Tampilkan postingan dengan label HFCS. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label HFCS. Tampilkan semua postingan

17 September 2011

Update on the Corn Sugar Fight

— The Food and Drug Administration has cautioned the corn industry over its ongoing use of the term "corn sugar" to describe high fructose corn syrup, asking them to stop using the proposed new name before it has received regulatory approval, The Associated Press has learned.



Looks like the big fight over the high fructose corn syrup is still blazing -
SOURCE: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/sep/15/ap-exclusive-officials-slam-corn-syrup-rebranding/


Selections from Natural Health News

Jan 05, 2009
Splenda (sucralose) and Aspartame make you gain weight just like high fructose corn syrup. Somehow all of these fake foods being promoted as the "Best Life" partners leave a lot to be desired. But of course this is my opinion, ...
Jan 20, 2007
High fructose corn syrup you say? Yup! the one that passes directly into your blood stream and is connected with developing diabetes. And corn again, one of those high pesticide and allergy causing foods. You've got added sugar from ...
Nov 07, 2007
Americans have begun to ask why the farm bill is subsidizing high-fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils at a time when rates of diabetes and obesity among children are soaring, or why the farm bill is underwriting factory farming ...
Aug 27, 2007
Atrazine, another very toxic chemical, is used in growing corn crops. High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain ...

17 April 2011

Required Reading: Is Sugar Toxic? By Gary Taubes

When I have researched sugar in the past, it has been difficult to find definitive research about sugar being a toxic substance. There are a few people writing about sugar's role in heart disease and cancer. But the vast majority of nutritionists and doctors just see sugar as an empty calorie. Sure you shouldn't eat it, but sugar as a poison? Is it detrimental even in small doses? Does it make us sick? How could it contribute to heart disease? Isn't that what saturated fat does?



Last week on Twitter I saw several people a-twittering about the below article. The article was written by Gary Taubes author of Good Calories Bad Calories which I am told is an amazing book. It is high on the list. I respect Taubes' authority as well as the NY Times to bring to the reader only items that are thoroughly researched. I encourage every reader to read this rather long article. Particularly read this article if you think that High-Fructose Corn Syrup is worse for you than sugar. My hope is that this article gets people talking about GIVING UP sugar, or at least drastically reducing consumption of sugar.



What do you think? Is sugar contributing to our national sickness?



NYTimes.com: Is Sugar Toxic? By Gary Taubes

20 Oktober 2010

HFCS at kidHaven

Hello Dear Readers,

Our regularly scheduled CSA posting will air THURSDAY instead of today. Today we have a change of plans.

Below is an article that I wrote for kidHaven.com this week. I have written about HFCS before. But for this article I did more research and went back through all the facts, plus some new ones. Well at least they are new to me...Take a read and pop on over to kidHaven why dontcha!


The Low Down on High Fructose Corn Syrup

Recently you may have heard that The Corn Refiners Association petitioned the FDA to “rename” their ubiquitous product High-Fructose Corn Syrup to plain old “Corn Sugar.” On the CRA’s website cornsugar.com the lobby group states, “Many people do not realize that high fructose corn syrup is composed of same simple sugars found in table sugar and honey-glucose and fructose--in virtually the same ratios.” Some readers might brush this off as no big deal. It is a product rename. And HFCS is just a sugar, so such a name is fitting? No?

The issue is slightly more complex. Because chemically speaking, sugars are all really different and the body does different things with them. There is sucrose and fructose, glucose and dextrose, lactose and maltose and many others. But while High-Fructose Corn Syrup is made from plain ole’ corn, it is only certain parts of the familiar plant. And those extracted and refined sugars don’t act the same way in your body as they would if you ate the whole kernel right off the cob.

Sucrose or table sugar is a disaccharide composed of a molecule of glucose and a molecule of fructose chemically bonded together with a relatively weak molecular bond. That bond is broken when it's in your tummy being digested. Now hold that thought, I am coming back to this.

High-Fructose Corn Syrup is different.

HFCS is produced by milling corn to produce starch, then processing that starch to yield corn syrup (think Karo Pecan Pie ingredients). Standard corn syrup is made up of almost entirely glucose molecules and glucose doesn't taste as sweet to the human tongue as sucrose. Regular corn syrup was all we had for a while, but it couldn’t function as a proper sugar replacement because it just doesn't taste right. Anyone who has tasted Karo knows what I am talking about. But in 1957 Richard O. Marshall and Earl P. Kooi added enzymes to that glucose corn syrup. Those enzymes broke down most of the glucose into fructose. The result is a syrup that is almost entirely fructose. High-Fructose Corn Syrup is derived by mixing the original standard Karo-like syrup (almost pure glucose) and the altered corn syrup (overwhelmingly fructose). The more fructose you add, the sweeter the mixture tastes on the tongue. HFCS 55 is 55% fructose and has a comparable sweetness to table sugar, only in liquid form. And in case you hadn’t already put two and two together, that is the particular HFCS that is used to make soda.

