More food for thought on high-fructose corn syrup

Many readers were not shy about letting me know what they thought about my analysis of Princeton’s recent study on high-fructose corn syrup. The researchers drew the conclusion that HFCS is likely responsible for the fact that U.S. obesity rates have doubled since the 1970s (around the time the corn-based sweetener came on the market).

As I pointed out, the study had several flaws. The effects of HFCS were inconsistent across different groups of rats in different experiments, and were usually worse than the effects of table sugar. One experiment purporting to demonstrate the unique evils of HFCS didn’t even make a direct comparison to sugar.

This did not go down well with many readers. Several accused me of being in the pocket of the Corn Refiners Assn., the group behind those “Sweet Surprise” commercials you may have seen on TV. A few comments were too profane to even post.

So I was quite heartened to read this post by NYU nutritionist Marion Nestle on her excellent Food Politics blog. What did she think of the study? This is how she begins her post:

I can hardly believe that Princeton sent out a press release yesterday announcing the results of this rat study.  The press release says: “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.”

How they came to these conclusions is beyond me.

Is Marion Nestle a paid shill for the corn refiners? Hardly. Her 2002 book “Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health” is an expose of the practices employed by the food-industrial complex that persuade us to overeat.

Those of you who are deeply passionate about this topic would do well to read the thoughtful comments on her blog as well.

-- Karen Kaplan

Photo: If you're bothered by HFCS, perhaps you should cut back on regular sugar too. Credit: Kirk McKoy/Los Angeles Times

Comments

[steve]

In terms of health care reform, people who eat poorly and smoke and drink alcohol will be placing the largest burden on the insurance system, and those who are healthy will be unfairly paying for those who refuse to curb their appetites. Under universal insurance, will that woman who is making an effort to weigh 1000 pounds be covered for her almost certain case of diabetes?

[Lionel]

Karen makes good points on how the study doesn't conclude that HFCS is worse than sugar. However, the Duke Medical study does conclude on something that cannot be ignored - unlike sucrose, HFCS does metabolize in your liver and lead to liver scarring. This is due to the glucose and fructose molecules not being bound. This may lead to more obesity than sucrose...further studies required to see if there is a link between excessive obesity and liver metabolization. Nonetheless, the healthy choice is to limit both sweetners. The problem is that HFCS is in everything including bread.

[Name]

Hey, let the fatties eat their HFCS and processed chemical crap and then rely on drugs to think they're helping themselves for the rest of their lives. For the rest of us, organic and raw.

[Dayadog]

There is a key link that is missing here. Corn has an omega 6 and 3 (EFA's essential fatty acids) ratio of 46-1. The human body needs approx 3-1 ratio. Look up the endocannabinoid system and obesity. There was an obesity drug developed called Rimonabant that has since been removed by the FDA. This was the first drug designed to work on this system.

The western diet has an omega (EFA) balance that is totally off balance. This is a reasonable explanation for same calorie sugars having differing results. Google endocannabinoid system and obesity. Then investigate the omega balance and the western diet.

Learn and educate.

[Fernando]

SAVE A CANA DE ACUCAR. SAVE THE SUGAR CANE. IT IS NOT THE BEST FOR YOU BUT IT IS NOT WORSE THAN HFCS. GOOD THING WE DON'T HAVE HFCS IN BRAZIL...... EVEN THE NAME RESEMBLE SOMETHING RADIOACTIVE.....

[thebob.bob]

The authors of the article stand by their statement and answer the industry charges in this WaPo article.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/03/is_that_right_hcfs_makes_rats.html?wprss=checkup

[P. Jennings]

The very well regarded biochemistry textbook, "Harper's Biochemistry" says:

. . . fructose enters glycolysis via fructokinase, and the resulting fructose 1-phosphate BYPASSES THE REGULATORY STEP catalyzed by phosphofructokinase.

It bypasses the regulatory step. That means it can essentially overwhelm the system.

And that means that fructose is not metabolized "the same" or even nearly the same as, say, table sugar.

There is another factor which is almost as important, and can have a profound effect on metabolizing fructose. Why don't you all crack the books a little, get back to the biochemistry roots (which you don't have) and brush up on the basics of fructose metabolism vs. so-called "table sugar" ?

[nestwife]

The authors of the Princeton study respond to Dr. Nestle's concerns here
http://tinyurl.com/yd5rkur

[Lisa]

Some of the comments on the HFCS study are really disturbing. Karen isn't absolving HFCS here; she's simply pointing out that the Princeton study is deeply flawed. And yet commenters have fired back with crazy accusations about funding from corn refiners & other such nonsense. It makes me wonder where all this emotion is coming from. A deep commitment to a paranoid outlook on the world? A confused reaction to the corporatization of America? Maybe. But I think some of the vitriol stems from the basic need to feel morally superior -- a sort of "purer than thou" sentiment that I find really gross.

