And I also think sugar tend to have less mercury in it.

One is a study done by a group with a vested interest:

"Consumers are being misled into thinking that there's something different about this corn sweetener than any other sweetener, when in fact they're essentially the same," said Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association, a trade group that represents makers of high-fructose corn syrup and other corn millers."

And here's some info on the other organization: [alcoholfacts.org]

Audrae Erickson
President
Corn Refiners Association

@floraposte: The "misleading phrasing" as you put it is not posted here. In fact, he's not objecting to anything I posted. He seems to be upset that elsewhere in the article I referenced it does not explain the chemical compound of sugar to his satisfication. If you look at the wikipedia link he posted you'll see that it states "cane sugar (sucrose) is made from glucose and fructose". Not that I care one way or another, but perhaps he may want to make a Wikipedia edit to clarify their "misleading phrasing". Either way, the point of my post was missed. By him and now by you.

That being said, corn syrup and processed white sugar are missing micronutrients, enzymes and pro-biotics that occur in evaporated cane. Those make a difference in how the body digests and processes whatever it is you're eating. They have the same amount of calories, of course. But "natural" doesn't mean "low-calorie" and never has. The point of eating natural foods such as evaporate cane (or molasses) instead of processed white sugar is simply to keep hold of the other ingredients that mother nature included but agriprocessors strip out.

American's diets are sadly deficient in micronutrients and pro-biotics and plant enzymes of all kinds, because they are decimated by factory farming methods and processing. Returning these missing items to our diet is a goal that eating all sorts of minimally processed foods, including sugar cane and sugar beets, helps. Yes, you have to get used to things not tasting quite as sweet as the overpowering assault on the taste buds that corn syrup and processed sugar provides, but in the end people are not going to completely give up sugar - therefore they should eat sugar that is as close to what nature intended as possible.

[www.washingtonpost.com]

[www.ehjournal.net]

Real Ale does not and that's what I drink.

Just because something is bad for you doesn't mean it shouldn't be as healthy as it could be.

Or we could just ignore the problem of obesity and blame people for drinking their HFCS sodas.

So maybe the problem with HFCS is that it's _less_ refined than cane sugar and has more impurities affecting the flavor?

Or maybe the employees just pee in the HFCS vats, which they can't do to white sugar crystals.

I can honestly say that I can tell the difference and I prefer sugar every time.

HFCS has one major negative health effect: it is cheap. Since HFCS was introduced in the late 1970s, the consumption of snack foods in America has exploded exponentially.

HFCS = POISON! SUGAR = POISON! DO YOURSELF A F*#$@*#$& FAVOR!

So, I need to drink the whole bottle to see the health effects? I don't know if I can do 2 liters in one sitting.

:-)

@floraposte:

Sugar is a naturally derived product. It's ubiquitously available in nature and its synthetic production would not be economically practical.

HFCS is essentially prehydrolyzed sucrose, the only difference being that it contains an excess of fructose, whereas sucrose is hydrolyzed into stoichometrically equal amounts of glucose and sucrose by the enzymes your body. Aside from the loss of enzymatic rate control of hydrolysis, I can't think of a way your body could tell the difference between the two had HFCS contained glucose and fructose in a 1:1 proportion. Glucose would be introduced into your bloodstream a bit faster after consuming HFCS as opposed to sugar, but that's about it. The origin of the possible adverse effects of HFCS has got to be the excess of fructose.

[www.maineroot.com]

But some palettes are sharper than others, whether that be from training, from regular diets, or from straight-up genetics (as you can see annually on most chef show competitions).

To my knowledge (please correct me if I'm wrong), but there exists very little research done to determine the metabolic differences between sucrose and HFCS. The table sugar that is being so vehemently supported here is made up of fructose and glucose. The only difference between HFCS and sucrose is that in sucrose the two sugars are bonded together and in HFCS, they are not.

Having worked for a corn milling company, I constantly found myself amazed by the myriad ways corn can be used. HFCS is just one product made with corn. Modified corn starch goes into almost as many products as HFCS, yet no one complains.

Corn (in whatever form) is not the problem here. People need to be more aware of what they are purchasing and their daily caloric intake, not just what products have HFCS.

I actually find the taste to be a lot smoother on my tongue, whereas I find HFCS to be very sharp and filmy. I really don't know why that is, but my guess is that the HFCS molecule is not as rounded as the sugar molecule. I saw some thing on Good Eats where he talks about mixing sugar with something else, and that by doing so, it creates a smoother, better mouth feel because it rounds the sugar molecules even more. I don't know anything about the science behind the two, but if I were to guess why mexi-coke feels better in my mouth, that would be my guess.

Not that I'm saying it's not possible, just that these aren't actually links that demonstrate a clear negative outcome of HCFS.

opinion = fact!

