Big Sugar

Washington Post ^ | April 16, 2005

[ddtorquee]

U.S. sugar policy stands for all that's bad about our political system. The government restricts imports through a series of quotas, pushing U.S. sugar prices to between two and three times the global market rate. As a result, a handful of sugar producers, notably in Florida, a battleground electoral state, pocket $1 billion a year in excess profits. To protect this cozy arrangement, the sugar barons plow a chunk of their revenue back into the political system. During the 2004 election cycle, two Florida sugar companies gave a total of $925,000 to election coffers.

[coloradan]

ADM lobbies for sugar price supports. By sheer coincidence, ADM just happens to make high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). It also just so happens that American soft drink makers can’t afford sugar, so they use HFCS. As an added bonus, HFCS causes tooth decay and obesity more than sugar does, for a given amount of food sweetened. So, Americans pay more for sugar, and pay in health care and dental costs for the HFCS-sweetened sodas (and other foods) and ADM reaps a bounty in profits, some of which they plow back into Washington to lobby for the continuation of sugar price supports.

Yep, the American dream, writ large.

[Sherman Logan]

There is also a theory that the obesity epidemic of recent decades is partially related to a switch from sugar to corn syrup in processed foods promoted by the artificially high price of sugar.

[Sherman Logan]

Great minds, and all that...

[ddtorquee]

More information on the sugar lobby: "To understand the power of Florida sugar, it is illustrative to look at the very wealthy, very private members of the Fanjul family of Florida. With an enormous sugar empire that dwarfs even the U.S. Sugar Corporation, the Fanjul family's sugar holdings in Florida and the Dominican Republic total more than 400,000 acres, operated by a family of companies under the corporate umbrella of Flo-Sun, Inc.

Four brothers -- Alfonso "Alfie," José "Pepe," Alexander, and Andres -- are the principal owners and managers of Flo-Sun. The Fanjuls are Cuban-American descendants of the wealthy Gomez-Mena family of Cuba, which controlled much of the American-dominated sugar industry in Cuba until Fidel Castro seized power, and the New York-based Fanjul family. Matriarch Lillian de Fanjul and her four sons make their home in exclusive Palm Beach, Florida, an hour's drive and a world away from the gritty sugar plantations of western Palm Beach County.

Unlike U.S. Sugar Corporation, its Florida rival, whose offices are smack in the middle of Clewiston's sugar fields, Flo-Sun is headquartered in a posh complex in Palm Beach. The Fanjuls themselves live in multimillion-dollar mansions set among the palm-tree-lined streets of the town.

With their wealth conservatively estimated at several hundred million dollars (Forbes magazine puts the figure at $500 million), the Fanjuls can afford to spread around lots of political money. And they do. Family members, corporate executives, the corporations themselves, and the Florida Sugar Cane League PAC have contributed $2.6 million to political candidates and committees since 1979. (Until mid-1994, the Fanjuls and executives for Fanjul companies accounted for an increasing share of the Florida Sugar Cane League PAC's funds, from 20 percent in 1980 to 62 percent in 1992. While the PAC is still filing reports with the FEC, there has been little actual activity, with only $38 listed as receipts since October 1994.) Fanjul family members alone gave direct contributions of $359,505 to more than 172 congressional candidates of both parties.

That is just the "hard" money. The Fanjuls also give substantial "soft money" contributions to political parties. In fact, the Fanjul family and its companies account for 59 percent of all the soft money given by the sugar industry to the national party committees since 1991.

The Democratic and Republican parties alike are beneficiaries of Fanjul largesse. Alfie Fanjul, one of the four Fanjul brothers who controls Flo-Sun, is a lifelong Democrat. He served as co-chairman of Bill Clinton's Florida campaign, and co-sponsored a Cuban-American fund-raiser at Victor's Cafe in Miami that reportedly raised more than $100,000 for Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, according to The Wall Street Journal.1 In addition, Fanjul-controlled companies have contributed $131,000 to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee since 1991. After Clinton won, Fanjul was invited to attend the president-elect's "economic summit" in Little Rock, where he occupied a place three seats away from Clinton and Vice President-elect Al Gore and next to future Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen. Alfie Fanjul later appeared with Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt at a ceremony announcing an Everglades cleanup plan."

and more here:

"Florida Crystals President Jose ``Pepe'' Fanjul raised at least $200,000 for the campaign of President George W. Bush, earning him the designation of ``Ranger,'' a top-tier donor.

