Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

huffingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 90 posts

Re: High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

#11

Post by CWuestefeld »

tptacek wrote: post #5
nimai wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fructose has proven to be particularly harmful - your liver shuts down while it's being processed, leading to all sorts of fun side effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Liver_disease

And, like I just said, table sugar breaks down into fructose during digestion, and "HFCS" isn't "HF" compared to "all other sweeteners"; it's "HF" compared to plain corn syrup, which is unpalatable. HFCS alarmism is knee-jerk wishful thinking from people who want to blame some boogeyman industrial process for all the nation's health problems. The problem is our addiction to sweetness. HFCS obviously abets this by mak…

As I understand it, the complaint isn't over the "H" part, but the 'F'. Obviously nothing is going to be "higher" sugar than a spoonful of, um, sugar (setting aside issues of density).

But I'd point out that you've taken a page from the corn industry and edited your previous words. You had said earlier "table sugar breaks down into glucose and fructose during digestion", but revised that to "table sugar breaks down into fructose during digestion".

The controversy here is that (AFAIK) HFCS is all, or much more, fructose than glucuse, relative to table sugar; how does the body react to the difference between fructose and glucose?

Re: High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

#12

Post by tptacek »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #11
tptacek wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, like I just said, table sugar breaks down into fructose during digestion, and "HFCS" isn't "HF" compared to "all other sweeteners"; it's "HF" compared to plain corn syrup, which is unpalatable. HFCS alarmism is knee-jerk wishful thinking from people who want to blame some boogeyman industrial process for all the nation's health problems. The problem is our addiction to sweetness. HFCS obviously abets this by mak…

As I understand it, the complaint isn't over the "H" part, but the 'F'. Obviously nothing is going to be "higher" sugar than a spoonful of, um, sugar (setting aside issues of density). But I'd point out that you've taken a page from the corn industry and edited your previous words. You had said earlier "table sugar breaks down into glucose and fructose during digestion", but revised that to "table sugar breaks down i…

That last sentence is false. HFCS is not "much more" fructose than glucose relative to table sugar. It's "much more" fructose than other sugars relative to unpalatable plain corn syrup. Table sugar is metabolized very similarly to HFCS, with very similar (some sources would say nearly identical) fructose loads. The difference is that HFCS contains free-floating fructose, and sucrose is a disaccharide (of glucose and fructose) that is very quickly broken into plain 'ol glucose and fructose as soon as it hits your digestive system.

'carbocation may jump in here to set me straight (I'd be surprised but happy to have learned something), but my understanding here is that there is nothing more healthful about plain table sugar than HFCS. They are both very bad for you in the same way.

Re: High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

#13

Post by lftl »

tptacek wrote: post #6
ajscherer wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with you about HFCS, it does strike me as slimy to rename a product in order to trick people specifically trying to avoid that product into continuing to consume it.

They're rebranding it to "sugar". Good for them. Sugar is the problem . Singling out HFCS actually does everyone a disservice, by making them think that if they just seek out "HFCS-free" foods they'll be fine. No they won't.

In my practical experience at the grocery store, avoiding HFCS will at least accidentally lead you to a lower sugar diet. This is mostly due to the fact that at a typical grocery store you won't be able to find many of the more processed goods that don't have HFCS in it (there is literally 1 brand of bread out of 10-15 at the local Publix without HFCS), so you'll basically be forced to buy more raw vegetables, fruits, meats, etc.

Re: High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

#14

Post by Goladus »

tptacek wrote: post #6
ajscherer wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with you about HFCS, it does strike me as slimy to rename a product in order to trick people specifically trying to avoid that product into continuing to consume it.

They're rebranding it to "sugar". Good for them. Sugar is the problem . Singling out HFCS actually does everyone a disservice, by making them think that if they just seek out "HFCS-free" foods they'll be fine. No they won't.

