Science Says High-Fructose Corn Syrup Is Pretty Much The Worst Thing Ever

[Pharaoh]

Those spoilsport researchers at Princeton are off spreading the word that sweet, delicious high-fructose corn syrup is as bad for your diet as Taylor Swift music is for your soul. The substance, found in soda, cookies, salad dressing and pretty much everything else that tastes good, is worse for you than fat or sucrose.

From the Princeton story:

“
In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.

"Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn't true, at least under the conditions of our tests," said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. "When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."

http://consumerist.com/2010/03/science-says-high-fructose-corn-syrup-is-pretty-much-the-worst-thing-ever.html

>

[taught_me_patience]

1. Hydrogenated oils are pretty bad too

They seek and destroy arteries.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Oh om'on if you only exercised and ate less

:sarcasm:

Don't worry, they will come...

I mean science, shmienzy, who cares?

And you know what, cue next in the list all the GMO and other crap.

We have had a rise in things like autoimmune diseases... I don't think this is a coincidence.

[bullwinkle428]

3. ...

:popcorn: <--- genuine salt & butter (no HFCS sweetener)

[Missy Vixen]

6. Can I sit with you?

:popcorn:

I'll bring the filtered water to drink. If you really want one, I can throw in a bottle of Jones Soda, which uses cane sugar. Green Apple is the best.

WORD to the person who said there's 12 things in the entire store that do not have HFCS. It takes awhile to read the labels, but we're doing it.

[Kalyke]

122. If you'll get me a bottle of the Jones Soda rootbeer, I'll bring

the Arnold's bread - it doesn't have that HFCS in it, either.

:hi:

[Missy Vixen]

125. You got it.

I'll be bringing some Dave's Killer Bread along, too

http://www.daveskillerbread.com/

It's the best bread we've ever eaten. Ever.

[MattBaggins]

9. Is it possible to get hydrogenated butter?

With caramelized corn syrup?

[rhett o rick]

28. Everything at McDonalds is covered in it i think. nm

[troubledamerican]

45. They sell deep-fried butter sticks at rural State Fairs

They also sell deep fried Snickers Bars. Just get the combo.

P.S. This is no joke

[nickinSTL]

49. I have mine with

garlic, curry powder and salt - no butter or other oils.

:popcorn:

[safeinOhio]

4. I live near the RR tracks and have

seen lots of big black tankers going by in long strings. I had always assumed it was oil. The other day I noticed the label on the side said corn fructose. Lots and lots of that stuff.

[soleft]

5. I saw a commercial for Fiber One Bars, thought they must be good

Looked at ingredients in store today and wouldn't you know it - HFCS.

[dixiegrrrrl]

7. Shopping for a cold cereal yesterday...guess what?

Corn flakes, rice Crisies ( I get the cheap brands) , everything had HFCS.
Since I cannot eat wheat or malt or barley and have to be careful with oats, that leave me rice or corn.
But HFCS is off the list too...

back to the "ingredients" part of the shelves.
For the above reasons, about 80% of the store is off limits.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. You too

I spend a few bucks on oats that are safe...

Red Mill

[JackintheGreen]

19. Try generics. Seriously!

I had the same problem, but then I noticed that a lot of store brand/generic knock-offs of popular HFCS cereals *do not* contain HFCS. Weird.

[dixiegrrrrl]

75. Great ! which ones are wheat and oat free, do you know?

Because all the ones I have looked at contain malt, which is made from barley.

Except puffed rice.
Which for some reason is absent from my 2 stores.

[JackintheGreen]

100. You'll have to check your local brands

As DireStrike points out below, some generics have reformulated, and as I know some are actually major brands given the generic brand (or used to be).

Around here we have five major supermarket chains, plus Whole Foods and Trader Joe's (which for this discussion don't matter). They're all different, re: store brands. But at least two of my local generics meet my dietary needs/preferences where none of the major brands do.

Good luck!

[Chrisbee]

115. Rice Chex and Corn Chex are free of HFCS

And they are marked gluten-free right on the front of the box.

[DireStrike]

91. Foodtown generics suddenly got HFCS about a year ago.

Their applesauce used to taste a lot different than Motts. Now it tastes the same.

I can't believe CORN FLAKES have it in them... what the hell... I just checked my foodtown box and there it is. Raisin bran also.

It's really getting impossible to not buy this crap.

[ipfilter]

21. Another vote for Bob's Red Mill

I get the steel cut oats and 7 grain cereal.

[Lorien]

30. Blame Nixon

He approved the government subsidies for corn throughout the food industry. Corporations get PAID to put that crap in your food!

[Toucano]

31. If you have an Aldi near you, you can sometimes find imported brands

that don´t use HFCS.

http://www.aldifoods.com/us/html/service/store_locator_ENU_HTML.htm

But the best advice I could offer is to make things from scratch. It doesn´t consume as much time as I thought it would (you might be surprised, too) and you control much more of what goes in your body.

