Sugar Is Back on Food Labels, This Time as a Selling Point

NY Times ^ | March 21, 2009 | KIM SEVERSON

[neverdem]

Sugar, the nutritional pariah that dentists and dietitians have long reviled, is enjoying a second act, dressed up as a natural, healthful ingredient.

From the tomato sauce on a Pizza Hut pie called “The Natural,” to the just-released soda Pepsi Natural, some of the biggest players in the American food business have started, in the last few months, replacing high-fructose corn syrup with old-fashioned sugar.

ConAgra uses only sugar or honey in its new Healthy Choice All Natural frozen entrees. Kraft Foods recently removed the corn sweetener from its salad dressings, and is working on its Lunchables line of portable meals and snacks.

The turnaround comes after three decades during which high-fructose corn syrup had been gaining on sugar in the American diet. Consumption of the two finally drew even in 2003, according to the Department of Agriculture. Recently, though, the trend has reversed. Per capita, American adults ate about 44 pounds of sugar in 2007, compared with about 40 pounds of high-fructose corn syrup...

--snip--

Some shoppers prefer cane or beet sugar because it is less processed. High-fructose corn syrup is produced by a complex series of chemical reactions that includes the use of three enzymes and caustic soda.

Others see the pervasiveness of the inexpensive sweetener as a symbol of the ill effects of government subsidies given to large agribusiness interests like corn growers.

But the most common argument has to do with the rapid rise of obesity in the United States, which began in the 1980s, not long after industrial-grade high-fructose corn syrup was invented. As the amount of the sweetener in the American diet has expanded, so have Americans.

--snip--

Both sugar and high-fructose corn syrup are made from glucose and fructose. The level of fructose is about 5 percent higher in the corn sweetener.

[Aroostook25]

I agree with DemforBush, stuff made with corn syrup just doesn’t taste as sweet to me as stuff made with sugar. But since there is a question on that, I’ll have to do more research — by eating and drinking some more stuff made with both.

[AnAmericanMother]

Ah, yes - Chevaliers de la Table Ronde -

"Knights of the Round Table, let's drink to see if the wine is good. . . . "

The first is good, but the second might not be, so let's drink to make sure it's still good . . ..

and so it goes . . ..

[Mase]

Corn derivatives are potent and common allergens. Just about anything ending in “-ose” on food labels is corn-derived in the U.S. and off-limits to those with corn allergies, which can be debilitating.

You'll be pleased to know then that almost all of the corn protein is removed from HFCS during processing and the trace amount of protein remaining has been broken down so thoroughly that it has little immunological resemblance to the allergens in the original corn.

[Freedom Dignity n Honor]

I'd watch out for bananas and oatmeal too. From what I've read this is an allergy to the lipid transfer protein in these items.

I found out the hard way about non dairy creamer. I didn't know it had corn syrup solids in it but when I kept having asthma attacks and getting pneumonia, I went looking for the culprit.

Carrots and peanut butter were a surprise, too. If I put peanut butter in my mouth, the first thing is my mouth starts burning like I've just put hot peppers in my mouth, then comes the itching, burning, pain, and swelling.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Big Corn has been running TV ads lately to try to bolster the image of HFCS. I guess the public is starting to catch on.

My personal theory has always been that your body reacts to HFCS as if you had just eaten the two dozen+ ears of corn (fructose) needed to sweeten the one soda, rather than the much smaller amount of sugar cane that would have been needed. I think the answer might be found in quantum physics rather than chemistry, and it's something we haven't learned enough to fully understand yet. People who offer up chemistry-based explanations for why HFCS and sugar ought to be identical are 100% correct - within the limits of current scientific knowledge. But the results speak for themselves.

There are plenty of great sugar-sweetened colas available that aren't named "Coke" or "Pepsi". Boylan Cane Cola is my favorite, but Jones Cola and 365 Cola at Whole Foods are also widely available.

[Mase]

I agree with DemforBush, stuff made with corn syrup just doesn’t taste as sweet to me as stuff made with sugar.

