Here's an entry from the FAQ that particularly caught my attention:
It seems they're omitting the part about HFCS replacing a healthier alternative because it costs a little more.Myth: Consumers know why high fructose corn syrup is found in many foods and beverages.
Reality: If consumers are sometimes surprised to find high fructose corn syrup in particular foods or beverages, it may be because they do not have a full appreciation of its versatility and value. High fructose corn syrup often plays a key role in the integrity of food and beverage products that has little to do with sweetening.
In baked goods, high fructose corn syrup gives a pleasing brown crust to breads and cakes, contributes fermentable sugars to yeast-raised products, reduces sugar crystallization during baking for soft-moist textures, and enhances flavors of fruit fillings.
In yogurt, high fructose corn syrup provides fermentable sugars, enhances fruit and spice flavors, controls moisture to prevent separation, and regulates tartness.
In spaghetti sauces, ketchup and condiments, high fructose corn syrup enhances flavor and balance (It replaces the “pinch of table sugar grandma added” to enhance spice flavors.), and balances the variable tartness of tomatoes.
In canned and frozen fruits, high fructose corn syrup protects the firm texture of canned fruits and reduces freezer burn in frozen fruits.
In beverages, high fructose corn syrup provides greater stability in acidic carbonated sodas than sucrose, so flavors remain consistent and stable over the entire shelf-life of the product.
I'm reminded of the important articles I reprinted on my forum about HFCS's dangers:
Hyperion wrote:HFCS is a classic example of a bait-and-switch. This stuff is even in bread. An overwhelming majority of the grocery store would have to be off-limits were you to cut yourself off from it.LewRockwell]Does High-Fructose Corn Syrup Have to Be in Everything?
by Wilton D. Alston
In her recent article on cholesterol, Karen De Coster provided information that should be beneficial to anyone interested in staying healthy. In this piece I want to address a similar issue. The title says it all. Why, in the name of health, do so many foods marketed to the U.S. public include high fructose corn syrup? Even the most cursory search of the many health sites on the Internet yield a veritable cornucopia of negative information about this stuff.
The Usual Suspect – Again
Of course the culprit for the presence of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in all sweetened foods in the U.S. is the state. The mechanism is the incredibly high tariff on sugar produced in other countries. The U.S. government would rather force manufacturers to use inferior and hazardous high fructose corn syrup, which can be created from corn – a crop grown in the U.S. – than allow them to use more natural sugar from places that seem rather obvious. I don’t know about you, but when I think of sugar, I think of sugar cane in South America, but when the USDA thinks of sugar, apparently they think of cornfields in Nebraska!
But Really, Who Cares?
What if corn sweetener is just as good as sugar from cane in South America? Wouldn’t it make sense to support our "local" producers? Well, no, not with legislation. If corn sweetener were really better than cane sugar, legislation artificially inflating our price for cane sugar would not be needed. Read that sentence again, because that is about the size of it. Whenever the state gets involved to force the market to take a particular path it is only because the path chosen by the state would not otherwise be taken by anyone intelligent enough to decide on his own. Period.
On the other hand, what if corn sweetener is not just as good as sugar from cane? Well, Houston, then we have a problem! According to experts such as Mehmet Oz and Michael Roisen, high-fructose corn syrup is a horrible sweetener. In their landmark book, "You: The Owner’s Manual…," they state:
"One of the biggest evil influences on our diet is the presence of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a sugar substitute that itself is a sugar found in soft drinks and many other sweet, processed foods. The problem is that HCFS inhibits leptin secretion, so you never get the message that you’re full. And it never shuts off gherin, so, even though you have food in your stomach, you constantly get the message that you’re hungry." (See page 192.)
With apologies to the Church Lady, "Well, isn’t that special?" So the state forces us to consume a sweetener that’s obviously not as good for us, just so their constituents can sell more, make more money, and vote en bloc for the legislator who visits this evil on the rest of us. Sounds like yet another example of misplaced incentives.
