Throw Down: High-Fructose Corn Syrup vs. Sugar

My husband and I were eating walnut-chocolate chip pancakes with Aunt Jemima Butter Light Syrup a few weeks ago. (I know, it’s the nutritional equivalent of supersizing a Double Whopper Meal and then ordering a Diet Coke.) During breakfast, I read the back of the syrup label and  high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) was staring at me. If not for my husband’s pardon, Aunt Jemima would have found herself headed to a landfill that day. (Just kidding; I would have recycled her.)

HFCS has been on many of our nutritional no-no lists for a few years. I saw a blog post a few weeks ago that mentioned HFCS. In the comments, someone wrote “What’s the matter with HFCS?” She might have well of asked “What’s the matter with genocide?” The readers went crazy, citing “research” studies that gave HFCS magical obesity-causing properties.

Background

HFCS gradually began replacing sugar in beverages and processed foods during the 1970s and 80s. It was cheaper and, since corn is grown domestically, not susceptible to the pesky little episodes of civil unrest prevalent in the tropical environments where sugar cane is grown. Because it is already in liquid form and corn is highly subsidized by the government, HFCS makes producing vats of soda much, much cheaper.

Nutritional Makeup

The nutritional make up of HFCS and sugar is pretty similar. HFCS is comprised of 55% fructose, 42% glucose, and 3% “readily hydrolysable polymers of glucose” (your guess is as good as mine). Table sugar (sucrose) has a 50/50 fructose to glucose ratio. Both substances are heavily refined and striped of nearly all nutritional value. Honey has a similar ratio to the other two sweeteners (White, 2008).

 

The HFCS Hater’s Argument

HFCS haters feel that HFCS reacts differently in the body than sugar and disproportionately causes obesity, especially the dreaded abdominal obesity. They also point out that as HFCS use has increased, so have the waistbands of Americans.

 

The Defense

Much of the defense of HFCS comes from ads and “expert” testimony produced by the Corn Refiners Association that claim that HFCS is identical to sugar. It has all of the markings of a big business moneymaking conspiracy. Watch the commercial below.

Why It’s Not So Cut and Dry

I’ve been a member of the I Hate HFCS Club for a bit, but a few things recently have made me want to take a closer look at this. The first red flag came when I saw a friend drinking a Pepsi Throwback. In the midst of the HFCS controversy, Pepsi came out with a soda made with real sugar accompanied by some borderline health promoting advertising. Wait, so soda is healthy if it’s sugar and not HFCS? I don’t think so.

I’m not particularly proud of the second reason I started doubting the evilness of HFCS. I was searching for a video on youtube and came across this one produced by the Corn Refiners Association. Normally, I would write this off as a super-biased video from an association that has everything to gain from hooking Americans up to intravenous HFCS. My issue here was one of ego. One of the experts in this video was the medical director at the George Washington University. I happened to go to grad school at GW. If you know anything about GW, you know that I will be paying for my education there until my hair is completely gray and robots rule the earth. I can’t let myself think that a representative from my alma mater would flat out lie about HFCS and still send them so much money every month. Besides, we’re “the” George Washington University. That means we’re super smart.

So, the battle of HFCS vs. sugar is open. Do you think HFCS is worse than sugar? Vote here. Stay tuned for the science on both sides.

Sources:

White, J.S. (2008). Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup:  What it is and what it ain’t. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 88(suppl):1716S-1721S.