I didn't notice the difference until I started actively seeking out bottled sodas from Mexico. They taste so much better Maybe it's my age...I dunno. Somehow, though...Coca-Cola bottled down south is infinitely better with a burrito (at least in my mind) than the same brand bottled up here.

I'll of course order any local/house rootbeer that I can get my hands on.

Regional and specialty sodas are really seeing a renaissance right now, they're getting easier to find, and there are a lot of great ones out there. HFCS or no, selling bottles of sugar water for $1.50 will likely ALWAYS be highly profitable!

Even though they're not root beers, I'm also a big fan of China Cola, and Virgil's Real Cola. Good old Coke is still one of my favorite beverages, but I often want something with a more pronounced kola bite. Virgil's Real Cola is the closest thing I've had to Royal Crown Draft Cola since they stopped distributing that in the US. That was truly the Cola of Kings.

@Skaperen: You missed the point of my post. If you have a beef with the article, though, it has a link for you to submit your feedback. Feel free to unleash your unholy disaccharide terror upon them.

Sit down, casual restaurants are the worst just because the staff tend to have no idea what's in their food and drinks. Chain restaurants seem to be a bit better about knowing, but are more likely to have HFCS in all sorts of random things.

@Paul Carr:

opinion != fact
[pbskids.org]

[www.sciencedaily.com]

[www.eatright.org]

[www.ajcn.org]

I wish people would quit buying into the corn growers propaganda. There are some clear negative outcomes from HFCS that are combined with other factors to cause health problems.

But for me, I never get that far. I avoid it because things with HFCS are likely enough to taste like ass that I'd rather not risk it. And a lot of people avoid it for environmental or possibly other ethical reasons.

My issue is with articles like this, claiming that HFCS has been 'demonized' by inarticulate dingbats like the people in those commercials who think it's evil because, "ummmm, durrrr."

The taste factor is equally valid. Things made with cane sugar and fewer additives taste better.

[myyearwithout.blogspot.com]

however, in terms of fountain soda, i don't believe i could tell the difference. that stuff all tastes supersweet to me.

Great example of this - a few weeks ago I saw in the store egg salad, just salad no bread, with lettuce in it also, and thought that it looked good. Mind you, I would rather make my own egg salad, but curiosity grabbed me and I looked at the ingredients list. Mostly to see if they had any ingredients in it that I should add to my own egg salad. As I was looking, I saw that the sugar in it was 68g per quarter cup serving. Where did they get all of that sugar? Egg, lettuce, sugar? Huh?

HFCS is the salt of the modern day. Twenty years ago everyone was freaking out because food manufacturers encrusted everything in stupendous levels of salt to make it more addictive. Consumer habits changed, salt levels were reduced, to the point where most food is now bland, and sugar was added to make up for it.

The irony of both is that if a little bit of salt was used in the cooking, up front, the food would have a sweeter, bolder taste and you would get your daily dietary needs of salt. Instead, we put so little salt into the foods, that people find themselves layering it on top thinking "god, I like salt" rather than realizing they like the chemical aspects of what it does to their food.

Humbug.

Disaccharide: [en.wikipedia.org]

Then of course, there's honey...

Orange juice normally contains the sugar which occurs in oranges, it isn't stripped out and replaced with corn syrup.

I actually prefer Tropicana's 50% less version so I don't get the glucose shock.

The best I ever tasted was at the county fair here, where this stand had HOMEMADE root beer. I drank an entire bottle (about the size of a small wine bottle). It was SOOO GOOOD.

In other words, HFCS encourages increased total use of sugar in processed foods.

Also, HFCS is a good indicator for a food product that generally uses lower quality ingredients (besides just the HFCS). Often, if there is HFCS, it's also got a lot of other things I am not inclined to want to eat.

Also, processed doesnt mean it is bad for you. stop with the hippie bs.

I would be willing to wager that most ppl in blind taste tests wouldnt be able to tell if something was sweetened with sugar or hfcs. People are lying to themselves here and then lying to everyone else.

hfcs btw is as natural (or as processed) as beer. corn starch is attacked by enzymes, and broken down into sugars. It is a lot less processed than sugar.

And I think sugar is better than HFCS, in that it hasn't been found to contain mercury and doesn't taste like ass. All that article said was "everything in moderation." Shut up, article; most people already know that (even if they don't actually apply it).

@B: I'll join - they have HFCS in them right?

Sugar coke, on the other hand, actually tastes refreshing. You drink it and you're happy, and you don't need to have another coke. Although . . . I could really go for one right now.

As far as the taste itself, sugar coke has a more bright flavor. But I think that's related to the cloying aftertaste of HFCS coke, again.

/shrug

The other day, it was really hot out and I didn't feel like cooking, so I got a little tub of pre-made potato salad from the grocery store. Sure, I can see a little sugar in homemade potato salad, but there was so much corn syrup in this crap that it was seriously sweeter than some ice cream. It was absolutely disgusting, and I threw it out. If it hadn't been so damned hot out, I would have returned it to the store for being unacceptable.

