Replies

My google alert for HFCS picked up your article.
Thank you for this informative article. I am so tired of reading articles that claim that HFCS=sugar just because the AMA says that they both contribute to obesity, and “once absorbed in to the bloodstream” are the same. (ADA). I firmly believe that the introduction of HFCS into our food supply has been a major contributor to our current health woes.
Now some specifics. The unknown “blip” that Dr. Hyman referred to in the GLC analysis of HFCS may be mold.
In my cybertravels I had come across a woman who is so allergic to corn that she cannot even walk by it in a supermarket. Not only can she not eat corn, drink HFCS-sweetened beverages, or eat any corn derived additive, she cannot take prescriptive medicine that uses cornstarch filler. The only substance that could ignite a rxn like that would be mold. If you go to ADM’s or Cargills product sheets you will see that there is mold (mycotoxin) contaminant present. It’s reported as “less than -—” but that just means they couldn’t remove it completely. Incidentally the woman I am referring to can drink Mexican
Coke made with real sugar. So much for the purity of HFCS.
Also, if you go back to the original literature about HFCS, you will note that HFCS-42 was given a sweetness rating of
100 = sucrose. In those early days, millions of dollars had been spent on outfitting their factories to enzymatically convert glucose to fructose. It was essesntial, therefore, to find the lowest fructose% that mimicked sugar. However, according to one retired corn refiner, HFCS-42 gummed up the works and it took too much energy to pump the stuff out. So the production engineers came up with a brilliant idea....add more fructose. Fructose is the more moisture retaining of the two simple sugars, glucose and fructose, and boosting the %fructose to HFCS-55 solved their problem. So they added 55/42 = 30% more fructose to keep their pipes running smoothly. Little did they know that variant HFCS-55 would start clogging our livers and arteries. Now the CRA claims that HFCS-55 has a rating of 100 = sucrose. That is patently deceptive.
The CRA has by design perverted the ratio of fructose: glucose in HFCS. ADM makes Cornsweet90, which is
HFCS-90. This extremely sweet industrial sweetener is used for low-cal, low fat foods. Why? Because the food manufacturer can impart the same sweetness with half the calories. Sounds like a caloric bargain until you realize that your liver is receiving a bolus of fructose it doesn’t need. Btw: ADM has removed the product sheet on Cornsweet90 ever since I starting spreading this info.

Cynthia Papierniak, M.S.

If you go to ADM’s or Cargills product sheets you will see that there is mold (mycotoxin) contaminant present. It’s reported as “less than -—” but that just means they couldn’t remove it completely.

What utter nonsense. "Less than" on a product spec sheet means that the entity being tested for was not detectable by the test method employed. It doesn't mean that the entity being tested for was ever there in the first place, or not for that matter, simply that it was undetectable.

There will be a spec for heavy metals for example. The spec will be "less than X ppm". That doesn't mean that the material contains heavy metals at X-1 ppm. It means that the limit of detection is X ppm and the test result came back negative.

Your fanciful description of the development of HFCS is equally twisted but not worth a response.