Why high fructose corn syrup replaced sugar in US

http://shkrobius.livejournal.com/411007.html

by mike_esspe • 13 years ago

139 157 13 years ago

shkrobius.livejournal.com

wcunning• 13 years ago

LiveJournal is still a website? Since when...?

eatitraw• 13 years ago

In Russia, LiveJournal is popular and serious blog platform.

baddox3• 13 years ago

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_failure.

nickff2• 13 years ago

The government-backed sugar cartel in the US simply drove up the cost of (cane and beet) sugar, resulting in a comparative cost advantage for HFCS. I am surprised at how many people think HFCS is a corporate conspiracy, and are wholly ignorant of the government's role in the matter.

Here's a similar article with an interesting graph: http://mjperry.blogspot.ca/2011/01/big-sugar-cartel-cost-con...

ericcumbee3• 13 years ago

same as Corn Ethanol- the Iowa Caucus

Florin_Andrei3• 13 years ago

Fuel made from food is a terrible idea, in more ways than one.

ericcumbee3• 13 years ago

Especially when it can be made from things like Switchgrass or from industrial byproducts like saw dust and wood chips.

btilly• 13 years ago

It is worth noting that here, as is typical in politics, a focused interest (sugar growers) beats a diffuse interest (the general public). We would all benefit from ending this ridiculous practice. But we would individually benefit very little, and it isn't worth much from us to do so.

But it gets worse. Because there is a second layer of beneficiaries here. Corn growers. And they have great political power, as is seen in the subsidies they get and the ethanol additives that are legally require (which damage engines, and are a net negative on energy once you consider the costs of growing that corn).

Not the least among the advantages that corn growers have politically is the simple fact that they are important in Iowa. Which means that any national politician who dreams of being President, or of working with any other that has that dream, has very direct incentives to keep corn growers happy.

rhizome3• 13 years ago

Then I'd think it's not a coincidence that Iowa is designated as a swing state, since both parties have to play into this scheme.

patmcguire• 13 years ago

It's mainly that it's always the first primary election and the presidential primaries are very much momentum-based. If you crash and burn in the Iowa caucus you're basically done.

tptacek21• 13 years ago

Iowa isn't "designated" a swing state; it emerges as one every election season because of its particular mix of urban and rural counties and its proximity to Chicago and Minneapolis, both Democratic bastions, and its large number of reliably conservative rural voters.

nickff2• 13 years ago

You might be interested to read "The Myth of the Rational Voter" , or other material by Bryan Caplan; he argues that the reason these policies thrive is not the uninformed public. Caplan argues that the public has strong beliefs in favor of the tariffs and protectionism, as a result of anti-foreign, and anti-market bias.

pdknsk• 13 years ago

There is an interesting conspiracy theory suggesting that New Coke was released to mask the switch of sugar to HFCS in the then re-introduced Coke Classic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke#Conspiracy_theories

T-hawk• 13 years ago

A theory that has been roundly debunked. Coca-Cola already had HFCS five years earlier, since 1980. Here's Snopes on the topic:

http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp

And the whole category of Cokelore:

http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cokelore.asp

rayiner6• 13 years ago

The page linked in the article is worth a couple of chuckles: "The US sugar industry is almost as important to our economic vitality as is a steady supply of affordable energy. Subjecting sugar to the unpredictable forces of global laissez faire capitalism would likely lead to 'dumping' by countries whose own sugar industries are much more protected than is ours."

In a sense, this quote isn't wrong. That's exactly what the sugar producing countries would do. The U.S. almost certainly does not have a competitive advantage in sugar production, and if the industry were deregulated domestic sugar production would end, and we'd become sugar importers. And that would be okay, because sugar isn't the strategically important commodity it once was.

But the same reasoning applies to steel and arms manufacturing too. The difference is, it wouldn't be okay if all our domestic steel production went overseas.

bitops• 13 years ago

> The difference is, it wouldn't be okay if all our domestic steel production went overseas.