[crazylikafox]

34. Check out Kashi

Tastes like cardboard, but it's pretty clean.

[dixiegrrrrl]

76. Which Kashi is malt and wheat/barley or oat free?

Most cereal have "malt flavorings"...made from barley.
Unless the box says "gluten free" it is not.

Kashi cereal, which contains kashi, or buckwheat (a non-gluten grain), also contains wheat.

[TuxedoKat]

56. I have the same problem

I try to stay away from wheat, but most of the cereals have them, or the gluten-free ones are so low in fiber they aren't worth eating.

[Shallah Kali]

109. arrowhead mills & nature's path make puffed rice cereal made only of rice

Your local supermarket may have a health food section which may have one or both of these

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EVQ0NQ/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B000E4ALJW&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1HEK1JKJAACXEY1B4ETJ


http://www.amazon.com/Natures-Path-Organic-Cereal-6-Ounce/dp/B000E4ALJW

[Kalyke]

123. Here's a list for you (and everyone else)

• Cheerios
• Giant brand Instant Oatmeal – most flavors
• Kashi (most, if not all)
• Life ceral (regular and cinnamon)
• Nature’s Pride Organic (most, if not all, varieties)
• Kellogg’s Reduced Sugar Froot Loops
• Trader Joe’s Graham Bites Cereal

http://highfructosehigh.com/no-hfcs/


Handiest list I've every seen!!

[TuxedoKat]

55. FYI

These are supposed to be really good: high fiber, low fat, low sugar, and taste good. I haven't tried them yet as I haven't been able to find them.

http://www.extendbar.com/about/extendbar.asp

[shanti]

99. thanks!

i'll have to try them.

[TuxedoKat]

57. FYI

They were talking about these being good in my diet group: low fiber, low fat, low sugar, etc. I haven't tried them yet though.

http://www.extendbar.com/about/extendbar.asp

[stuntcat]

86. right? me too

only I had already bought it and was eating it when I read the label :( least I know now.

[The Straight Story]

8. They have obviously never eaten a Slider from White Castles :) (nt)

[MattBaggins]

11. White Castle is teh shitz

You can eat one on Friday after a late night bender; burp on Sunday, and still taste it.

mmmmm

[The Straight Story]

12. We call em rectum rockets for a reason - now I may have to go get me some

YUM :)

[global1]

13. Does Anyone Know That If One Stops Consumming Foods With HFCS That......

they can reverse the obesity?

[shanti]

14. well yeah!

i've been reading labels religiously for 2 months now and buying NOTHING with hfcs. i've lost over 20 pounds. my A1C was tested at 4.9 on monday too! it's not easy, but it's do-able.

[SoCalDem]

15. There are few breads now that say "NO HFCS".. so marketers

are starting to pay attention..

[emmadoggy]

24. Awesome! Congrats!

I've been SORT of doing the same thing. I'm following a pre-diabetic diet. I'm SUPPOSED to have cut it completely out, but haven't succeeded 100%. I HAVE dramatically reduced the amount I consume though. I've lost about 33 pounds.

It's frustrating and maddening how much food is off-limits because of HFCS and partially hydrogenated oils. It is definitely a difficult climb, but I feel really good about the progress I've made.

I truly believe that HFCS deserves a good share of the blame for the obesity and diabetes epidemic in this country. There are certainly other factors as well, but the timing is just too much of a coincidence in my opinion.

Keep up the good work!

[shanti]

88. thanks!

and congrats on your hard work too! it really is a struggle, but with more light shined on this issue, food manufacturers will hopefully listen up.

[tabbycat31]

22. I stopped consuming HFCS

among other things (increased exercise, etc) and I went from a size 14 to a size 6

[XemaSab]

23. Out of curiosity, what else did you stop eating?

:shrug:

[tabbycat31]

32. just HFCS and anything with it in it

I have a VERY VERY sweet tooth and now if i'm craving baked goodies, I have to make them from scratch.

I also have a strict workout routine, and cut my food portions dramatically.

[shanti]

89. that's great!

portion control is very important too. when i first started on my diabetic journey, i was amazed at the actual size of portions. they seemed child sized, but that was just because i was so used to eating large sizes of food and considering them normal.

i also have a huge sweet tooth, but use sugar very sparingly if at all. splenda and stevia work for me in most things now.

keep up the good work!

[me b zola]

83. I had the same experience when I stopped consuming HFCS

The only thing that I changed was to stop consuming HFCS--no other changes in diet and no change in exercise. I lost 20+ pounds.

[Gwendolyn]

85. That's interesting. I can't see how you could eliminate HFCS without making big changes though,

since it's mostly found in processed foods. Far as I know, it isn't bottled and sold on its own to pour over your breakfast cereal or into coffee. So that means you would've had to make other changes in your diet such as switching to more whole foods. Can you give a little summary of what you did? I'd be interested to know.

