Don't sour on idea of ‘corn sugar'

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Don't sour on idea of ‘corn sugar'

By HENRY I. MILLER / The physician and molecular biologist is a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

William Shakespeare's timeless question, "What's in a name?" continues to insinuate itself into the culture in the most remarkable places and ways. A modern variation of the theme might be, "That which we call sugar by any other name would taste as sweet."

Such is the case with sugar in the 21st century. Natural sugars come from a variety of sources including beets, corn, cane and honey. Interestingly, all of these, save one, are well understood by consumers: sugar from corn. Since its introduction in the 1970s, corn sugar has been known by a sort of quasichemical name, high fructose corn syrup. It has proven to be a low-cost and efficient sweetener in many products but has also been targeted by activists and food elitists as a major cause of obesity.

The notion is absurd. Sugar from corn has not been shown to be different from other sugar in terms of sweetness, eliciting insulin release or the feeling of satiety after eating. All are metabolized in the same fashion and provide four calories per gram. Consumers don't use the chemical name "disaccharide sucrose" to refer to beet or cane sugar; we simply call it table sugar. So why not drop the confusing "high fructose corn syrup" in favor of the more direct name of corn sugar, which is precisely what it is?

Names have power, a fact not lost on the either the Corn Refiners Association, which makes HFCS, or the Sugar Association, which does not. While the corn refiners seek to educate consumers on what is essentially the most meaningful single fact about HFCS – that it is made from corn – the association representing beet and cane producers apparently believes such understanding would harm their business interests. They've filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent corn refiners from educating consumers that HFCS is a sugar from corn, plain and simple. (That reminds me of another famous Shakespeare quote, from Henry VI: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.")

I am in no position to comment on the legal arguments, but as a physician I am unaware of appreciable nutritional or metabolic differences among natural sugars. Moreover, the use of HFCS in the United States has been declining since 1999 while obesity rates have kept rising. Americans' annual consumption of HFCS is still less than that of cane and beet sugars, and obesity rates are rising in nations around the globe where the use of HFCS is negligible or nonexistent. Between the science and cultural trends, it's clear that something else is making us fatter.

Although a Princeton University study purported to show some linkage between HFCS and weight gain among certain rats, it was roundly criticized for flaws in methodology. Dr. Karen Teff, director of the Translational Research, Diabetes and Endocrinology Research Center at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, bluntly dismisses the research as "poorly designed and poorly controlled," and adds that it "does not prove or even suggest that HFCS is more likely to lead to obesity than sucrose."

The upshot of this nonsaccharine controversy is that sugar is a fundamental part of our diet, and it is in the public interest for food labels to be clear and unambiguous. The simple facts are that calling sugar made from corn "corn sugar" would change neither the number of calories in our diet nor the size of our waistlines. I'm in favor of the new designation.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/sugar-355411-corn-hfcs.html

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

.....I just wish they wouldn't put it in EVERYTHING.

Hmm this bread seems like it would be better with corn syrup. Hmm is this apple juice isn't sweet enough...I know lets add corn syrup.

[Marilyn. 340]

The main issue for me is taste. Things taste different when they are sweetened with corn syrup rather then sugar.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

.....I just wish they wouldn't put it in EVERYTHING.

Hmm this bread seems like it would be better with corn syrup. Hmm is this apple juice isn't sweet enough...I know lets add corn syrup.

THAT is the problem. Not what kind of sugar is used, just how much of it that is used is the problem. Everything is too sweet here. When I travel overseas I notice that they use a lot less sugar of any kind. This is especially true in Asia.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There's an obvious difference between sugar and HFCS - the former is 50/50 fructose and glucose, the latter - as typically used - is heavier on fructose (55%), lighter on glucose (42%) and contains saccharides (3%)). That aside, as a consumer, I would like to know what a product is made with so to make informed choices about the foods I consume or avoid.

Sugar:

Not Sugar:

Can you see the difference?