I think I know the rationale behind this statement, but I'm always curious as to why we hold on to these beliefs. If we let industries move around based on true competitiveness, stripped of subsidies and other anticompetitive practices, we might find that to be a force for good.

That said, I've come to believe that this is most likely a minority view. Everyone believes in free markets until it starts affecting their bottom line.

Guvante3• 13 years ago

Think about it like this, lets say we let people make Steel wherever they want and everyone starts making it in China, causing the local production to grind to a halt due to being unable to compete.

Now a year later, China decides it doesn't want to export to us anymore and bans exports of Steel to the US, now we are screwed for at least 6 months, since we don't have the ability to create the product anymore.

The difference with sugar is we do have an alternative available (corn syrup) so the loss wouldn't be as big.

adventured• 13 years ago

If you have an interest in self-defense, it's a good idea to retain a meaningful industrial base (eg domestic steel manufacturing). There are numerous other strategic economic reasons also.

rayiner6• 13 years ago

The "free" market, at least as we understand it, depends on a fiction: interactions between people happen in terms of transactions in private property according to enforced contracts. Neoclassical economics doesn't really consider what an efficient economy looks like when "killing someone and taking their stuff" is a valid action within the system.

We can get away with this inside a country, because governments monopolize the use of force, and so you can talk about "free" markets in terms of interactions between people in terms of market transactions, without factoring into the equation the possibility of use of force.

But as between countries, that fiction fails. Countries are in the state of nature. In that state, force is as valid an interaction as trade. Any discussion of the interactions between countries, therefore, must consider how force affects any trade dynamic between the countries.

So why do we keep a domestic steel and arms industry, even though it might be more efficient in terms of global GDP to let some other country manufacture those things? Because it's a huge disadvantage in terms of waging war to have your arms manufacturing done by some other country. We would have a hard time bombing China if our bomber aircraft were manufactured there...

ataggart• 13 years ago

If a foreign country is willing to force their citizens to subsidize our purchases of their sugar, steel, etc., I see little reason to object.

saraid2162• 13 years ago

Uh. From a naive perspective, I'm quite willing to object to other people being forced to do something.

glenra9• 13 years ago

> The difference is, it wouldn't be okay if all our domestic steel production went overseas.

Why, exactly, wouldn't that be okay? We'd only lose "all" domestic production if foreign production were quite a lot cheaper, in which case the benefit from switching is huge and ongoing. If you're worried about wartime security, here are three ways to mitigate that concern:

(1) Stockpile. Order enough (cheaper, now that it's imported) steel in advance that we'd be able to meet likely short-term needs.

(2) Diversify. Keep an eye on the foreign supply and make sure that we're at least perserving the option to buy from more than one country so if one trading partner gets angry we can just switch to buying from another.

(3) Be polite. Stop invading and/or bossing around every other country on the planet, so our trading partners aren't likely to have good reason to want to embargo trade with us.

The fact that more international trade would mean we might have to actually care what other countries think is a pretty huge argument in favor of it.

xSwag2• 13 years ago

I read researched this a few days ago.

You have to consider the taste, it tastes nicer because fructose has only 5 carbon in it's ring instead of 6 which leads to more pleasurable experience as it makes it fit better into the sweetness sensing in the mouth[1]

With Corn Syrup you get both glucose and fructose together whereas with sugar you just get sucrose. Another reason would be that more corn is grown in the US than sugar cane which makes it more efficient to produce corn syrup instead.

[1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23537367

vetinari2• 13 years ago

FYI, sucrose aka saccharose is 50% glucose and 50% fructose ;)

xSwag2• 13 years ago

I stand corrected!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose#Metabolism_of_sucrose

pohl• 13 years ago

It hasn't broken down yet at the taste receptors. That happens in the duodenum, doesn't it?

kunai• 13 years ago

It "tastes" like synthetic crap. Before I was put on dietary restrictions I made my own ginger ale, because the stuff that was sweetened with HFCS tasted acidic and far, far too sweet.

