When I was writing a food column three times a week for United Press International, the one subject that would stir readers to block my email inbox was when I wrote about High Fructose Corn Syrup.

After an article in 2004 in the American Jourhal of Clinical Nutrition suggested that HFCS might be a key culprit in rising obesity, HFCS became targetted by nutritionists. Now one of the article's authors has had a rethink about pinpointing HFCS as obesity's major cause and the Center for Consumer Freedom has launched an ad campaign to try and turn around what it describes as "an urban myth" that HFCS is a more highly processed, less healthy ingredient than sugar.

Justin Wilson, senior research analyst at CCF, told FoodNavigator-USA.com: “We realized that we are at a tipping point when we see companies like Starbucks stabbing the rest of the food industry in the back and saying that a bear claw with sugar is healthier than one with high fructose corn syrup. It’s a marketing gimmick because there’s no difference between these two products."

Indisputably. But here's the thing. Corn syrup was developed in the 1970s when the technology became available that could turn corn into a sweetener far cheaper than sugar. HFCS's freezing point is lower than sugar, so sodas and juices can be more easily poured straight from the cold can. Sweetening drinks with HFCS is so much cheaper than using sugar, companies can afford to push super-sized drinks. HFCS moistens and browns baked goods better than sugar. Our taste buds respond to HFCS faster than they do to sugar, so it enhances flavors better. It extends the shelf life of processed foods.

Since it was developed, USDA figures show the average daily consumption of calories from HFCS in the American diet has risen from 2 calories in 1970 to 205 calories in 2003.

Justin Wilson rightly points out "A sugar is a sugar and a calorie is a calorie. Period.” But if HFCS is so cheap that it frees companies to super-size their foods and drinks, it is a less healthy option than sugar because it puts fattening foods more readily in the hands of people who either don't understand what makes a healthy diet or can't control their eating habits.

2 Comments

1. Ban HFCS

   Two additional things to consider before you deem HFCS "no longer a threat."
   
   First of all, there are numerous studies that raise an array of concerns about HFCS (not just the 2004 study linking HFCS to obesity that may be now under dispute.)
   
   Secondly, i imagine you are already aware that the Center for Consumer Freedom is hardly an objective non-partisan, unbiased, honest broker. <a href="http://ban-hfcs.blogspot.com/2009/10/bringin-out-big-guns.html">Relevant blog addressing CCF</a>

2. Julia

   I think if you take another look at my article, you'll find I don't consider HFCS no longer a threat. It's manufactured so cheaply in such quantity that the food industry can't resist stuffing it into almost every prepared food you can think of, from bread and cereals to those processed temptations that, because of HFCS's ability to extend shelf life, can languish for months in supermarkets. Whatever rethinking may be taking place in the heads of HFCS's original detractors, I find it hard to accept that HFCS has a healthy place anywhere on the food chain. The people benefitting from its use are the shareholders and manufacturers invested in processed foods.