HFCS: to blame for the obesity epidemic?

Lately, high-fructose corn syrup has been under high scrutiny for its role in the obesity epidemic.  HFCS has taken so much flack that organizations such as Corn Refiners Association and The Corn Farmers Coalition are running commercials and campaigns to ward off this negative stigma.

The Corn Farmers Coalition is launched a major media blitz this spring, taking their message directly to capitol hill. “It’s an education-oriented campaign for decision makers in D.C., congressional staffers, folks from environmental groups, think tanks—anybody that’s part of the discussion that’s affecting policy,” Mark Lambert, coaltion director, says. “We’re not discussing any particular policy. We’re just trying to put positive messages out there to reinforce what modern agriculture is like, who is farming, how they’re farming and the improvements in the industry.” The campaign features advertising throughout the Washington Metro rail system, inside Union Station, Capitol Hill media outlet Web sites and even in the Washington Nationals baseball team’s home game programs. The program is estimated to cost $1 million.

As consumers, we want to know the real deal. Cut out all the profit-conscience busniessmen and advertisements. Should we eat it, or not? HFCS is found on the majority of nutrition labels in your kitchen I bet. Why the sudden attention now? 

You decide what you put in your body, here's a little info to help you make those decisions.

What is High-Fructose Corn Syrup?

HFCS comes down to everyone's favorite subject; chemistry. Sugar and HFCS have the same biochemistry. The main difference is that HFCS is manufactured from corn syrup (primarily glucose), which undergoes enzymatic processing to increase the fructose content and is then mixed with glucose. Pure sugar is also composed of glucose and fructose but in marginally different concentrations. Both are calorie dense, about 16 calories per teaspoon, with no nutritional value.

Thanks to corn subsidies, HFCS has become a cheap alternative to sugar and is often added to pop and processed foods - foods that offer little nutritional value and, when consumed too much, as is often the case, contribute to weight gain. But is this due to the HFCS?

The Charges?

Critics have said HFCS plays a direct role in obesity by disrupting the normal functions of metabolism. According to a recently published Princeton study, rats fed a diet rich in HFCS accumulated more belly fat and had higher levels of circulating triglycerides (i.e., fat)  both factors in metabolic syndrome, a precursor to heart disease - than their sugar-fed peers.

The Defense?

A number of nutrition experts dispute these findings, suggesting that the data produced inconsistent results. Previous studies have shown that fructose is metabolized differently than glucose and excessive amounts of fructose interfere with appetite-regulating hormones and lead to increased fat accumulation. But HFCS is not any higher in fructose than the standard table sugar - both are about a 50/50 mix of glucose and fructose. An excess of either is unhealthy.

How HFCS (and table sugar) can hurt your health -

What we do know for sure is that when excessive sugar intake (in any form) increases, so does risk of diabetes and heart disease. We also know that liquids do not register in the body the same way as solid food, and people hardly ever compensate for those extra calories in drinks by eating less throughout the day. As people drink more sugar-sweetened beverages, they gain more weight and, as a result, are at a greater risk of developing diabetes and heart disease. This is, of course, regarding the fact that most soda companies sweeten their drinks with HFCS.

Sugar-sweetened beverages are the main source of added sugar and the leading source of calories in our diet. When added to drinks, all sweeteners, including natural ones like brown sugar, sugar in the raw, agave syrup and honey, contribute empty calories. Since 1980, calorie intake has increased by an average of 150 to 300 calories per day with about half of those calories coming from liquids - sugar-sweetened beverages in particular. At the same time, there has been no increase in physical activity levels. Americans are eating more and exercising the same, and wondering where the pounds are coming from.

The Verdict?

Is a single ingredient soley to blame? If we eliminate HFCS from the ingredients list will the rise in obesity head toward a decline? No, and to suggest so is confusing and not helpful to consumers. People seem to want someone to blame... (McDonalds and the fast food industry in general, vending machines in schools, HFCS...) but really, when you consume foods carelessly and uninformed, the blame really belongs to the consumer. We need to know what we're putting in our bodies and what our body will do with it. Eliminate HFCS? Try eating less sugar and processed foods in general. That will help you drop pounds. I'm not saying that HFCS is a good thing or that all the media attention is unwarranted, I'm just saying we need to be responsible for our bodies. Calories in, calories out. That's what it has always been about.

For example:

One 12-ounce can of Pepsi contains 150 calories and about eight teaspoons of added sugar, or HFCS (The American Heart Association recommends Americans limit their sugar intake to about 100 calories per day for women and 150 calories per day for men (about 5 and 9 tsp). With one can of pop, a woman has gone over and a man has used up almost all his allowance.
At the same time, the same amount of orange juice has 165 calories and more than eight teaspoons of sugar, just in its natural form.
If you're looking to add vitamins and minerals, the OJ is the smarter choice, but if weight maintenance is your goal, you should steer clear of both. When it comes to energy, it's unlikely that your body registers natural sugar any differently than table sugar or HFCS.