Edited August 7, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[JohnSmith2007 353]

There's an obvious difference between sugar and HFCS - the former is 50/50 fructose and glucose, the latter - as typically used - is heavier on fructose (55%), lighter on glucose (42%) and contains saccharides (3%)). That aside, as a consumer, I would like to know what a product is made with so to make informed choices about the foods I consume or avoid.

Sugar:

Not Sugar:

Can you see the difference?

According to the author the two are seen by the body the very same. Since he is a doctor I would assume he knows what he is saying. As far as the pictures go, you can refine HFCS to crystals and make it look the same visually. Cane sugar can also be a liquid, in fact it is a liquid until it is turned in crystals.

The author is a physician and molecular biologist and is a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. I would say that counts as an expert and I would trust what he says.

So no, I don't see the difference.

Edited August 7, 2012 by JohnSmith2007

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The author is full of #######.

I'd love to see who paid this guy for his study because there's no way someone in the corn industry didn't pay him off.

There's a reason many nations have outright BANNED HFCS. It's not healthy at all. It's not good for you, at all.

I know several people who cut HFCS out of their diet (including myself) and lost weight while still eating the exact same products/keeping the same relative diet using pure cane sugar products instead of HFCS.

That stuff it garbage.

Need evidence of that? Stop drinking HFCS laced sodas for awhile and then try and drink one after a couple of months. It will practically make you sick from how thick/gunky it is.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

According to the author the two are seen by the body the very same. Since he is a doctor I would assume he knows what he is saying.

Well, the good doctor that authored the piece also wants to bring back DDT. There are tons of other doctors out there that will disagree with him. There are studies out there that disagree with him. The simple fact that the chemical composition of sugar and HFCS is not the same leads me to believe that the body would process them differently. Be all that as it may, as a consumer I want to have the ability to chose products made with sugar over those made with HFCS. When HFCS is called sugar - which it isn' - that choice would no longer be so easy to make.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

The author is full of #######.

I'd love to see who paid this guy for his study because there's no way someone in the corn industry didn't pay him off.

There's a reason many nations have outright BANNED HFCS. It's not healthy at all. It's not good for you, at all.

I know several people who cut HFCS out of their diet (including myself) and lost weight while still eating the exact same products/keeping the same relative diet using pure cane sugar products instead of HFCS.

That stuff it garbage.

Need evidence of that? Stop drinking HFCS laced sodas for awhile and then try and drink one after a couple of months. It will practically make you sick from how thick/gunky it is.

It wasn't a study, just an article he wrote. I have tried to find out if he is connected to the corn lobby and so far I haven't found anything. Here is what I did find though:

Henry I. Miller

robert wesson fellow in scientific philosophy and public policy

Expertise: Biotechnology; genetic engineering; bioterrorism; government regulation of science and technology, especially pharmaceutical development and biotechnology; regulatory reform

Henry I. Miller, MS, MD, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at the Hoover Institution. His research focuses on public policy toward science and technology, encompassing a number of areas, including pharmaceutical development, genetic engineering in agriculture, models for regulatory reform, and the emergence of new viral diseases.

Miller served for fifteen years at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a number of posts. He was the medical reviewer for the first genetically engineered drugs to be evaluated by the FDA and thus instrumental in the rapid licensing of human insulin and human growth hormone. Thereafter, he was a special assistant to the FDA commissioner and the founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology. During his government service, Miller participated frequently on various expert and policy panels as a representative of the FDA or the US government. As a government official, Miller received numerous awards and citations.

Since coming to the Hoover Institution, Miller has become well known not only for his contributions to scholarly journals but also for his articles and books that make science, medicine, and technology accessible. His work has been widely published in many languages. Monographs include Policy Controversy in Biotechnology: An Insider's View; To America's Health: A Model for Reform of the Food and Drug Administration; and The Frankenfood Myth: How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution. Barron's selected The Frankenfood Myth as one of the 25 Best Books of 2004. In addition, Miller has published extensively in a wide spectrum of scholarly journals and popular publications worldwide, including The Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, Science, the Nature family of journals, Chronicle of Higher Education, Forbes, National Review, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, the Guardian, Defining Ideas, and theFinancial Times. He is a regulator contributor to Forbes.com and frequently appears on the nationally syndicated radio programs of John Batchelor and Lars Larson.

