Talk:High-fructose corn syrup

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Pourquoi? PFoster 23:37, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Well, there's a whole 20-paragraph "controversies" section over at Wikipedia, so perhaps this is another case of aspartame. But, this article wasn't my idea, so I'm not committed one way or another about it. I just have soft spot for seven-word stubs. -Pretzel 23:58, 27 February 2008 (EST)
I think I'd take out the "natural" contention - the obesity issue is sufficient, and I'm not sure what natural actually means in this context. PoorEd 10:16, 28 February 2008 (EST)
Is there some relevance with the 'woo' of eating natural foods? (just asking is all) SusanThe Earth Moved 10:29, 28 February 2008 (EST)
The use of "natural" in that context does seem to partake of the woo of natural foods, if not the woo of the raw vegetable dietPoorEd 10:32, 28 February 2008 (EST)


New research regarding high fructose corn syrup[edit]

I only heard about on NPR, but apparently Johns Hopkins UNiversit recently released a study regarding the effects of high fructose corn syrup on appetite. According to the study (you'd have to look for it yourself) the greatest effect of high fructose corn syrup is that it significantly increases one's desire for food, but I was half asleep when I hear the details, so I can't remember most of them.The Goonie 1 (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I found the link to an article about it.The Goonie 1 (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I was savoring a "half and half" (I think it was half birch (I forget the original joke) and half mayonnaise) next door, earlier today. Made in NH, I read the 'gredients: the usual soda crap, but the suggies was "cane sugar" - none of that HFCS crap. Good for them. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The article Goonie links to above, titled Fructose Metabolism By The Brain Increases Food Intake And Obesity, Review Suggests, establishes a link between fructose and appetite. Not HFCS. Fructose. Remember that regular sucrose (table sugar) is 50% fructose and 50% glucose, while the HFCS used in American soda pop is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. (The "High fructose" in the name of "high-fructose corn syrup" is a relative term, compared with the almost pure glucose of normal corn syrup.) Personally, I doubt that that 5% difference between sucrose and HFCS is going to matter much in terms of its ability to stimulate appetite. In fact, the linked article explicitly says "We feel that these findings may have particular relevance to the massive increase in the use of high fructose sweeteners (both high fructose corn syrup and table sugar) in virtually all sweetened foods". --Tracer (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Reopening discussion due to follow up research[edit]

I think there's some merit to considering this further: the brain's reaction is now established in people, as a causative function. Our articles' overall tone of "it's just another sugar" is growing divergent from the science. There's legitimate reason to be concerned about HFCS 55, or other common concentrations that have more fructose than glucose, because the biochemical effects of the two sugars are different. I think we might have a finer line to tread than between "too much sugar" and "accept hysterical woo". Ikanreed (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

okay, that's another recent publication with serious concerns about the distinction. The most recent scientific literature isn't on board with this article's content(though, again, it's mouse models). It's pretty clearly mechanically different from other sugars. Ikanreed (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Meh.[edit]

I'm not really alarmed by high-fructose corn syrup. I don't recall hearing of any hysteria over table sugar before the introduction of HF-CS. As the big wiki points out in its intro, the AMA doesn't see any difference between HF-CS and sucrose as far as obesity is concerned. Methinks most of the uproar is over a hilarious naturalistic fallacy because sugar-cane is natural and somehow corn isn't. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, goodie for you. Studies show that it does elevate kid's blood suger far faster. And it's cheep, so its over used. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 04:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Is cane sugar natural? I seem to remember it not being, at least in the way that spuds aren't 'natural' either (artifical selection to make them not poisonis etc). Peter Monomorium antarcticum 04:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, what do you mean by "natural". it comes from cane stalks, I suppose, processed to within an inch of its life...Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 04:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Course, my argument to the "natural" people is that arsenic is natural, but it will still kill you. Petroleum is natural, but if you put it in my food you'd say "it's a chemical". lol love those non-distinctions. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 04:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Not really. While the canes are natural (they grow), extracting the sugar from them involves mixing the pulp with lime, heating it to insane temperatures, centrifuging the resulting molasses/sucrose mass, and then spraying the sugar with charcoal. 'Raw' sugar is made the same way, except you drop the centrifuge and you spray with steam. Sugar is whacked out.128.135.96.223 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

@Godot I said obesity, not diabetes. Also, I linked to the study I was referring to. Could you link to your study? Preferably peer-reviewed. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Invert sugar vs HFCS[edit]

Interesting. I suppose Pollan is t he main reason why one is a popular concern and one is obscure. Does invert sugar (...and I can't help but to think of the word "invert" in its older sense...) have to be labelled as such on food labels? I don't recall seeing it, whereas HFCS is everywhere, and the reason it takes me about a half-hour to buy ketchup or a can of beans at the store...JubalHarshaw (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the buzz about HFCS is not that it's magically some kind of devil sugar, but that it's in pretty much everything due to subsidizing corn production in the USA and heavy sugar tariffs on foreign sugar. This leads it to be in many products that would not otherwise be suspect, making them more caloric or more sugar-filled. Another issue is that people with sensitivities to fructose (which in the past was characterized by troubles eating some fruit, not troubles eating half of the things in the grocery store) are bothered by the imbalance (slightly more fructose than glucose, it makes a difference for them believe it or not) and can cause them bowel and gut problems. Invert sugar still has pretty much the same fructose/glucose ratio as cane sugar (why would it not, where would any extra come from...?) so for those people it's not a problem. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRjust shut up already 21:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I have seen a few bakery products in the U.S. that list "invert sugar" on their ingredients list. Apparently, invert sugar does have to be labelled as such. It's just that it's used in such a narrow range of goods that you're not likely to see it very often. --Tracer (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)