DemforBush said that corn syrup doesn't taste the same as sugar (sucrose). It doesn't. Even high fructose corn syrup (not nearly the same product as corn syrup) tastes different than sucrose -- at least it does to me. Although, HFCS is a very close substitute for sugar, which is one of many reasons it gets used.

Maybe the quantity of sweetener being used in a particular product is the reason you're sensing more or less sweetness.

[Freedom Dignity n Honor]

Yep, I figured that out. I can handle high fructose corn syrup. Not regular corn syrup.

[Mase]

Until you subtract the taxpayer subsidies courtesy of the corn lobby

Actually, you can thank domestic sugar producers for the price supports that make sugar prices so much higher here than the world price. End their grip on Congress and you'll find sucrose being used to sweeten beverages again rather than HFCS.

[Freedom Dignity n Honor]

Kind of ironic, isn’t it? The sugar producers pressed for price supports so they’d make more money and what they did was kill their industry.

[patton]

I agree 100%

[patton]

FYI, the gum in toothpaste is corn based.

[Ditter]

I brush my teeth with baking soda, it does a much better job. I use an after bath body power that is made from corn starch but it doesn’t bother my skin.

[patton]

OK, just wanted to make sure you knew.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"You'll be pleased to know then that almost all of the corn protein is removed from HFCS during processing and the trace amount of protein remaining has been broken down so thoroughly that it has little immunological resemblance to the allergens in the original corn."

Wishful thinking, unfortunately.

In my own case, my corn allergy was most dramatically manifested on two occasions when I received an intravenous dextrose drip. Red streaks up my arm, drop in blood pressure, etc. The first occasion was in my allergist's office! He was mystified as to the cause, when we simultaneously flashed on the possibility that the dextrose was corn-derived. He checked, and it was. Another occasion was after surgery some years later and, eight hours after coming out of the OR, there was concern about my inability to regain and retain consciousness as perhaps indicating brain damage. Fortunately when the nurse slapped me briefly awake and asked if there was any reason I could think of why I couldn't remain awake, I mumbled something about maybe some idiot had disregarded the instructions written in big bold Sharpie on my chart: no dextrose IV. The last thing I remember before passing out again was the look of horror on her face as she turned and grabbed the chart, then ran from the room with her arse on fire to get a saline IV. A half hour later I was wide awake.

I know of other examples. A prominent computer engineer's corn allergy manifested itself as painful skin eruptions. Once he'd eliminated corn and its derivatives from his diet, they'd cleared up. And then they returned a few years later, and he and his allergist were at their wit's end trying to figure out where he was getting dosed, or whether something else might be the cause. He was cooking everything from scratch and doing everything right, but the eruptions kept coming. I suggested he check his table salt, and sure enough: dextrose (as a flowing agent). Another quick cure, with the eruptions gone in less than a week.

Those continuous micro-doses can be very dangerous. Another friend's cluster headaches would lay him down for three days at a time in absolute misery; and once again: corn. This came after a year of costly and frightening MRIs and CAT scans and spinal taps, trying to figure out the cause. Then he noticed he'd commenced an episode just as he was drinking a Coke...

There are plenty more examples. Your contention that even USP-grade refined fractioned sugars originally derived from corn contain zero allergenic corn proteins is, unfortunately, false. And dangerous.

[Ditter]

Thanks for your post. You are right on. I know that it doesn’t take much to cause a reaction in some of us. Reactions that even our allergists have trouble understanding and people who have never experienced it have trouble believing.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

Thanks.

I think part of the problem is that those of us of European and Asian extraction have had very little genetic time to adapt to corn as a foodstuff. It’s a New World food, and our bodies don’t know what to do with it. I’d expect to see fewer sensitivities among those with Central American and Native American heritage, because corn (maize) has been a staple for thousands of years for them.

[Mase]

I can't speak to allergic reactions from dextrose. My comments were entirely in reference to HFCS and I've never stated that all corn derived sugars are 100% free of allergenic corn proteins.