But that brings me back to the original question, Why is it a big deal that the CRA wants to rename their product “corn sugar”? The name “corn sugar” is not so false. HFCS is made from corn and it is a form of sugar. But many critics argue that renaming HFCS would align it with table sugar in the consumer’s mind. No doubt the CRA has the same intention. Remember earlier I told you when sugar is digested, your tummy breaks it into its glucose and fructose molecules. Glucose is used by the body in everything from basic energy to brain function; Glucose is also metabolized in every cell in the body. Fructose is altogether different. Fructose is only metabolized in the liver. Livers of lab animals fed large amounts of fructose have fatty deposits and cirrhosis similar to the livers of alcoholics. The fructose found in High-Fructose Corn Syrup is free or unbound because it is simply mixed in solution with glucose as opposed to bonded like in table sugar. Here’s why this is significant, research indicates that it is this free fructose that is the problem. Free or unbound liquid fructose is almost never found in nature. And although whole fruits contain fructose, they contain so much fiber that you’d be hard pressed to eat enough apples to ingest a dangerous amount of fructose. You would be way too full! Whole fruits also contain a whole host of healthy vitamins and minerals as well.

Earlier this year, Tom Laskawy, for Grist.org, covered a Princeton University study of rats ingesting HFCS. The study concluded,

“Rats with access to High-Fructose corn syrup gained weight significantly more than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.”

The study goes on to say that

“Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn’t, at least under the conditions of our tests.

In the last 30 years America has become the fattest country in the world. No shocker there. According to a new study by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 34% of the US population is considered obese while a whopping 70% is considered overweight. I am not saying that High-Fructose Corn Syrup is our only problem food in this country, it is not the smoking gun, per se. But it is certainly part of the problem.

If you always had a bad feeling about HFCS, you are not alone. Many of my close mom-friends have concerns about HFCS and want to cut it out of their diets. Most people I know do not drink soda regularly, so they assume that they ingest little if any HFCS. But the problem is HFCS is everywhere. HFCS can be found in yogurt, muffins, breads, ketchup, pasta sauce, salad dressings, juice drinks. HFCS can even be included in products that are labeled “All Natural” because the FDA does not have a legal definition for the term “All Natural”. All the FDA asks with a label of “All Natural” is that the produce be derived from something in nature. HFCS is under that definition of “All Natural.

Many companies are reformulating their products to eliminate the HFCS and instead include sugar, cane sugar, cane juice, raw sugar, turbinado sugar, brown rice syrup, malt syrup, or some other form of naturally occurring sugar. Unfortunately on the other end of the spectrum, The Sugar Association (Washington’s Cane/ Beet Sugar Lobby) is reaping the benefits from all the increased business. And they want you to believe that High Fructose Corn Syrup is BAD, and Cane Sugar is GOOD. Cane Sugar may not be as bad as HFCS, but it is still linked to a whole host of degenerative diseases because it also contains fructose. Don’t be fooled.

Since cutting HFCS out of my family’s diet, the most important thing I have learned to do is to READ LABELS. Here are a few suggestions:

· Go grocery shopping when you have time on your hands (but aren’t hungry).



· Never pay attention to any health claims on the front of the package, they are not regulated as strictly as the nutrition panel on the back.



· And never assume that just because you know, love or respect a certain brand they are above including some questionable ingredients. Just recently I discovered that the brand of Half and Half offered in my office contains milk and cream AND less than 2% stabilizers?! I wasn’t aware that milk and cream needed to be stabilized.



If you have never looked at the ingredients on your favorite yogurt or ice cream, turn the package over and start reading. HFCS is unnecessary. You and your kids don’t need it. You didn’t grow up eating it. You really didn’t, because HFCS wasn’t in the food supply in such an omnipresent way until about 20-30 years ago.



The controversy over HFCS is not new. Our national obesity epidemic has dominated the medical media coverage recently, with many experts pointing the finger squarely at HFCS. And as I mentioned, many food manufacturers have eliminated the ingredient due to pressure from their customers. So, there are plenty of foods in the grocery store without HFCS. But you do have to look for them. My recommendation? If you want to reduce the amount of sugar in your diet, start by buying products that do not contain HFCS. They are out there. Then you can make the decision to go further and choose products with lower amounts of added sugars, or products with no added sugars. As you begin to eliminate some of the sugar in your diet, you may just find that you never needed as much as you originally though you did.

14 Juni 2010

Big Sugar, Day One


This week at The Table of Promise I will relate the findings of my recent Internet digging surrounding sugar. There is a lot more to the story of sugar and sucrose/ fructose as it relates to our diet and health than you might think.

For me it all started as a simple question, "There is a sugar lobby in Washington?" Yes, in fact there is. There are a group of lobbyists in Washington DC whose job it is to promote sugar and it's use, both to the general public and to lawmakers.

