var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Clobberella
June 25, 2009 5:35 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

\"But sugar ain't much better.\"


Maybe not, but it sure tastes like it is.

Reply
14 replies
\"user-pic\"
SayAhh
June 29, 2009 4:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Clobberella: [consumerist.com]

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kolacek
June 25, 2009 9:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Clobberella: I could not agree with you more.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TechnoDestructo
June 25, 2009 6:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Clobberella:

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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ludwigk
June 25, 2009 6:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Clobberella: HFCS not only changes the flavor of a food or beverage, it changes the texture as well.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Vanilla5
June 25, 2009 6:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Clobberella: I agree - especially when it comes to things like soda. HFCS leaves a filmy taste in my mouth that I don't get from sugar.

I don't like that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
June 25, 2009 8:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Vanilla5: HFCS does have some different properties than sugar. I noticed a significant difference in how I felt when I started to cut out processed foods with corn syrup in them. I don't know if I have some sort of allergy to it or if it has that effect on everyone. Adding things with cane sugar back in didn't cause problems.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
June 25, 2009 6:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Clobberella: ah, the amazing power of the human mind to convince themselves of something that is completely false (see: religion, global warming etal)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Clobberella
June 25, 2009 6:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
June 25, 2009 7:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Clobberella: Just in the same way that people's preference for bottled water over tap is based only on advertising and being 'told' it is supposed to taste better.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dangermike
June 25, 2009 11:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Oh man, I must not be susceptible to that particular suggestion. There are about 3 brands of bottled water I'll take, and oddly enough, none are the \"premium\" premium brands. Just good old reverse osmosis lines from the big name soda bottlers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
June 26, 2009 1:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dangermike: I love the episode of Penn & Teller BullSh!t where they fill a bunch of fancy looking water bottles with water from a hose and then have a \"taste test\" with a bunch of snobs in a restaurant. Classic.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JeffMc
June 25, 2009 7:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: You know, I always thought I liked real sugar over HFCS until the new Pepsi Throwback came out. I'd much rather drink the HFCS version, Throwback kind of tastes like old school Pepsi that's past it's due date.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
June 25, 2009 8:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JeffMc: see, i'm actually the opposite. i like the throwback a lot more (for bottled soda anyway). i switched back to the regular stuff b/c throwback was a short run (though i heard they're bringing it back) & now i can't drink pepsi. it leaves this bitter aftertaste that i don't enjoy at all.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cuchanu
June 25, 2009 6:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Actually if you are unable to a.) taste the difference between corn syrup coke and sugar coke, b.) look at the evidence to see that man has accelerated global warming (which, yes, does occur with or without us) or c.) actually I agree about the religion part; then maybe you should be worried about your mind not being powerful enough.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
craptastico
June 25, 2009 6:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
June 25, 2009 8:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@craptastico: Pepsi throwback tastes very different than the regular. It is less sweet and feels thinner in your mouth. The corn syrup version is almost viscous. I also can't finish an entire can or bottle of the regular pepsi. It starts to taste gross about 1/3 of the way through. I can drink an entire bottle of throwback.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rey
June 25, 2009 6:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: My friends and I also did our own blind taste test and kept trying to trick one another. 3 of the 4 people could consistently tell which soda had sugar and which had HFCS. (2 of the 4 prior to the test claimed they could tell the difference.)

Do you have prizes to award us?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Preyfar
June 25, 2009 6:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@craptastico: I find Coke with HFCS (as well as other sodas) leaves a weird sticky aftertaste in my mouth. I don't get that with sugar-based sodas. Sugar-based sodas taste better not so much in the taste, but the texture. I drink a Coke and 20 minutes later I just taste a Coke-like backwash.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Mike8813
June 25, 2009 6:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: I hardly see how expressing one's opinions on HFCS opens the door for you to claim all religion as false.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Duke_Newcombe sez íViva la Revolucion de Chihuahua!
June 25, 2009 6:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mike8813: It's just an added benefit to some around here--get used to it