More sweetness doesn't always taste well.

Florin_Andrei3• 13 years ago

> it tastes nicer

That's largely acquired.

I grew up without HFCS and I think old-timey sugar tastes better.

grecy2• 13 years ago

In the documentary King Corn [1] they suggest that HFCS is ubiquitous because of the government subsidies for growing corn. The surplus of corn was so large, they started looking for creative ways to use it all up. HFCS was one of those, as-is feeding it to livestock (which traditionally don't eat corn).

The subsidies are such that a cattle farmer can actually make a profit buy growing corn, selling it (with subsidies), then buying corn back to feed their own livestock.

[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1112115/

Guvante3• 13 years ago

> The subsidies are such that a cattle farmer can actually make a profit buy growing corn, selling it (with subsidies), then buying corn back to feed their own livestock.

I fail to see how this is enlightening, of course growing corn creates a profit. If you are excluding the base profit of the corn, why wouldn't a subsidized market create additional profit?

grecy2• 13 years ago

To be able to grow, sell, buy, use and still come out ahead, you must be able to sell the corn for more than you can buy it for, which is nonsensical.

tptacek21• 13 years ago

This debate has come up on HN repeatedly; it is again worth pointing out that HFCS is "HF" relative to "CS", not to table sugar. Table sugar is ~50% fructose, HFCS 55%.

The point isn't that HFCS is good for you --- it isn't --- but that a flight to "natural" sugars isn't a good response. The problem is hyperpalatable foods and (even moreso) liquid calories, not which sugar is being used.

HFCS alarmism probably works to the advantage of junk food companies, who can simply market equally unhealthful products built on table sugar as a premium alternative.

rhizome3• 13 years ago

HFCS alarmism probably works to the advantage of junk food companies, who can simply market equally unhealthful products built on table sugar as a premium alternative.

That's fine, let them try. It would equalize the market among these players and those who are already not using HFCS.

tptacek21• 13 years ago

... resulting in no net gain for consumers, who would still be prey for the multibillion dollar junk food industry.

smokeyj3• 13 years ago

I think the point is why do we have a sugar protection racket.

tptacek21• 13 years ago

We might, but if ending it simply routed the market from corn syrup to cane sugar, what difference does that make for consumers? It seems like the most you'd be able to say is that it might make junk food cheaper.

triplesec4• 13 years ago

It's since become a corn product protection racket, I believe. And probably due to pork barrel politics in the Midwest

meritt• 13 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

You [and everyone else] should watch this if you haven't. Amazing lecture and aligns with what you've said.

tptacek21• 13 years ago

The Lustig video is also controversial but is indeed fascinating.

glaugh2• 13 years ago

Agreed that the most important point is that liquid carbohydrates and plain sugars are generally bad, and that that's 90% of what people should take away from discussion like this.

But it appears that there's still some particularly negative effects of HFCS relative to more typical sugars, too: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

tptacek21• 13 years ago

That rat study came up 900 days ago in the last HFCS debate I saw here, and indicates mostly that rats seem to modulate their eating better with sucrose than with HFCS; it's also controversial. Is there a single human study we can now cite that attributes harm to HFCS that is specific to HFCS and not simply to consumption of sugars?

eco2• 13 years ago

There were a lot of problems with that study. You can read about them here: http://examine.com/faq/is-hfcs-high-fructose-corn-syrup-wors...

MostAwesomeDude• 13 years ago

Sucrose is exactly half-and-half fructose and glucose; it is composed of one of each, bound together. This is important because it means that it can't be immediately absorbed into the bloodstream. It has to be broken apart first, and the enzyme that does so is in the intestine. This means that its absorption rates and effect on the glycemic index are different from HFCS. Diabetics care about this.

While I can't really argue against you, partially because you're tptacek and partially because you're not wrong here, it's quite irritating to see somebody have a good conclusion and faulty premises.