Ten members of the Fanjul family of Palm Beach, Florida, gave a combined $427,000 to federal candidates, parties and political committees during the 2004 election, according to Federal Election Commission records. "

[the invisib1e hand]

During the 2004 election cycle, two Florida sugar companies gave a total of $925,000 to election coffers.

why wasn't it news then? were they backing kerry?

[ASOC]

Just so.

My Country tis of thee
Sweet land of subsidy
Of thee I sing.......

And who says America is not for sale?

[Cicero]

I gave up sugar some time back. Maple syrup in my coffee, and honey in my tea. It tastes a lot better.

[maine-iac7]

Maple syrup in my coffee, and honey in my tea. It tastes a lot better.

and a lot better for the body - particularly the bones.

The first voyagers to the "New" world were amazed at how tall and straight boned the Natives were, who use maple syrup and honey, no sugar, no white flour - as compared to the ricket-bowed Europeans

[Redbob]

"There is also a theory that the obesity epidemic of recent decades is partially related to a switch from sugar to corn syrup in processed foods..."

I have a theory that the "obesity epidemic" of recent decades is directly related to excessive caloric intake, laziness, and general lack of self-control.

There're dang few fat people who wouldn't skinny right on up if they'd keep their mouths shut.

[Brad from Tennessee]

It is not widely publicized but the U.S. is now the largest foreign supplier of food to Cuba. If those commodities were traded for Cuban sugar, by our exporters, then sold on the U.S. market we could scrape this scam and end up with a net gain.

[coloradan]

Some day, I might realize my own version of the American dream, by having the federal government distort a market for MY benefit, irrespective of the harms caused to other’s incomes, businesses, health, and liberties.

[ASOC]

Sugar (the new Oil), soybeans, milk supports, paying for fallow fields, its pretty hard NOT to find a segment of American AgriBiz not coddled, or screwed, by the FedGov.

And guess who pays for the lot?

[ddtorquee]

Here is a list of campaign contributions by the Fanjul family which owns most of US sugar production, which totals $1.8 million dollars. Not a bad investment based on the quota and tariffs they've got our Washington porker politicians running for them. Note that these contributions are only contributions from the Fanjuls themselves, and do not even count contributions that they collate from others.

[ddtorquee]

And yet more sugar campaign money. Here is the American Crystal Sugar 2008 PAC Summary Data