Other Sweeteners – Same Problem
Those of us who are "into" health know all about stevia. This is a very powerful natural sweetener, extracted from South American plants much as sugar is extracted from cane. One can find stevia in health food stores, but it is not allowed as an ingredient in processed foods. Why not? The typical statist would say "because it is not shown to be proven safe and effective" which is FDA-speak for "because we didn’t say you could use it." Call me a conspiracy realist, but I doubt that "safe and effective" had much to do with the FDA deciding to ban stevia. Nothing drives this point home better than this little tidbit: the FDA initially labeled stevia as an "unsafe food additive" after an anonymous complaint. (Yes, an anonymous complaint!) You simply cannot make this stuff up.
But stevia has been used by other cultures for thousands of years with no ill effects. Yes, thousands of years. If it’s so dangerous, why are we in the U.S. alone on Earth in recognizing the danger? In Japan the government will not allow artificial sweeteners in soft drinks, so they use stevia instead. In fact, it accounts for 40% of the Japanese sweetener market. In the U.S. the government won’t allow stevia, but we get a heaping helping of Aspartame, Sucralose, and all manner of other chemical junk. Where is the logic? (Maybe I should just follow the money.) Interestingly, many of the sweetening chemicals we're allowed to have as additives come with warning labels, by the way, so the government considers it established that there are health problems with those.
Conclusion
The decisions we each make about what we eat are some of the most basic ones we'll ever encounter. But in the case of HFCS – just as one example – we in the U.S. aren’t given that choice. The FDA claims to "protect" us from snake-oil salesmen of every stripe, yet when it comes to being able to choose an item of food that is among the most basic and prevalent in any diet, economic considerations trump safety. From my standpoint, while this about par for the course, it is still darned unsettling.
What will it take to reverse the tide?
An interesting transcript related to this matter:There's a link to listen to the conversation at the Aussie National Radio's website.And then the third reason that exercise is important, which is somewhat not well known, but I'm trying to evaluate this at the present time, is that it actually helps detoxify the sugar fructose. Fructose actually is a hepato-toxin; now fructose is fruit sugar but we were never designed to take in so much fructose. Our consumption of fructose has gone from less than half a pound per year in 1970 to 56 pounds per year in 2003.
Norman Swan: It's the dominant sugar in these so-called sugar free jams for example that you buy, these sort of natural fruit jams.
Robert Lustig: Right, originally it was used because since it's not regulated by insulin it was thought to be the perfect sugar for diabetics and so it got introduced as that. Then of course high fructose corn syrup came on the market after it was invented in Japan in 1966, and started finding its way into American foods in 1975. In 1980 the soft drink companies started introducing it into soft drinks and you can actually trace the prevalence of childhood obesity, and the rise, to 1980 when this change was made.
Norman Swan: What is it about this, it's got more calories than ordinary sugar weight for weight hasn't it?
Robert Lustig: No, actually it's not the calories that are different it's the fact that the only organ in your body that can take up fructose is your liver. Glucose, the standard sugar, can be taken up by every organ in the body, only 20% of glucose load ends up at your liver. So let's take 120 calories of glucose, that's two slices of white bread as an example, only 24 of those 120 calories will be metabolised by the liver, the rest of it will be metabolised by your muscles, by your brain, by your kidneys, by your heart etc. directly with no interference. Now let's take 120 calories of orange juice. Same 120 calories but now 60 of those calories are going to be fructose because fructose is half of sucrose and sucrose is what's in orange juice. So it's going to be all the fructose, that's 60 calories, plus 20% of the glucose, so that's another 12 out of 60 -- so in other words 72 out of the 120 calories will hit the liver, three times the substrate as when it was just glucose alone.
That bolus of extra substrate to your liver does some very bad things to it.
Norman Swan: Dr Robert Lustig who's Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco. And you're listening to a Health Report special here on ABC Radio National on how food manufacturers by adding fructose to our foods, either from corn syrup as in the United States or added sucrose as in Australia, may actually be making the obesity epidemic even worse, starting with damage to our liver cells, the hepatocytes.
Robert Lustig: The first thing it does is it increases the phosphate depletion of the hepatocyte which ultimately causes an increase in uric acid. Uric acid is an inhibitor of nitric oxide, nitric oxide is your naturally occurring blood pressure lowerer. And so fructose is famous for causing hypertension.
Norman Swan: High blood pressure. And what you're saying here is that the liver cell itself gets depleted of this phosphate and then you've got this downstream reaction.