I did say that the processing of HFCS removes all but trace amounts of corn protein from the product. The minute quantities that remain have been so broken down and reconfigured that it resembles nothing from the original kernel and won't be causing allergic reactions in those that consume it. Most allergists will go through their entire careers without seeing someone with an allergy to corn. The FDA doesn't even recognize corn as being allergenic. Although I disagree with the FDA here, the best estimates show that only about .020% of the population will have an allergy to corn. That's the good news. Most people mistake allergies with intolerances. 2% of the population will possess legitimate food allergies while about 15% of the general population believes they are allergic to one food or another. That's the bad news.

But you believe what you want. There are people here who truly believe they're allergic to MSG even though there has never been a proven case of an allergic reaction to MSG. When you dig deeper with them about their claim, they will, eventually, change their story to the fact that what they really are is sensitive to it and not allergic. And when you explain to them that they consume 10 times more glutamate from natural sources than they do from added sources they either run away or become indignant. Don't even bother asking them why they don't experience the same sensitivity when consuming tomato juice, grape juice, Parmesan cheese, shrimp, and so on because they don't realize that these foods are loaded with glutamate too. Don't ever tell them that they can't live without glutamate or that their body probably has about 4 lbs. of glutamate in it at any given time.

People like this are easy targets for the charlatans who infest the internet. People will believe just about anything and can always find some alarmist website to support their fears. It's too bad because all it does is empower the food Nazis and more empowerment is the last thing those folks need.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"I can't speak to allergic reactions from dextrose."

Please don't bracket my comments like that. I was referring to the impure and allergenic state of fractioned sugars and other corn derivatives as a class. My examples included one sufferer, the cluster-headache guy, whose trigger happened to be HFCS. You yourself say:

"My comments were entirely in reference to HFCS and I've never stated that all corn derived sugars are 100% free of allergenic corn proteins. I did say that the processing of HFCS removes all but trace amounts of corn protein from the product. The minute quantities that remain have been so broken down and reconfigured that it resembles nothing from the original kernel and won't be causing allergic reactions in those that consume it."

I gather you are not an allergist by profession! Those "trace amounts" of "minute quantities" are quite dangerous to an allergic person. Peanut allergies are a good example of the hazards of such thinking.

"Most allergists will go through their entire careers without seeing someone with an allergy to corn."

An astounding statement. I'd love a citation for that, if only to show to some prominent allergists of my acquaintance.

Checking Google Scholar, which scours research publications only, for ["corn allergy" OR "corn allergen"] results in eight pages of hits: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22corn+allergy%22+OR+%22corn+allergen%22&btnG=Search

Allergy to corn is, today, an active topic of research in allergic immunology. It may not be as familiar to allergists who have let their continuing education slide as, say, ragweed or cat dander, but its seriousness and prevalence is not something to be dismissed out of hand, as you continue:

"The FDA doesn't even recognize corn as being allergenic."

And Global Warming is settled science.

If you expect any of us to say, "Oh well there you go, the government is always right," you're on the wrong forum!

"Although I disagree with the FDA here,"

(Whew. That's a relief.)

"...the best estimates show that only about .020% of the population will have an allergy to corn. That's the good news. Most people mistake allergies with intolerances. 2% of the population will possess legitimate food allergies while about 15% of the general population believes they are allergic to one food or another. That's the bad news."

You're dancing on definitions here. Let's agree that "allergy" has regrettably come to be used broadly, beyond its official definition of IgE-mediated inflammatory response. After all, some unfortunate folks go into apparently allergic anaphylaxis after exposure to some substances, yet a postmortem rules out classical allergy. The patient's still dead. Perhaps the term "allergy" is misused because alternative and more accurate terms, such as "intolerance" or "sensitivity," lack a certain gravitas and don't command respect from folks like you?

"But you believe what you want."

Straw man. Besides, seems to me you're the one adopting an oh-pshaw posture towards the matter. "Belief" isn't my issue. But as a scientist I do object to reactionary fealty to trailing-edge conventional wisdom and herd mentality.