Also, stop with the scare quotes.

tptacek21• 13 years ago

Do you have a human study you can cite regarding the glycemic impact of HFCS vs. table sugar? My understanding is that the body is very adept at breaking that sucrose bond.

Also: what scare quotes?

Udo• 13 years ago

While sucrose absorption is certainly slower than pure glucose absorption, the amount of sugar that eventually goes into your bloodstream is equivalent, and the energy yield is also roughly the same (splitting that one glycosidic link isn't really that energy-intensive).

I guess an argument could be made that fast-acting monosaccharides are more problematic for diabetics since their bodies can't deal with spikes easily, but for the rest of us there is really no (scientifically accessible) difference at all. Our food just contains too much readily accessible energy.

eco2• 13 years ago

> This means that its absorption rates and effect on the glycemic index are different from HFCS.

They aren't. The enzyme sucrase is needed to break it down but it cuts through sucrose like a hot knife through butter.

Scientists have already studied this and found sucrose and HFCS have basically equivalent responses in "blood glucose, insulin, leptin, ghrelin, and appetite."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17234503

ryeguy• 13 years ago

There currently is no good evidence to suggest that one is worse than the other; either they are both inert or they are both evil. The difference between them is too small to matter in moderate consumption, and in excess both are harmful to health:

http://examine.com/faq/is-hfcs-high-fructose-corn-syrup-wors...

Nursie2• 13 years ago

>> Table sugar is ~50% fructose, HFCS 55%.

Actually, table sugar is sucrose, a different compound to fructose. Fructose absorption is actually faster in 1:1 fructose:glucose mixes.

So there are differences in the metabolism of fructose in the two situations, even if minor, and as a general point of chemistry it's not really correct to say that table sugar is half sucrose any more than it's correct to say alcohol is half methane.

But in general yes, HFCS as a substance is not the problem. HFCS as a subsidized foodstuff that gets wedged into too many things, that's the issue.

jared3142• 13 years ago

Sucrose is glucose and fructose, stuck together by a single bond (hence the 50% fructose). The first thing your digestive system does is break that bond.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose

tomkin2• 13 years ago

Understanding that correlation != causation, the trend lines for obesity, diabetes and the use of HFCS is pretty alarming anyhow and should be investigated further.

Why do I have a particular distaste for HFCS? I remember a time when Americans would come to Canada and say, "where are all your fat people?" Our local newspapers would run stories about how Americans perceive our "indulgent" culture. You don't see those stories anymore. Now we're toe-to-toe in (childhood) obesity, diabetes. Data shows that the US started to use HFCS in liquids and baked goods as early as the 1970s. Canada on the other hand, HFCS has only recently become a regular ingredient in food. I know this is anecdotal and not in anyway scientific, but I have to wonder what other trend could have caused increases in caloric consumption at this magnitude. My understanding is that cane sugar is processed by every cell in your body and HFCS is processed by only your liver. The liver allegedly becomes overworked. If true, this domino effect has grave consequences.

tptacek21• 13 years ago

How does that trendline coincide with the market adoption of, for instance, sweetened energy-dense liquids as a hydration replacement for water?

3am2• 13 years ago

It's the same molecules. Like everyone else has noted, 1 sucrose molecule = 1 glucose + 1 sucrose. The proportion of glucose to fructos is just slightly different in HFCS vs table sugar (55/42 or 42/53, versus 50/50).

To your correlation/causation point, why don't you think that this is the result of having massive, inexpensive, and domestic sources of a molecule that makes the human brain want to eat more? Rather than some minor distinction in the ratio of the monosaccharides its composed of?

Sugar is basically a drug with immediate gratification with only longer-term side effects to the health. Unless there are laws, companies that put the most of it in their products will 1) make more money because it's cheap and 2) sell more product. I don't know what happened in Canada, but I would guess either those interested in profiting even at the expense of public health either out-competed more ethical competitors or were able to weaken public health laws. Who knows, maybe the US public was the first target, and they went to the north only after our pancreases/adipose tissues were completely saturated...

enraged_camel• 13 years ago

This debate has come up on HN repeatedly; it is again worth pointing out that HFCS is "HF" relative to "CS", not to table sugar. Table sugar is ~50% fructose, HFCS 55%.