[shanti]

90. first thing is

you read labels on processed foods, or you prepare your own food (without HFCS). it drastically limits the foods you eat, but if it's that important to your health, you will do it. for myself, it means oatmeal with frozen blueberries, yogurt (sugar free) or a hardboiled egg for breakfast - no boxed cereals, and i used to buy/use them a lot. and you can't really eat fast food as you don't know what's in it unless the ingredient description is there (or online). chipotle is one of the better ones.

until we speak with our wallets, manufacturers will continue to kill us with their products.

*fixed a typo*

[Gwendolyn]

95. Yes, exactly. I've been reading labels since I could, well, read.

So what you're saying is that eliminating HFCS means basically getting rid of all processed foods and junk foods. Since most of these foods are fattening and disgusting whether they have HFCS in them or not, when people say they've lost 30 pounds "just by eliminating HFCS" that's not exactly true. They've eliminated a bunch of junk and are eating better in general.

I'm doing a little experiment and would love to find someone who has actually replaced HFCS products with sucrose products, without changing any other aspect of their diet (meaning they're still eating all the junk and processed foods as they did before) and see what the difference is. That would be a very interesting result, but I don't think it's possible. Health food stores stock some "junk" but not enough to make a comparison.

[dustbunnie]

101. You're right but what difference does it make?

For years people have been ingesting garbage and growing more and more obese. Now they have the fear of God smacked into them because they believe HFCS is demon nectar. They're reading labels and putting junk back onto the shelves. If they want to believe that getting rid of HFCS is the reason they lost weight, and not the fact that they stopped eating stuff you wouldn't feed your dog, it doesn't matter. Good is being accomplished. :)

[Gwendolyn]

127. Heh. Honestly I think it's all pretty bad when you overdo it.

HFCS, msg, sugar, trans fats. These are all ingredients found in processed food. Just eat as simply and as fresh as you can and you don't even have to think about what all chems and additives are in your meal. You're right about the last part in that at least people are paying attention, even if it's somewhat misguided.

[me b zola]

106. I quit drinking soda

That was the only change that I made.

[Gwendolyn]

126. Thanks. You aren't the first person to say that just cutting out soda made a big difference!

[tridim]

16. Just a heads-up, they're using something called "Crystalline Fructose" now..

I found it in my favorite regional yogurt brand the other day (they went from "cane juice" to crystalline fructose). I will not be buying it any more.

Got home, looked it up, and it is all just PR by the industry. It's also reportedly even more dangerous than the HFCS that it replaces.

[hunter]

17. I suspect HFCS is the root cause of the sharp increases in U.S. obesity...

...and that it's not a simple correlation related strictly to overall calorie consumption and relative dollar costs.

There seems to be more to this than a simple increase in the consumption of sugars. There's lots of speculation that HFCS interferes with the normal sensation of satiety; that it disrupts the signaling systems that tells your brain you've "had enough."

The substance may have other psychoactive effects as well.

When all the science is done, I'm betting we'll see that the substitution of HFCS for ordinary crystalline sucrose was a public health catastrophe.

[emmadoggy]

25. That is one of the biggest changes I have noticed since I started

following my new eating plan. I no longer have that CONSTANT urge to eat. I also notice that when I do fall off a little bit and eat some of the things I shouldn't, that urge seems to come charging back!

For me, that is one of the most dangerous parts of it - it makes me want to eat more and more and more. (And I don't mean more food in general, of course, but more and more of THAT stuff.) Of course, this creates a snowball effect.

I agree with you on it being a public health catastrophe.

[Hannah Bell]

58. but the sharp increase in obesity in mexico must be caused by something else, since

hfcs is rare there.

actually, there's been a sharp increase in obesity everywhere, regardless of hfcs consumption.

[hunter]

62. Such comparisons are dubious...

... and tend to arise in business journals rather than scientific journals. We're playing peek-a-boo with ADM.

In many nations (China is one) increasing obesity is clearly associated with fatty foods.

[Hannah Bell]

63. no, it's associated with the move from farms to the city.

and the comparison of mexico v. us didn't arise in a business journal either. i'm a dietitian; it arose in a clinical dietetics journal comparing hfcs consumption internationally. europe consumes much less; obesity rising. japan, ditto.

and as for ADM: what faddists don't get is that *every* idea they have about food comes from somewhere else. who do you think sponsored the rash of research into soy a few years back, which had all the faddists drinking soy milk, cause it was "better for you"? where do you think the "dairy = bad" meme first arose (look at the consolidation of dairying for the answer). who do you think sponsored the research on margarine v. butter, the anti-egg campaign, the "disease in your apple juice," & who the heck do you think is behind the "hfcs = poison" campaign? who do you think invents "lifestyles"?

corporations & financiers move people's TO MAKE MONEY ON THE ARBITRAGE, NEW PRODUCTS, & WITH FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE DIRECTION OF CHANGE.

