The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) recently aired a pair of commercials aimed at countering criticisms some nutrition professionals and medical researchers have leveled at high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS).
 
One of the ads focuses on a pair of suburban moms at a birthday party. When one pours a glass of red punch for the kids, the other criticizes her for serving the children HFCS.
 
The mom pouring the punch asks what’s so bad about HFCS, to which the other woman has no response. The ad concludes by claiming HFCS has no artificial ingredients, is made from corn and is fine in moderation.
While these claims are true, the widespread use of HFCS in American food has made consuming HFCS in moderation an increasingly difficult task.
 
HFCS is currently under a great deal of medical scrutiny, with recent research showing possible links to obesity, diabetes and even Alzheimer’s disease. None of this research is conclusive, and most scientists involved agree HFCS is probably no more dangerous to consumers than conventional cane sugar.
 
Organizations like the CRA are even attempting to have the name HFCS legally changed by the USDA to corn sugar due in large part to HFCS’s bad rap and alleged health risks.
 
Naysayers point out that classifying HFCS as corn sugar would lead to confusion with dextrose, which the USDA already recognizes as corn sugar. Critics also argue the name corn sugar doesn’t accurately reflect the industrial processes required to produce the syrup.
 
Even if we accept the position of the CRA, which maintains HFCS is no worse for the human body than cane sugar, we are still left with the real danger HFCS poses to consumers: its low cost of production.
A host of factors including corn subsidies and sugar tariffs contribute to the low cost of HFCS and encourage its inclusion in practically every American-processed food from soft drinks and breakfast cereal to sliced bread and fruit yogurt.
 
That ubiquity has made moderation nearly impossible. According to the USDA, Americans’ per capita sugar consumption increased by 40 percent from 1950 to 2000. Americans in 1950 consumed about 110 pounds of sugar per person, of which about 90 percent was cane and beet sugar.
 
Since its introduction in the 1970s, HFCS has supplanted a significant portion of cane sugar’s market share, with each sweetener accounting for about 40 percent of the 152 pounds of sugar consumed by Americans in 2000.
 
The CRA and other lobbyist organizations enjoy pointing out the lack of scientific evidence specifically linking HFCS to obesity in America, but they willingly acknowledge weight gain and obesity are primarily caused by an imbalance between calories consumed and calories burned.
 
HFCS and cane sugar are both basically pure calories lacking any additional nutritional value, and consuming large amounts of either will result in weight gain and other medical problems. There is little doubt the dramatic increase in American sugar consumption in the past 50 years has played a significant role in the rise of obesity in the U.S.
 
Americans are simply eating too many calories, whether they come from corn, sugar cane, meat or dairy. HFCS didn’t create this situation, but its low price and pervasiveness have exacerbated an already serious problem.
 
People tend to seek quick fixes for difficult problem,s and more than a few voices are clamoring for a ban on HFCS to combat America’s growing obesity epidemic. While HFCS is certainly not helping America’s collective waistline, replacing HFCS with cane sugar will not make obesity go away.
 
Banning HFCS might raise the prices of some unhealthy foods, but the problem with sweeteners isn’t a matter of selection but a matter of volume. If Americans are serious about obesity, we have to change our lifestyles—not just our ingredients.
 
 
 
______
contact Andrew Shockey at [email protected]