Have you seen the pro high fructose corn syrup television ads recently?  There is one that takes place at a child’s birthday party.  A happy, smiling mom is pouring some sort of generic looking “fruit punch” from a gallon jug as another mom walks into the frame.

“Wow, you don’t care what the kids eat, huh?”

“Excuse me?” The first mom replies, smiling.

“That has high fructose corn syrup in it.”

“So?” The first mom says with a laugh.

The second mom lowers her voice. “Yeah, you know what they say about it.”

“Like what?”

The second mom gets a vacant, dear in the headlights look on her face as she stammers for an answer to defend her no HFCS policy.  Of course she can’t come up with anything, so the first mom spouts off a few reasons that HFCS is perfectly fine.  In the end the second mom holds a cup of the fruity beverage and changes the subject.

All I can say is shame on you Mom 2.  There are legitimate reasons to avoid HFCS, but unless you actually “know what they say”, you can’t expect to be taken seriously.

One of the main arguments of the pro HFCS campaign (which is run by the Corn Refiners Association) is the nutritional similarity between HFCS and sugar.  Both contain 4 calories per gram, both are made up of similar amounts of glucose and fructose, and both have the same perceived sweetness.  The arguments are mostly valid when taken at face value.  However when you look closely at the fructose, the differences become more obvious.  While glucose can be metabolized by every cell in the body, fructose is only metabolized by the liver.  When you consume an excess of fructose, your liver has to work hard process it, and if the amount is significantly too high, then your body can’t absorb it.  Sugar contains 50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose (the same ratio as fruit), while HFCS (as it appears in soda) is 45 percent glucose and 55 percent fructose.  Although that isn’t a large numerical difference, the fructose and glucose in sugar are bonded together making them easier to absorb, while the fructose and glucose in HFCS are free floating – so, even though sugar and HFCS have similar amounts of fructose when ingested, they are processed differently.

At present, there is no conclusive evidence that the amount of fructose found in HFCS is enough to cause health problems in humans.  More research needs to be done to determine the long term effects of HFCS consumption.  We do know that both sugar and HFCS contain plenty of fructose, and are both known to cause tooth decay.  Furthermore they both can contribute to obesity by sneaking extra calories into your diet, often as added sugars in beverages.

While HFCS is made with corn, it is in no way a natural product as some proponents would have you believe.  High fructose corn syrup is made by treating corn starch with three different enzymes, at least one of which is genetically modified.  The first enzyme is a bacteria that is used to break down the corn starch into small sugar chains.  The second enzyme is a fungus which transforms the sugar chains into glucose.  A third enzyme converts about 42 percent of the glucose into fructose.  The mixture is further processed into a substance that is made up of 90 percent fructose and 10 percent other sugars.  The 90 percent fructose slurry is diluted with some of the 42 percent fructose corn syrup to make the final ratio of 45 percent glucose and 55 percent fructose that is commonly used in soda, or 58 percent glucose and 42 percent fructose that is used in many food products including baked goods.

As of 2005, 52 percent of the total US corn crop was genetically modified.  In addition to the possible health ramifications of genetic modification, there are significant environmental considerations.  Monoculture crops like corn deplete the soil of vital nutrients, and over time, require more extensive use of pesticides and herbicides.  Unfortunately, pesticide and herbicide usage leads to the development of “super” weeds and insects that become immune to the chemicals, resulting in the need for stronger pesticides thus creating even tougher pests.  This is bad enough for the land in which the crop is grown, but is even worse for anything that happens to live downstream.  The vicious cycle of environmental abuse is frightening, but also unnecessary.  We already have a surplus of corn in this country. The government subsidies that were put in place to keep the cost of commodities down have been very effective at increasing productivity.  Unfortunately this has come with the high cost of discouraging sustainable agriculture and crop diversity.

What Mom 2 should have said in defense of her no HFCS policy is:

1. HFCS is slightly less nutritive than regular sugar (which itself is something we all should consume less of), and is certainly not something our kids need to be drinking along side slices of birthday cake and other goodies.

2. HFCS is processed with genetically modified enzymes, and is extremely likely to be created from genetically modified corn.

3. The corn that is used to make HFCS is a nightmare for the environment and for sustainable agriculture.

A well articulated argument is much more persuasive than an unsubstantiated opinion.