You can't look at the percentage difference of fructose and conclude that HFCS is not much different than regular sugar.

The reason HFCS is so terrible is because it is chemically different. As opposed to table sugar, where the sucrose, glucose and fructose are chemically bound, in HFCS the gluctose and fructose are unbound. What this means is that HFCS is digested much more quickly, often before the body can signal the brain that it is full.

tptacek21• 13 years ago

Do you have a human study that establishes that? Because as I understand it, this isn't true, and that human studies have shown insignificant differences between the two. The chemical bond you're referring to is one we have evolved to break extremely quickly.

mratzloff• 13 years ago

Down-voted because this has nothing to do with the article, which is about the US sugar protectionism racket and not the health implications of HFCS.

mattm• 13 years ago

Unfortunately, I've noticed this is quite common on HN. The top comment is quite often some long discussion about some minor point of the article. I really wish HN would implement collapsed comments so I could choose to expand the discussion or just easily skip to the next ones which address the article directly.

etler• 13 years ago

High Fructose Corn Syrup is not always 55% fructose. HFCS can vary greatly in that ratio according to [this USC study](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20948525) that analyzed the fructose ratio of a variety of HFCS only sweetened soft drinks.

They found the actual ratio varied from 47-65%, with the mean amount being 59%, and the amount in several major brands was 65%.

The fructose ratio in HFCS is not regulated or reported, so you could be drinking anything. With a mean of 59% a 9% difference to table sugar is a big difference, and many popular brands have a 15% difference.

According to the study, the difference between HFCS and sugar is not a myth.

The other advantage that sugar has over HFCS has nothing to do with the chemical composition. It's more expensive.

tptacek21• 13 years ago

Rebuttal to that article:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2011.4/full

X-Istence4• 13 years ago

I don't think that "which sugar" is better is necessarily the debate that is going on here. It is the protectionism of the sugar industry with a huge amount of money going to waste because of it.

---

Honestly, the amount of sugar/HFCS in various products in the US is absolutely insane. Hell, I pay a premium to buy whole natural peanut butter compared to Jif or the other crap which all contain sugar.

These days I spend more time looking at labels trying to find out what crap is in my food that shouldn't be there, chemicals, sugars, all kinds of salts, and preservatives. Ugh.

youngerdryas• 13 years ago

It is not pronounced Jif it is pronounced Gif.

moultano• 13 years ago

You would think it would be easier to find peanut butter with less ingredients. I'm a peanut butter fiend, I love it so much I eat it with a spoon. The first time I had peanut butter without sugar was a few months ago, and it was like a miracle. So delicious!

narrator• 13 years ago

Yeah HFCS is just fine... except for the heavy metal contamination[1].

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01...

dbrian• 13 years ago

He's not debating the cause of obesity. The linked article is about the economics of sweeteners in the US. It's about money not health.

jakejake2• 13 years ago

Hey, no fair you actually read the article. The rest of us are just hypothesizing and adding our opinions based on the title.

egypturnash• 13 years ago

Here's some anecdata from my experience.

When I drink a soda made with cane sugar, I am satisfied: I've had a nice little sugar rush, I'm happy, now I want to get on with whatever else I want to do.

When I drink a soda made with HFCS, I am teased: my body has been reminded how tasty something made with cane sugar is, and I'd really like to have something. Oh hey here's that half-drunk 2-litre of Coke, guess I'll have some more of that. Repeat.

Now that I've realized this difference, I buy and drink a hell of a less soda. And am much more happier when I drink what I do.

(This is of course in the middle of various other changes - it's after switching to diet soda for a while, and completely kicking the habit for a few years.)

jakejake2• 13 years ago

On the rare occasions when I drink soda these days I just think, I would have been happier with water. Also if I'm gonna consume 300 calories I'd rather have a taco or something.

fein• 13 years ago

HFCS is almost in the same place as sugar if we look at it in terms of regulation.