Miller was selected by the editors of Nature Biotechnology as one of the people who had made the "most significant contributions" to biotechnology during the previous decade. He serves on numerous editorial boards.

http://www.hoover.org/fellows/10000

I suspect you lost weight because food manufactures tend to use to much HFCS to make their products taste sweeter. When you switched to products with cane sugar you just used less of it because it is more expensive of an ingredient.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Well, the good doctor that authored the piece also wants to bring back DDT. There are tons of other doctors out there that will disagree with him. There are studies out there that disagree with him. The simple fact that the chemical composition of sugar and HFCS is not the same leads me to believe that the body would process them differently. Be all that as it may, as a consumer I want to have the ability to chose products made with sugar over those made with HFCS. When HFCS is called sugar - which it isn' - that choice would no longer be so easy to make.

Well, it is sugar. Fructose and sucrose are both sugars, just different kinds. It just isn't cane sugar. I agree that people should have the right to choose what they eat. I haven't a problem with that, just don't demonize something that doesn't deserve it.

Oh, BTW. I think the responsible use of DDT should be allowed. The banning of DDT killed millions of people due to the sharp rise in malaria after its use was banned. That is another example of junk science taking over realistic safety.

http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsid.442/healthissue_detail.asp

[rocks 494]

Well, the good doctor that authored the piece also wants to bring back DDT. There are tons of other doctors out there that will disagree with him. There are studies out there that disagree with him. The simple fact that the chemical composition of sugar and HFCS is not the same leads me to believe that the body would process them differently. Be all that as it may, as a consumer I want to have the ability to chose products made with sugar over those made with HFCS. When HFCS is called sugar - which it isn' - that choice would no longer be so easy to make.

"your body can't tell the difference"

It sounds like he was paid off by the corn industry.

ADM, others to answer US lawsuit alleging false claims in corn syrup advertizing

(Reuters) - Archer-Daniels-Midland, Cargill Inc and other firms must answer a lawsuit by sugar farmers and trade groups over alleged false claims made in advertizing for corn syrup, a judge in California ruled on Tuesday.

Sugar producers and trade associations sued for false advertizing in Los Angeles in April 2011, saying that claims that "your body can't tell the difference" between corn syrup and common table sugar were wrong.

A written ruling by U.S. District Judge Consuelo Marshall said the plaintiffs "allege with particularity facts for a false advertizing claim" against ADM, Cargill, Tate & Lyle and Corn Products, which changed its name to Ingredion in May.

The Corn Refiners Association, which includes the companies as members, said on its website the decision was "solely about who is included in the lawsuit and has no bearing on the merits of the case which are about ensuring that consumers get the facts regarding high fructose corn syrup".

A spokeswoman for ADM declined to comment on the ruling, while representatives of the other companies were not immediately available.

Adam Fox, a lawyer for the Western Sugar Cooperative, described the ruling to allow the lawsuit to proceed as "an important win for all American consumers and my clients".

The case is Western Sugar Cooperative v Archer-Daniels-Midland Company et al in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California No. 11-03473.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'd love to see who paid this guy for his study because there's no way someone in the corn industry didn't pay him off.

The corn industry gets fat subsidies - billions of dollars a year - from the taxpayer. They can afford to pay anyone to say anything.

[rocks 494]

Oh, BTW. I think the responsible use of DDT should be allowed. The banning of DDT killed millions of people due to the sharp rise in malaria after its use was banned. That is another example of junk science taking over realistic safety.

Wildlife and the cancer victims are irrelevant, right?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Wildlife and the cancer victims are irrelevant, right?

There has been no link to cancer and DDT.

The links to wildlife harm and DDT have also never been proven.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Facts versus fears: DDT

Extract from the American Council on Science and Health publication "Facts Versus Fears" - Edition 3, June 1998. © American Council on Science and Health - all rights reserved.

