'Corn Sugar' Makers Hope You'll Buy The New Name | Hacker News Reader

'Corn Sugar' Makers Hope You'll Buy The New Name

npr.org

40 pointsgeorgecmu37 comments

I don't care what they call it. Get rid of corn subsidies and let corn syrup-sugar compete against other sweeteners without Uncle Sam having his fingers on the scale.

Getting rid of sugar subsidies and tariffs on foreign sugar would be nice too: http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/27/florida-sugar-crist-biz-bel...

We have more sugar than we know what to do with - http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=ene...

As a result of that bottles of Coke with real sugar in it get a price premium and even if they might taste the same (depending on who you ask). People are willing to pay more for it because they "know" it is the "good stuff". Even if they don't really care there is something to ask people if they want a coke and then causally insert you have code with real sugar in it which makes it suddenly much better. What is rare is sought after.

There is a big difference in taste when it comes to Coca-Cola sweetened with real sugar and high fructose corn syrup.

I much prefer the taste of soda with real sugar over HFCS, so when Pepsi did their throwback I bought it by the case, when I can find Mexican coke (Costco has it generally) I will buy entire cases. To me it is not so much about the perceived health benefits of one over the other, but rather the taste.

supposedly the Coke released once a year that's kosher for passover is also made with sugar - http://consumerist.com/2010/03/kosher-coke-is-here-for-passo...

I really do believe that the Mexican Coke is a large contributing factor. I can taste a substantial difference between the two, and have gone out of my way to avoid corn syrup since.

In the anti-sugar video by Donald Lustig, pediatric endocrinologist, that's been posted here a million times, he says HFCS is no worse than sugar - they're both terrible for you in the quantities people consume these days. This makes sense because they're chemically essentially the same thing (sucrose is a disaccharide of glucose and fructose, whereas HFCS is mix of glucose and fructose monosaccharides in proportions that may slightly skew towards fructose or glucose depending on the formulation. The disaccharides of sucrose are broken up in the body anyway, so in the end there's no clinically significant difference. Lustig didn't think the difference was important).

If there's anything misleading going on here, it's that people think that "real" sugar is OK. I guess it'll give you natural diabetes.

Obligatory link to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

The problem with HFCS isn't that it is necessarily worse than other forms of sugar. Rather, the problem is that it is usually an indicator of other problems. It's like Van Halen's famous brown M&Ms.

The band Van Halen had a term in their contracts, buried in the section of technical requirements that specified things like power requirements and structural requirements for the stage and such, that required the venue to provide a bowl of M&Ms for the band, with all the brown M&Ms removed.

This was there not because they had anything against brown M&Ms. Its purpose was to provide a way to see if someone had actually read the technical requirements. When they arrived to set up for a show, they could walk backstage, glance at the bowl of M&Ms, and if they saw brown ones, they invariably found on closer inspection that other requirements had also been ignored--including safety requirements.

Same with HFCS. If you find HFCS in the ingredient list, it is usually a sign you are dealing with a food that has had a lot of processing applied to it to try to "improve" it, or make it cheaper at the expense of nutrition, and so on. A food that has not been processed like that almost never will have HFCS.

Your comment is spot on. The rule of thumb is that if you can't make sense of the ingredients list on back labels (especially if they're extremely long), it's more than likely highly processed junk.

There are indeed people who will argue (with varying degrees of vehemence and research/evidence) that high fructose corn syrup is worse for you than sugar. However, some folks, myself included, simply think that high fructose corn syrup tastes (and feels) disgusting.

I read a book a few years ago called "Pure, white and deadly" by John Yudkin (first published in 1972) that still has an incredible amount of relevant information in it.

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

The main issue tends to come down to the mass production of food for consumption, and the market effects / economies of scale that it creates - the input to the digestive system changes rapidly, but the machinery is limited by the rate of human evolution.

An article with accompanying paper link that makes a similar point. With a little epidemiology thrown in to boot: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/straight-ta...

The industry trying to rebrand corn syrup as something that sounds healthier is pretty slimy. But the real problem here is that consumers think sugar is healthier than corn syrup in the first place.

I think it's great that people are turning on corn syrup— the super-cheap supply of sugar has definitely had a horrible effect on public health. But I don't like the thinking that the solution is to start using a similar amount of cane sugar.

The PR/Marketing types have not gotten the memo that the internet is a game changer with respect to such age-old trickery as rebranding the same product under a different name. If the FDA approves the name change you can be sure there will be whole websites announcing that corn sugar=HFCS thus defeating their goal. When someone searches google for corn sugar it will say "did you mean High Fructose Corn Syrup?"

In Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories" he goes into why HFCS might be worse than table sugar because fructose is processed in the liver. (HFCS is 55/42 fructose/glucose but sugar is 50/50). But I agree that sugar is bad too.

Finally, the reason HFCS was invented was because of the corn subsidy and sugar (cane and beet) tariffs created the market conditions. Drop the subsidies and tariffs and sugar will take back a lot of the market share.

55 vs 50 doesn't seem like a big enough difference to make HFCS significantly worse for you than sugar. I thought that the problem were the trace amounts of enzymatic and chemical conversion agents that are used to degrade cornstarch into HFCS.

Taubes discuss that in his book and apparently (from a liver, bio-chem, blood chemistry angle) that extra 5% can make a difference for some people (there is a genetic element to it). He mentions teens getting cirrhosis of the liver from drinking too much soda.