[Hannah Bell]

68. how could i have forgotten the "sugar is poison" campaign before the surge in the use of HFCS?

the "drink 8 glasses of water" campaign coincident with the marketing of bottled water?

man, i could go on & on.

the nutrition industry = scam city.

eat real food & quit obsessing. you're going to get old & die. live while you can.

[shanti]

102. sugar IS poison

to diabetics...HFCS is simply an offshoot and it's NOT "real food". are you diabetic?

[Hannah Bell]

103. no, i'm a registered clinical dietitian. & sugar isn't "poison," to diabetics or anyone else.

[hunter]

72. I was quick to post, a reflexive response to "Mexico is fat too!" HFCS defenders.

One of the things I find most interesting about HFCS are the expensive chemical contortions required to make higher fructose HFCS, like HFCS-90.

Higher fructose HFCS blends are sweeter than more conventional HFCS blends, but they don't seem to be making this stuff to save on shipping.

Overall, Mexico has a rather odd distribution of obesity and underweight.



http://www.fao.org/FOCUS/E/obesity/obes3.htm

The situation in Mexico is complex.

[Hannah Bell]

80. Conclusion first, evidence later. Mexico consumes less HFCS than the US did in 1980 -- before *its*

surge in obesity.

"The situation in Mexico is complex" = no more than anywhere else.

That chart is from 1997, when Mexicans consumed *even less* HFCS than the 14 tons per capita they did in 2009. 402,000 tons total v. 653,000 tons in 2009. And in 1996 it was 116,000 tons, & even less before that (i.e. pre-NAFTA).

You'll notice already half the population is already "overweight" in 1997, & a number of other Latin American countries are in the same boat.

The overweight/underweight spread is typical a highly unequal middle-income country in the midst of the rural/urban transition.

Poor urbanized populations typically weigh more than poor rural populations, for fairly obvious reasons.

Different foods (processed = more highly concentrated calories), cheaper foods (in "developed" economies food = cheaper due to mass production & = lower % of total income), & less strenuous work on average.

[Hannah Bell]

69. here for your "dubious" comparisons. US consumption = 371% of mexico's.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8008212&mesg_id=8013540

[Dream Girl]

74. Many of the poorest Mexicans don't eat processed food.

However, there is a sizeable segment that does, and it is likely affecting them. There is also an increase in refined carbs, e.g. white flour and genetically modified corn.

[Hannah Bell]

81. conclusion first, evidence later.

[Luminous Animal]

65. Mexico imported nearly 400,000 tons of HFCS from the U.S. last year.

You can download the reports here: (see 34a & 34b)
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Sugar/Data.htm

In 1995, after NAFTA, Mexico imported a mere 40,000 tons and rose each year until Mexico put a tariff on HFCS imports to protect their sugar market but the WTO ruled against Mexico and imports rose again.

[Hannah Bell]

67. Let's compare disappearance data, as that's what's used rather than imports --

problem with the "imports from US" number is, Mexico also *produces* corn syrup, & exports it, & uses it in products made for export.

Disappearance data = domestic consumption.


And lest you think I'm cherry-picking, the disappearance figures are *higher* than the 400,000 tons you cite.


So, check my math, it's late:

TABLE 30, US domestic disappearance of HFCS (42/55, column J)

2009: 8,026,000 short (US = 2000 lbs) tons:

US population = 300 million

Consumption per person = 8/300 = .026 tons/person = 52 pounds***

***This is in range of the figures in table 52, which shows US retail consumption at 53 lbs/capita in 2008, consumer level at 47 lbs/capita.



TABLE 56, Mexico utilization (closest thing I could find to disappearance)

2009: 653,000 metric (long = 2205 lbs) tons = 719,797 US tons

Mexican population = 100 million

Consumption per person = 7/1000 = .007 tons/person = 14 pounds


If you average the data 1995 to 2009, Mexico's consumption is even less for that period, & the difference between Americans & Mexicans even greater.

Especially since Mexico had a tariff on HFCS about 2000-2005, & in those years consumption dropped precipitously (by more than half).

Tariff declared illegal by WTO in 2005.


So 2009 per capita consumption in the US was 371% of Mexico's.

Or, Mexico's 2009 consumption was 26% of the US's.

Or, Mexicans consume about 75% less than Americans.

Or, Mexicans in 2009, per capita, consumed less HFCS than Americans did in 1980 (see Table 52, column F, 1980).



Yet Mexico is (supposedly) the second-fattest country in the world, with about 70% of adults overweight, up from 10% in 1989:

http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080324/news_1n24obese.html


And according to some, it's because of HFCS.


I don't think so.

