High-Fructose Corn Syrup - the Controversy

And the answer is "no, it isn't." In about half a dozen reviews of the evidence researchers have never been able to find evidence of increased TG levels, or a connection between consumption and obesity, at fructose consumption levels that represent actual human use:

quote:

---

The purpose of this review was to critically evaluate the existing database for a causal relationship between the ingestion of fructose in a normal, dietary manner and the development of hyperlipidemia or increased body weight in healthy, normal weight humans, using an evidence-based approach. The results of the analysis indicate that fructose does not cause biologically relevant changes in TG or body weight when consumed at levels approaching 95th percentile estimates of intake.

---

Evidence-based review on the effect of normal dietary consumption of fructose on development of hyperlipidemia and obesity in healthy, normal weight individuals - PubMed

quote:

---

Epidemiological studies show growing evidence that consumption of sweetened beverages (containing either sucrose or a mixture of glucose and fructose) is associated with a high energy intake, increased body weight, and the occurrence of metabolic and cardiovascular disorders. There is, however, no unequivocal evidence that fructose intake at moderate doses is directly related with adverse metabolic effects. There has also been much concern that consumption of free fructose, as provided in high fructose corn syrup, may cause more adverse effects than consumption of fructose consumed with sucrose. There is, however, no direct evidence for more serious metabolic consequences of high fructose corn syrup versus sucrose consumption.

---

Metabolic effects of fructose and the worldwide increase in obesity - PubMedBut that's not the question I've been asking at all. (Hence my concern that you've misunderstood the topic.) What I'm asking is, is there evidence that replacing sucrose with HFCS in your diet is harmful? Or that replacing HFCS with sucrose in your diet is helpful? Conflating HFCS with pure fructose simply confounds the issue. I mean, it's right there in the thread title - we're talking about HFCS 55, the most common sweetener in (among other things) sodas. One of the things I'm learning as I do more research on the subject is that the human applicability of rat dietary studies is fairly limited.

Bt is used to also control mosquito populations. Farmers have to be careful to use the particular Bt toxin protein specific to the insect they are trying to control, otherwise they could harm beneficial species. So, no I don't agree with your assetion that it is only harmful to lepidopterans and beetle larvae.Should we worry about the possible unintended poisoning of targetted species outside of the farm? Is there such a possible effect? Would you consider 6 months as low persistance?While I applaud the attempt at creating pesticides that are low impact, with low-toxicity to non-targetted species and have a small to negligable impact beyond their application, I champion the continued oversight of any product or design which has the potential for negative consequences. According to this Study the streams tested had stream channels that were 500m from maize fields and that roughly 91% of Indiana's miles of streams were within 500m of where maize fields had been planted.I'm not out to demonize the use of Bt in pesticides or our crops, but I definitely care about the possible negative consequences of their use. I think a high priority item for study should be the impact of the Bt protein in streams and the possiblility of the introduction of GM genes into native species. Continuing my research into HFCS leads me to agree with you that any demonization of HFCS should not be based on its supposed difference with sucrose. (Is 5% more fructose enough to make HFCS so much more dangerous than sucrose? It doesn't appear to be so.)The increase in the percentage of foods that have sugar in their ingredients should be the focus of poeples ire and not the little difference between sucrose and HFCS.Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.Edited by DBlevins, : whats up with copying a text and having it copy the whole field?

Wouldn't an increased risk of obesity related illnesses qualify as "harmful"? Or are you asking about acute toxicity? I am not conflating the two. I am clearly talking about an increase in fructose concentrations as compared to pure sucrose. Here is what I said before:

quote:

---

The question is whether this increase in fructose over an even balance like that with pure sucrose is enough to increase TG levels and subsequent obesity.

---

With that I will wholeheartedly agree. I am going to see if there is any solid data to back it up. Like I said, I never agreed with the hypothesis, I only outlined what I thought the hypothesis was.

I guess it would be, if replacing sucrose with HFCS would cause that. Does it? What increase? Sucrose isn't being replaced pound for pound by HFCS; HFCS is naturally sweeter than sucrose so it takes less HFCS to replace the sucrose in a food.