I thought this too, until I read this: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

Re: High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

#15

Post by RyanMcGreal »

kiuyhjk wrote: post #9
tptacek wrote: post #2

And? Sugar is what's bad for you. The "high fructose" in HFCS is "high" relative to other corn syrup ; table sugar breaks down into glucose and fructose during digestion. "Big Corn" is probably right, here; "HFCS" is a misleading term (for one thing, it doesn't mean anything --- different HFCS blends have wildly different amounts of fructose), and more importantly, the notion that it's just "the bad kind of sugar" th…

I thought the "High Fructose" was an earlier attempt to make it sound good to the consumer. Fructose = fruit, fruit = good, therefore "High Fructose" = good

Maybe, but the consumers have adapted.

Re: High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

#16

Post by MartinCron »

Back when I was in Business School, I did some strategic analysis role-modeling as if I were in charge of Monsanto. At the time, Monsanto was best known for the "terminator gene", suing farmers allegedly stealing their agricultural IP, and BT corn that killed monarch butterflies.

I suggested that they change their name as the first part of their strategy to turn over a new leaf in both PR as well as core business activity. My peers mocked me, saying that no big evil corporation would be so brazen as to just change their name to clean up their brand, as their critics would see right through it.

The very next week, Philip Morris rebranded itself to Altria.

Re: High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

#17

Post by Goladus »

tptacek wrote: post #2

And? Sugar is what's bad for you. The "high fructose" in HFCS is "high" relative to other corn syrup ; table sugar breaks down into glucose and fructose during digestion. "Big Corn" is probably right, here; "HFCS" is a misleading term (for one thing, it doesn't mean anything --- different HFCS blends have wildly different amounts of fructose), and more importantly, the notion that it's just "the bad kind of sugar" th…

So, it should be labelled what it actually is, not rebranded to something more broad and misleading. HCFS-55 or HCFS-42 or HCFS-90, or whatever.

Re: High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

#19

Post by Xurinos »

tptacek wrote: post #5
nimai wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fructose has proven to be particularly harmful - your liver shuts down while it's being processed, leading to all sorts of fun side effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Liver_disease

And, like I just said, table sugar breaks down into fructose during digestion, and "HFCS" isn't "HF" compared to "all other sweeteners"; it's "HF" compared to plain corn syrup, which is unpalatable. HFCS alarmism is knee-jerk wishful thinking from people who want to blame some boogeyman industrial process for all the nation's health problems. The problem is our addiction to sweetness. HFCS obviously abets this by mak…

The way I learned it from the nice professor in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM) was simply:

fructose = bad, poison

glucose = good

sucrose = fructose + glucose, unsafe because the composition preserves the fructose portion

HFCS = 25% fructose, not as bad as sucrose (IIRC)

Mitigate fructose intake with fiber. apple juice = bad, but apple = good because of the fiber countering the effect of the poison at a higher point in our internal food processing chain.

I noticed you were getting downvotes, and I suspect it is because of the general "Sugar is bad for you" statement, which is -- as far as the studies go -- half correct. The rest of your text makes the distinction, so I hope it is not wholly ignored. HFCS is a scapegoat, as you point out, and it would help if we focused on the one part that is important: fructose is poison. And it can be mitigated with fiber.

But that's just what I learned from some video. One thing that always bugged me: glucose is known commonly as "grape sugar". Do grapes have fructose? Without any fructose added, is grape juice a healthy fruit juice?

Re: High fructose corn syrup rebranded as 'corn sugar'

#20

Post by gruseom »

tptacek wrote: post #5
nimai wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fructose has proven to be particularly harmful - your liver shuts down while it's being processed, leading to all sorts of fun side effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Liver_disease

And, like I just said, table sugar breaks down into fructose during digestion, and "HFCS" isn't "HF" compared to "all other sweeteners"; it's "HF" compared to plain corn syrup, which is unpalatable. HFCS alarmism is knee-jerk wishful thinking from people who want to blame some boogeyman industrial process for all the nation's health problems. The problem is our addiction to sweetness. HFCS obviously abets this by mak…

Don't disagree overall, but I have three reasons for thinking you might be oversimplifying a bit. Given how much sweeter HFCS is than sucrose, there's reason to believe that our addiction to sweetness is partly the work of that industrial process; there's a pretty big difference between HFCS and sucrose (the latter of course being "only" 50% fructose); and the correlation between the HFCS growth curve and the obesity growth curve is remarkable.
Post reply on HN