Media Gets Stuck in High-Fructose Corn Syrup
By Dan Mitchell
Posted Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 3:31pm
Comments (0)
I knew when I saw this Grist article on high-fructose corn syrup, and especially the Sunday Times article on which it is based, that something was amiss.
Both articles take the findings of an academic study of fructose and proceed to go off the deep end, mischaracterizing the results as some kind of definitive proof of the evils of high-fructose corn syrup. The study found nothing of the sort, though it might have indicated that further study of whether HFCS contains a harmful level of fructose is merited.
The Sunday Times article starts off with red flags a-poppin': "Scientists have proved for the first time that a cheap form of sugar used in thousands of food products and soft drinks can damage human metabolism and is fuelling the obesity crisis."
Yikes. When you see the phrase "scientists have proved," it's nearly always an indication that the writer has no idea what he or she is talking about. And superlatives such as "for the first time" should nearly always be avoided.
One of the authors of the study, Kimber Stanhope of the University of California at Davis, weighed in on the Grist message boards. Referencing the Sunday Times, she wrote: "Almost every sentence in the article contained at least one inaccurate statement." She runs through them one at a time.
Fructose and high-fructose corn syrup aren't the same. It appears that the writer, Lois Rogers, conflated the two and jumped to all kinds of incorrect conclusions. For example, that the research had anything at all to do with "the obesity epidemic." It didn't. (Not to single out Rogers—this is a common, albeit hard to forgive, error. The New York Times and other media outlets made the same mistake earlier this year when reporting on a similar study by some of the same researchers.)
Comments
Comments
- 6 Total
- • Pending Comments 0
- •
Submitted by Dan Mitchell on Fri, 12/18/2009 - 9:21pm.
leftspeaker...
"Adding so much to your Big Mac hamburger bun that it tastes sweet is another issue."
No, that's precisely the issue I mean. There are all kinds of products that contain HFCS that might not contain so much (or any) sugar of any kind if cane/beet sugar were the only source available. And there are many highly processed foods that exist, or are cheaper, in part because of the availability of HFCS. You need sugar for most breads, it's true, but because HFCS is cheaper, more can be, and is, used in industrial bread-baking.
Submitted by leftspeaker on Fri, 12/18/2009 - 9:50pm.
I understood that was your
I understood that was your point with this post. But you've made the claim "including products that might not contain sugar at all if HFCS didn't exist", and I'm asking, "such as?"
We probably agree here, but I feel that many of these pieces like Tom Laskaway's cloud the issue, at least from a health perspective. The possibility exists, but is so far unproven, that HFCS may be more detrimental to your health than other sugars. However, we know for a fact that a diet high in any sort of sugar is detrimental. We should be up in arms about quantity.
But for Grist and Daily Bread, the problem at hand is basely economic, right? That subsidies and their related economics drives down the price of sugar and thus we eat more. Okay, I'll take that at face value. But what, then, is the solution? Is it really as simple as "remove subsidies"? Does everything just fall into place? I haven't heard much expansion on these ideas from Pollan. Of course he's not an economist, but that's kind of my point. Then why should I agree with what he says about agricultural economics?
What do you see happening if the subsidy system is changed? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
Submitted by Dan Mitchell on Sat, 12/19/2009 - 8:20pm.
I wish I didn't have to write titles
The point about the hamburger bun is that it has more sugar in it than it otherwise would, to make it tastier. Another example: fast-food french fries. More: salad dressings. Hot dogs. Mustard. Soups, cold cuts, yogurt, and any number of other products. Even if some of these might otherwise have SOME sugar in them (not all would) they have MORE because HFCS is cheaper, and it's cheaper in large part because corn is subsidized (and also because HFCS is easier to transport.) If a company can make french fries, or buns, or mustard, or bologna, marginally tastier or easier to process (another reason for the presence of HFCS) for a marginal cost, they'll do it. And so they do. Which is why consumption of all sugars has skyrocketed in the decades since HFCS was introduced, even as consumption of sucrose has remained about about flat. The other huge factor is that artifically low costs allow companies to set their retail prices artificially low -- on the very foods that are making us all fat and diabetic. Fruits and veggies aren't subsidized like corn is, so corn has a gigantic unfair advantage. $1 Value Meals exist mainly because of corn subsidies. (Not just HFCS, but also feed grain and other inputs.)
I don't know if everything would just "fall into place" with the removal of subsidies (and tariffs on sugar). But over time, presumably, the prices of both sugar and HFCS would reflect the true supply and demand for them. The relative cheapness of HFCS caused its ubiquity. If it weren't so cheap, all else being equal, it wouldn't be so ubiquitous. Costs for companies that make corn-based foods would rise, and so would the retail prices of our most unhealthy meals. So we would eat less of them.
Submitted by leftspeaker on Fri, 12/18/2009 - 7:25pm.
Economics are certainly at
Economics are certainly at issue here, and certainly more HFCS/sugar is used in many products than is necessary, but you're going to have to back up this statement: "including products that might not contain sugar at all if HFCS didn't exist."
The example I've seen you and Pollan use repeatedly is bread, which grates on me as someone who works with yeast in a laboratory setting, because if you want yeast to survive (as you do when you leave your dough to rise) you have to give it something to eat: sugar. All products leavened with yeast must include a sugar source of some kind. Adding so much to your Big Mac hamburger bun that it tastes sweet is another issue.
And from a flavor standpoint, most foods with high acidity (vinegar dressings, tomato-based sauces) are balanced with some sugar. Unless you've unearthed the tastiest tomatoes in the world, you usually need to add a little sugar to homemade marinara.
Just a minor quibble, not to detract too much from your main point, hopefully.
Submitted by David Gillespie on Fri, 12/18/2009 - 6:09pm.
Sugar v HFCS
Dan,
There will never be definitive science saying HFCS is worse than sugar, because it isn't. They are both equally bad because they are both approximately half fructose (which is the real problem).
If you want to know what the US looks like with all the HFCS replaced with sugar, you need look no further than Australia (or the UK). Neither uses significant quantities of HFCS. Neither has Corn subsidies, so instead they sweeten with cane sugar (or increasingly concentrated fruit juice because its 'natural'). Yet both countries have similar levels of obesity, Type II diabetes and heart disease. The common factor in all these sweeteners: fructose.
Cheers
David.
PS the molecular binding issue is a red herring. Sucrase enzymes (which we possess in abundance) turn sugar into fructose and glucose (just like HFCS) with extraordinary efficiency. HFCS just saves us the bother of doing it ourselves.
Submitted by Beth@IDblog on Thu, 12/17/2009 - 4:42pm.
HFCS, economics & politics
The Times gets your point re the economics (as does Lustig in the video I mentioned over on Grist). But they also throw in politics as well, noting:
"The link has not been proven, but the theory is compelling. It suggests that
America is doomed to lead the world’s obesity rankings as long as the
process by which it elects its presidents starts in Iowa — a state known for
its cornfields and corn subsidies."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article69166...
I did think the comment on Grist re the difference between the fructose in sucrose and HFCS was interesting ("In cane or beet sugar the fructose is linked to the glucose molecules. With fructose sweeteners they are not; they are separate."). I wouldn't think that a big deal compared to the overall consumption of fructose, but I'm certainly looking forward to Stanhope & Havel's new research.
