Categories
High Fructose Corn Syrup Pt. II
What is it about High Fructose Corn Syrup that makes it different from other sugars, like common table sugar? Obviously, the sugars come from two different plants corn and sugar cane / sugar beets. But the key factor, and the one that causes the most discussion, is that the sugars produced from corn are a products of a multi-stage enzymatic process that breaks down corn starch into simple sugars. For sugar cane, and sugar beets, the simple sugar (sucrose) is already present, so it is a matter of extracting, or refining the plants pulp to a point of relative purity. Many people deem the process to make HFCS to be “unnatural”, but on a basic chemistry level is it any worse than refined cane sugar? Does it really affect the flavour of beverages significantly?
There are a lot of questions to answer about high fructose corn syrup, but I’ll focus on the science behind it and draw some personal conclusions. Take them or leave them, they are what they are.
The first thing we should discuss is the difference between HFCS and cane (beet) sugar. In the case of cane sugar, the primary sugar is sucrose, which is actually two sugars (disaccharide) bound together (glucose and fructose). In corn, the sugar is found in starch, in the form of long chains of glucose molecules. Basically, when you digest starch your body will break it down into glucose molecules to feed your cells, much in the same way the HFCS process begins, but there are additional step to make HFCS. These steps basically take a glucose molecule and convert it into a fructose molecule. There isn’t anything diabolical about this chemical step, and the molecules still contain the same number of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen atoms, just rearranged differently.
The reason for the glucose to fructose conversion is to increase sweetness. Glucose is only about 0.8 as sweet as sucrose, but fructose is 1.8x sweeter than sucrose. So this means you can blend glucose and fructose to create a specific sweetness level. The beverage industry seems to aim for 1.2 on the sweetness scale and this relates to the sweetness of inverted sucrose. The term “inverted” is used when sucrose is broken down into fructose and glucose, creating a sweeter products than what was the original starting point. Inversion happens when sucrose is exposed to an acidic environment, and since most soda pop has phosphoric acid as an ingredient, the sucrose undergoes partial inversion resulting in a sweeter drink.
When we look at the final end products, cane sugar and HFCS are basically the same. Sucrose breaks down to a 50/50 ratio of fructose and glucose, and HCFS is a 55/45 ratio of fructose and glucose. The small amount of extra fructose doesn’t represent a major problem since many natural products, like fruit and honey, are high in fructose.
The two last point I should hit upon are that the “high fructose” is only a reference to the fact that normal corn syrup is almost completely glucose. So, 55% fructose is high compared to 0%. It is not significantly higher in fructose than cane sugar though. And, when the body uses these sugars as an energy source, glucose can be used as is by any cell in the body. Fructose on the other hand must be converted to glucose, in the liver, before it can be used by cells.
As far as taste goes, there is a difference, but how significant is dependent on the individual. The placebo effect should be noted, because if people think there is a difference, then there will be a difference. Depending on how adverse you are to things will depend on how much of a flavour difference you will notice. For me the flavour difference is noticeable, but not so much so that it makes me change my purchasing habits.
Vodkaphiles are notorious placebo effect sufferers. The label dictates the flavour, not the content inside the bottle. Same goes for medicine, if a pill says it will cure you, even though it may just be sugar, a portion of the population will be cured regardless. The mind is a powerful thing.
After looking at all the information on the sugar cane vs high fructose cane syrup debate, I’ve decided that there are no health issues associated with the “normal” consumption of HFCS. The health issues only come into play when there is an over consumption of any sugar, not just HFCS. I’m more likely to die from a million other environmental factors than I am from normal consumption of fructose and glucose. Normal being less than you think. Drinking a six pack of Coke a day, whether it is HFCS or cane sugar based is just a bad idea.
As for taste, there is a difference, but not so significant that I’d opt only to drink sucrose based drinks. The fact is that even if the sweetener in a cola was sucrose, by the time you open the bottle a good portion of that sucrose has turned into glucose and fructose anyway.
There are a lot of things in the world that need attention and High Fructose Corn Syrup shouldn’t rate as high as it does. If you are aiming for absolute flavour in your drinks, then use which ever sugar meets your needs. When I make simple syrup, I still put a small amount of baking soda into the liquid to try to avoid inversion.
1413 Comments on High Fructose Corn Syrup Pt. II
Leave a Comment
Good series of articles, Darcy. I still try to avoid HFCS on principle, but I think the huge backlash against it comes from it's ubiquity. Has the American palate increased it's affinity for sweet foods, and thus HFCS is just going along with the desires of the populace, or has HFCS made us crave sweeter foods?
Either way, I tend to think that ketchup doesn't need HFCS in it, nor do the thousands of other products that it's been inexplicably added to. But that's just my $0.02.
I think the human palate is designed to seek out sweet foods, since glucose is our natural fuel. But, modern technology has made it too easy to get sugar which has led to overconsumption.
I had a friend who worked at Heinz in Windsor, and he mentioned that Ketchup destine for the US used twice the amount of sugar as the Canadian version.
Its a chance I live in Canada then ;)
Nice article Darcy.