2008 Cycle

House Candidate Total Contribs

Abercrombie, Neil (D-HI) $10,000

Akin, Todd (R-MO) $3,000

Altmire, Jason (D-PA) $2,500

Arcuri, Michael (D-NY) $6,000

Baca, Joe (D-CA) $1,000

Bachmann, Michele Marie (R-MN) $2,000

Baird, Brian (D-WA) $2,000

Barrow, John (D-GA) $2,500

Barton, Joe (R-TX) $2,000

Becerra, Xavier (D-CA) $2,000

Berry, Marion (D-AR) $10,000

Bilbray, Brian P (R-CA) $2,000

Bonner, Jo (R-AL) $4,000

Boren, Dan (D-OK) $5,000

Boswell, Leonard L (D-IA) $7,500

Boustany, Charles W Jr (R-LA) $3,000

Boyd, Allen (D-FL) $5,000

Brady, Kevin (R-TX) $3,000

Butterfield, G K (D-NC) $1,000

Calvert, Ken (R-CA) $2,000

Camp, Dave (R-MI) $3,000

Cannon, Chris (R-UT) $2,000

Capito, Shelley Moore (R-WV) $2,000

Cardoza, Dennis (D-CA) $7,000

Carnahan, Russ (D-MO) $2,000

Carney, Chris (D-PA) $5,000

Chandler, Ben (D-KY) $2,000

Clyburn, James E (D-SC) $10,000

Cohen, Stephen Ira (D-TN) $3,000

Cole, Tom (R-OK) $5,000

Conaway, Mike (R-TX) $8,000

Costa, Jim (D-CA) $1,000

Costello, Jerry F (D-IL) $1,000

Davis, David (R-TN) $2,000

Davis, Geoff (R-KY) $8,000

Davis, Lincoln (D-TN) $3,000

DeLauro, Rosa L (D-CT) $10,000

Dingell, John D (D-MI) $2,000

Donnelly, Joe (D-IN) $5,500

Doolittle, John T (R-CA) $1,000

Edwards, Chet (D-TX) $4,000

Ellsworth, Brad (D-IN) $6,500

Engel, Eliot L (D-NY) $3,000

Etheridge, Bob (D-NC) $7,000

Everett, Terry (R-AL) $2,000

Farr, Sam (D-CA) $5,000

Feeney, Tom (R-FL) $2,000

Filner, Bob (D-CA) $2,000

Foxx, Virginia (R-NC) $3,000

Giffords, Gabrielle (D-AZ) $7,000

Gillibrand, Kirsten E (D-NY) $7,000

Gonzalez, Charlie A (D-TX) $1,000

Goodlatte, Bob (R-VA) $5,000

Granger, Kay (R-TX) $2,000

Graves, Sam (R-MO) $10,000

Hall, John (D-NY) $5,000

Hare, Philip G (D-IL) $3,000

Harman, Jane (D-CA) $2,000

Hastings, Alcee L (D-FL) $3,000

Hayes, Robin (R-NC) $3,000

Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (D-SD) $10,000

Hill, Baron (D-IN) $2,500

Hinchey, Maurice (D-NY) $5,000

Holden, Tim (D-PA) $9,000

Honda, Mike (D-CA) $2,000

Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) $2,500

Hulshof, Kenny (R-MO) $3,000

Inslee, Jay R (D-WA) $1,000

Jones, Walter B Jr (R-NC) $5,000

Kagen, Steven Leslie (D-WI) $6,000

Kaptur, Marcy (D-OH) $3,000

Kilpatrick, Carolyn Cheeks (D-MI) $2,000

King, Pete (R-NY) $2,000

King, Steven A (R-IA) $3,000

Klein, Ron (D-FL) $2,500

Kline, John (R-MN) $5,000

Knollenberg, Joe (R-MI) $2,000

LaHood, Ray (R-IL) $3,000

Lamborn, Douglas L (R-CO) $3,000

Lampson, Nick (D-TX) $2,000

Larsen, Rick (D-WA) $5,000

Latham, Tom (R-IA) $7,000

Levin, Sander (D-MI) $2,000

Lewis, John (D-GA) $2,000

Lewis, Ron (R-KY) $2,000

Lucas, Frank D (R-OK) $5,000

Mack, Connie (R-FL) $2,000

Mahoney, Tim (D-FL) $2,000

Maloney, Carolyn B (D-NY) $3,000

Marshall, Jim (D-GA) $7,500

Matsui, Doris O (D-CA) $1,000

McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) $5,000

McIntyre, Mike (D-NC) $5,000

McMorris, Cathy (R-WA) $2,000

McNerney, Jerry (D-CA) $3,000

Melancon, Charles J (D-LA) $5,000

Michaud, Mike (D-ME) $2,000

Miller, Brad (D-NC) $1,000

Miller, Candice S (R-MI) $8,000

Miller, Jeff (R-FL) $3,000

Mitchell, Harry E (D-AZ) $2,000

Mollohan, Alan B (D-WV) $1,000

Moore, Dennis (D-KS) $8,000

Moran, Jerry (R-KS) $5,000

Murphy, Patrick J (D-PA) $4,000

Musgrave, Marilyn (R-CO) $5,000

Napolitano, Grace (D-CA) $2,000

Oberstar, James L (D-MN) $5,000

Obey, David R (D-WI) $5,000

Pastor, Ed (D-AZ) $1,000

Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) $5,000

Perlmutter, Edwin G (D-CO) $1,000

Peterson, Collin C (D-MN) $10,000

Pomeroy, Earl (D-ND) $10,000

Porter, Jon (R-NV) $3,000

Putnam, Adam H (R-FL) $5,000

Rehberg, Denny (R-MT) $5,000

Rodriguez, Ciro D (D-TX) $4,500

Rogers, Mike D (R-AL) $2,000

Ross, Mike (D-AR) $7,000

Rothman, Steven R (D-NJ) $5,000

Ruppersberger, Dutch (D-MD) $1,000