And it's not the first time that's happened. Prepared foods are overwhelmingly sweet these days.

Which, hey. Great. I don't expect prepared foods to be as good as my own cooking (I am awesome), and I can eat almost anything, but increasingly, I'm finding things that are completely unpalatable, and more often than not, HFCS is the culprit.

That said, some sugar goes through some pretty bizarre processing people might not know about.

Also, on a separate note, I'll consume HFCS in moderation but the trick is getting only a moderate amount of it. HFCS is in EVERYTHING these days - as an anti-coagulant, as a sweetener, as a thickener in some cases. All because the government still subsidizes the heck out of corn farmers. (I'm originally from Kansas, too. I like corn as much as the next girl but come *ON*!)

For those of you who are unfamiliar with farm subsidies and how they work I would recommend a visit to.
[www.fsa.usda.gov]

Its not about giving people money to NOT farm - its about supporting families and small, non-corporate farmers who are better for the consumer and for the environment as a whole.

Farming is a very tough life - its a HUGE gamble - and every year growers take that gamble. They riske their entire livelihood everytime they plant the ground because who knows if the sun will shine enough, the rain will fall, rivers will rise... who knows. How would you like if 80-90% of your salary was based on the weather each year?

@B: Finally, a religion I can get behind. Where do I send my tithe check?

Anything where sugar is one of the primary flavors, corn syrup can suck it.

Remember when corn syrup used to be used mainly for texture?

HFCS is a racket.

Even if it's a small possibility, I don't see a reason not to avoid it if a substitute with sugar is available. Not to mention taste issues.

@Radi0logy: I won't even bother commenting on the other two points, but I wonder how it is that you presume that my preference for the taste of sugar over that of HFCS is false. Those are some crazy psychic powers you must have, to not only know for a fact the exact taste preferences of a random internet person, but to also know that they have convinced themselves of a false preference. Based on your amazing amount of knowledge, I must now conclude that I have been duped by the sugar lobby and I must now work to reprogram myself so that I may enjoy HFCS like I'm supposed to.

As for the HFCS, my main beef with it is not that it's used...but that it's used in PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING. It changes (some say improves) texture as well as adding sweetness, and is a big sop handed to our corn (over)producing states since post-WW II.

HFCS is of the Devil.

I've had about 3 varieties of root beer where I've just bolted up in my seat after the first sip because they were so clean tasting, and sure enough, every time its because they contain real sugar. Overall, this has happened to me about 15 times (recognizing the sugar type used in a beverage without knowing its contents) because I'm a total cola/rootbeer/soda nut.

I don't think it requires a particularly sensitive taster either. I was living with a roommate, with whom between us we drank STUPID, OBSCENE amounts of coke, about a 2 liter between us every day. Near Passover, I had picked up Kosher coke for the holidays. Without knowing it was sugar coke (or even knowing that kosher coke existed), he poured a glass of it and then came up to me and said "Have you tried this coke? It's different, it tastes so good!"

The sucrose definitely tastes better. And it also produces less acidity in my stomach. So that's very much preferred.

Sucrose also seems to work better as a sweetener when diluted. I tested one of their 500ml drinks with HFCS diluted in 1000ml of water, against the sucrose based packet in 1500ml water (its instructions call for 500ml). The sweetness was lost in the HFCS test diluted 1:3. But it was still there in the sucrose test diluted 1:3.

Both kinds of sugar are bad. One of them can be diluted better than the other. If you still want a touch of sweetness, you can do it with less if you use sucrose.

@VA_White:

well said.

but you do admit that it is better? then this is a non issue and we should just move away from the HFCS and back to sugar... you know... since it is better

I highly recommend watching the film:

"King Korn"

From what I have read, one of the main reasons why obesity has actually become a larger problem than hunger is that our bodies do not comprehend liquids as containing calories. So consuming a liquid w/sugar or HFCS does not sate hunger wither way, and we will continue to crave food. Since a lb of fat is ~3500 calories, a soda a day could turn into a lb of fat in as little as a month.

Good lord man, you already have 40+ posts today. And we're only halfway through the day.

Do you have prizes to award us?

Thank you. Finally the REAL reason why HFCS should be avoided. It isn't processed by the human body correctly; I would call that a health risk.

HFCS tastes like corn... very sweet corn but ever since switching off soda with corn syrup I can taste it. I have no idea about the health benefits as indeed no one does but the taste difference is clear if you switch off and then come back. I have very sensitive taste though for example I really taste and it tastes like medicine.

The fact is that if you taste sweeteners by themself; like agave, sugar, corn syrup, maple syrup, honey, aspartame, yacon, etc. they may all be sweet, but they definately don't taste the same.

