The glycemic value of carbs is how quickly they are available as glucose. The quickness of availability is determined in the gut during digestion. Sucrose is metablozied so quickly that it has essentially the same GI as the free sugar in HFCS (55~60). No one eats pure fructose so it is always going to be mixed with other things. Those things, along with water, will always be there so your fear of pure HCL reacting with fructose to create 5-HMF, in amounts that could "potentially" cause cancer, is irrational. Earlier you said all simple sugars react with HCL to do this. Is this still your position? Since sucrose is a simple sugar, are you indicting it as well?
How can you possibly go through life not eating naturally occurring simple sugars? You can't, and to suggest that you can, or should, is just plain ignorant.
Calling HFCS what it is—an unnatural industrial product—is not the same as saying “fruits, vegetables, herbs and legumes are not natural”, so that’s reaching.
BS. Here's what you said: Very few real (natural, unprocessed) foods have high amounts of simple sugars occurring naturally, so how are they “unavoidable. You can try and tap dance around this all you want, but it is a indefensible statement. Yet here you are...
HFCS is glucose, fructose, and a few higher sugars. Your body treats them the same as they do glucose and fructose from any other (natural included) source. Your fear of HFCS is irrational.
You also said; HFCS imparts well over ten times the normal amount of free simple sugars to anything it’s added to. This is another indefensible statement.
the average ambient atmospheric concentration of benzene is about 0.7 parts per billion. That’s in spite of our chemical industry, tobacco consumption and automobiles—mainly because of rapid atmospheric degradation. The vast majority of us will be in our graves long before we can inhale a tiny fraction of the LD50 of that chemical.
Excellent. You don't fear benzene in our air or water in trace amounts, nor should you. It's unfortunate you don't apply the same thought process to the possibility that HCL reacting with sugar in the gut might create trace amounts of carcinogens like 5-HMF.
Government intervention that caused industry to develop an alternative to sucrose is a far different stance than saying agriculture and food processors working together is the communist manifesto in action. Those are the kinds of remarks someone would make who knows nothing about the industry, or economic in general. Why is it those who know the least about something are always the first to criticize it or make grand pronouncements based on junk science?
I’m still waiting for you to come up with something coherent.
The glycemic index is an inexact number. It cannot predict when glucose shows up in the bloodstream as food.
I did not say that nobody eats naturally-occurring simple sugars. But unnaturally-produced ones in an acidic medium are not the same thing, versus naturally-occurring simple sugars in an alkaline medium. Nor did I claim that HFCS instantly causes acutely-toxic amounts of 5-HMF in any part of the body. Please stop reading stuff into what I said that is not there, and please stop removing what I said from context—even you yourself acknowledge that the only substance that can match HFCS for simple sugar content in terms of just quantity (versus overall substance) is honey.
BTW, “HCL” (with “L” capitalized) would refer to a hydrogen-carbon compound with unknown element “L”. (The closest element would be lithium, but that has historically been labeled “Li”.) Not trying to be a smart-arse. Chlorine’s symbol is “Cl” (capital C and lowercase l) only.
When did I express a “fear” of the dehydration of fructose or glucose into 5-HMF? You have a bad habit of putting words in people’s mouths. “Potential carcinogen” means just that. OTOH, benzene is an established carcinogen.
BTW, thanks for confessing that it was crony industry that is responsible for HFCS. Just like the Communist Manifesto stated. This problem goes back to the 20s, so it is quite long-standing. I do deplore the government’s protectionist racket with respect to sucrose, at the same time.