What I find funny is when people drink like 5 rhum and coke, then are sick...
- "I drank too much alcool".
- I think you drank too much coke, not alcool...
Sweetness in cocktail can become a problem cause your likely to drink few cocktail in a relatively short amount of time.
Most bar mostly do sugar-based cocktail or gin/vodka martini so its kinda hard not to take lots of sugar!
Darcy,
I disagree that HFCS55 (55%fructose: 45% glucose is just
a little different from 50:50 sucrose. If you do the math correctly, 55/45=12.2% excess fructose everytime you drink a can of pop. Considering that the average teen chugs one or two cans of soda daily, that is a lot of extra fructose the liver is forced
to metabolize. And, it is the fructose moiety that causes long term health hazards. If you want to find out how invasive HFCS is in our food supply go to
www.corn.org/NSFC2006.pdf. Courtesy of the Corn Refiners Assoc., pages 29-30 list all the types of food products that contain
HFCS. Bacon, cough syrups, invalid feedings. It is not just limited to sweet liquids. Be prepared to be shocked.
Cynthia,
It's only an excess of 5% fructose, when compared to inverted sucrose (50/50). The 12.2% is the ratio difference in HFCS, not a comparative result.
As for fructose being a health hazard, that is rather dubious. I've looked at the research papers and these are not refined research. Basically, they overdose rodents on sugar (fructose) and see what happens. The quantity consumed is far higher than even a chronic sugar junkie. Plus, the liver is one tough organ and there are far more damaging things than fructose, like alcohol. Liver failure is rarely ever caused by a single element.
Sugar is everywhere, whether it is sucrose, glucose, fructose. Its not just corn based sugar that is bad. But then again, nothing is bad when done in moderation.
"As for taste, there is a difference, but not so significant that I’d opt only to drink sucrose based drinks."
Hmmm... I guess that I'll have to do a blind test between the US Coke with HFCS and the Mexican Coke with cane sugar.
Awww, man. Portion control (or lack thereof) rears its ugly head again. A University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill study showed that energy intake from sweetened soft drinks and fruit drinks in the United States increased 135 percent between about 1977 and 2001. Another study at Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University found that "among respondents to the 1999-2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), more than two thirds [of American adults] reported drinking enough soda and/or sweet drinks to provide them with a greater proportion of daily calories than any other [single] food". Wow. I don't care what you sweeten it with, that's gonna add some serious jiggle to the American physique. (Info about the North Carolina study from http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/4082 , info about Tufts study from http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/8028 )
I'd like to dispute the accuracy of "mexican coke has cane sugar" rumor. Since that first comment in the rum and coke article, i've been to two different mexican grocery stores in my town. Both carried bottles of coke labeled "imported from mexico", and both had ingredients labels which read "sugar and/or hfcs". I think one store's bottles had a bottling date of 1996 on them and the other's had a date of either 1998 or 1999.
For those who don't know, set yourself up a blind taste test with Jones, Coke, and Pepsi and see if you can tell them all apart. If you can, drink the one you liked best. If you can't then it probably doesn't matter. Problem solved for $3.00. The only reason i prefer sugar is that at a certain, somewhat low, concentration it ionizes and makes the drink taste almost electric. Any sweeter than that and you've ruined a perfectly good pitcher of tea.
Michael, it's not a rumor, you're just not getting the right stuff. Look for Coke from Mexico that does not have HFCS, and explicitly says "sugar" or "cane sugar" only. I guess that I got lucky on my first stop, since the Mexican Coke that I got does not have HFCS, and is clearly labeled as using cane sugar. (But I did see some Mexican Pepsi that did have "HFCS and/or sugar" on the label.)
And you are definitely correct about the blind taste test. It's the best way to go.
After some more research it seems that Kosher Coke is even better. It's made most often during Passover but in some places year-round. Being Kosher, it doesn't contain preservatives, which may actually have more effect on the taste than the sweetener used.
Oh, and speaking of preservatives, I wouldn't drink any soda bottled in 1996.
When we blind-tasted tonics, we found that some of them had a pronounced chemical quality to their sweetness. Wouldn't you know it: Those were the HFCS-sweetened brands. I guess my palate is one of those that's sensitive enough...
So many people I know strongly prefer the taste of Mexican Coke that it's hard to believe we're all having some sort of mass hallucination. (Incidentally, the bottles we get here in California are sweetened solely with cane sugar. maybe there are different sweeteners in use at various plants?)
If you need any further encouragement to moderate your HFCS consumption, be sure to rent King Corn when it comes out on DVD next year.
Has anyone seen this article? Interesting findings that show HFCS does not increase one's appetite throughout the day. It also casts doubts on the theory that HFCS is to blame for the obesity epidemic...
Yahoo News
I've always know Mexican Coke tasted better than the US coke but I just didn't know the US used so much HFCS.
Question.
Is it the same amount of HFCS in the can as the one that comes out dispenser.
I'm doing some research on Jones Pure Cane Cola vs Coke High Fructose Corn Syrup and Pepsi High Fructose Corn Syrup.
Please answer my Polls http://colawars3.blogspot.com/