Ryan, Tim (D-OH) $3,500

Salazar, John (D-CO) $8,000

Sali, William T (R-ID) $3,000

Sanchez, Loretta (D-CA) $2,000

Schmidt, Jean (R-OH) $4,000

Scott, David (D-GA) $2,000

Sherman, Brad (D-CA) $3,000

Shimkus, John M (R-IL) $2,000

Shuler, Heath (D-NC) $3,000

Simpson, Mike (R-ID) $5,000

Sires, Albio (D-NJ) $2,500

Smith, Adrian (R-NE) $5,000

Solis, Hilda L (D-CA) $2,000

Space, Zachary T (D-OH) $4,500

Spratt, John M Jr (D-SC) $5,000

Tanner, John (D-TN) $6,000

Thompson, Bennie G (D-MS) $2,000

Thompson, Mike (D-CA) $2,000

Velazquez, Nydia M (D-NY) $1,000

Walberg, Tim (R-MI) $3,000

Walden, Greg (R-OR) $5,000

Walsh, James T (R-NY) $5,000

Walz, Timothy J (D-MN) $10,000

Weller, Jerry (R-IL) $3,000

Wexler, Robert (D-FL) $1,000

Whitehead, Jim (R-GA) $3,000

Wilson, Charlie (D-OH) $2,000

Woolsey, Lynn (D-CA) $4,000

Wu, David (D-OR) $1,000

Yarmuth, John A (D-KY) $2,000

Young, Don (R-AK) $2,000

Total to Democratic House Candidates: $385,500

Total to Republican House Candidates: $204,000

Senate Candidate Total Contribs

Barrasso, John A (R-WY) $5,000

Baucus, Max (D-MT) $5,000

Brown, Sherrod (D-OH) $5,000

Conrad, Kent (D-ND) $2,000

Cornyn, John (R-TX) $3,000

Craig, Larry (R-ID) $3,000

Domenici, Pete V (R-NM) $5,000

Dorgan, Byron L (D-ND) $5,000

Harkin, Tom (D-IA) $5,000

Inhofe, James M (R-OK) $5,000

Johnson, Tim (D-SD) $8,000

Klobuchar, Amy (D-MN) $3,000

Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) $3,000

Leahy, Patrick (D-VT) $1,000

Levin, Carl (D-MI) $6,000

McCaskill, Claire (D-MO) $2,000

Pearce, Steve (R-NM) $2,000

Pryor, Mark (D-AR) $3,000

Reid, Harry (D-NV) $10,000

Roberts, Pat (R-KS) $3,000

Rockefeller, Jay (D-WV) $4,000

Udall, Mark (D-CO) $7,500

Wilson, Heather A (R-NM) $4,000

Total to Democratic Senate Candidates: $69,500

Total to Republican Senate Candidates: $30,000

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

I read about sugar back when Reader's Digest used to be objective. "Sugar's sweet deal," I think the article was called.

[Mase]

HFCS causes tooth decay and obesity more than sugar does, for a given amount of food sweetened. So, Americans pay more for sugar, and pay in health care and dental costs for the HFCS-sweetened sodas (and other foods) and ADM reaps a bounty in profits

It's amazing what HFCS gets blamed for. It's not all that profitable however, and anyone who thinks it promotes obesity or tooth decay any more than sucrose doesn't understand basic nutrition or chemistry.

Obesity for most people is simply a case of too many calories in and not enough burned.

[A. Patriot]

And along with obesity, it is now thought that HFCS is the cause of the type 2 diabetes epidemic we now see, especially in children. This used to be a disease of older adults.

[conservative cat]

I have noticed that I can quickly down a pop made with hfcs without a problem, but if I drink one made with cane sugar, it feels too sweet about halfway through- and I have to stop! I really think there is a difference in how the body processes/identifies the two.

[Last Dakotan]

...as compared to the ricket-bowed Europeans

Who did however carry immunities to Smallpox.

[Joe Boucher]

Big Sugar (the Fanjul family) are Floridas biggest polluters of air land and water and they contribute large to politicians on both sides of the aisle so they get away with it.
To hell with how it all pollutes To hell with lying stealing politicians and the damn worthless e.p.a.

[G-Man 1]

All this info. is great. WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT?

[ddtorquee]

All this info. is great. WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT?

First, I would bet many Americans don't know about the sugar tariff and quota. It's a great illustration of how politicians are bought and sold and of the corruption of the Farm Bill. So getting the word out is important.

