First of all, HFCS is very different from regular table sugar. It is a highly processed sweetener that is bad for our health. If you ever tasted cornstarch, you know that it is not sweet. It has a dry and powdery taste. Turning corn into a sweetener involves a long complicated process. It is first processed into glucose using a series of enzymes. The glucose is then converted into a high concentration of fructose using another treatment with enzymes. However, sucrose has a natural chemical bond between fructose (C5H12O6) and glucose(C6H12O6) that requires energy (calories) to break and has to be broken down in the small intestine, so your body has to do a little more work to get fructose. Yet, in HFCS that bond is already broken down for you during manufacturing and ready to go directly to your liver where it is converted to fat. For the bad side of processed sweeteners, Michael Pollan, the author of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” which takes a critical look at the food business, writes an article “Enzymztically Altered Corn Glucose” in NYT that “Enzymatically Altered Corn Glucose” is a more accurate description of HFCS (Pollan). He explains: “the name also connotes a highly-processed, novel food ingredient, which has always been the best reason to avoid it: not only because it is necessarily worse for you than sugar, but also because it is a marker for a whole class of processed foods we’d do well to keep out of our diet”(Pollan). Like Pollan, there are lots of scientists and nutritionists who highly recommend that American people do not to consume HFCS. They said that because high fructose corn syrup is a sugar substitutes that is high in fructose. The ratio of HFCS is 55% to 72% fructose and 45% to 28% glucose that make this sweetener different from regular table sugar. The ratio of regular sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. Fructose can cause metabolic disorder in our body. Every cell in our body can metabolize glucose, but only the liver can metabolize fructose. Fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion that is important for our body. Also fructose does not stimulate the leptin response (an essential hormone for our body). Moreover, fructose more readily than glucose replenishes liver glycogen that stored carbohydrates in the liver, at this time triglyceride synthesis occurs, which is basically fat synthesis. So the HFCS that is high in fructose is different from regular table sugar. For all the profits and making good business, the corn lobby has spent to politics you saying that all the sugars are “equal” but usually those are “unequal” by its ingredients.
Secondly, our body does not process HFCS the same way it processes regular table sugar. Some scientists said that HFCS may contribute to obesity by somehow disrupting normal metabolic function. HFCS prevents the pancreas from releasing insulin. Without insulin, our body could not recognize when we are full. If the body does not know when it is full, we may not stop eating until we have eaten way more calories than we actually need. The article “Nutrition & Metabolism”, by Salwa Rizkalla provides acute studies on humans. Studies were mainly arranged to find the solution for the debate that was fuelled by the hypothesis that the leading cause of obesity is HFCS because it bypasses the food intake regulatory system (insulin and leptin) and favors lipogenesis. It was mainly hypothesized that energy containing drinks, particularly those sweetened with HFCS promotes energy imbalance so it plays an important role in the development of obesity. In an acute-term study, 12 normal weight women consumed meals with 55, 30 or 15% of total calories as carbohydrates, fats and proteins with 30% of Kcal as either glucose sweetened or fructose sweetened beverages. As expected, insulin secretion and glucose excursion were lower after consuming fructose containing meals than after glucose ones. After this acute-term study, the authors of this study suggested that because insulin and leptin, the main regulatory factors of food intake, were lower after fructose meals; they might increase caloric intake and that ultimately contribute to weight gain and obesity. Therefore, those who are on opposite sides should come to agree that the HFCS is clearly related to the obesity epidemic in America.
Thirdly, many food producers argue that the increase in metabolic diseases may have been due to the increase in any kind of sugar consumption, but not due to the consumption of HFCS alone. The article “Fructose Consumption,” by Kimber L.Stanhope states the facts about the implication of fructose in the human body by providing recent data on sugar consumption that are resulted from a recent study. The study compared the effects of consuming fructose- sweetened beverages at 25% of energy requirement with those of consuming glucose-sweetened beverages over a 10 week period in older, overweight/ obese adults. Even though, both subjects consuming glucose-sweetened beverages and those consuming fructose-sweetened beverages exhibited an increase of body weight, visceral adipose tissue (VAT) was significantly increased only in subjects consuming fructose. There is considerable data suggesting that visceral adipose deposition is more closely associated with metabolic disease, such as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. There were several other important differences between the effects of fructose and glucose consumption in this study. Twenty-four-hour postprandial triglyceride (TG) profiles were increased by fructose consumption, but tended to decrease after glucose consumption. Fasting plasma concentration of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and other types of cholesterol which considered as bad fats, such as apolipoprotien B (apoB), small-dense LDL (sdLDL), oxidized LDL and postprandial concentrations of remnant-like particle lipoprotein (RLP)-TG and of RLP cholesterol were also increase in subjects consuming fructose-sweetened beverages, but not in those subjects consuming glucose-sweetened beverages. These changes were associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Also, a research report published by a scientific journal “Environmental Health” led by Renee Dufault of United Tribes Technical College in North Dakota, reported that there was mercury found in 45 percent of HFCS sample they tasted. Mercury at any level is considered a neurological toxin that can be harmful to developing fetuses and young children. So, the HFCS is considerably responsible for metabolic diseases in its consumers.