Here's my suggestion: If you are so deeply committed to an idea that you will no longer listen to evidence, you shouldn't engage in scientific dialog. Leave that to the people who feel they have something to learn.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps there is more than one question involved in this issue.

One question would be: Is high-fructose corn syrup metabolized differently than table sugar (white, refined cane sugar)?

That answer is yes, differently. But probably not enough to make a big difference in the diet of someone consuming very modest quantities of either.

But the related question is: Is high-fructose corn causing the epidemic of obesity?

That answer is no. Not by itself. However, it is adding significantly to what would otherwise be a less widespread problem. It would be a good thing to get it OUT of sodas, and out of the many, many foods it is in.

Another question, unrelated to humans: Is the honeybee "colony collapse disorder" being cause by feeding the bees high-fructose corn syrup? Feeding them HFCS instead of, or in addition to, their own honey?

That answer is yes. And it's easy enough to do some comparisons. An unequivocal answer, satisfactory in its "scientificness" can be available in less than a year.

Just take two beehives. Or better yet, twenty. Allow one set to use their own honey for nutrition; i.e., act like normal bees in Nature. Feed the other set HFCS in the way that that is currently being done. Voila. The answer will be quite clear.

[Stuart]

The reason people will believe you are in the pocket of Corn Refiners Association is that thou protest too much. Why would you advocate using something created in the lab for food that we server our children? Why would you want people to trust HFC? You are suppose to be some sort of heath expert. 30 years ago you would have been telling us the benefit of tobacco. There is always the alternative- you are simple incompetent at your job I suppose.

Sugar has been around for a couple thousand years. We do not need a replacement. Thanks but no thanks for your endorsement of HFC.

I like the way you made sure to post the links to your supporters in the post so they could get better search results.

You left out the liver damage part- I'll bet Duke and Princeton are both conspiring against HFC. I am sure the Corn people are telling us the truth and not two major universities- right? Do you even know how silly that sounds? How in the world did you even get this job?

[Stuart]

You are writing in the health section advocating the use of HFCS. Gee I wonder why anyone would use profanity- DUH!

I will correct my earlier post and simply go with incompetence. Saying that you are working for big corn gives you waaaaaaay too much credit.

[James Henderson, M.D.]

I'm not accusing you of anything. However, a visit to SweetSurprise.com by any objective scientifically trained individual reveals bias and similar tactics to those of the 20th century tobacco industry. Especially damning are their statements implying that rats have no utility in research. Another false statement is that "a sugar is a sugar" sucrose, which indeed is glucose-fructose, undergoes metabolism that expends energy and is more prolonged than exogenous fructose and glucose ingested in their unbound forms. Fructose makes a b-line from the small intestine to the liver where it increases VLDL and triglycerides.

I'm not paid by anyone and have no dog in the fight and I'm posting comments against paid industry professionals on many websites. I'm sure a paid nutritionist will post below me saying once again "a sugar is a sugar," which is a patently false statement.

[david]

I think this hysteria against HFCS is out of control. Just reading the comments here, some people are so consumed by their own ideology and beliefs that their opinions become unreliable.

The purpose of the health blog is to get to the truth of the matter, not propagate some raw food, organic ideology. If there is evidence to the contrary it's best to ask why, not accuse people of conspiring and tell them to shut up.

[johnie o'neal]

I finally found the promotional Dr. Pepper being made since July, 2010 thru Sept. 2010. It instantly had a fresher, cleaner taste that I remember from my childhood. Living in Oklahoma, I was in one of the few plces it was distributed just like Pepsi or Coke. When my wife to be went to NYC in 1972, no one there had it or had even heard of it. It was a true "boutique" soda, as the east coast natives would say. In NYC, I got stares when I asked for pop. It's time for a revolution before the grocery producers, BP, and pharmaceutical companies kill us in pursuit of profit. I am not ranting we need a return to the good old days, because these kinds of villains existed then. Take Nixon, Haldeman, and Erlich for a good example. But we need to stop listening to Sarah Palin and her ilk, and give President Obama a chance to help the country recover from eight hellish years of a republican tripling the deficit, deregulating Wall Street, and spending more money (and llives) on wars we cannot win and should not be trying to win. Bring back sugar-filled Dr,. Pepper, Coke, Pepsi, and ban fructose and other substances known to be hastening us to our quick death. Thanks, Johnie in Tulsa, OK