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
June 25, 2009 8:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Duke_Newcombe: One of the biggest things they could do to reform health care is to stop corn and soybean subsidies and move those subsidies to fresh produce growers and fresh meat producers that don't subject their livestock to drug cocktails to produce more. The prices of things people should be eating would go way down. Eating properly is expensive.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Gokuhouse
June 25, 2009 9:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: Yeah, I agree. There is no need to pay these farmers tax money to produce a fairly dangerous product anymore. Give them incentives to grow healthier foods.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Paul Carr
June 25, 2009 6:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mike8813: It is easy, all religion is false. So you could say \"I like cheese burgers.\" and I could say \"All religion is false\" and we are both just stating very basic facts.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Xerloq
June 25, 2009 9:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@yagisencho: You're on the internet. You need to move the exclamation point in the formula:

opinion = fact!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
June 25, 2009 8:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Paul Carr: There seem to be quite a few studies that DO note the health outcomes of consuming HFCS and they are not good. The corn growers have been working over time to tell people and fund skewed studies pretending otherwise.

[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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
June 25, 2009 10:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: Those links aren't actually studies, though. The second one isn't even linked to studies; the scholarly publishing it links to are commentary and reviews, not studies in their own right (including your last link, which is one of the sources listed in the second link). The first one links to a study that suggests a possible connection in humans based on its research with mice, but it's not proving the problem in humans.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
B
June 25, 2009 6:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Paul Carr: Does this mean you don't want to join my Church of Cheeseburgers?
And on the seventh day, there was deliciousness.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Clobberella
June 25, 2009 6:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
B
June 25, 2009 5:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Clobberella: Exactly. I don't care about the health effects of switching HFCS for Sugar, but I sure care about the taste effects.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
DePaulBlueDemon
June 25, 2009 5:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I will always prefer natural sugar. I grew up in Poland, where corn syrup was not used (in fact, everything we ate was organic) and I have never really gotten used to products sweetened with corn syrup while in the States.

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!

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
June 25, 2009 6:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DePaulBlueDemon: Oooh, I agree. It's the syrupy consistency, not so much the taste, that keeps me drinking diet soda instead of regular. (Well, and the calories.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
June 25, 2009 6:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DePaulBlueDemon: Sugar isn't natural either, though. That's kind of the point--that whether you prefer it or not is one thing, but it's a manufactured product too. Unless you're sucking on cut cane, which I suspect is not the case.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
1kamaz
June 26, 2009 4:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Xerloq
June 25, 2009 9:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@floraposte: Oh, that is so good. I used to refrigerate sugar cane in Brazil - nothing beats cold cane juice on a 110 degree day.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
veronykah
June 25, 2009 10:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Xerloq: Cold coconut juice, straight outta the coconut.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
VA_White
June 25, 2009 5:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If you eliminate foods containing HFCS, you eliminate a lot of processed and refined foods. If you simple replace them with processed foods containing sugar instead, you're not doing anything for your health. You have to replace those processed foods with whole foods instead to see the health benefits you expect to get. Guzzling Pepsi with real sugar is still going to widen your ass.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
MauriceCallidice
June 26, 2009 4:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@VA_White: \"You have to replace those processed foods with whole foods instead\"

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.

:-)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
June 25, 2009 6:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@VA_White: we never said it wouldn't make us fat...but at least it would taste better.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
VA_White
June 25, 2009 6:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sponica: I'll second that. Mexican coke tastes so much better. :)

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
wdgasu
June 25, 2009 5:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As a huge fan of kosher coke (aka mexican coke, aka costco coke,) I can say with certainty that although it may not BE better for you, it sure as hell tastes delicious.

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.

Reply
11 replies
\"user-pic\"
trujunglist
June 25, 2009 10:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wdgasu:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
June 25, 2009 6:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wdgasu: I guarantee you, sit down with four unlabeled cups of coke, 1 sugar, 3 hfcs, you will NOT be able to pick the sugar one out of the bunch. I defy you to try it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NightElfMohawk
June 26, 2009 3:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Then you have been defied. We did our own blind taste tests and could definitively tell the differences (then again, we don't drink much soda or eat much sweets around here, so the palettes on our lot are less used to sweetness). The tip-offs seemed to be the acidity, the amount of fizz, and the very distinctive aftertastes.