[FarCenter]

18. Does high-fructose corn syrup make you fatter?

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/does-high-fructose-corn-syrup-make-you-fatter.ars

<SNIP>

In the absence of a coherent picture on the biochemistry, the new study attempts to look at the longer term impact of access to HFCS. The Princeton study set up groups of age-, weight-, and sex-matched rats, and gave them access to all the chow they could eat. In addition, different groups of rats were given access to an HFCS solution for either 12 or 24 hours; another group were given a similar sucrose solution, and a control group was simply given water. The amount of calories consumed, both from rat chow and sugar solutions, was monitored daily, and the rats were weighed every week. Two experiments were run, one for two months, the second for six.

At the end of the shorter trial, the male rats with 12-hour access to HFCS had gained significantly more weight than the group given access to sucrose—even though they actually consumed fewer calories in liquid form (the sucrose group ate enough chow to make up for the difference). That seems pretty important until you look at some of the details: the 24-hour HFCS group consumed roughly the same number of calories, on average, as their 12-hour peers, but didn't put on the same amount of weight. In fact, the 24-hour group wasn't significantly different (in the statistical sense) than either the sucrose or chow-only controls.

The longer-term study could have clarified exactly what was going on here, but the authors eliminated the sucrose group, "Since we did not see effects of sucrose on body weight in Experiment 1." In this experiment, the 24-hour group actually gained more weight than the control population as early as three weeks into the experiment. In fact, they gained more weight than the 12-hour group, although this difference isn't statistically significant. It doesn't appear that the authors attempted to explain why the two experiments seem to have produced different results.

At the end of this study, the fat pads were dissected out and weighed, and the abdominal fat pads of the 12-hour group were significantly different from those of the chow-only control. However, the abdominal fat of the 24-hour group (which, remember, gained more weight) wasn't significantly heavier than the control group.

To confuse matters further, the authors also ran a group of females through the long-term study protocol, and this time included a group with access to a sucrose solution. Females gained less weight in general than males, and those with 12-hour access to either HFCS or sucrose solutions finished the experiment in a statistical dead heat. Only the 24-hour HFCS group showed a significant increase in weight gain (and had a corresponding increase in fat deposition).

(One other thing that seems worth noting is that the procedures took place during a time when the rats normally gain weight. For example, the chow-only control group doubled in weight during the long-term experiment, while the HFCS group bulked up by roughly 260 percent.)

<SNIP>

---

Unfortunately, although the study was supported by taxpayer dollars, the paper is behind Elsivier's pay wall. doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2010.02.012

[Touchdown]

20. Even worse than that little Spanish Brat who I taught a lesson to...

all those years ago.. chasing me down all this time only to fail now? I think that's the worst thing ever. How marvelous!

[KittyWampus]

26. who is Taylor Swift? Or am I better off not knowing?

:scared:

[CakeGrrl]

35. Meh, you're better off not knowing, but

She's a waifish singer who got a big sympathy career boost when Kanye West jumped onstage and interrupted her acceptance speech at the VMAs last season, proclaiming that Beyonce had the best video. She scored a Grammy or two, but I don't see (or hear) what's so amazing.

[greencharlie]

27. well...

limited edition Coca Cola with REAL SUGAR... FTW!!!

Mmmmm...

[rhett o rick]

29. I wrote a email to complain about a product that included trans-fats.

I got a nice email back telling me that trans-fats were really so bad and then another paragraph telling me, unsolicited, that HFCS wasnt so bad either.

[FatDave]

48. What, you expect them to have two separate form letters for their complaints?

:sarcasm:

[wildbilln864]

33. k&r! nt

[jesus_of_suburbia]

36. I really wish there would be heavy taxes for HFCS,,, enough that companies would use cane sugar

again.


I'm not looking for a ban.


Just a "health" tax.

[Bluenorthwest]

37. Bad tasting and bad for you

slimy, disgusting industrial by product posing as a foodstuff.

[pitohui]

38. really what happened to global thermonuclear war?

what happened to world hunger and lack of safe drinking water for that matter?

[joe_sixpack]

39. Was there any logical reasoning behind America using so much HFCS

other than as a way to subsidize corn farmers?

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. It was corn farmers versus sugar loby

you know who lost

By the way, this goes back to... 1973 and the cheap food policy started under Nixon

[Luminous Animal]

51. And brilliantly illustrated by Michael Pollan in...

The Omnivore's Dilemma.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Still on my to be read book list

:-)

[Luminous Animal]

61. Move it up to the top of your list. I wish I had.

It is the most important book that I've read about food and the food industry. And he's and excellent writer.

[conscious evolution]

42. ask coke about

their ADD study.

[JanusAscending]

105. Well..........

back in the fifties, when I was having my babies, we Mom's who bottle fed used it to make their formula! There was no such thing as canned baby formula back then.I can't say that it harmed any of my children for the 6 months or so that they were on it, before being switched to whole milk. Things sure have changed since then. Dr's. back then must have really been uneducated?????

[Mr. Sparkle]

41. For whatever reason i am under the impression that it is the addictive substance in juke food.

So I try and avoid foods that contain it.