Meet the key players to US Sugar Policy:

The Sugar Association: they are who we know as the Sugar Lobby. The Sugar Association was formed by growers and refiners in the US sugar industry. They began in 1934 under the name of The Sugar Research Foundation, dedicated to the scientific study of sugar's role in food and the communication of that role to the public. In 1947, the foundation changed their name it's current name. On their website, they state

"The Sugar Association continues with its mission of educating health professionals, media, government officials and the public about sugar's goodness."

Florida Sugar Growers (among other states): Florida contributes the largest amount of domestic sugar to the US sugar supply each year. Cane grown in Florida account for 24% of all the refined sugar in the US. The single company US Sugar alone contributes 10% of the domestic supply. Sugar Cane and sugar beets grown in cooler northern climes each account for about 50% of the domestic US sugar supply. Many of the cane and beet farms are connected as different branches of the same conglomerate company. But the Florida contribution to the total is more significant that any other.

The World Health Organization (WHO): This international organization conducts research and make statements to the international community on health issues as wide ranging as diet to childbirth. Their current statement on sugar, as made in 2003, is that sugar should not exceed more than 10% of a person's total caloric intake.

The USDA and the USDA Food Pyramid: The USDA and their food pyramid have been taking a lot of heat in recent years for the new and relatively unpublicized discovery that suggesting that we root our diet in grain products actually worked against it's intention to guide the country into better health. Rates of obesity and diabetes have soared in the last 30 years creating the greatest health crisis in modern history. For the first time in US history, our children's generation has a shorter life expectancy than their parents. The USDA has revamped the food pyramid to suggest that we eat more fruits and veggies than anything else, 5cups of veg versus 3 cups of grains. But the way the pyramid is designed breaks up fruits and veggies into their own categories. This makes it look like grains are still the most important, or at the base of the pyramid. This is a great creative way to not have to come out and say "we screwed up, you really should make plant based food the most important part of your diet". I don't have many issues with what is in the pyramid, but at least come clean to the American Public. The public has proven over the last 30-40 to be listening to what the government says about nutrition.

Now that we know the players we can look at their interaction. In 2003, the WHO published it's latest report regarding diet. They stated that sugar should make up no more than 10% of a person's total daily calories.

The Sugar Association fought back hard stating that they had evidence that said that a person's daily intake of sugar could safely be 25% of a person's calories. WHO subsequently reworded their recommendation on sugar stating that no one should eat sugar more than four times a day. But of course they don't say how much you can eat in any of those times, so draw your own conclusions.

The head of the expert team that wrote the Association's scientific evidence saying that sugar could comprise 25% of your calorie intake per day and still be safe, is Harvey Fineberg. Amongst all the highly publicized fighting, Fineberg called the US Health Secretary at the time, Tommy Thompson, to say that his report was being misinterpreted by the Sugar Association. Even he did not want to be associated with the fallout.

The Sugar Association was so outraged by the WHO's report that they contacted our legislature to suggest a law that all future WHO funding should be predicated on an agreement from WHO to base it's reports on science. (Huh? Really?)

The Sugar Association has also successfully fought to eliminate the USDA's ability to mention sugar in it's dietary suggestions. If you click on the link to the new food pyramid I provided you will see that the top part of the pyramid that was up there for years, the "use added fats, oils and sweets sparingly" is now missing. Their recommendations regard only food. This has a couple of effects. It eliminates the sugar dialogue from the consumers mindset, and it levels the playing field among food products. If it is good to eat 6 servings of grains per week, the USDA has made no recommendation that you should limit breads that have added HFCS (Hi Fructose Corn Syrup). And furthermore I bet that a packet of instant flavored oatmeal with 16g of sugar added to the flavoring counts as a serving of whole grain. The fact is that the government is hush hush about even discussing the issue of sugar.

Thousands of products have added sugar. They lurk in the obvious places like cookies and soda. But they also are in less obvious places like breads and yogurts, flavored milk (I kinda think milk tastes pretty good the way God gave it to us), pre-made pizza crusts, rolls and hamburger buns, ketchup, dried fruit, juices marketed as real fruit juice, the list goes on an on. The average consumption of added sugars has reached record highs! In 1996 each American consumed a record average of 152 pounds of caloric sweeteners!! That is about two fifths of a pound PER DAY. By contrast, total meat consumption in 1996 was 192 pounds. That includes all red meat, poultry and fish.

Food for thought.

Tomorrow, Real Cane Sugar vs. HFCS

Notes--
Virata, Gillian. The Effects of the U.S. Sugar Policy. internationalecon.com. 9 June, 2010.
Bosley, Sarah. Sugar industry threatens to scupper WHO. The Guardian. guardian.co.uk.com 21 April, 2003.
Big Sugar. The Washington Post. washingtonpost.com 16 April, 2005.
US Agriculture--Linking Consumers and Producers. United States Department of Agriculture. usda.gov 9 June 2010.
An Overview of Florida Sugarcane. University of Florida IFAS Extension. eds.ifas.ufl.edu 11 June 2010.

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...