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).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Darkest Daze
June 26, 2009 7:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NightElfMohawk: Yep, I can't stand the bitter, acidy aftertaste of HFCS. Also, like you said, sugar gives it a smoother texture.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ludwigk
June 25, 2009 6:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: I can pass this test. I've even noticed the presence or lack of HFCS or sugars in beverages plenty of times, even with beverages that I've never had before. For instance, I was drinking a Sprecher's cream soda for the first time, and I was confused because the bottle said it contained natural honey, but the soda had the flavor and texture of an HFCS beverage. Sure enough, one of the first ingredients on the bottle was HFCS.

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!\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
OMG!ToOMG!,ByMyPonies!_GitEmSteveDave
June 26, 2009 10:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ludwigk: because I'm a total cola/rootbeer/soda nut.
Have you visited [FizzledOut.com] ? The guy who runs it knows/enjoys cola/soda/\"pop\" a lot.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tiber
June 25, 2009 9:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ludwigk: I've been addicted to Jones' Root Beer lately. I wanted to see what the difference was, and at first I thought I liked the HFCS better. After a few more sips though, I got used to the mellower taste. I guess it's kind of like the Pepsi challenge that way.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
June 25, 2009 7:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ludwigk:
WHICH root beers? I love root beer.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NightElfMohawk
June 26, 2009 3:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HogwartsAlum: Most Whole Foods-type places will carry stuff like Virgil's and their own 365-brand Root Beer with sugar, but my boyfriend (who is a root beer connoisseur - I can't stand the stuff, personally) SWEARS by Maine Root.

[www.maineroot.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ludwigk
June 25, 2009 9:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HogwartsAlum: My favorites are probably Goose Island, Virgil's Bavarian Nutmeg. The local market started carrying Abita RootBeer, Bergoff, and Sparky's, all of which I like as well. That along with the BevMo near me having an extensive soda section has made it so I've recently had too many new soda's and I can't keep them all straight.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
June 25, 2009 10:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ludwigk: I love the Berghoff root beer. I've had various homemade ones, but frankly they haven't knocked my socks off.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
OMG!ToOMG!,ByMyPonies!_GitEmSteveDave
June 25, 2009 6:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: There's a difference with the foaming and head, as I have found repeatably, between both versions. It is actually noticeable by sight, as I thought my first bottle of Passover Coke had gone flat, but realized it wasn't as I drank.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DoctorMD
June 25, 2009 6:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: I have and run a blind taste test for others. Well cleaned glasses with distilled water ice. There is a repeatable difference. Although I think there may be some effect of regional variation in the flavorings and carbonation level.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ugadawg
June 25, 2009 5:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wdgasu: @OMG!ToOMG!,ByMyPonies!_GitEmSteveDave: You guys are making me crave an ice cold Coke out of a glass bottle. So cold that I can feel ice crystals pass my lips.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
silentstriderm
June 25, 2009 5:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wdgasu:

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
OMG!ToOMG!,ByMyPonies!_GitEmSteveDave
June 25, 2009 5:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wdgasu: The thing I have noticed with both Passover Coke and Pepsi Throwback is that it has less \"fizz\" when poured, which makes me wonder if due to the HFCS being pre-broken down, unlike cane sugar, provides more nucleation points when pouring. I did not mention Mountain Dew Throwback, b/c it is not that good.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Citron
June 25, 2009 7:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wdgasu: The biggest difference for me between HFCS coke and sugar coke is the aftertaste. HFCS coke has a sticky, almost acidic aftertaste to it that makes you want to drink more coke to clear it out.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
June 25, 2009 6:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@OMG!ToOMG!,ByMyPonies!_GitEmSteveDave: i have not been able to find pepsi throwback. makes me think the grocery stores aren't putting them out until they sell out of regular pepsi...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
OMG!ToOMG!,ByMyPonies!_GitEmSteveDave
June 25, 2009 5:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Brain Dunning, over on Skeptoid.com did a episode on HFCS, and I must admit it was enlightening to me. I never realized that the main reason for the use of HFCS was tariffs, and even that there are different \"blends\" of HFCS.
[skeptoid.com]

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Muhammed T Prophet
June 25, 2009 6:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@OMG!ToOMG!,ByMyPonies!_GitEmSteveDave:

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
spanky
June 25, 2009 5:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't know anyone who thinks HFCS is actually bad healthwise. I don't like it because it's kind of muddy tasting and things that contain it are usually disgustingly sweet and just generally nasty tasting.

