Hfcs Research Final Copy To Turn In

Does HFCS affect the body the same way as regular sugar?

Rosie Diamond

June 7, 2009

Persuasive Research Paper: Is HFCS really “the same” as table sugar?

For the past two decades, the U.S. media has been engaged in a kind of quest for health, due to the ever-rising trends of obesity and related health issues. A newer development in this crusade is consumer disdain for high-fructose corn syrup. HFCS is a lab-produced alternative to sugar. It first became an integral part of the American diet in 1987, when the Coca Cola Company began using it to replace sugar in Coke. Since then, the presence of HFCS in the American diet has increased significantly (1). “In 2007, Americans consumed an average of 56 pounds of HFCS each… a large part of this was undoubtedly from soda, which was the number one source of calories in the United states (5).” Today, the majority of the food we eat contains some measure of HFCS. As of late, lengthy debates regarding the healthfulness of HFCS have been taking place in the media. There have been many assertions and claims regarding HFCS and its effects, or lack thereof on the body by consumers, medical professionals, and the Corn Industry. The recent campaign by the Iowa Corn Farmers to reassure consumers of their product’s safety is one instance of this. The American Beverage Institution, along with the Corn Growers Association “…insist HFCS is no different than other sweeteners and is ‘safe in moderation’ (1, 5).” The justification for their claim comes from studies funded by the Corn Growers Association, and companies like Pepsi, which conclude that HFCS is essentially the same as sugar (5). However, these claims fail to take certain other subtle factors into account. No studies have ever been conducted to directly assess the effects of HFCS on humans. There is research that suggests a distinct difference between HFCS and regular sugar in the way that they are processed by, and affect the human body (2, 4, 5). Though HFCS and table sugar are similar in taste and caloric content, HFCS differs in regards to its effect on the human body, and safety of consumption (5). Fructose is a type of sugar found in various parts of our diet. Both fruits and table sugar (sucrose) contain fructose combined with an equal amount of glucose, a simple sugar that is “a major source of energy for most cells of the body (2).” In contrast, HFCS is typically made to consist of “55 percent fructose and 45 percent sucrose (12).”

Persuasive Research Paper: Is HFCS really “the same” as table sugar? Where the fructose component of fruit and table sugar is broken down easily in a regular manner by the body, liquid fructose is “metabolized primarily in the liver (2).” This makes it different from other sugars. Because it is metabolized in the liver, fructose is “metabolized to fat in your body far more rapidly than any other sugar (5).” The liquid fructose found in HFCS has different effects on the body than the natural fructose found in fruit or table sugar. Consumption of liquid fructose causes many more health complications than the consumption of regular crystalline table sugar (5). Firstly, liquid fructose does not stimulate the secretion of leptin, or insulin in the body. Dr. Joseph Mercola notes that “insulin and leptin act as key signals in regulating how much food [we] eat as well as body weight (5).” These two chemicals are responsible for telling the brain when the stomach is full, and to stop eating. Their absence can be linked to overeating and drinking, and therefore obesity. Liquid fructose does not trigger the secretion of insulin, a chemical which is responsible for the metabolism of sugars. This makes the body largely unable to process sugar in the form of HFCS. In a study conducted by Dr. Juan Carlos Laguna, it was discovered that the consumption of drinks containing liquid fructose “altered how the liver metabolized the syrup and…represented a calorie overload to which the body’s metabolism was unable to adapt (2).” The University of Barcelona conducted a study on rats that reaffirms Dr. Laguna’s results. The study concluded that “liquid fructose changes the metabolism of fat in the liver by impacting a specific nuclear receptor called PPAR-alpha, leading to a reduction in the liver's ability to degrade the sweetener (2).” Mercury was also recently discovered in a number of randomly selected brand name foods citing HFCS as the first or second ingredient. Mercury was found in “nearly one-third of 55 brand name foods.” The most commonly accepted explanation for the mercury contamination is the use of caustic soda in four behind-the-times corn processing plants (1). Caustic soda is used in corn processing plants to extract corn starch from the corn kernel. However, this method is considered highly outdated, and is not the only method of obtaining corn starch. The use of this outdated technology is a problem because of the potential damage that exposure to mercury

Persuasive Research Paper: Is HFCS really “the same” as table sugar? can cause. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) says that mercury is “a heavy metal with the potential to damage many organ systems, including the heart, immune, and nervous systems.” They note that it is “toxic in all of its forms,” and estimate that the average consumer, who consumes about fifty grams of HFCS per day, are also ingesting approximately 28.5 ug, or micro-grams of mercury as well. The mercury exposure for HFCS is about .2 to .3 ppm, or parts per million, as compared to the mercury levels in fish, the highest level being 1.43 ppm (10). According to the IATP, despite the lower levels of mercury in HFCS, any exposure can be dangerous, as it can accumulate in biological tissues. The recent controversy concerning the health of high-fructose corn syrup has resulted in a variety of mixed messages and confusion on the part of consumers. Though research suggests HFCS can cause health problems through mercury ingestion, altering the body’s metabolism, and suppressing the secretion of leptin, studies are overall inconclusive at this time, and consumers should wait for more research before making a final decision on the issue. However, it might be wise to limit one’s intake of HFCS in case the condemning studies turn to be correct.