S
Sasa
Guest
High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is any of a group of corn syrups that have undergone enzymatic processing in order to increase their fructose content and are then mixed with pure corn syrup (100% glucose) to reach their final form. The typical types of HFCS are: HFCS 90 (most commonly used in baked goods) which is approximately 90% fructose and 10% glucose; HFCS 55 (most commonly used in soft drinks) which is approximately 55% fructose and 45% glucose; and HFCS 42 (most commonly used in sports drinks) which is approximately 42% fructose and 58% glucose.
The process by which HFCS is produced was first developed by Richard O. Marshall and Earl R. Kooi in 1957 and refined by Japanese researchers in the 1970s. HFCS was rapidly introduced in many processed foods and soft drinks in the US over the period of about 1975?1985.
In terms of sweetness, HFCS 55 is comparable to table sugar (sucrose), which is a disaccharide of fructose and glucose.This makes it useful to manufacturers as a possible substitute for sucrose in soft drinks and other processed foods. HFCS 90 is sweeter than sucrose as fructose is sweeter than glucose, while HFCS 42 is not as sweet as sucrose.
Use as a replacement for sugar
* * HFCS is somewhat cheaper due to the relative abundance of corn, farm subsidies and sugar import tariffs in the United States.
* * HFCS is easier to blend and transport because it is a liquid.
* * HFCS usage leads to products with much longer shelf life.
Health Risks
There are indications that "soda and sweetened drinks are the main source of calories in [the] American diet." Overconsumption of sugars has been linked to adverse health effects, and most of these effects are similar for HFCS and sucrose. There is a striking correlation between the rise of obesity in the US and the use of HFCS for sweetening beverages and foods, but it is not clear whether this is coincidence or a causal relationship. Some critics of HFCS do not claim that it is any worse than similar quantities of sucrose would be, but rather focus on its prominent role in the overconsumption of sugar, for example encouraging overconsumption through its low cost.
Possible differences in health effects between sucrose and HFCS could arise from the fact that glucose and fructose in sucrose are bound in a disaccharide or from the 10% difference in fructose content. Since many beverages are significantly acidic, sucrose will separate into glucose and fructose which is one of the mechanisms to form an invert sugar. The amount of sucrose converted will depend on the temperature the beverage is kept at and the amount of time it is kept at this temperature.
Studies on the effect of fructose, as reviewed by Elliot et al. , implicate increased consumption of fructose (due primarily to the increased consumption of sugars but also partly due to the slightly higher fructose content of HFCS as compared to sucrose) in obesity and insulin resistance.
Chi-Tang Ho et al found that adding HFCS to fizzy drinks makes them up to 10 times richer in harmful carbonyl compounds, such as methylglyoxal, than those containing cane sugar. Carbonyl compound are elevated in people with diabetes and are blamed for causing diabetic complications such as foot ulcers and eye and nerve damage.
One study concluded that foods with increased pure fructose "produced significantly higher fasting plasma triacylglycerol values than did the glucose diet in men" and "if plasma triacylglycerols are a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, then diets high in fructose may be undesirable". Bantle, et al. "noted the same effects in a study of 14 healthy volunteers who sequentially ate a high-fructose diet and one almost devoid of the sugar."
A study in mice suggests that fructose increases obesity.Large quantities of fructose stimulate the liver to produce triglycerides, promotes glycation of proteins and induces insulin resistance.
The above-referenced studies have addressed fructose specifically, not sweeteners such as HFCS or sucrose that contain fructose in combination with other sugars. Thus, although they indicate that high fructose intake should be avoided, they don't necessarily indicate that HFCS is worse than sucrose intake, except insofar as HFCS contains 10% more fructose. Studies that have compared HFCS to sucrose (as opposed to pure fructose) find that they have essentially identical physiological effects. For instance, Melanson et al (2006), studied the effects of HFCS and sucrose sweetened drinks on blood glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin levels. They found no significant differences in any of these parameters.
Perrigue et al (2006) compared the effects of isocaloric servings of colas sweetened HFCS 45, HFCS 55, sucrose, and aspartame on satiety and subsequent energy intake. They found that all of the drinks with caloric sweeteners produced similar satiety responses, and had the same effects on subsequent energy intake. Taken together with Melanson et al (2006), this study suggests that there is little or no evidence for the hypothesis that HFCS is different from sucrose in its effects on appetite or on metabolic processes involved in fat storage. Both the Perrigue et al study and the Melanson et al study were funded by "the American Beverage Institute and the Corn Refiners Association."
One much-publicized 2004 study found an association between obesity and high HFCS consumption, especially from soft drinks. However, this study did not provide any evidence that this association is causal. And in fact, one of the study coauthors, Dr. Barry M. Popkin, is quoted in the New York Times (July 2, 2006, A Sweetener With a Bad Rap) warning that ?I don't think there should be a perception that high-fructose corn syrup has caused obesity until we know more.? In the same article, Walter Willets, chair of the nutrition department of the Harvard School of Public Health Nutrition Department Chairman, is quoted as saying that ?There's no substantial evidence to support the idea that high-fructose corn syrup is somehow responsible for obesity, [and that] If there was no high-fructose corn syrup, I don't think we would see a change in anything important.? In essence he is saying high-fructose corn syrup is just as bad as other sugars. Walter Willets also recommends drinking water over soft drinks containing sugars or high-fructose corn syrup.