Action wise, the goal should be to get the Sugar Tariff and Quota aka the Sugar Program repealed. It was just renewed in the recently passed Farm Bill http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.2302: -- scroll down to Subtitle C--Sugar. How about checking to see if your Congressmen and Senators are on the receiving end of Sugar money and calling them to ask why they took this money, what is their position on repeal of the sugar program, would they introduce a bill to repeal the sugar program, and keeping at it everytime they come into town for a townhall meeting so that the rest of their constituents become aware they've sold out to Sugar even though their is no sugar growing in their district?
In addition to the PAC recipient list copied above, here is a list of Fanjul campaign contributions for the 2004, 2006, and 2008 races

You can check if your Reps and Senators are on the receiving end and let them know what you think about that.

[coloradan]

It's not all that profitable however,

It's profitable enough for Archer Daniels Midland to pay 100s of k$ each year to lobby for the continuation of sugar price supports.

and anyone who thinks it promotes obesity or tooth decay any more than sucrose doesn't understand basic nutrition or chemistry.

Pardon me, but you don't know what you're talking about.

The body produces insulin to store excess blood glucose as glycogen. HFCS actually contains glucose, so upon ingestion, blood glucose rises rapildy, which instantly triggers insulin production and results in rapid glycogen production - or overproduction in some people. This is what leads to obesity.

Sucrose needs to be broken down first, which is slower and therefore results in lower blood glucose levels and therefore less insulin production and therefore glycogen overproduction. The amount of insulin made is absolutely unrelated to the perceived sweetness of the food, contrary to your apparent belief. (Saccharine doesn't trigger insulin production at all, for example, even though it's extremely sweet on a per weight basis.)

Furthermore, the fact that sucrose is a complex sugar, and both glucose and fructose are simple sugars makes the latter more readily bioavailable , e.g. to the bacteria in mouths that cause tooth decay. There is absolutely no reason that things that are equally sweet should cause tooth decay, and again I cite as proof the fact that saccharine is extremely sweet but not able to be metabolized at all, therefore, contributing towards zero tooth decay for the bacteria, and zero calories for us. So clearly what you believe is a fixed relationship between sweetness and tooth decay is simply false.

Xylitol, unlike saccharine, is actually harmful to the oral bacteria, and therefore is able to protect teeth in when other sugars are around, it causes "negative tooth decay" (it's actually protective) and only slightly less sweet than sugar, but unlike saccharine doesn't have any unpleasant aftertaste. It's another counterexample to your mistaken belief that tooth decay, calories and sweetening power are all equally related. They are not.

HFCS is markedly worse than sucrose from a health standpoint, but thanks to the sugar market distortions brought about by our not-free market, soft drink makers have abandoned sucrose in favor of the cheaper HFCS to the financial benefit of HFCS makers, and the detriment of sugar growers (e.g. in other countries) and the detriment of oral and metabolic health of millions in this country. Oh yeah, and to fatten the pockets of a few corrupt reps and senators on Capitol hill.

[Scotswife]

“There’re dang few fat people who wouldn’t skinny right on up if they’d keep their mouths shut.”

I’m not sure if this is an “either/or” situation.

For awhile I had a tough time losing postpartum weight no matter what I tried.

It wasn’t until I became obsessive about high fructose corn syrup that I became successful.That stuff is nasty.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Furthermore, the fact that sucrose is a complex sugar, and both glucose and fructose are simple sugars makes the latter more readily bioavailable

And what happens when sucrose breaks down into glucose and fructose? Does one glucose or fructose make you fatter than another glucose or fructose?

Sucrose needs to be broken down first, which is slower

How much slower? 1 minute? 5 minutes?

[Toddsterpatriot]

It wasn’t until I became obsessive about high fructose corn syrup that I became successful.That stuff is nasty.

I know, just chock full of fructose and glucose, unlike sucrose.

[coloradan]

And what happens when sucrose breaks down into glucose and fructose? Does one glucose or fructose make you fatter than another glucose or fructose?

It easily could, if your body happens to overproduce insulin.

How much slower? 1 minute? 5 minutes?

This is an enzymatic reaction that takes many minutes to complete (the mathematicians would argue and say it's asymptotic, which means it never really finishes) which in any case is long on the timescale of how long food is in your mouth, before you swallow it. It's especially long on the timescale of how long drinks (e.g. soda) remain in your mouth before you swallow. So the amount of action the oral bacteria get can have very different, for sucrose vs. HFCS.

In any case, the evidence exists that HFCS is demonstrably harmful both to oral heath and with respect to obesity, compared to sucrose, but the relationship between companies like ADM and Congress, symbiotic to each other but parasitic to us, apparently takes precedence.