Yes, but toxicity exposure is going to be limited to species that eat Bt crops or live in water where the toxin is present, right? We're not talking about something like a PCB that accumulates its way up the food chain. Yes, I would. I'm down with oversight, just not with overreaction. Any kind of pest control measure is going to have to be monitored for emergence of resistance. Bt is a soil-dwelling organism. It's not like it's something we invented. Bacillus thuringiensis is all over the damn place; is this really the first time it's ever been in a stream? If we find it in a stream do we know for sure it's from Bt crops? I find all of that very hard to believe. While it's abundantly clear that the past several decades of public health intervention into the diet of Americans has resulted in an increase in calories consumed, it's not clear that the increase is due only to an increase in carb consumption (starches and sugars.) In fact it appears that consumption is up across the board - protein is up, fats are up, carbs are up, everything is up (but fruits and vegetables, natch.)

Just because it only effects a limited set of species doesn't mean we should not be concerned, right? If the effect of Bt is creating an imbalance in off-the-farm ecosystems by killing a significant number of the targetted species I have to be concerned. What is the impact on species of a toxin that is constantly being put into the system and one that is persistent? My point being that 6-months is less time than the next cycle of planting which makes it for all intents and purposes persistent. Did you read the study?Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

Don't know, but it is helpful to determine the question before trying to find the answer. No matter the overall intake the fructose fraction of the carbohydrate balance is still going to be higher in HFCS compared to pure sucrose.I would think that intake is variable person to person. There is also the hypothesis that fructose does not trigger the sensation of being sated as well as glucose does so the lower overall concentrations of HFCS may be lost by consuming more of the same beverage compared to the same beverage sweetened with 100% sucrose. I am not saying I agree with this hypothesis, but it is out there.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I'd turn it around and ask - if it only affects a limited number of species, how concerned should we be? Why do you think it's creating an "imbalance"?

Why? I don't follow.

Perhaps I am not being clear or your not seeing the forest for the trees.It doesn't matter whether it effects a limited number of species because we have no idea of the effect that significantly reducing the population of those species could have on the scosystem as a whole.Again, in case I wasn't clear: I am not saying that this is happening, but it definitely should be a concern and studied and not written off as fear-mongering. I said 'If'.

I guess, or maybe I just don't see ecology as a matter of natural environments that somehow, magically, can respond to any condition or change in conditions - except for the ones humans create. Can humans wreak incredible damage to their environments? Yes, of course - but so can insects. Humans can dam streams, but beavers do, too.It's fairly rare for an ecology to turn on the survival or extinction of a single species, or even a handful of species. When an ecology is structured like that it's evidence of decay, of fragility. It's like a diseased antelope, soon to be culled by the hyenas.So I guess what I'm saying is - I don't care if Bt washes into streams. Bt has always washed into streams. Is it worth monitoring? Of course it is, and I hope that research continues. I strongly suspect it will be, funded largely by the companies who produce GMO's. But anything we do in the world is going to have an effect. And there will be effects - changes that occur to natural ecology - in the world long after the last human is gone. Maybe our actions will change our ecologies in ways we don't like, and we should be on the lookout for that. But just changing things isn't inherently bad.We're probably a bit off-topic, here.

HFCS contains sucrose AND fructose. When the sucrose is broken down into glucose and fructose there is a molar excess of fructose as a total of all sugars. If you ingest just sucrose there are equimolar amounts of both glucose and fructose. The question is whether or not this molar excess of fructose is enough to cause health problems.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

HFCS contains no sucrose at all.

Quite right. My mistake.Still, HFCS 55 contains 55% fructose and 45% glucose which has a molar excess of fructose compared to the digestion of sucrose into the same components.

Yes, but that's not necessarily going to translate into an increased consumption of fructose. Since fructose is sweeter than sucrose (almost twice as sweet, in fact) it might very well mean a decrease in the consumption of both fructose and glucose.