Robert Lustig: That's right. And so when you have excess uric acid you're going to end up with increased blood pressure and we actually have data from the NHANES study in America, the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey in America which actually shows that the most obese hypertensive kids are making more uric acid and have an increased percentage of their calories coming from fructose.
Norman Swan: Are they getting gout as well?
Robert Lustig: Well not yet. They will.
Norman Swan: So what you're saying in fact is that whilst we are clearly eating too much, we're passively eating too much of the wrong thing, that the food manufacturing industry is putting stuff in which is fuelling the epidemic?
Robert Lustig: Absolutely, we're being poisoned to death, that's a very strong statement but I think we can back it up with very clear scientific evidence.
Norman Swan: There's clear scientific evidence on this fructose pathway in the liver?
Robert Lustig: There's clear scientific evidence on the fructose doing three things that are particularly bad in the liver. The first is this uric acid pathway that I just mentioned, the second is that fructose initiates what's known as de novo lipogenesis.
Norman Swan: Which is fat production.
Robert Lustig: Excess fat production and so VLDL, very low density lipoproteins end up being manufactured when you consume this large bolus of fructose in a way that glucose does not, and so that leads to dyslipidaemia.
Norman Swan: And that's the bad form of cholesterol.
Robert Lustig: That's correct. And then the last thing that fructose does in the liver is it initiates an enzyme called Junk one, and Junk one has been shown by investigators at Harvard Medical School basically is the inflammation pathway and when you initiate Junk one what happens is that your insulin receptor in your liver stops working. It's phosphorylated in a way that basically inactivates it, serum phosphorylation it's called and when your insulin receptor doesn't work in your liver that means your insulin levels all over your body have to rise. And when that happens basically you're going to interfere with normal brain metabolism of the insulin signal which is part of this leptin phenomenon I mentioned before. It's also going to increase the amount of insulin at the adipocyte storing more energy. And you put all of this together and basically you've got a feed forward system of increased insulin, increased liver fat, liver deposition of fat, increased inflammation -- you end up with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. You end up with your inability to see your leptin and so you consume more fructose and you've now got a viscious cycle out of control.
In fact fructose, because of the way it's metabolised, is actually damaging your liver the same way alcohol is. In fact it's the exact same pathway, in fact fructose is alcohol without the buzz.
Norman Swan: So this is the obesity related fatty liver disease that people talk about?
Robert Lustig: Exactly.
Norman Swan: Some people say, I've heard obesity experts say, well it's surprising that will all the ready availability of food that we're not fatter. In other words that we are actually controlling our appetite pretty well given that we've probably been evolutionary designed to eat anything that goes, and there's anything that goes all around us, so why aren't we actually fatter? It's not so much why is there an obesity epidemic, why isn't is worse, is what people say and therefore you don't need to postulate fructose, it's just the fact that we've evolved in the Savannah to eat in times of plenty.
Robert Lustig: I've heard those same concerns you know, why, if we have so many calories why aren't we fatter. Well there are a few reasons why that might be. I do want to mention that the American food industry produces 3,900 calories per capita per day. We can only eat 1,800 calories per capita per day. In other words the American food industry makes double the amount of food that we can actually use. Who eats the rest? We do, through this mechanism, they actually know that by putting fructose into the foods that we eat, for instance pretzels -- why do you need fructose in pretzels, why do we need fructose in hamburger buns?
Norman Swan: Are you postulating here a fructose conspiracy, the way the tobacco industry had a nicotine conspiracy?
Robert Lustig: Well I can't call it a conspiracy per se. I certainly know, and they certainly know that they sell more of it when they add the fructose to it. That's why it's in there, otherwise why would it be in there? Do they know that this is actually harmful? That's what I don't know. There's no smoking gun, ultimately we found the smoking gun for smoking, you know we found the documents. I'm not prepared to say that about the food companies. I do not know that they know that they are hurting us. However, they definitely know they sell more, and it temporarily coincides with the advent of fructose being added to our diet.
Norman Swan: And of course you could argue that it's going up because they are responding to the market and they've got sugar-free, fat-free etc. etc.
Robert Lustig: Well in fact fat-free doesn't help, if anything as the fat content of our foods has gone down, and it has gone down, it's gone from 40% to 30%, in fact our obesity prevalence has gone way up. So that's not the answer.
