<< Back to main

High Fructose Corn Syrup, A Drug of Choice?

Posted 5/21/2010 6:32am by Eugene Wyatt.

When I was a kid in the 50's I ate my fill of sweets, and then some, as did the kids I played with, and we weren't obese. But those sweets we filled up on primarliy contained sucrose, table sugar, not the cheaper, enzymatically processed high fructose corn syrup. Obesity is blamed on supersizing, but we ate to our fill back then, stuffed ourselves even. Times may change but kids are always kids.

As I have long suspected obesity is not caused by supersizing alone; it is caused by a drug mislabeled as a food, high fructose corn syrup, dangerous when taken even in moderate amounts. It's in almost everything the food corporations manufacture. I came across this in Wikipedia, "Critics of the extensive use of HFCS in food sweetening argue that the highly processed substance is more harmful to humans than regular sugar, contributing to weight gain by affecting normal appetite functions."

This is what drugs do, they affect normal functions.

Ban HFCS, get sugar cane from Cuba, raise sugar beets locally and let childern eat what they want, but also do as our parents did, force vegetables on them once a day. Children on diets, preposterous! To blame kids and punish them by holding back food, ridiculous; but that's what mom & dad do obeying the teachings of the governmental-corporate food complex, aka, the USDA, the FDA and their educational minions.

Remember Halloween! Nobody could have eaten more candy than we did; we were skinny kids with a big sweet tooth.

Tags: Drugs, Food Politics

9 Comments »

Jim Baldwin said,

5/21/2010 @ 11:09 am

Yet the amount of fructose in HFCS is 45-50%..very similar to sucrose the balance is sucrose. Does some process make the fructose in HFCS different ? As you yourself have alluded to regarding red meat consumption .."where's the science".
The fact remains that gaining weight is governed my the laws of physics.calories- calories out.

Eugene Wyatt said,

5/21/2010 @ 8:10 pm

HFCS is 50%glucose:50%fructose--yeah where's the science--I guess what I'm advancing is a *theory* that does not blame the obese victim for her obesity.

Jim Baldwin said,

5/21/2010 @ 8:53 pm

Fair enough. It does seem that there is far too much obesity to blame it on "poor lifestyle choices" Of course obesity defined at BMI greater than 30 includes a lot of us. :)

Karen Witcombe said,

5/21/2010 @ 9:51 pm

I grew up in post-war Britain when sugar was still rationed - we got a reasonable amount but no processed foods to speak of. During my teens sugar was freely available and I ate my share - but still no 'junk' food. What I did eat a lot of was carbohydrates - meat was very expensive and in short supply after the war. Now I'm in my sixties - overweight and diabetic (well controlled) - a result of a carb-rich diet and unlucky genetics. I eat really well now, as I have for most of my life, plenty of organic fruit and vegetables,(including olive oil) whole grains, dairy (including butter), small amounts of lean meat, poultry and fish. Dieticians can't fault it. I go to the gym twice a week and live an active life on a farm. I would rather have my lifestyle than the synthetic, processed, manufactured diet and overcrowded stressed environment forced on city dwellers. Social engineers are good at blaming people for situations that have been 'engineered' for them and have no interest in promoting the vital importance of natural balance and moderation in a happy, healthy life. No amount of parental admonition or finger-pointing by the food nazis will change the behaviour of those who profit from the production and sale of processed foods to the vast majority of consumers who have been, and continue to be, distanced from a natural environment. Michael Pollan has written extensively on this subject.

Leslie said,

5/22/2010 @ 9:29 am

Another HUGE difference is that, as kids, we spent a good part of our days outside playing. Today's kids have organized outside time...and spend much more time inside watching TV and playing video games. You can consume more if you are physically active in between meals!

Eugene Wyatt said,

5/23/2010 @ 6:19 pm

From Michael Pollan, "The Food Movement, Rising" in the NYRB

http://tiny.cc/voslf

"...in a surprisingly tough speech to the Grocery Manufacturers Association in March, the First Lady has effectively shifted the conversation about diet from the industry’s preferred ground of “personal responsibility” and exercise to a frank discussion of the way food is produced and marketed..."

Eugene Wyatt said,

5/23/2010 @ 6:27 pm

And I would agree, to be physically active & informed to make the right eating decisions is crucial to well (whole) being.

Yavor said,

5/29/2010 @ 2:05 pm

You hit the nail on the head, there are several factors at play:

1) the QUALITY of calories. HFCS is metabolised VERY differently, which coupled with the calorie-dense, nutrient deficient modern diet is a recipe for disaster. The fructose absorption path places a significant strain on our bodies (especially the liver), unlike glucose, which has significant reamifications for our health.

2) Activity levels. As someone pointed out, we simply spend much more time sitting in front of a computer because so much can be done online (and more easily at that). People need to consciously incorporate daily physical activity of some sort so our bodies don't atrophy.

3) Size. While not the only factor by far, super-sizing does play a role. Just look at how a Coke bottle has grown from the 1900s to the 2000s.

But ya, if you can only do a few things for your diet it's get rid of GMOs and fructose-rich foods, get organic, locally produced ingredients that haven't been sitting in a warehouse for months, and remember to move.

Yavor said,

5/29/2010 @ 2:07 pm

...and apparently I can't spell ;)