[Hekate]

44. During the worst of my struggles I didn't know about HFCS. This past year I started reading labels

I think that multiple studies are showing that HFCS acts differently than sugar in both the body and the brain.

We've been suckered.

Hekate

[Luminous Animal]

59. And the suckering will not stop.

Once HFCS is widely exposed, the "food" industry will introduce yet another corn derivative. They'll lie and lie and lie about probable harm and it will take another 30 years of poorly funded non-corporate funded research to expose the next poison.

[Hannah Bell]

104. *all* nutrition research is driven by corporate interests. including the princeton study.

[ParkieDem]

107. This:

"actually, there's been a sharp increase in obesity everywhere, regardless of hfcs consumption."

Much of the rise in obesity can be attributed to (1) a rise in national wealth, and (2) the relative inexpensiveness of foods (pretty much all kinds).

In places like Mexico, parts of Latin America, the Middle East, and some places in the Pacific, obesity is skyrocketing. And it's primarily because the average wealth of these countries has increased (in the case of the Middle East, dramatically). Take this quiz: http://www.sporcle.com/games/fattest_countries.php

There are no hard and fast rules, but you can see that obesity can be largely correlated to wealth. Now, there aren't many countries in Europe with high obesity rates, because (1) people spend a much higher percentage of their income on housing and taxes there, and (2) European agricultural policy keeps food relatively expensive (in fact, this is one reason why HFCS is popular here -- our agricultural policies keep real sugar much more expensive than it should be).

Is HFCS part of the problem? Of course. But it's not the whole story.

[Hannah Bell]

110. europeans have higher obesity rates than they did 20, 30, 40 years ago.e.g.:

e.g.:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6639227.stm

i repeat, obesity is on the rise almost *everywhere*. and has been for some time.

per this, 75% of german men are overweight -- very similar to the us.

eu countries here:

http://www.iotf.org/media/euobesity3.pdf

[Dr Morbius]

43. I've noticed that more and more products are being offered

...without HFCS. That tells me it isn't just loony lefties like myself who are concerned.

I recommend people consume less than three soft drinks a week, and I personally usually drink tea, sweetened lightly with good old fashioned cane sugar (sugar in the raw, sometimes). The strange thing is, there's so much demand for corn already. Why manufacturers don't shift to other sweeteners (like beet sugar), I don't understand. It's probably not more expensive, and it's becoming a selling-point to make your product with real sugar.

[Johonny]

46. Wasn't this discussed to death the other day

if you bother to read the article the conclusive evidence was eating lots of sugar is not good for your weight. The evidence that HFCS was worse than Sucrose would appear to be open to debate based on the evidence in the study. The authors had their own opinion on their results. They thought they were conclusive, although they failed to explain several null results in their study. (You don't have to agree with the conclusion of an author of a paper). No doubt many DUers hate HFCS and saw it as affirmation of their beliefs. Yet the study itself leaves room for an open mind. I personally wasn't very convinced by their HFCS vs sucrose results. Really study after study says the same thing. Don't eat a lot of your daily calories in the form of refined sugars. Which is a problem because our food industry was driven to produce lots of cheap processed food high in these sugars.

[dustbunnie]

54. It's kind of funny actually, but there is an upside to the American penchant --

for looking for another quick fix to a really very large problem. People who haven't been reading labels will now begin to do so and maybe cut down on their consumption of processed and other assorted junk food. The downside is that people are now cheerleading sugar which is just mind-boggling. It's like saying "wow, brain cancer is really bad, think I'm gonna go for the melanoma instead!" Of course, these people will continue to overeat, will continue to become obese, get sick, lather, rinse, repeat. Those who have a better understanding of their bodies and how refined sugars work will do okay though and that's at least some portion of the population.

[cbdo2007]

47. I think the HFCS in soda pop is even worse than the others.

Maybe our bodies have a more difficult time with the liquid rather than solid HFSC that gets processed along with food?

I don't know but I read labels pretty closely on what I eat and I have a major sweet tooth and I just won't gain weight. It's rare if I drink one soda pop in 6 months though and when I do, I definitely feel it. It about puts me in the bed for a whole day afterward.

Stay away from the HFSC people especially in soda pop. You'll notice a decrease in weight and you'll feel better all around, and no this doesn't mean to just switch over to some other pop. Just drink water or coffee or tea. Your body can process those. You'll lose weight and feel better and for God's sake, limit pop intake in your children.

[CLANG]

50. knr

[Canuckistanian]

53. If HFCS is the worst thing humanity has to worry about

Then the world's not as bad as I thought it is.

[Beringia]

60. I assume it is like sugar

[pundaint]

66. Yes, it has all the excess calories of refined sugar, but it doesn't occur all by itself in nature,

so the human body doesn't respond the same way.