(And Congress meanwhile wants to do something about the health care crisis.)

[Wolfie]

It’s almost as if our political process is for sale to the highest bidder.

[Toddsterpatriot]

It easily could, if your body happens to overproduce insulin.

If your body overproduces insulin, HFCS will make you fatter than sucrose? LOL!

This is an enzymatic reaction that takes many minutes to complete

How many?

So the amount of action the oral bacteria get can have very different, for sucrose vs. HFCS.

Bacteria can only break down fructose and glucose?

In any case, the evidence exists that HFCS is demonstrably harmful both to oral heath and with respect to obesity, compared to sucrose

Yeah, 100 calories of HFCS counts for more than 100 calories of sucrose. LOL!

[unspun]

I'm glad that more and more conservatives are admitting to the abusiveness of mega-corporation tyranny.

[SKI NOW]

"ADM lobbies for sugar price supports."

coloradan on first reply hits nail square on head.

[coloradan]

If your body overproduces insulin, HFCS will make you fatter than sucrose? LOL!

Your body can do two things for energy: metabolism, or storage. The "sugar crash" is the result of overproduction of insulin (and therefore glycogen) and a reduction in the amount of metabolism. If you're having a sugar crash, you aren't exercising and therefore using up the energy. Ergo, something that causes you to overproduce insulin makes you fatter than something else, even at the same caloric intake level.

How many?

Infinitely many, I already stated that it's asymptotic and so the rate slows down as the substrate is used up. It also depends on the concentration, so it's not like your question has a definite answer, like "3.678".

Bacteria can only break down fructose and glucose?

No, they metabolize those directly, they have to break down sucrose first, prior to metabolizing it. This takes time, see above.

Yeah, 100 calories of HFCS counts for more than 100 calories of sucrose. LOL!

You seem to be bringing a high-school level of science understanding to something that's apparently over your head. All forms of energy are not created equal, even if they can all be put on a label as "100 calories." For starters, soft drinks aren't sweetened based on the caloric content of the added sweetener, but rather on the sweetening power of the sweetener, so your 100 cal = 100 cal comment is just silly.

[Scotswife]

I’m not a scientist, all I know is what worked.
30 lbs was gone within 4 months. It was great.

[AdamSelene235]

Wow, I knew toddster was hopelessly misinformed, nay, a priceless contra-indicator on economic issues but the bio-chemical smackdown is just chocolate sprinkles on the icing on the cake.

[Toddsterpatriot]

HFCS is fructose and glucose. Sucrose, that’d be table sugar to you, is fructose and glucose. Try again? LOL!

[Toddsterpatriot]

Infinitely many, I already stated that it's asymptotic and so the rate slows down as the substrate is used up.

Wow, it almost sounds like you know what you're talking about. LOL!

Maybe you can tell me how long until 90% of sucrose is broken down? Forget about your tooth decay theory and let's talk about obesity.

Explain how 10 grams of fructose and glucose from HFCS makes you fatter than 10 grams of fructose and glucose from sucrose. Explain how insulin treats fructose and glucose from each source differently.

Ergo, something that causes you to overproduce insulin makes you fatter than something else, even at the same caloric intake level.

You think HFCS causes your body to produce more insulin than the same amount of sucrose?

You seem to be bringing a high-school level of science understanding to something that's apparently over your head.

The high school level of science is on the side that thinks HFCS is somehow worse than the same amount of sucrose.

For starters, soft drinks aren't sweetened based on the caloric content of the added sweetener, but rather on the sweetening power of the sweetener,

Do you think HFCS is sweeter than sucrose or not as sweet?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, when you eat fewer calories and burn more calories, you’ll lose weight.

[ken21]

good points.

hfcs was synthesized by a japanese scientist in the early 1970’s.

dangerous stuff.

[Toddsterpatriot]

hfcs was synthesized by a japanese scientist in the early 1970’s.

dangerous stuff.

Yeah, fructose and glucose.....that stuff'll kill ya.

[Freedom4US]

The current soda tastes awful. Coke, Pepsi, Mt. Dew, doesn’t matter. I’m sure something was done to keep the cost down, they can’t very well shrink the can like they did with candy bars over the years. Sugar is part of it, there are some old-time mom and pop sodas made with cane sugar that are very tasty.

