in the blood. This means that 20-30 minutes after you drink that diet cola, you will be hungry, regardless of the last time you ate. This is a big part of why cola drinkers are fat--even the diet coke addicts.

Add a comment

Think before you type

Culinate welcomes comments that are on-topic, clean, and courteous. For the benefit of the community we reserve the right to delete comments that contain advertising, personal attacks, profanity, or which are thinly disguised attempts to promote another website.

Please enter your comment

Format: Bare URLs are automatically linked; use this style: [http://www.example.com "place text to be linked here"] for prettier links. You may specify *bold* or _italic_ text. No HTML please.

Please identify yourself

Not a member? Sign up!

Please prove that you’re not a computer


Advertisement
Culinate 8

Kale in the raw

Eight versions of kale salad

Eight ways to spin everyone’s favorite salad.

Subscribe
Graze: Bites from the Site
First Person

The secret sharer

A father’s legacy

The Culinate Interview

Mollie Katzen

The vegetarian-cooking pioneer

Reviews

Down South

Barbecue, tamales, cocktails, and more

Local Flavors

A winter romesco sauce

Good on everything

Editor’s Choice