For High-Fructose Corn Syrup, Sweet Talk Gets Harder | Hacker News Reader

For High-Fructose Corn Syrup, Sweet Talk Gets Harder

nytimes.com

9 pointsrobg11 comments

I don't understand why the focus of the anti-HFCS movement is on health. The problem with corn syrup is that it tastes bad and has lousy mouthfeel. If I'm going to consume empty calories, I want them to be delicious.

I've had the Passover Coke (real sugar, no HFCS), and, even though I wanted to like it, I have to say that I liked regular coke better. Maybe it's just a matter of operant conditioning or something like that.

That's the only basis I have to compare HFCS to sugar. I would prefer to have a pastry from a real bakery or a homemade cookie to a Twinkie or a McDonald's apple pie, but there's a big difference between mass-manufactured crap and the expensive stuff other than that the latter uses sugar and the former uses HFCS.

The real problem with HFCS compared to sugar is that it's so cheap that it tends to be used everywhere.

Agreed, in Western Europe nothing is sweetened with HFCS and there are plenty of obese people. The problem isn't that soda is sweetened with HFCS, it's that people drink loads of soda and that it's deceptively calorific.

I hate HFCS's bitter aftertaste and I'm amazed that nobody I've met in the USA seems to notice how awful it tastes. I can hardly bring myself to drink anything but diet soft drinks since I moved here.

Why demonize HFCS (over sugar) before science shows any of the conspiracy theorists claims are true? It sounds like the vast majority of anti-HFCS claims have no supporting evidence. As far as obesity is concerned, HFCS and sugar are probably equivalent.

But are they equally prevalent? What if they are equivalent, when all things are equal, but HFCS is deleterious simply because of its cost induced amount and ubiquity?

Yeah, even if HFCS is shown to be no worse than sugar, I'm disturbed by the idea of this country getting fat off of corn subsidies and price protection for domestic sugar.

Science is showing that it is more likely to cause weight gain than sugar:

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

The princeton study's methodology is as bad as that 'science in action' photo would lead you to believe.

The short version: http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/03/hfcs-makes-rats-fat/

The long version at Ars: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/does-high-fructo...

Its a highly processed substance and that's why I would be totally against it. Also food companies put a lot of naive looking substances in food that you would never use if you made them yourself. E.g. soy and lechitin in chocolate. Maybe its not harmful, but why am I forced to eat soy and lechitin everyday? Do I really want lechitin or some gum extract in my chocolate? Same goes for corn syrup. I wouldn't suck out sugar from corn for a home made ketchup and that's why I don't want to see any corn extract in it.

Why do you object to highly processed substances?

Because your genetic heritage is unlikely to be used to it and with humanity's short history of chemical knowledge and expertise on processing food (what, 30- 50 years?) I wont be convinced that humans know better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com