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.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
Kd McEntire
June 25, 2009 7:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@spanky: Well, now you've officially met someone who thinks HFCS is bad healthwise. I think it's terrible for your body in the long run. Recent studies have proven that HFCS doesn't react in the human brain the same way sugar does - ie the overprocessed HFCS doesn't trigger the \"satiety\" signal in the brain the way traditional eating too much sugar or honey will, leading people to consume more of it.

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*!)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bwcbwc
June 26, 2009 8:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kd McEntire: Please cite/URL one or more of those studies. HFCS has the same sugars (fructose and sucrose) as cane sugar, in roughly the same proportions, so the difference would have to be due to impurities in the HFCS.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
consumerfan
June 26, 2009 2:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bwcbwc: I believe this might be the article and one of it's corresponding studies

[www.washingtonpost.com]

[www.ehjournal.net]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
spanky
June 25, 2009 8:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kd McEntire: I don't doubt that there could be dietary reasons not to eat it. And I do know people who avoid overmanufactured foods out of a general mistrust of the FDA's approval process and lack of long term studies. So I should probably qualify what I said anyway.

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.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
atashida
June 25, 2009 7:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@legwork: Seriously, I want the HFCS out of my bread. I go to great lengths to get one of the few small local producers of bread's loaves because it doesn't have any. (Bread is also AWESOME, which helps.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
solidbrassfasteners
June 25, 2009 6:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@spanky: I've heard some streams of thought that the increase in HFCS may be related to the increased amount of abdominal fat people carry. I don't know the details on it, but I've heard it thrown out there before.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bwcbwc
June 26, 2009 8:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@solidbrassfasteners: Except if you compare the sugar composition of HFCS and refined sugar, they both contain about the same proportions of sucrose and fructose (at least for the most common formulation).

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Alex Chasick
June 25, 2009 7:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@solidbrassfasteners: Dig around in the comments of our previous posts. I know some commenters have linked to studies suggesting (nothing definitive, just suggesting) links with obesity and diabetes, possibly due to the different fructose/sucrose ratio that exists between sugar and HFCS. Finding conclusive evidence that HFCS, besides tasting worse than sugar and having adverse effects on trade and agriculture, is actually worse for you than sugar would be pretty damning, and would probably require more than some obnoxious commercials by the corn industry to rebut.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
legwork
June 25, 2009 5:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Corn syrup has been demonized because it's highly processed and environmentally unfriendly

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.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
spanky
June 25, 2009 7:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@legwork: Ugh, yes.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Gokuhouse
June 25, 2009 6:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@legwork: Stinking backspace key......Anyway, what I tried to say in my blank post was how I bought mayo the other day and it had HFCS in it. Well, knowing how mayo is supposed to be made I opted for the slightly higher priced jar without any artificial sweetener...It is really being put into ANY food for reasons that aren't probably so good. I question whether part of the reason for it is because they are using inferior products and the sweetener hides some of the taste maybe????

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Duke_Newcombe sez íViva la Revolucion de Chihuahua!
June 25, 2009 6:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Gokuhouse: And that's the bitch of it: you had to pay MORE to get a foodstuff with FEWER indgredients.

