I don't have any special taste for HFCS, but if you follow those links this all falls apart.

I can't seem to get a link to the whole study, but on the page linked to I noticed that it's clearly a study about fructose, not HFCS. Neither 'corn' nor 'syrup' are mentioned anywhere on the page. Fructose is a component of cane sugar, honey, and HFCS. Not only that, but one of the 3 articles listed as related at the bottom of the page is called "HFCS drinks no different to sucrose, milk for satiety".

To repeat, the study you cited doesn't say what you claim it does, and there's a link on the page to a more relevant study, which says you're wrong.

This is like pointing to a study about Michelin tires and then saying it means Ford cars are more dangerous. Barry Eastabrook didn't find anything.

Reply

The HFCS public relation campaign maintains that there is no difference between the way our bodies handle fructose and other sugars.

The University of Texas paper suggests that there is a difference--fructose is converted to body fat more easily.

That was my point.

Reply

Thanks for responding, I appreciate it. Could you tell me where the HFCS campaign actually says that fructose isn't different from other sugars though? Am I watching the wrong campaign? The television ads I've seen give a web address of sweetsurprise.com, and I can't find anything on there where they specifically talk about fructose. They're always talking about HFCS in the comparisons that I've seen. Everything I've managed to find maintains that there isn't a significant difference between HFCS and other common sweeteners like sucrose and honey, not that fructose isn't different from other sugars like glucose.

I see that the UT paper compares fructose to glucose, but that's not HFCS to sucrose, which is what the HFCS campaign that I've seen has been comparing.

Reply

I think HFCS is suspect. NO amount of propaganda (re-branded as PR) stating that HFCS is A-OK will LIKELY affect my opinion. I actively avoid (as best as possible) HFCS for two reasons: health reasons and taste. I think HFCS is a concentrated sweetener that will increase my weight. HFCS is in so many of the processed food products here in the USA that it is difficult to try to consume it in moderation. The only way one can make sure they don't eat too much of it is to try and avoid HFCS on their grocery list. It almost impossible to completely shut-out HFCS ... so this is my way to ensure moderation. Second is taste. This mostly bothers me when I drink sodas ... particularly Coca-Cola. HFCS sweetened sodas leave a syrupy film in my mouth instead of a sparkly tingle I experience with sugar sweetened sodas. Thus, I usually buy my Coke at Hispanic grocery stores. Usually the Cokes there are sweetened with sugar, although this is slowly changing as well. As a result, I don't drink a lot of Coke (I use it as a mixer for my rum).

Unfortunately for my tastes, the USA's general public palette does not completely match mine (or they're apathetic to the fact that there may be a consumer choice to be asserted), and I will eventually be stuck with what Adam Smith's Invisible Hand provides (although it's arguable in this case that the Invisible Hand is providing for the general good). :)

Reply