A couple of days ago (before my computer broke down, my keyboard completely died, and I lost my Internet conenction), I posted about the recent Pepsico study, which purports that our bodies don’t handle high fructose corn syrup any differently than table sugar or sucrose.
This particular post of mine got an expert in food and beverage formulation all up in arms. The expert — who prefers to be unnamed — replied to my post: "Saying that high fuctose is no different from table sugar is the equivalent of the Tobacco Institute publishing a study saying tobacco products are not harmful."
"HFCS-laden soda sales are down nearly 1% for the first time in 20 years in the U.S. and the… big soda companies and `sports drinks’ using HFCS are hiding the fact that they’re using HFCS and labeling it instead as `glucose-fructose syrup.’"
This expert also said these companies making sugary drinks are fearful of losing sales, getting bad publicity, and potential consumer fraud or class action liability lawsuits.
The food industry insider went on to explain that, contrary to what most people think, "HFCS is NOT fruit sugar," (You can read about this in Greg Critser’s wonderful book, Fatland: How America Became The Most Obese Nation.) "Moreover, the fact that HFCS is not recognized in the body’s Kreb Cycle, for conversion or utilization to blood glucose (energy) in metabolic pathway, has been medically and scientifically established for over 30 years.
Research shows, the expert notes, that "crystalline fructose from corn (not fruit) and HFCS (from corn not fruit) and hydrolyzed high fructose inulin syrup (often falsely misbranded and illegally mislabeled as ‘agave’, ‘chicory’ or ‘beet’ or just ‘inulin’ syrup(s)… are converted direct to body fat (adipose tissue) and triglycerides (the precursor and building block to LDL or bad cholesterol) in humans. Thus, chemically created, and reversed polarity hydro carbon man made fructose at 4 calories per gram, is stored in the body as 9 calorie FAT." (You can tell this is an expert by the language here–which may of us lay people don’t quite get it.)
The expert continued: "Argumentation that HFCS, or any refined fructose from non fruit sources, ‘is the same as sugar’ or ‘metabolized the same as sugar’" is a blatantly false assertion, and part of Big Soda’s BIG LIE…"
Furthermore, the food industry insider claims that "Big Soda knows, and does not want you the consumer to know, that HFCS is indeed harmful if over consumed."
Incidentally, this expert points out, HFCS is "much lower in formulation cost than sugar, and only outdone by carbonation, air, salt, or water in lower formulation cost.
"Beware of ANY study even suggesting HFCS or refined fructose are ‘good for you’, or the same as cane or beet sugar, it just is not soda. The proof," the expert believes, "is the obesity rates, which have risen, along with cardiovascular disease, as the the use of HFCS has increased since the early 1970s… when it was first approved for use. Argumentation that [eating too much] fat is the culprit in the US Diet for obesity is patentedly false also.
The expert also rasied a few more questions about the study. "I’d also be asking when were the blood draws were done, and over what period of interval from ingestion, or how much soda (presumably with HFCS in it, but maybe low dosage versus regular soda), along with your comment on other fluids or food taken before, during, and after with specific times and testing of blood glucose levels."
Anyhow, this expert raises some very compelling points, and like I said before, I’m quite wary of the new soda study.
What concerns me, as it does other experts I’ve interviewed, is that people are wrongly believing that fructose is fruit sugar. Therefore, they’re thinking it’s OK to use. What’s more, they’re being told that fructose is low G.I., which it is, but what everyone is not aware of is that research shows that fructose from corn has been shown to take a different pathway and could lead to an increase in weight gain and trigycerides!
The expert also pointed out a study a few years back, which linked sugar and hyperactivity. But refined cane and sugar beet growers claimed there was no causal relationship between sugar and childhood hyperactivity, but "that methodology of the study was FLAWED, with blood glucose draws (syringes), and measurements, being only made after 60 minutes after ingestion. Thus the small dosages of sugar given the kids had already gone hypo (raised) and hyper (crashed) and returned to neutral, by the time the next ingestion and draw were made…"
A lot to think about, right?