HFCS is a racket.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
babyruthless
June 25, 2009 6:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
June 25, 2009 8:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@babyruthless: As I was getting in the habit of reading labels I started to notice how many savory foods had corn syrup in them. If you went through out your day dumping a tablespoon of sugar on everything you ate people would call it a health nightmare. Yet this is what people are doing because it is in everything including things that don't need to be sweetened.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
roche
June 25, 2009 5:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If I am going to eat or drink something that is awful for me, I want it to taste as good as possible. It tastes a LOT better with real sugar.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
youbastid
June 25, 2009 5:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

No one ever said that sugar was better. The problem is that HFCS is injected into EVERYTHING.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
josephbloseph
June 25, 2009 6:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@youbastid: Actually, lots of people say that sugar is better. Well, specifically, they say HFCS is worse.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Etoiles
June 25, 2009 5:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I demonize corn syrup because I don't want it in my loaf of whole-wheat bread, or in my box of couscous, or any of the hundreds of other places I've found it. And after having Coke bottled in St. Lucia and Pepsi Throwback, if I want a soda I want one with sugar in it, damn it.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
sponica
June 25, 2009 6:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Etoiles: it costs me more money but I buy local craft sodas from the cafe down the street. makes the soda a special treat instead of a dietary staple

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
inadequatewife
June 25, 2009 5:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As someone who simply prefers more natural, less processed food, I'd rather have sugar than corn syrup. That's my choice as a consumer. It means I read labels, don't buy certain products, and pay more for others.

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

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
inadequatewife
June 25, 2009 6:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@inadequatewife:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Alex Chasick
June 25, 2009 7:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@inadequatewife: I agree with you on the processed/artificial foods thing, and I especially hate HFCS for trying to claim that it's all natural just because it was at one point an ear of corn.

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

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Shoelace
June 25, 2009 5:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The Corn Refiner's Association, (quote from the Chicago Tribune article) \"frustrated with continuing attacks on high-fructose corn syrup, launched a media and consumer campaign last summer to \"change the conversation\" about the product\".

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?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
June 25, 2009 7:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shoelace: But it's pretty blind to ignore the fact that producing refined sugar has an impact on the environment and it's not great for our bodies either. And I think there has indeed been some convenient demonizing of HFCS in a way that suggests sugar is made of organic rainbows fertilized with unicorn dung. Don't get me wrong, I love the stuff, but it's a pretty questionable foodstuff in its own right.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chemist256
June 26, 2009 12:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@floraposte: The problem with HFCS is that it exists in almost every processed food imaginable, but it isn't really a problem of health effects caused by consuming it, nor is it because table sugar (sucrose) is so much better for you or the environment.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
LilBadKitty
June 25, 2009 5:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
ZoeSchizzel
June 25, 2009 6:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Gokuhouse
June 25, 2009 6:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ZoeSchizzel: I agree with you. We stopped giving our kids HFCS a couple months ago and it has seemed to help their moods. They are less grouchy and everything....I don't give them much sugar either.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
esd2020
June 25, 2009 6:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Whoa, whoa, whoa... Sugar is bad for you?!?! Thanks for letting us know, corn lobby!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
faust1200
June 25, 2009 6:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Great article.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
vladthepaler
June 25, 2009 6:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sugar tastes better. Also, HFCS is more processed, which means it requires more energy to process, so creating it causes more pollution, and i like to breathe, therefore sugar is getter for my health than HFCS.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Robobot
June 25, 2009 6:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The proliferation of HFCS-filled products has been a great excuse for me to switch to a healthier diet. (Do I really want my tomato sauce to taste like dessert? Not really.)

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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Jonathan Quinn
June 25, 2009 6:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

even if there is no direct health benefit from switching HFCS to Sugar, there's an indirect link. If foods are flavored with sugar, their cost will increase, a gallon of orange juice costs 4X as much as a gallon of soda. cut the corn subsidies, and subsidize fruit and veggies.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
tz
June 25, 2009 8:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jonathan Quinn:

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.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
windycity
June 25, 2009 6:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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]

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
June 25, 2009 8:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@windycity: That article is not 100% clear about sucrose being a combination of fructose and glucose. It would lead people to believe that sucrose is just a mixture of fructose and glucose. Instead, sucrose is a more complex molecule based on two structures, one which is like fructose and the other which is like glucose. This is a disaccharide. If you want a mixture of fructose and glucose, try honey.