[cbdo2007]

71. Hopefully your pancreas agrees.

[BlueIris]

64. K&R. Get off this poison, fellow posters. nt

[tomm2thumbs]

70. Reagan would call high-fructose corn syrup a fruit and should be served to children

sort of like catsup/ketchup being a vegetable. it really fulfills his vision

[geardaddy]

73. Do want some popcorn with your HFCS?

:popcorn:

I agree with you. HFCS is evil and just a product to keep big corn in business.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. HFCS dook er jerbs.

[The Straight Story]

78. I hear they had a peer reviewed study, which makes it all true and gospel

Cause such things are, especially from peer reviews of tobacco companies/etc, like words from the pope.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

79. Yeah, they had a peer reviewed study.

Except the peer-reviewed study, like other peer reviewed studies, showed there was no difference between HFCS and sucrose.

[The Straight Story]

82. And if just ONE did? Would it make it true, or do you believe them all? (nt)

[me b zola]

84. K&R

We must stop poisoning ourselves.

[stuntcat]

87. k, r, AND...

and anyone on this discussion saying it doesn't matter is a fucking moron.

The stupid are getting unmanageably fat and unhealthy. regular people are getting cancer. the wrong pigs are making millions off of it.
This is OUR FOOD we're talking about, for gosh sakes. The stuff that makes us alive.

If you don't see why this is a big fuck of ALL of us at once then you should be neutered.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

92. It's the commies trying to sap our precious bodily fluids.

"The stupid are getting unmanageably fat and unhealthy"

So you're saying that fat people are stupid? And it's not because their excessive diets and lack of exercise?

"regular people are getting cancer."

Haven't regular people always gotten cancer? What sort of people used to get cancer? Witches and preverts?

[stuntcat]

93. more people get cancer from their processed food now

I realize people online need things spelled out explicitly, I'll try to remember this :eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

94. Cancer rates are going down.

I realize people online just make up random crap. But I don't know why they expect people to believe them.

[EOTE]

96. You didn't address his post at all.

Yes cancer rates might be going down as a whole, but the poster was referring to cancer caused by process foods. I don't know whether that's true or not (I don't have time to look it up at the moment), but if you're going to be snarky and insulting like that, at least try to address what was said in the post.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

97. It's not.

Cancer rates are not going up because of processed foods at all.

In fact, and this may be a big surprise, but the FDA doesn't allow carcinogens into processed foods.

This sort of goofy shit really deserves snark.

[EOTE]

112. I'm afraid you're quite wrong again.

There are many carcinogens in our foods. Some of them are naturally occurring, others are not. You are really quite uninformed on this subject. You make yourself look rather foolish every time it comes up. But just continue throwing out the snark to make yourself feel better. You gotta do it somehow.

http://cancer.suite101.com/article.cfm/carcinogens-in-foods
http://www.copperwiki.org/index.php?title=Carcinogens_in_Foods

And if you think that carcinogens can't get into our food supply in an extra-legal manner, you've got another thing coming.

http://psep.cce.cornell.edu/issues/epa-agree-carcin.aspx

Your goofy shit doesn't fool anyone but yourself.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

114. You're being intellectually dishonest.

Are there carcinogens in food?

Yes. Is this something that's happening because the FDA is allowing processed foods to be processed to allow carcinogens? No.

Is there an epidemiological effect of increased cancer because of processed foods? No.

[EOTE]

116. What a laugh, you talking about intellectual dishonesty.

From someone who would never have an argument without the use of a strawman. So your argument now is that we shouldn't worry about these foods because the FDA doesn't allow carcinogens in them even though they actually DO contain carcinogens both naturally occurring and otherwise. And I'm calling bullshit on your other claim as well. For someone who claims to be so all about science, you sure as hell expect people to take you at your word an awful lot even though you've been proven wrong so many times in the past.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

117. What, exactly, should the FDA do to prevent natural carcinogens?

Think about that for a moment.

As for "unnatural" carcinogens, if you remember back to your basic, basic, 17th century chemistry, there's no such thing as a toxic chemical, only toxic concentrations of chemicals. These carcinogens are at such small levels that they cannot possibly cause cancer, and if they did they wouldn't be on the market.

Rendering entirely moot the false claim that processed food are causing cancer, even in "regular" people, whatever the fuck that still means.

"you sure as hell expect people to take you at your word an awful lot even though you've been proven wrong so many times in the past."

If people don't want to take my word, they're perfectly welcome to look at the science themselves. I'm not talking goofy woo woo astrology shit. But the science. There's nothing I've said that isn't supported in the scientific literature.

And as for me being proven wrong so many times in the past- post one example.

[EOTE]

119. I've looked at the science. And you're wrong.

Apparently, you still expect people to take you at your own word when I've provided the words of several qualified people other than myself. Apparently, you've never heard of something called "cumulative effect". Perhaps you missed that in your science class. I've proven you wrong several times just in this thread. If you're ever confronted with evidence proving you wrong, you simply dismiss it as 'woo'. You're not interested in a debate, you're just interested in shouting out how right you are. If there's one thing I can say about you and science, it's that you've got being wrong down to a science.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

120. I don't believe you.

"Apparently, you've never heard of something called "cumulative effect". "

Apparently you've never heard of something called "evidence."