Finally, corn producers are getting benefits from their productions of HFCS. The ingredient (HFCS) is very popular for food manufacturers for practical reasons. Compared with sucrose, HFCS is cheaper (due to government subsidize on corn),does not mask flavors, has lower freezing point, blends well and moisture better with a variety of products, which is useful in making foods like chewy granola bars, and also helps to maintain foods a longer shelf life. As a result it is now used in many foods, from crackers to soft drinks, even in spaghetti. If you pay attention and read the labels of your favorite packaged and processed foods, you can see that HFCS is every where. In the documentary film “King Corn”, the film maker Curt Ellis said that HFCS is in thousands and thousands of products. He also said that when you make spaghetti at your home, you probably don’t put sugar on that, but as you can see, there is HFCS already in your spaghetti. According to the article “Fructose Consumption”, the writer said in his article that the advances and growth in both the food processing and food service industries have made the more palatable foods available for their customers, but they are nutrient-deficient and are high in sugar. Actually, profit margins are a primary determinant of why food producers do not add and continue to serve healthier food options to their customers. Finally the Corn Refiners Association has been trying to improve the image of the much detrimental sweetener by promoting it as a natural ingredient made from corn. The group has petitioned the United States Food and Drug Administration to get permission for calling the ingredient “corn sugar.” Dr. Andrew Weil, best selling author and alternative medicine pioneer, said “I don’t like “corn sugar.” I’m in favor of sticking with “high fructose corn syrup.” That is what it is, and I don’t agree that it’s innocuous” (NYT). I also strongly agree with him, because I think, the sound of new name is like; the corn producers are trying to make a policy to trick consumers by giving an ambiguous knowledge about their products.
In conclusion, by reviewing many research reports, now I can say that the HFCS is one of the major contributors of metabolic diseases in human body. FDA should limit the use of HFCS syrup in food products and government should subsidies for healthy foods, like organic and whole foods to make healthier options available for American consumers.
Consumers should know what they are eating. They should read the food labels very carefully and should avoid HFCS containing foods. They should try to make foods at home at least four or five times a week. Home made food is considered as a healthy and delicious food at one hand, and on the other hand, it also helps you spend your money for a good health. Therefore, be smart when you make decision to get a food choice.
WORKS CITED
Estabrook, Barry. “Politics of the Plate: High-Mercury Corn Syrup.” Gourmet.com. Web. 26 April, 2011.
Flavin, Dana, MS, MD, PHD. “Metabolic Danger of High-Fructose Corn Syrup.” Life Extension Magazine. 01 December. 2008. Web. 26 April 2011.
King Corn. Aaron Woolf. Curt, Ellis, Jeffrey K. Millar. 2007. Film
Pollan, Michael. “Enzymatically Altered Corn Glucose”. New York Times. New York Times, 20 September. 2010. Web. 02 May, 2011.
Parker,Tara-Pope. “A new name for high fructose corn syrup.” New York Times. New York Times, 14 September. 2010. Web. 02 May, 2011.
Parker,Tara-Pope. “In worries About Sweeteners, Think of All Sugars.” New York Times. New York Times, 20 September.2010. Web. 02 may, 2011.
Rizkalla, Salwa W. “Health implications of fructose consumption: A review of recent data.” Nutrition & metabolism: 2010, vol. 7, p82-98, print.
Smith, Andrew F. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.
Stanhope, Kimber L. Havel, Peter J. “Fructose consumption: recent results and their potential implications.” Annals of the New York Academy of Science: March.2010, vol. 1190 Issue 1, p15-24, Print.