Disaccharide: [en.wikipedia.org]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
windycity
June 25, 2009 9:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
June 25, 2009 10:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@windycity: Sure, but he's posting here, where the misleading phrasing was also posted. That's not unreasonable.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
windycity
June 26, 2009 5:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
johnva
June 25, 2009 7:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@windycity: That's what bothers me about it - not so much that I think it's much worse for me than sugar, so much as that it's in everything for reasons such as preservative effect that have nothing to do with taste.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kd McEntire
June 25, 2009 7:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@windycity: Thank you. I tried to outline this in an earlier reply but you just did it in a neatly-put manner that puts my reply to shame. Bravo.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
OMG!ToOMG!,ByMyPonies!_GitEmSteveDave
June 25, 2009 6:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@windycity: Real sugar(sucrose) contains a 50/50 mix of fructose and glucose, which are chemically bound together. HFCS contains 55% fructose and is not chemically bound to the glucose it is mixed in with.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Riff Raff
June 25, 2009 6:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@windycity:

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.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 25, 2009 6:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's disturbing how powerful the corn growers lobby is. As windycity says, and just about anyone with diabetes will tell you, HFCS is more problematic that sugar. We all know it tastes like crap. A number of foreign countries restrict the use of it, so lets just please go back to sugar.

I highly recommend watching the film:

\"King Korn\"

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Trey Mahaffey
June 25, 2009 6:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"But sugar ain't much better.\"

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

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
June 25, 2009 7:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trey Mahaffey: That doesn't make it good, or necessary. It's really not a requirement that we eat tons of one or the other.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
consumerfan
June 26, 2009 1:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@floraposte: It's not necessary to eat healthily. It's not necessarily good either (it depends entirely on what you eat).

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
StutiCebriones
June 25, 2009 6:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I opted out years ago by making my own soda. Even if you don't buy a carbonator -- they're cheap -- using storebought seltzer and your own ingredients gives you a decent amount of control over what you're putting into your mouth.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
I Love New Jersey
June 25, 2009 6:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You can prove anything with a study. Although sugar does taste better than HFCS.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
June 25, 2009 7:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@I Love New Jersey: I know you like this soundbite, but even if it were true, it wouldn't mean the same thing as \"No study is reliable.\" The world is, fortunately, filled with reliable studies. But you do have to pay attention to them and not simplify them.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
June 25, 2009 6:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Propel (flavored water) recently switched from sucrose to HFCS. Apparently HFCS isn't practical in a powdered form (it's a syrup). So I found their product that has little powder packets for plain water drinks (many people just drink tap water, knowing that many bottled waters are just tap water anyway) still uses sucrose.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Juliet Bernstein
June 25, 2009 6:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've avoided HFCS for over 10 years now, which has led to eating less processed, more naturally flavorful foods. The last time I accidentally drank HFCS, it was from a bottle of grape \"juice\" that I thought was marked \"100% juice\" but was actually marked \"100% Vitamin C\". It was sitting on a shelf between the \"100% juice\" orange and grapefruit juices, so I assumed that the whole line of juices was 100% juice. After drinking one sip, I felt like I was choking on maple syrup. I then noticed that the \"juice\" was mostly HFCS, with only 25% real juice. I've tried a few drinks sweetened with sugar (Pepsi throwback, as well as lemonade that I made myself), and I do not have the adverse same reaction.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
June 25, 2009 6:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe this will have the added benefit of lowering food/gas prices since corn has to also go into gasoline now.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
giggitygoo
June 25, 2009 6:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

While it hasn't been proven conclusively, HFCS has been found to contain mercury and has been linked to higher weight gain rates than sugar. (See [www.washingtonpost.com] and [www.ajcn.org])

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.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
appalachian
June 25, 2009 7:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
ogremustcrush
June 25, 2009 7:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If there is any reason that HFCS is worse for one than sugar, it is simply the fact that it is used in everything. It is used not only for its sweetness, as sugar is, but also for its texture, or as a binder. It is in a way sometimes a form of filler. Many foods that should not need a sweetener, like ketchup, have HFCS in them. Chemically, it is nearly the same as sugar, although I have to agree with those that think that sugar works better for soft drinks. For me they seem to be smoother, with less aggressive carbonation and less of an aftertaste. The mouthfeel after drinking colas made with HFCS is enough that I rarely drink them, even though I do like the flavor of cola to an extent. Oh, and I think Mountain Dew Throwback is like 2x better than normal Mountain Dew, but it has other differences besides just the change in sweetener.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
cete-of-badgers
June 25, 2009 7:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I like to buy sucanat, (sugar cane, natural) in bulk at my local food co-op place. Hooray for unprocessed sweeteners!

