Sweetener Controversy Grows

Funding For Many Of The High Fructose Corn Syrup Studies Came From Companies With A Financial Stake In The Outcome

(CBS)  CBS News Investigative Unit’s Kim Lengle wrote this story for CBSNews.com.

---

Ads hyping high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) for its similarities to sugar are hitting the airwaves - part of a major marketing campaign from the Corn Refiners Association meant to combat the bad rap that HFCS has gotten in the past years.

The commercials feature products containing HFCS - a mother pouring a jug of juice and a woman feeding her boyfriend a popsicle. In both, characters question the health risks of consuming the corn-derived sugar replacement but can’t quite articulate what’s harmful about it.

Critics say it contributes to weight gain and tricks your body into wanting to eat more. And a lot of health-conscious people think it’s a toxic chemical concoction that can’t be good for you.

But the industry says it’s just fine. In fact, they make an interesting argument - HFCS is the same as sugar.

Much of the debate surrounding HFCS focuses on the difference between old-fashion table sugar and the replacement, which is now common in the majority of processed foods. It prolongs shelf life of food, maintains moisture and is cheaper than sugar.

“We want to correct the record,” said Audrea Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association. “Being led to believe that consuming sugar is better than high fructose corn syrup is not based on fact.”



To get that message out, the campaign relies on nutritional research. But CBS News has learned that funding for many of the major studies came from companies with a financial stake in the outcome.

Of the six studies CBS News looked at on the association’s Web site that “Confirm High Fructose Corn Syrup [is] No Different From Sugar,” three were sponsored by groups that stand to profit from research that promotes HFCS. Two were never published so their funding sources are unclear. And one was sponsored by a Dutch foundation that represents the interests of the sugar industry.

Pepsi funded one study, so did a D.C. based lobbying group that gets their money from food, chemical and drug companies. And the American Beverage Association gave a grant for another.

One researcher who was involved in three of the studies, Dr. James M. Rippe, a cardiologist and founder of the Rippe Lifestyle Institute says there is no link between HFCS and obesity and calls contrary evidence “accusations” and “speculation.”

Rippe’s ties with industry are no secret. Pepsico, Tropicana and Quaker among others are all listed as Rippe Health Partners on his Web site along with this quote: “The RLI research team conducts multiple studies of mutual interest to RLI and PepsiCo North America in topics such as short-term energy regulation response to high fructose corn syrup…”

But research indicates the source of a study’s funding has a stake in the outcome.

Last year, research from the Children’s Hospital Boston suggested that nutrition research, like medical and tobacco research, can be influenced when industry funds the studies. It showed that when studies were sponsored exclusively by food/drinks companies, the conclusions were four to eight times more likely to be favorable to the sponsoring company.

“I think the honest tag line should be ‘It’s just as bad as regular sugar,’” said Margot G. Wootan, director of Nutritional Policy at Center for Science in the Public Interest. Wootan says that people shouldn’t be afraid of trace amounts of HFCS in their food but that they should be concerned about limiting huge amounts of sugar in their diet.

The average American consumed 56 pounds of HFCS in 2007. Soda is the single biggest source of HFCS in the American diet - 17 teaspoons for a 20-ounce bottle, according to a four-year study on soft drink consumption by CSPI.

That same study published findings that soft drinks directly contribute to obesity because of its high amount of non-nutritious calories. No other single product has been shown to promote weight gain in the same way, according to its researchers.

HFCS is derived from milling corn, processing that starch into syrup and adding enzymes to convert it into fructose. To make the most common form of HFCS, glucose syrup is added to fructose making the composition, 45-percent glucose and 55-percent fructose.

Similar studies have also found that appetite, which normally decreases after eating, decreased less after drinking fructose-sweetened beverages. And that it caused triglycerides to increase, an indicator of risk for cardiovascular disease.

Rippe’s study argues that these findings are invalid because they examine the effects of pure fructose rather than HFCS, which is only partially comprised of fructose.

But the researchers who CBS News spoke to said studies showing a link between fructose and obesity suggest a “total effect on the body” when too many sweets are consumed regardless of what form of sugar is used.

The Corn Refiners Association released another commercial this week targeted at moms. The association says it’s not interested in driving up consumption of HFCS.

Erickson wouldn’t comment on the cost of the ad campaign but reports estimate that the cost is between $20 to $30 million.