"I've proven you wrong several times just in this thread."

No, you haven't. Processed food does not cause cancer.

"it's that you've got being wrong down to a science. "

Says the 9-11 twoofer.

[EOTE]

124. Great use of snark while providing absolutely nothing in terms of actual information.

Here's some more information for you, but I guess I should just assume that these scientists are just peddling woo.

http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/10/19/all-the-health-risks-of-processed-foods----in-just-a-few-quick-convenient-bites.htm

Cancer

A seven-year study of close to 200,000 people by the University of Hawaii found that people who ate the most processed meats (hot dogs, sausage) had a 67 percent higher risk of pancreatic cancer than those who ate little or no meat products.

A Canadian study of over 400 men aged 50 to 80 found similar results. Men whose eating habits fell into the "processed" pattern (processed meats, red meat, organ meats, refined grains, vegetable oils and soft drinks) had a significantly higher risk of prostate cancer than men in the other groups. Men who ate the most processed foods had a 2.5-fold increased prostate cancer risk.

Yet another study published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Mile Markers, and Prevention found that refined carbohydrates like white flour, sugar and high fructose corn syrup is also linked to cancer. The study of more than 1,800 women in Mexico found that those who got 57 percent or more of their total energy intake from refined carbohydrates had a 220 percent higher risk of breast cancer than women who ate more balanced diets.



Processed meats like hot dogs, lunch meats, bacon and other sausages have been linked to various forms of cancer.

Acrylamide, a carcinogenic substance that forms when foods are heated at high temperatures, such as during baking or frying, is also a concern. Processed foods like French fries and potato chips have shown elevated levels of the substance, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

"I estimate that acrylamide causes several thousand cancers per year in Americans," said Clark University research professor Dale Hattis.

And fantastic job on trying to change the subject. I suppose when you're exposed as being so incredibly ignorant on a particular subject, bring up 9/11. That's just fucking brilliant. You'll notice that I never mention the fact that you're a tremendous asshole when replying to your posts. I just let other readers find that out for themselves.

[Gwendolyn]

98. Making sweeping statements about stupid people becoming fat isn't exactly polite.

Neither is pronouncing to the world that anyone who disagrees with you should be neutered.

[EOTE]

118. I didn't catch that.

But considering the source, it doesn't surprise me much at all.

[EOTE]

128. I see the post you're referring to now, and I quite agree.

I don't agree with that sentiment at all, I didn't mean to suggest that I did. However, I do think that processed foods are quickly becoming a serious health issue for more and more people. I eat far more processed foods than I should and I fear I'll suffer the consequences. I don't blame anyone but myself for that, but I do think more should be done to curb their harmful effects.

[LongTomH]

108. HFCS may also cause liver damage.

At least according to an article in the journal: Hepatology

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is one of the many consequences of obesity, as fat accumulates not only across the body and around the visceral organs, but inside the organ that helps break down fats, filter toxins from the bloodstream and create useable fuel from the food we eat. About 3 in 10 American adults suffer from nonalcoholic fatty liver. But it's a population of patients that's grown so fast, there isn't a lot known about their risks, and what factors aggravate those risks.

<snip>

A new study suggests that for those with nonalcoholic fatty liver, drinking a lot of beverages sweetened with fructose may do the same thing as liquor.

The study, published in the journal Hepatology, tracked 427 patients with fatty liver disease to see whether consumption of fructose made a difference in the progression of fatty liver to the organ's failure. The Duke University researchers asked subjects only about how many fructose-sweetened beverages a week they drank, including fruit juices and soft drinks sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup -- yielding a conservative accounting, since the stuff is also used in baking and other processed foods. Though only 19% of the fatty liver patients consumed few or no fructose sweetened beverages, 28% drank at least one a day.

<snip>

Compared to subjects who drank the least fructose beverages, those who drank the most were significantly more likely to have the hepatic scarring that will more often progress to cirrhosis or liver cancer. And older subjects who regularly consumed fructose beverages showed more signs of liver inflammation. After they stripped out the effects of age, gender and body-mass index, the researchers also found that the heavy fructose drinkers also have lower levels of HDL (or "good") cholesterol.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/03/high-fructose-corn-syrup-consumption-may-push-fatty-livers-to-the-brink.html

[Hannah Bell]

111. obesity & overconsumption of *all* sugars = fatty liver = "liver damage".

excess of sugar in the blood stream = liver fat storage.

[AngryAmish]

113. If we cut sugar subsidies....

But that won't happen. Big sugar demands it, and ADM likes selling HFCS

[Kip Humphrey]

121. I guess the Pepsi Generation will be short-lived