[jas3]

The first voyagers to the "New" world were amazed at how tall and straight boned the Natives were, who use maple syrup and honey, no sugar, no white flour - as compared to the ricket-bowed Europeans

Huh?

So your theory is that when the first Europeans visited the New World, the general population of Europe was using sugar and bleached flour in their diet?

I what year do you presume the first voyagers to the New World got there...1960?

jas3

[Mase]

HFCS actually contains glucose

So does sucrose. Sucrose is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. The most popular form of HFCS is made up of 45% glucose and 55% fructose. This is the formula most commonly used in soft drinks. The other form of HFCS currently marketed is comprised of 42% fructose and 58% glucose. It's used mainly in baked goods and cereals. Both sucrose and HFCS are made up of the same two chemicals: glucose and fructose. If one is bad for you then the other one must also be just as bad.

so upon ingestion, blood glucose rises rapildy, which instantly triggers insulin production and results in rapid glycogen production - or overproduction in some people. This is what leads to obesity.

When carbs are consumed, your body utilizes what it needs for immediate energy and converts the rest to glycogen, which is stored in the liver and muscles. When the glycogen reserves are full, the body convert the excess to depot fat. That's what makes people fat and, eventually, obese. For most people, it's simply an issue of too many calories consumed, mostly from carbs, and not enough calories burned.

Sucrose needs to be broken down first, which is slower and therefore results in lower blood glucose levels and therefore less insulin production and therefore glycogen overproduction

Yes, as a disaccharide, sucrose must be broken down into a monosaccharide. Fortunately, we have a lot of sucrase in our gut so that process occurs quickly.

The amount of insulin made is absolutely unrelated to the perceived sweetness of the food, contrary to your apparent belief.

Huh? What does that have to do with the metabolizing of sucrose vs. HFCS?

(Saccharine doesn't trigger insulin production at all, for example, even though it's extremely sweet on a per weight basis.)

I thought we were discussing HFCS and sucrose? How and why did saccharine become a topic of discussion? I'd be happy to discuss artificial sweeteners with you if you'd like but let's get through the HFCS thing first.

Furthermore, the fact that sucrose is a complex sugar, and both glucose and fructose are simple sugars makes the latter more readily bioavailable , e.g. to the bacteria in mouths that cause tooth decay.

Do you realize that sucrose is made up of glucose and fructose and that HFCS is also made up of glucose and fructose. Do you think that just because sucrose is bound that HFCS, which isn't bound, is more likely to promote tooth decay?

So clearly what you believe is a fixed relationship between sweetness and tooth decay is simply false.

Are you sure you're responding to the right person? You said "HFCS causes tooth decay and obesity more than sugar does".....but now you're talking about saccharine. How does HFCS promote tooth decay or obesity more than sucrose when they're made up of the same two chemicals? Forget saccharine.

It's another counterexample to your mistaken belief that tooth decay, calories and sweetening power are all equally related. They are not.

Then maybe we should be discussing the relative sweeteness of HFCS and sucrose instead of things like Xylitol and saccharine. I have no idea why you want to bring these other sweeteners into the discussion since I never mentioned them.

HFCS is markedly worse than sucrose from a health standpoint

OK. Instead of rambling on about saccharine and xylitol why don't you make a case that HFCS is worse for you than sucrose when they are both made up of the same two chemicals in almost identical proportions. If each offers four calories per gram, like all carbs, then how can one cause obesity at a greater level than the other?

but thanks to the sugar market distortions brought about by our not-free market, soft drink makers have abandoned sucrose in favor of the cheaper HFCS

Yes, on this we agree. However, HFCS offers many benefits to food producers that sucrose cannot, especially in the baked goods category. Without the protection of sugar, most soft drink makers would probably go back to making their products with sugar.

HFCS is made by four or five companies so the product is priced very competitively and is a high volume, low margin item for producers. It's not all that profitable despite your protestations to the contrary.

....and the detriment of oral and metabolic health of millions in this country

This is what I was hoping you would prove with your reply. You didn't. If you're saying that HFCS is worse for our oral and metabolic health then sucrose please tell me why.

[maine-iac7]

Huh?

So your theory is that when the first Europeans visited the New World, the general population of Europe was using sugar and bleached flour in their diet?

I what year do you presume the first voyagers to the New World got there...1960?

Ahh - it's not my 'theory' - it's history. I assume you are assuming that sugar came from the Caribbean?