The process by which HFCS is produced was first developed by Richard O. Marshall and Earl R. Kooi in 1957 and refined by Japanese researchers in the 1970s. HFCS was rapidly introduced in many processed foods and soft drinks in the US over the period of about 1975?1985.
In terms of sweetness, HFCS 55 is comparable to table sugar (sucrose), which is a disaccharide of fructose and glucose.This makes it useful to manufacturers as a possible substitute for sucrose in soft drinks and other processed foods. HFCS 90 is sweeter than sucrose as fructose is sweeter than glucose, while HFCS 42 is not as sweet as sucrose.
Use as a replacement for sugar
* * HFCS is somewhat cheaper due to the relative abundance of corn, farm subsidies and sugar import tariffs in the United States.
* * HFCS is easier to blend and transport because it is a liquid.
* * HFCS usage leads to products with much longer shelf life.
Health Risks
There are indications that "soda and sweetened drinks are the main source of calories in [the] American diet." Overconsumption of sugars has been linked to adverse health effects, and most of these effects are similar for HFCS and sucrose. There is a striking correlation between the rise of obesity in the US and the use of HFCS for sweetening beverages and foods, but it is not clear whether this is coincidence or a causal relationship. Some critics of HFCS do not claim that it is any worse than similar quantities of sucrose would be, but rather focus on its prominent role in the overconsumption of sugar, for example encouraging overconsumption through its low cost.
Possible differences in health effects between sucrose and HFCS could arise from the fact that glucose and fructose in sucrose are bound in a disaccharide or from the 10% difference in fructose content. Since many beverages are significantly acidic, sucrose will separate into glucose and fructose which is one of the mechanisms to form an invert sugar. The amount of sucrose converted will depend on the temperature the beverage is kept at and the amount of time it is kept at this temperature.
Studies on the effect of fructose, as reviewed by Elliot et al. , implicate increased consumption of fructose (due primarily to the increased consumption of sugars but also partly due to the slightly higher fructose content of HFCS as compared to sucrose) in obesity and insulin resistance.
Chi-Tang Ho et al found that adding HFCS to fizzy drinks makes them up to 10 times richer in harmful carbonyl compounds, such as methylglyoxal, than those containing cane sugar. Carbonyl compound are elevated in people with diabetes and are blamed for causing diabetic complications such as foot ulcers and eye and nerve damage.
One study concluded that foods with increased pure fructose "produced significantly higher fasting plasma triacylglycerol values than did the glucose diet in men" and "if plasma triacylglycerols are a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, then diets high in fructose may be undesirable". Bantle, et al. "noted the same effects in a study of 14 healthy volunteers who sequentially ate a high-fructose diet and one almost devoid of the sugar."
A study in mice suggests that fructose increases obesity.Large quantities of fructose stimulate the liver to produce triglycerides, promotes glycation of proteins and induces insulin resistance.
The above-referenced studies have addressed fructose specifically, not sweeteners such as HFCS or sucrose that contain fructose in combination with other sugars. Thus, although they indicate that high fructose intake should be avoided, they don't necessarily indicate that HFCS is worse than sucrose intake, except insofar as HFCS contains 10% more fructose. Studies that have compared HFCS to sucrose (as opposed to pure fructose) find that they have essentially identical physiological effects. For instance, Melanson et al (2006), studied the effects of HFCS and sucrose sweetened drinks on blood glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin levels. They found no significant differences in any of these parameters.
Perrigue et al (2006) compared the effects of isocaloric servings of colas sweetened HFCS 45, HFCS 55, sucrose, and aspartame on satiety and subsequent energy intake. They found that all of the drinks with caloric sweeteners produced similar satiety responses, and had the same effects on subsequent energy intake. Taken together with Melanson et al (2006), this study suggests that there is little or no evidence for the hypothesis that HFCS is different from sucrose in its effects on appetite or on metabolic processes involved in fat storage. Both the Perrigue et al study and the Melanson et al study were funded by "the American Beverage Institute and the Corn Refiners Association."
One much-publicized 2004 study found an association between obesity and high HFCS consumption, especially from soft drinks. However, this study did not provide any evidence that this association is causal. And in fact, one of the study coauthors, Dr. Barry M. Popkin, is quoted in the New York Times (July 2, 2006, A Sweetener With a Bad Rap) warning that ?I don't think there should be a perception that high-fructose corn syrup has caused obesity until we know more.? In the same article, Walter Willets, chair of the nutrition department of the Harvard School of Public Health Nutrition Department Chairman, is quoted as saying that ?There's no substantial evidence to support the idea that high-fructose corn syrup is somehow responsible for obesity, [and that] If there was no high-fructose corn syrup, I don't think we would see a change in anything important.? In essence he is saying high-fructose corn syrup is just as bad as other sugars. Walter Willets also recommends drinking water over soft drinks containing sugars or high-fructose corn syrup.