Norman Swan: This is because they're adding carbohydrates and sugars to it to replace the fat.
Robert Lustig: Absolutely, in fact fat does not raise your insulin but certainly sugar does. And fructose has been bandied about...because after all it doesn't raise your insulin directly because there's no fructose receptor on your beta cell in your pancreas. So people say well it doesn't raise your insulin, but in fact it does because it's a chronic effect not an acute effect. This has nothing to do with one fructose meal, this has to do with a year's worth of fructose meals, or a lifetime's worth of fructose meals, because as you become insulin resistant, which fructose clearly does and has been shown by many investigators not just me -- that interferes with that leptin signal which causes you to eat more.
Norman Swan: Insulin-resistance increases your insulin levels because your pancreas pumps out more to get the insulin working.
Robert Lustig: Exactly, especially since your liver is not responding to it because of that effect on the serum phosphorylation of the insulin receptor. So that's going to cause you to make a whole lot more insulin, that's going to interfere with your leptin, that's going to make you eat more so the whole thing just keeps going out of control.
Norman Swan: One way of proving this would be to put you on a fructose free diet, has anybody done that?
Robert Lustig: Well no one's done it yet. In fact we're trying to do that, in fact we're actually going to be working with the Atkins Foundation here in America to actually do a fructose withdrawal experiment to try to actually answer that question directly.
Norman Swan: Well given that you're not going to come to harm by reducing the fructose in your diet -- somebody who's listening to this -- what's the ingredient on the packet, or the jar, or the back of the tin that tells you there's fructose in there because it won't always say fructose will it?
Robert Lustig: Well high fructose corn syrup, it should say that, now in Australia for instance the sodas don't have high fructose corn syrup they have sucrose. Well sucrose is half fructose. You know a lot has been made over this high fructose corn syrup being particularly evil. In fact high fructose corn syrup is either 42% or 55% fructose, the rest is glucose. Well sucrose is 50% fructose the rest is glucose. In fact high fructose corn syrup and sucrose are equally problematic.
Norman Swan: Basically table sugar.
Robert Lustig: Table sugar -- that's right. We were not designed to eat all of this sugar, we're supposed to be eating our carbohydrate, particularly our fructose, with high fibre. Well the fact is we have 100 pound bags of sugar that go into the cakes, and the donuts.
Norman Swan: So we don't need to get obsessed on fruit sugars, it's sugar itself, sucrose.
Robert Lustig: Absolutely, it's sugar in general. So people say oh does that mean I can't eat fruit? No, let's take an orange -- an orange has 20 calories, 10 of which are fructose and has high fibre. A glass of orange juice has 120 calories, it takes 6 oranges to make that glass of orange juice and there's no fibre. You tell me which is better for you, so by all means eat the fruit, just don't drink the juice. Juice is part of the problem and there's plenty of data, not just mine. Miles Faith had an article in Pediatrics, December 2006 showing that in toddlers, in inner city Harlem in New York, in toddlers the number of juice servings correlated with the degree of BMI increase.
Norman Swan: Where does this fit, I mean people at the University of Sydney who've pioneered the glycaemic index, the idea that you get some foods which actually boost your blood sugar very quickly and some which are slow. They kind of argue that it doesn't actually matter terribly much what kind of sugar it is, it just depends on how fast your insulin is going to go up. Where does what you're saying fit into the glycaemic index story?
Robert Lustig: In fact glycaemic index is half the story, the other half of the story is the fibre. Here's the way it works -- carrots, let's talk about carrots for a minute. Carrots are very high glycaemic index, what is the definition of glycaemic index? It's how high your blood sugar goes if you eat 50 grams of carbohydrate in that food, that's what glycaemic index is. So if you eat 50 grams of carbohydrate in carrots your blood sugar goes up very high and so that would be a high glycaemic index food. Fructose is a low glycaemic index food because fructose does not stimulate insulin, it's all of these calories but it doesn't stimulate insulin. So in fact a soda has a glycaemic index of 53 which is low. So you'd say oh wait a second, carrots are bad for you and a soda is good for you? Because glycaemic index is not the whole story, in fact what you really want to talk about is a related concept called glycaemic load.