[windale]

Write to companies and complain about HFCS or corn additives. I just wrote to the corn industry because of their ads and "sweetsurprise.com" website.
Below is my letter:

As a chemistry, biology, and health teacher, I think that this website (sweetsurprise.com) is deceiving the American public.
In no place did you mention that the molecular make-up of HFCS is not the same as sugar (you forgot to mention hydrogen atoms)--that the cells have only recently been introduced to this "chemical" as food. And what about the revealing "and more research is needed," addition to most of the research. Appears much like the tobacco industry claims of years past.
As I tell my students, the American people should boycott corn (corn in every way--even corn-on-the-cob) because of those TV advertisements. Shame on you!
By the way, those advertisements are hurting your health attack on the American people. You wouldn't believe how many people are really enraged over those stupid advertisements.
Liz at Windale Studios
But thanks for an excellent teaching tool--I've used such advertisements and the use of HFCS in multi-curriculum teaching strategies combining science, government, economics, history, and health. I also draw attention to research statistics and the comparison of "who" is supporting such research--and the resulting conclusions.

[juwboy]

impeach_W:

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of organic chemistry will tell you that FRUCTOSE and glucose are interconvertible in aqueous solution (especially a weakly acidic solution) via an enediol intermediate.

Glucose and FRUCTOSE are equivalent.

[juwboy]

impeach_W:

You claim you`re a biochemist -- I doubt it.

[impeach__w]

Glucose is the only fuel normally used by brain cells. Because neurons cannot store glucose, they depend on the bloodstream to deliver a constant supply of this precious fuel. Too much sugar or refined carbohydrates at one time, however, can actually deprive your brain of glucose %u2013 depleting its energy supply and compromising your brain''s power to concentrate, remember, and learn. Complex carbohydrates are like time-release capsules of sugar. Simple carbohydrates are more like an injection of sugar.

Complex carbohydrates tend to be in natural foods %u2013 and have long chains of sugar molecules that the liver gradually breaks down into the shorter glucose molecules the brain uses for fuel. In natural foods, the cell walls are made of cellulose fiber that resists digestion, slowing the breakdown and the subsequent release of sugars into the bloodstream, kind of like the way a time-release capsule works.

Simple carbohydrates are found in most processed or refined foods and some natural foods. These carbohydrates have short-chained sugar molecules and, because they break apart quickly, enter the bloodstream quickly. Sugary foods--including corn syrup, fruit juices, and honey--contain glucose that is absorbed directly through the stomach wall and rapidly released into the bloodstream, almost as quickly as if delivered by syringe.

http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/carbs.html

[starleo146]

Why can''t we just tell the truth, everything I pick up and look at, the ingredients, it says sugar, corn syrup, high fructose all in one product. Why so much, I can tell you it is like nicotine in cigarettes the more you put in the more you want to smoke. The same with this sweet taste, I am not a chemist as you well can tell, they could take all this sugar taste and turn it into a fossil fuel. It is making us fatter, and also increasing diabetes in this country, so you say don''t eat it. I agree don''t eat it and watch the sugar come out.

[brianbwb-2009]

On a topic not being covered on CBS, (but it is here in Singapore) it seems 20 people have died consuming tainted deli meat in Canada.

Please CBS, cover the story about the Canadian tainted deli meat deaths, so we can know where the meat came from, what kind of taint caused so many to die, etc.

Posted by brianbwb

[ronjjj157]

adt14-- Please take some of the medicinal chemicals you are prescribed before posting again and taking up space. Thanks!!!!!

[lawyertom1]

One point needs to be made. Your body treats all types of "natural" sweetners the same. Whether it is glucose, frutose, sucrose, etc., they are all chopped up by various enzymes into the same identical units before being sent into the body for usage. There are no healthy sweetners or unhealthy sweetners. They are all raw calories without any additional nutritional value. Some are not more bad than others; they are all bad. You want something sweet? Eat ripe fruit. Tastes good and supplies vitamins, minerals, and fiber.

[lawyertom1]

While such sponsorship raises an inference of irregularity, one has to also look at the research institution and the researchers before jumping to a conclusion. The study might (emphasis on might) be valid. If one were to see a pattern, for example in which sponsored studies all went one way and independent studies went another, then one would be certainly justified in raising alarm bells. But, until these types of assessments are done, a healthy skepticism is probably the only justified interpretation of the effects of such sponsorship.

[jw218389]

Antifreeze has a nice sweet taste too....

Is it good for you?