Why I avoid it:

Unlike glucose, which is metabolized a number of ways by your body, fructose is only metabolized by your liver. When the liver receives more fructose than it can handle, the excess sugars are turned into fats in the form of triglycerides, which are harmful to your arteries and your heart.

There's much to be learned about how our bodies react to fructose, but researchers do know that fructose doesn't stimulate production of insulin, leptin or ghrelin, all of which play a part in telling the body how much it needs to eat [source: Havel]. Without receiving these internal signals to stop eating, it becomes that much easier for us to continue chowing down on that pint of double-chocolate fudge ice cream.

The biggest problem is that HFCS is being added to food items that don't normally have sugar and that you wouldn't even describe as sweet -- crackers, for instance. So, not only are we chugging down lots of sugars with our sodas, but your PBJ sandwich could have HFCS in each of its three ingredients. Meal after meal, day after day, all of this extra sugar adds up, and that, and not necessarily the qualities of HFCS itself, is likely one reason why rates for obesity and diabetes have climbed since the introduction of HFCS. (Other factors are in play as well, such as decreased activity and exercise levels and increased fat consumption.)

****
From the HowStuffWorks website [recipes.howstuffworks.com]

@Radi0logy: i did a blind taste test with HFCS vs sugar coke and over several trials none of us (out of 4) could reliably pick them apart, including 2 people who previously swore they only liked the kind with real sugar. i think most of it is mental although it is possible more refined palates than mine can tell the difference

In something like a cookie or cake, I probably can't tell (I don't really eat these foods ever anyway), but in packaged foods with very high sugar contents, such as frozen desserts and sodas, its pretty easy to notice.

Even if companies switch from HFCS to sugar to appease consumer there will still be a ton of sweetness in most processed foods. Foods won't have the cloying flavor of HFCS, but they will still taste way sweeter than necessary.

Let me be clear. I have nothing against corn.

There's nothing better than an fresh ear of corn slathered in real butter with a dash of kosher salt.

Oh, and popcorn with real butter and salt. No fake butter in this house.

I just don't need corn in my chocolate bar, my soda, or anything else where it isn't actually in the shape of a corn kernel.

I don't like that.

@legwork: This is the real problem--HFCS is bad for economic reasons, not dietary ones. It's so damn cheap that they can put it in everything. When your grandma made tomato sauce, she probably put 1/4 tsp of sugar in it to cut the bitterness of the tomatoes. When ConAgra makes tomato sauce, they put a few tablespoons of HFCS in it because it's cheap and tasty! Same with bread--I bake my own bread, and I usually use up to a tablespoon of sugar/honey in two loaves. It helps feed the yeast. Much commercial bread is chock full o' sugar or HFCS, because it's cheap and tasty (I will admit that I have a delicious bread recipe that has 1/4 cup of brown sugar in two loaves, but I am trying to stop making it so often). HFCS might not be any worse for you than table sugar, but it's hidden more places.

Additionally, people on this board aside, they have done studies, and people can taste the difference between HFCS and table sugar as sweeteners, but they cannot tell which is which; i.e. they pick the HFCS one and says that it's sugar and tastes "more natural."

Yeah. Really? Whatever. I don't like the stuff (it makes me feel bloated and fatigued) so I'm not drinking it or eating it, and I'm not feeding it to my family.

I'm thrilled by this trend since HFCS makes me bloat like I'm carrying around a full-term pregnancy. The stuff makes me physically ill and it's in EVERYTHING, as youbastid says.

I still try to avoid processed food as much as possible, but I'm swigging from an "All Natural" Snapple iced tea as I write this. It's nice to have more options at the grocery store.

So now the conversation is back to how sugar isn't that good for you either. We already know that. Can we get back to the processing that goes into producing HFCS, the effects it may have on people's bodies, and the impact it has on the environment?

I think the food I choose tastes better and is probably healthier in the long run.

AND because it's used as a universal flavor enhancement in places sugar never was. Its overuse relies on convoluted and manipulated government subsidies which turn the business of big food into an unhealthy farce.

HFCS itself is just another sweetener. The bad things appear when you consider the entire HFCS cycle, from subsidy and production to dietary effects.

I definitely agree. There is less of a bite from the carbonation with sugar instead of corn syrup

I also know people who don't like it because of its environmental footprint.

Like those dumb commercials, this study just looks like an attempt to create a stupid strawman of HFCS critics.

It's hard to put my finger on what the difference is, but it seems to taste 'crisper' and have more of a sweet bite. I think I just drooled a little.

I am will not discount the findings of studies which suggest no health benefits over the HFCS, but for me it's always been an issue of taste and consistency. Sugar just tastes better and does not produce the weird syrupy consistency in juices and sodas which I dislike so much!

"But sugar ain't much better."

Maybe not, but it sure tastes like it is.