Both are victims of price fixing through government subsidies. It doesn't matter if you don't contribute to the purchase of the product, as your tax dollars already fund its creation.

codereflection• 13 years ago

Relevant: The Rise of Mexican Coca-Cola http://kalinnacheff.com/2012/03/01/the-rise-of-mexican-coca-...

An interesting point in the article: "Coke suppressed demand for cane sugar formula because it would cost more to produce and consumers would not pay the extra cost."

yoster• 13 years ago

I live in a state where Coke with sugar is widely available. The taste between that and HFCS is like night and day. Too bad the rest of the states do not have that choice.

triplesec4• 13 years ago

I used to like Coke in the UK but then I think they switched. Night and day indeed. Great news for my health, though!

jimzvz• 13 years ago

I am not sure what they were using in the UK in the mid 2000s but it was way too sweet for me. Same with chocolate over there.

smsm423• 13 years ago

I find Coke with sugar tasting better but I almost never drink it anyway since both are drinks that are very bad for my health. Not theoretical statement - I have stopped drinking sugary sodas when my blood analysis showed bad signs, and now I drink water and unsweetened tea and occasional juice. And, frankly speaking, I don't miss it too much - now that I'm out of the addictive habit, both sugar and HFCS one taste not that good to me.

jmspring• 13 years ago

The article says nothing about corn subsidies which affect both HFCS and ethanol.

defen• 13 years ago

The linked page on sugars.com is hilarious.

"sugar is an indispensable part of everyday life."

"The US sugar industry is almost as important to our economic vitality as is a steady supply of affordable energy. "

They could at least come up with some reasons that don't insult our intelligence.

stfu• 13 years ago

What do you guys think of Stevia[1]? Has been recently approved in the EU for use as an all natural sweetener and I see products popping up here and there pretending to be based on it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia

X-Istence4• 13 years ago

I have eaten stuff with Stevia, not sure what it is about it though, but it causes my muscles to ache.

I can be completely fine, eat something sweetened with Stevia and about an hour or two later my muscles will start aching. It is worst in my shoulders :-(.

jwn• 13 years ago

I've used Stevia a few times, but am not a fan. While it's definitely sweet, it's a very different sweet compared to sugar. When drinking something (like coffee) with Stevia, I notice that it's sweet on a different part of my tongue, and it's a latent sweet - initially the drink tastes completely unsweetened until it reaches the back of my mouth.

This is just my experience, maybe I'm weird.

triplesec4• 13 years ago

Even though too much refined sugar is bad for you (there was very little tooth decay before 1850), I don't like ingesting HFCS because it makes things taste horrible. It doesn't taste the same as sucrose, which has much better flavour.

OTOH the more things have HFCS the fewer sugary products I eat, which is good for my health. Wouldn't work if everybody did that, of course.

aaron695• 13 years ago

>Once in a while I come across an animated debate on health benefits of sugar vs. high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). It is enzymatically produced mixture of glucose and fructose that approximately matches the chemical composition of sucrose, aka sugar. It is not this debate that is my concern;

Why are people discussing what the article specifically says it is not about?

gcb0• 13 years ago

The only thing i can't grasp... If sugar is such a certain deal, why there is even one person investing in a HFCS factory instead of yet another sugar came farm?

pasbesoin2• 13 years ago

I skimmed the article, but I did not see mention of the U.S.'s petro-chemical-based agriculture. Without the outsized contributions that petro-chemicals make to the production process of corn and corn syrup (engine fuel, fertilizer, distillation, etc.), corn syrup and HFCS production would be much more directly (as opposed to externalized costs) expensive.

I guess we should also toss soil erosion into the mix. Productive topsoil is a finite resource, and modern agriculture -- while it has improved somewhat, recently -- is expensive in this regard.

Why high fructose corn syrup replaced sugar in US

Related Stories