[lochlan-2009]

"Funding For Many Of The High Fructose Corn Syrup Studies Came From Companies With A Financial Stake In The Outcome"

This is America, would you expect otherwise?

[nmrosen]

High fructose corn syrup is JUNK. NEVER NEVER NEVER believe studies if they are funded by a corporation that has a vested interest in the outcome. The food and beverage companies have TONS of high fructose corn syrups in their products. This is sugar and is as bad as sugar. It will raise glucose and thereby create obesity, diabetes, heart attacks and stroke. Obesity even can lead to some cancers. ELIMINATE high fructose corn syrup from your diet and NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER trust a corporation''s word on anything. The tobacco companies tried awfully hard to say cigarettes were not so bad if you didn''t smoke too much. Sure, believe that one and I have a coffin to sell you!

[heero78-2009]

High fructose corn sweetener ruined the flavor of Coke

Try marijuana. It''s all natural

[brianbwb-2009]

There is an un-discussed point to consider, this whole topic would not exist if it were not for one simple truth, "sweet" is seriously addictive, perhaps more so than many substances considered to be "drugs".

Whether sucrose, fructose, lactose, stevia, aspartame, or any other sweetener, the fact is that we can survive in a much healthier fashion without nearly so much. Try a McDonald''s hamburger, between the starch in the bun, the HFCS in the ketchup, and the sweet pickles, it is actually quite sweet (too much for my taste. This trick probably contributed to the success of the company.

That propaganda battle seems to be between the refined table sugar industry, and the "artificial" sweetener industry, but in truth both sides are drug pushers, trying to convince the sweet junkies to buy from them.

[easeup-2009]

High fructose corn sweetener ruined the flavor of Coke.

Posted by brianp55 at 06:46 PM : Oct 01, 2008

Try adding rum....worked for me!

[nothappyatall]

There has been much research focusing on the benefits of this natural sweetener and its use in the diet. You can even cook with it.

When in its pure form, this no-calorie sweetener doesn''t affect glucose levels. This has made it popular for use in Brazil as a treatment for diabetes. Additionally, stevia contains no carbohydrates or fats, perfect for dieters.

In addition to the health benefits, stevia has been used for hundreds of years in South America and Asia for its intense sweetening properties. In fact, stevia is up to 300 times sweeter than sugar. Because it is heat stable at temperatures reaching 392 degrees F, stevia makes for an ideal sugar substitute when cooking or baking.
==
Guess which sweetner conglomerate in the USA forced or bribed the FDA to try to block stevia which has been used as a sweetner for hundreds of years elsewhere?

[nothappyatall]

If you want a NATURAL sugar without the sugar and corn syrup problems, look into stevia, The all-natural sweetener, stevia, is gaining acceptance in North America and can be the perfect alternative to sugar and other artificial sweeteners in a daily diet.

In other parts of the world, including South America, Japan and China, an herb called stevia, has been used for hundred of years as a replacement for sugar and other artificial sweeteners. Part of the Chrysanthemum family, the stevia plant was originally used in a tea-like beverage in addition to being used for medicinal purposes, and is slowly gaining ground here in the U.S. despite current FDA regulations that have kept this all-natural sweetener from being used as a food additive. It is, however, approved for sale as an herb (approved as a dietary supplement), which is why it is found in the supplement section of health food stores and natural food supermarkets.

[kurlikew]

HFCS IS bad for you folks - don''t let the ads that are out mislead you (because that''s exactly what they''re trying to do). I''m a holistic health counselor by trade, so I know what I''m talking about. Want even more info? Go to www.mercola.com and sign up for the natural health newsletter. You''ll be amazed how much you learn.

[on_alert247]

We stopped buying products with HFCS a couple of years ago. It has gotten more and more difficult to find food without HFCS as items that didn''t contain HFCS just a few months ago now do. Our decision was based on research which suggests the fructose is highly refined, does not contain trace minerals, is delivered in unnatural amounts compared to eating fruit, must exclusively be metabolized in the liver compared to glucose, and reduces the affinity for insulin requiring more insulin to metabolize.

[j_mcdonald-2009]

The enzymes used to convert sucrose into fructose come from micro-organisms (molds, bacteria, yeast) .

Cutting out HFCS on the advice of my dermatologist almost immediately and completely eliminated some intense allergy reactions I was having. I''m not allergic to the fructose itself, but to the mold residues in it. Similarly, I''m not allergic to peanuts, but am allergic to the mold that grows on them.

Food for thought, so to speak...