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).

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
justsomeotherguy
June 25, 2009 7:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

clue; all sugar (and hfcs is sugar) is bad for you in high quantities. The problem isnt hfcs, is the fact THAT IT IS IN EVERYTHING. i wish ppl would stop attacking hfcs and attack all sugars.

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
consumerfan
June 26, 2009 2:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@justsomeotherguy: It's true that mass-produced beer is like soda in that they both typically use genetically modified enzymes.

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

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
tz
June 25, 2009 8:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The health benefits are marginal compared with all but cutting out sugar (which I've been successful at), but the taste benefits go against HFCS. When I want a coca-cola, I prefer the mexican import version, and you can taste the difference, although it is subtle. If I'm going to blow a part of my calorie budget on sweets, they may as well be the best tasting.

Then of course, there's honey...

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
maztec
June 25, 2009 8:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The point is not whether one type of sugar is better or worse for you than another. The point is that HFCS has made it easy and cheap for manufacturers to add sugar to items that used to not have sugar to satisfy and create our cravings for the product. As a result, we have high levels of sugar in absolutely everything - including things that should not have sugar in the first place.

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
johnva
June 25, 2009 9:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@maztec: That's a good argument for making your own food instead of just buying crap from a package. That way, you can know what's in it and make it to your own taste.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Brookeorama
June 25, 2009 8:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

WORD!

[myyearwithout.blogspot.com]

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
ktjamm
June 25, 2009 8:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What the study fails to take into consideration is appetite suppression. If consumed in equal quantities, sure HFCS might not be any worse for you than sugar. There is a suspicion that HFCS suppresses the appetite reflex that tells you you're full. So it's worse for you in that would have less of a problem eating more than you would with sugar.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ras_d
June 25, 2009 8:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I call bullshit on this report

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 25, 2009 8:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

HFCS = violent, almost immediate diarrhea and/or vomiting for me and a small, i'm sure, but significant proportion of the population. Living in Canada has its benefits, but as the years go by I notice there's less and less I can eat without worrying if I will get sick.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
savdavid
June 25, 2009 8:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So if there is little difference why not give people what they want, a choice? Isn't that one thing this site is for? I can tell the difference in taste. Sugar is better in my opinion.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Haggie1
June 25, 2009 9:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm anti-HFCS just on the fact that HFCS exists solely as a government created crutch for huge agri-business corporations like ADM that spend millions of dollars on lobbyists and campaign contributions to protect their interests.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Elizabeth Anderson
June 26, 2009 2:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Is regular corn syrup as bad for you as HFCS? I don't eat HFCS but will occasionally indulge in something with regular corn syrup (like Ben & Jerry's). It definitely does not have the same gross aftertaste as HFCS.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JuliB
June 26, 2009 3:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't really care all that much about HFCS , but they started putting it in Hershey's syrup and absolutely RUINED it. The consistency is completely different.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
zyodei
June 26, 2009 6:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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!

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
MissGayle
June 26, 2009 2:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Biochemically, ALL carbohydrates are sugars. Long chain carbs are broken down to sugars during digestion and there is no difference between eating a potato or a serving of pasta and eating a straight 1/4 of table sugar. They all have the exact same physiological effect on the body. It takes a bit longer for the long-chain carbs to be processed, but other than that there is no real difference. Whether you get a big sugar hit all at once or over a couple of hours, you're still getting a sugar hit when you eat ANY carbs.

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 26, 2009 7:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There is a lot of confusion about high fructose corn syrup and consumers can learn more about it at www.SweetSurprise.com.

Audrae Erickson
President
Corn Refiners Association

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
RedwoodFlyer
June 27, 2009 12:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here's the problem I have... the sources for the \"data\" are rather poor.

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]

Reply
","");