Example: If you go back a few years you'll find that a vast, vast majority of medical scientists found the notion of a bacterial cause to peptic ulcers to be utterly comical and worthy of derision. Bacteria living in the acid environment of the stomach? How silly. Today, of course, helicobacter pylori is a recognized pathogen responsible for ulcers and more, and the Aussies who determined it have a rather fetching award glinting on their mantelpiece. So please, tread carefully when quoting the likes of the FDA as any sort of pinnacle of knowledge.

"There are people here who truly believe they're allergic to MSG even though there has never been a proven case of an allergic reaction to MSG."

Sure, if you hang your hat on the IgE definition and thereby summarily dismiss the patient's complaint. Maybe we need a better term, but meanwhile I don't fault those folks with pounding Chop Suey migraines for using the term "allergy." Let's not be hectoring schoolmarms, Mase.

"When you dig deeper with them about their claim, they will, eventually, change their story to the fact that what they really are is sensitive to it and not allergic."

Spoken like one who has never had an MSG headache. Why the consistent thread of needling judgmentalism, Mase? Some folks get headaches from consuming MSG, and you have a problem with that. Here you go:

"And when you explain to them that they consume 10 times more glutamate from natural sources than they do from added sources they either run away or become indignant."

See, you're giving me a headache now. But maybe I shouldn't mention that, or you'd go into lecture mode about how I'd get 10 times more hectoring schoolmarmishness from natural sources...

"Don't even bother asking them why they don't experience the same sensitivity when consuming tomato juice, grape juice, Parmesan cheese, shrimp, and so on because they don't realize that these foods are loaded with glutamate too. Don't ever tell them that they can't live without glutamate or that their body probably has about 4 lbs. of glutamate in it at any given time."

Look. I agree that "MSG allergy" is technically an inexact and incorrect term. But I have no problem respecting the physiological response some people experience from MSG. There are, after all, many possible answers to the questions you pose. Grape juice isn't stir-fried; Parmesan is rarely mixed with bean sprouts; perhaps there is a combinatorial effect going on, or one related to preparation. It would be an interesting subject to explore, but the unfortunate residents of Planet Mase will never know, because their throbbing temples are clearly not worthy of further inquiry. Dismissed.

"People like this are easy targets for the charlatans who infest the internet."

Maybe because their medical professionals don't take their complaints seriously, hm?

"People will believe just about anything and can always find some alarmist website to support their fears."

Mind that judgmentalism, Mase. It's unattractive.

Not everyone with an MSG headache is an imaginative hypochondriac. Not everyone presenting with eosinophilic esophagitis "just eats too much spicy food" or "has too much stress" or otherwise brings it on themselves. Fortunately, not every doctor idles along making pat diagnoses from the "hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras" school of lazy medicine.

"It's too bad because all it does is empower the food Nazis and more empowerment is the last thing those folks need.

I'd be interested in what you think is the first thing "those folks" (there goes that whiff of judgmental superiority again) need.

Because what you're engaging in, to my eye, is regrettably collectivist thinking. Just as those you criticize commit the rhetorical crime of referring to non-IgE-mediated physiological responses as "allergy," you seem to be lumping quite a few examples of very real, very debilitating and very avoidable conditions into a holding pen called "those folks." You're clearly a smart guy, but I'm here to tell you that it's tiresome and counterproductive.

[nina0113]

I always get a kick out of "soybean and/or cottonseed oil". You would think they know what they put in it one way or the other.

I always figured that meant they didn't clean the processing equipment in between types of oil processed, so you'd get some of both.

[aruanan]

I always get a kick out of "soybean and/or cottonseed oil". You would think they know what they put in it one way or the other.

I always figured that meant they didn't clean the processing equipment in between types of oil processed, so you'd get some of both.

It means that either oil is suitable for the product and, depending on price or availability, both or either may be used. The reason they have to say that is because they are required to list the ingredients and because it's too expensive to reprint the labels as the oils and their amounts change.