But I (and I think Taubes) agrees with your point, sugar is bad for you too. "Corn sugar" may be a bit worse but especially bad if it damages the liver.

In sucrose, glucose and fructose are chemically bonded (a disaccharide). In high fructose corn syrup, converted 90% fructose corn syrup is blended with 100% glucose syrup.

Because the digestive system doesn't need to break the disaccharide bond in HFCS, the body can metabolize it more quickly, possibly leading to more dramatic blood sugar spikes and other nutritional weirdness.

This is correct but I omitted it for the sake of simplicity. I think this will turn out to be important because it impacts the rates of metabolism of various bio-chemical processes. Also, per Taubes, its not just blood sugar and insulin spikes that are important but the processing of fructose in the liver that impact the levels and types of cholesterol, etc, that end up in the blood, not to mention actual liver damage if over taxed (which has similarities to alcohol induced cirrhosis).

This question may be prompted by an unawareness of more up-to-date information, but is it conceivable that the cirrhosis is caused by metabolites of other chemicals in soda or diet soda, such as possibly toxic byproducts of aspartame metabolism?

I don't know about that, I mean most people don't know that AirTran is ValueJet

True but the info is out there if people wanted to know. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Airlines). Also, presumably after the name change ValueJet cleaned up their act and stopped crashing planes otherwise the new name would quickly be ruined too. With HFCS, its not like the name change buys them time to change or improve the product, its the same stuff and -- rightly or wrongly -- people now think that it is bad for you.

Yeah, the main good thing I see coming out of the backlash against HFCS alone is that it might reduce the inertia of getting rid of corn subsidies, which are helping cause sugar's blight on Americans' diet.

Plus it's easier than going after ethanol.

They have a point. HFCS isn't necessarily very high in fructose - it's called that because natural corn syrup is all glucose and has to be processed into what we in the UK call "glucose-fructose syrup". I hope I don't need to point out that fructose is a perfectly natural sugar and is the predominant source of sweetness in apples, pears and many other natural foods.

It's also worth pointing out that fructose is not only 73% sweeter than sucrose, but is also synergistically sweeter when combined with other sweeteners. As a result, HFCS can be used in significantly smaller quantities than ordinary corn syrup.

HFCS isn't really the issue - it's just the cheapest source of sweetness, without the subsidies it'd just be replaced with plain old sucrose. The real problem is that the average American consumer demands phenomenal levels of sweetness in almost all foods. HFCS is everywhere because consumers expect nearly everything they eat to be sweet. Food manufacturers don't dare reduce the sweetness of their foods because it would cost them countless millions, something no public company has any legal right to do. Without a federal mandate or a massive cultural shift, I can't see any progress being made.

> I hope I don't need to point out that fructose is a perfectly natural sugar and is the predominant source of sweetness in apples, pears and many other natural foods.

Yes, in nature though it's generally package with a dose of fiber which slows down its absorption. Being natural doesn't make it good.

Robert Lustig from University of California San Franciso has a great explanation, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM, that shows all the metabolic pathways that fructose takes and why it is bad for you.

Except Fructose is (for all studies that showed any link) the worst sugar health wise (breaks down quickest, monopolizes certain pathways in liver, links to diabetes etc)

They called it HFCS because fructose=fruit=good for you. Now that people think HFCS=plutonium it's renamed natural healthy happy corn sugar.

"Sara Lee switched to sugar in two of its breads last month." This line was revealing. If you look at the ingredients list of bread in Europe for example, you won't find any sugar added. Sara Lee must figure that going "cold turkey" on sugar is going to hurt its offerings in a US market that's been weaned on sugar for decades. So it "rearranges the deckchairs" on a couple of lines to placate the niche of consumers concerned about HFCS, but does nothing to address the larger health issue - the addition of sugar of any kind.

I've also started to notice "organic evaporated cane juice" appearing on ingredients lists.

Nice try. So that would be... sugar?

Sucrose from sugar cane is more expensive than sucrose from beets, so the manufacturer is making sure people know it was made from sugar cane rather than beets.

Or they're trying to fool the ignorant (or those who are quickly scanning the label for sugar) into thinking it's something other than plain ol' sugar? If they'd said "Cane sugar" I wouldn't have a problem with that.

One issue with the sugar vs. HFCS argument presented in the article - I thought that HFCS was ~60% fructose vs. table sugar's pure sucrose (50/50 glucose/fructose)?

EDIT: Seems there are a few variants - 42% fructose, called HFCS 42, 55% (HFCS 55), and a whopping 90% fructose (HFCS 90) (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup )

Rebranding proves to be more difficult in the information age. Everyone knows about this name change since it is being reported everywhere and it looks like an admission of guilt.

Oh god. I don't think a change of name is what they need, but a change of product.

If only the cornfields of the American midwest were suitable for growing sugar cane, we wouldn't have this problem.

Anyone with agricultural knowledge know what you could grow instead of corn in the cornbelt if the demand (and/or subsidies) for corn were to collapse substantially?

In most places that can grow corn farmers can also grow (and usually do - just in smaller quantities) soybeans, grain, rice, and hops. Also, if corn wasn't subsidized so much we would probably see farmers make more room for cattle and other animals in the fields so they could eat grass and replenish the nutrients in the field rather than shoved in a barn somewhere.

Didn't we used to grow mostly wheat out there?

And before that, all kinds of grass.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com