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

21–30 of 90 posts

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

#21

Post by gte910h »

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…

While sugar is bad for you, there is some evidence that corn syrup is especially so. Not conclusive yet, but enough that some cautious souls are avoiding it.

In the vein of truth in labeling, I think the goods should be well enough labelled that is possible.

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

#22

Post by gruseom »

MartinCron wrote: post #18

The grammar geek in me likes the parallel construction between "corn sugar" and "cane sugar". No matter what they call it, I will still prefer the taste of my imported Mexican Coke made with cane sugar.

Wow, you know what, I bet that's exactly why they picked the name. "Corn syrup" and "cane sugar" are comfortable and familiar. What could fit in with those better than "corn sugar"? One has to make a cognitive effort to distinguish them, and people don't make that kind of cognitive effort very often. This is brilliant marketing. The tobacco industry must be green with envy.

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

#23

Post by warfangle »

I don't eat HFCS because of semi-dubious claims as to health.

I don't eat HFCS because I refuse to help the industry that is most to blame for the algae bloom in the Gulf, and I don't believe that government subsidies should be what makes a given industry profitable (outside, say, weapons research, development, and manufacture - but that's an entirely different can of worms that I oppose on an entirely different reasoning).

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

#24

Post by mdasen »

Personally, I'd like to see Sugar Alcohols get more widely used (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_alcohol). Sugar alcohols are not metabolized by oral bacteria so they're much better for dental health (and used in many chewing gums today such as Trident). They also have fewer calories and are metabolized slower by the body. That means there's less chance that they'll contribute to obesity (fewer calories) and they have a lower impact on the body's blood sugar levels (with a low glycemic index due to the way it's slowly metabolized).

I'm guessing the reason that they're not widely used would be cost and difficulty. Still, if we could figure out a way to produce sugar alcohols cheaply, we could keep our sweet food while having a meaningful and scientifically proven positive impact on our bodies.

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

#25

Post by gte910h »

Xurinos wrote: post #19
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…

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…

HFCS comes in varying F/G ratios. HFCS-55 is the most common, which is 55% fructose. The other two common varieties are HFCS-90 and HFCS-42. All HFCS starts at 90 then pure glucose corn syrup is added to dilute it down. HFCS-55 is about as sweet as sugar (unless heated, in which case it it significantly less so).

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

#26

Post by gte910h »

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…

HFCS also hits you much faster than normal sugar. All the HFCS hits you at once, the sucrose does actually take a small amount of time.

While this may be difference between drinking a pint of 100 proof alcohol vs a cup of 200 proof (i.e. not much), it may prove signifigant.

To me, people should have the labeling required to tell if this substance is in their food. I personally don't totally avoid it, nor do I look for it, but I feel people should have that ability.

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

#27

Post by gte910h »

Goladus wrote: post #17
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.

Actually all HFCS is HFCS-90 mixed with pure glucose corn syrup, I'd prefer they just listed them as separate ingredients (as they do with "Milk Chocolate" and the like).

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

#28

Post by nopassrecover »

Goladus wrote: post #14
tptacek wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And yet, assuming the mice on table sugar weren't more hyped up than those on HCFS, we still perpetuate the leaky abstraction of calories in, calories out.

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

#29

Post by tptacek »

Goladus wrote: post #14
tptacek wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is one very recent very controversial rat study which relies on the group's previous observation that rats whose diets are supplemented with sucrose solution eat less to compensate for the sucrose, but don't eat less to compensate for HFCS.

Look, to avoid a rathole argument that neither of us are really qualified to have, let's just stipulate: HFCS is evil. I completely agree. Regardless of any distinctive biochemical affects, it is clearly a tool used by the food industry to amp up palatability (and thus consumption and thus profit margin) in processed foods. But if we fixate on HFCS, we're just going to be victimized by the whatever sugar the industry replaces HFCS with.

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

#30

Post by poutine »

MartinCron wrote: post #16

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 act…

It's a good strategy. Interestingly Blackwater changed their name to Xe to try and shake off the bad image.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide

Still a nasty organization, name change or not.

Post reply on HN