Sugar is not indigenous to North America - Columbus introduced sugar cane to the new world...

It had been used in the old world already for hundreds of years - at least since 510 BC but didn't get introduced in Western Europe until the Crusades in the 11th century.

AS for white flour - even with the Ancient Greeks and Romans, bread was a staple food and they argued about which was best - brown bread or white bread.

AS for me, I try not to insult someone without first checking on the facts, which are so easy these days = GOOGLE is your friend

[jas3]

Huh?

So your theory is that when the first Europeans visited the New World, the general population of Europe was using sugar and bleached flour in their diet?

I what year do you presume the first voyagers to the New World got there...1960?

Ahh - it's not my 'theory' - it's history. I assume you are assuming that sugar came from the Caribbean?

No. You are incorrect twice in assuming that I am assuming. I know very well where cane sugar came from. I am challenging your claim that sugar was a large enough part of the diet of any substantial number of Europeans to have a noticeable effect on their stature. In fact, sugar was EXTREMELY expensive, was very difficutl to transport and store, and was a luxury at the time the first Europeans visited the New World. Any observable difference in stature between Old and New World populations would have had nothing at all to do with sugar consumption.

Please post your source of annual average dietary consumption of sugar in Old World Europe anytime around the year 1500.

Sugar is not indigenous to North America - Columbus introduced sugar cane to the new world...

Not relevant. What would be relevant would be the quantity of sugar consumed in Europe in contrast to that in North America. One was nearly zero, the other was actually zero.

It had been used in the old world already for hundreds of years - at least since 510 BC but didn't get introduced in Western Europe until the Crusades in the 11th century.

Also not relevant.

AS for white flour - even with the Ancient Greeks and Romans, bread was a staple food and they argued about which was best - brown bread or white bread.

You are confusing highly processed white flour used in baking today in the United States with the white wheat flour of which Pliny and others wrote. Once again, though, white flour was affordable only by the very rich in the period during which you claim white flour was stunting the growth of Old World Europeans. And once again, I challenge you to post actual consumption figures of white flour on average by Old World Europeans around the year 1500.

AS for me, I try not to insult someone without first checking on the facts, which are so easy these days = GOOGLE is your friend

As for me, I would actually try to post consumption figures before making population wide speculations which don't hold up to the most obvious questions concerning consumption. And I would also not be so prickly when caught out making baseless claims about diet.

jas3

[Scotswife]

“Yeah, when you eat fewer calories and burn more calories, you’ll lose weight.”

LOL!
True that!

Not that I hadn’t tried that one before :)

[PGalt]

Very interesting. Thanks for your post(s) and post #23. Informative & educational. BTTT!

[jas3]

You seem to be bringing a high-school level of science understanding to something that's apparently over your head. All forms of energy are not created equal, even if they can all be put on a label as "100 calories." For starters, soft drinks aren't sweetened based on the caloric content of the added sweetener, but rather on the sweetening power of the sweetener, so your 100 cal = 100 cal comment is just silly.

I get that response from people all the time. Then I ask them how many calories are in a lump of coal and ask them how long they would survive eating only coal.

Human metabolism is not the same as an internal combustion engine. Why is that so hard for some people to understand?

jas3

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then I ask them how many calories are in a lump of coal and ask them how long they would survive eating only coal.

So, is sucrose the lump of coal? Or is HFCS the lump of coal? LOL!

[Mase]

Human metabolism is not the same as an internal combustion engine. Why is that so hard for some people to understand?

When it comes to debating HFCS vs. sucrose and the human metabolism, it's impossible to explain away the fact that both fall into the same range in the glycemic index (55-60)and the satiety profiles of each are essentially identical.

A healthy body will, for the purposes of this discussion, convert HFCS and sucrose to energy, glycogen or fat at essentially the same rate. To think that one will create fat faster, or in greater quantity than the other, cannot be supported by facts. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just pretending to understand nutrition and physiology.

People get caught up in the minutia of simple carbs vs. complex carbs and how much that impacts their total caloric intake but that's really just a calorie distraction. I suppose if you consumed all your carbohydrates from sucrose instead of starch, in the same amounts, you'd gain more weight over a long period of time from the former. But, for the sake of any discussion on obesity, the amount of additional weight gained would be small and would serve only to distract you from the real issue which is too many total calories consumed and not enough burned.