Glycaemic load is glycaemic index times the amount of food you'd actually have to eat to get the 50 grams of carbohydrate, so in carrots you'd have to eat the entire truck in order to get that. Well you can't do that, you wouldn't do that, so in fact carrots, even though they are high glycaemic index are actually low glycaemic load. Carrots are fine, there's nothing wrong with carrots. On the other hand fructose, I mean a soda, there's a lot wrong with it but you wouldn't see it in just looking at glycaemic index.
Norman Swan: So glycaemic index plus common sense?
Robert Lustig: Well it's glycaemic index plus fibre. Fibre turns any food into a low glycaemic load food. In fact we are supposed to eat our carbohydrate with fibre, that's the key. Processed wheat is white, when you go out into the field it's brown but by the time it gets to your bakery it's white. What happened? Well the bran was stripped off, well the bran is the good part, the bran is what we're supposed to be eating.
Norman Swan: I've often wondered, I've heard of some processed stuff and the evil of the food industry etc. but explain to me a conundrum -- why Asians are thin, or have been traditionally thin and for centuries they've eaten processed rice, they've eaten white rice, they don't like brown rice and I don't blame them.
Robert Lustig: Not a problem, I can explain it very simply. If you look at the Atkins diet, the Atkins diet was no-carb, high-fat, no-carb and it worked. We look at the Japanese diet, high-carb, no-fat, it also worked. When you put them together you get something called McDonalds and clearly that doesn't work. So the question is what is it about the Japanese diet, even though they eat all of this white rice, that still allows this phenomenon to be OK? And the answer is very simple -- it's called fructose, because fructose is really not a carbohydrate. If you look at the metabolism, the liver metabolism of fructose it is just like a fat, it doesn't stimulate insulin, just like fat. It causes all this de novo lipogenesis.
Norman Swan: Fat production
Robert Lustig: Fat production within the liver, it causes deposition of fat within the liver, it's actually like alcohol and alcohol is like a fat. So here's a carbohydrate that's acting like a fat. So outside of the Japanese diet, when you eat a low fat diet what are you eating? Snackwell -- and what did they do? They added sugar because otherwise it would be unpalatable. So in fact a low fat diet's not really a low fat diet, a low fat diet containing fructose is really a high fat diet and that explains what's going on. So a Japanese diet yes, they're eating a lot of white rice but they are also eating a lot of fibre in all of their vegetables and they are not consuming any fructose. There is no fructose in the Japanese diet whatsoever, but there is now, and childhood obesity has doubled in Japan in the last ten years whereas adult obesity hasn't moved.
Norman Swan: And the reasons?
Robert Lustig: Because the adults are eating like they used to and the children are eating like we do in America.
Norman Swan: So do you check your home garage floor for brake fluid every morning, I mean you can't be the most popular person with the food industry?
Robert Lustig: Well I'm not, I am not, very much so. The Corn Refiners Association and the Juice Products Association have been on my tail, but the fact of the matter is the science is clear, the science is there and the science has to drive the policy.
Norman Swan: So what about the regulators?
Robert Lustig: Well we're trying to work with them, we are trying to do something about it. They are not moving very fast. In fact you may be aware of the International Obesity Task Force that met at the Sydney meeting in October and they came out with something which they called the Sydney principles. The Sydney principles involved marketing and advertising to children and trying to get rid of that, and they basically said that you have to do something about this and it has to be statutory in nature, it has to be regulated, it has to be a law. In fact in Europe 52 health ministers from the World Health Organisation from all the different European countries got together in Istanbul in August and agreed that marketing to children had to stop. Well in fact that is not happening in America.
Norman Swan: Nor is it in Australia.
Robert Llustig: Well probably not, but I just met with the commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, Miss Deborah Taylor Tait, and she mentioned that she expected that the food companies would police themselves, that regulation would not be necessary. In fact I said, excuse me but I disagree. In fact in 1978 the US Federal Trade Commission had an entire congressional hearings on marketing and advertising to children and the food companies actually lobbied congress to actually have that killed. And they knew why, they knew what they were doing then, and they are going to do it again because it's not in their best interest. They couldn't increase their profits by 5% a year if they didn't advertise and market to children.
Norman Swan: Dr Robert Lustig is Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco.
"
Usually depression is more associated with overeating, taking refuge in the enjoyment of eating.