.....

Conclusion

The ban on DDT was considered the first major victory for the environmentalist movement in the U.S. The effect of the ban in other nations was less salutary, however. In Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) DDT spraying had reduced malaria cases from 2.8 million in 1948 to 17 in 1963. After spraying was stopped in 1964, malaria cases began to rise again and reached 2.5 million in 1969.33 The same pattern was repeated in many other tropical— and usually impoverished—regions of the world. In Zanzibar the prevalence of malaria among the populace dropped from 70 percent in 1958 to 5 percent in 1964. By 1984 it was back up to between 50 and 60 percent. The chief malaria expert for the U.S. Agency for International Development said that malaria would have been 98 percent eradicated had DDT continued to be used.34

In addition, from 1960 to 1974 WHO screened about 2,000 compounds for use as antimalarial insecticides. Only 30 were judged promising enough to warrant field trials. WHO found that none of those compounds had the persistence of DDT or was as safe as DDT. (Insecticides such as malathion and carbaryl, which are much more toxic than DDT, were used instead.) And—a very important factor for malaria control in less developed countries—all of the substitutes were considerably more expensive than DDT.35

[insertion: See the human toll of not using DDT here. Ends.]

And what of the charges leveled against DDT? A 1978 National Cancer Institute report concluded—after two years of testing on several different strains of cancer-prone mice and rats—that DDT was not carcino-genic.36 As for the DDT-caused eggshell thinning, it is unclear whether it did, in fact, occur and, if it did, whether the thinning was caused by DDT, by mercury, by PCBs, or by the effects of human encroachment.16,37 And as recently as 1998 researchers reported that thrush eggshells in Great Britain had been thinning at a steady rate 47 years before DDT hit the market; the researchers placed the blame on the early consequences of industrialization.38

Regardless of whether DDT, exclusive of other chemicals, presented a threat to bird populations, it remains in the news. DDT has a long half-life, and residues sometimes persist for years in certain environments. Also, DDT is an organochlorine. Some organochlorines have been shown to have weak estrogenic activity, but the amounts of naturally occurring estrogens in the environment dwarf the amounts of synthetic estrogens.39 A recent article in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives suggested that the ratio of natural to synthetic estrogens may be as much as 40,000,000 to 1.40

In addition, Dr. Robert Golden of Environmental Risk Studies in Washington, DC, reviewed the research of numerous scientists and concluded that DDT and DDE (a breakdown product of DDT) have no significant estrogenic activity.41

The 1996 book Our Stolen Future speculated on a link between DDT and breast cancer, noting that DDE has been found in some breast tumors.42 Recently, charges have been made associating DDT and DDE with breast cancer—specifically, the finding that women with breast cancer had higher levels of DDE in their blood than did women without breast cancer.43 However, elevated blood DDE could quite plausibly be a result of the mobilization of fat from storage depots in the body due to weight loss associated with breast cancer. Breast cancer thus may be a risk factor for elevated DDE, rather than DDE’s being a risk factor for breast cancer.44

In a 1994 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, researchers concluded that their data did not support an association between DDT and breast cancer.45 The researchers did note that breast cancer rates are higher than the national average in many places in the northeastern United States; but the data also indicated that the higher levels could be accounted for by nonenvironmental factors among women living in these regions—factors such as higher socioeconomic status and deferral or avoidance of pregnancy, both of which increase the risks of breast cancer by up to twofold.45,46

In October 1997 the New England Journal of Medicine published a large, well-designed study that found no evidence that exposure to DDT and DDE increases the risk of breast cancer.47 In the accompanying editorial Dr. Steven Safe, a toxicologist at Texas A&M University, stated, “weakly estrogenic organochlorine compounds such as PCBs, DDT, and DDE are not a cause of breast cancer.”48 Dr. Sheila Zahm, deputy chief of the occupational epidemiology branch at the National Cancer Institute, agrees that the body of evidence that DDT can cause breast cancer “is not very compelling.”

http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C06/C06Links/www.altgreen.com.au/Chemicals/ddt.html