September 9, 2008
High Fructose Corn Syrup Meets Rodney Dangerfield
Having apparently concluded that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has gotten a bad rap, the Corn Refiners Association has initiated a multi-media campaign to soothe a nervous nation. According to the association, HFCS is "nutritionally the same as table sugar with the same number of calories."
Wow. The same nutritional value as processed granulated sugar. That's a relief.
Health Care Posted by Boulder Refugee at September 9, 2008 10:58 AM
It's unpatriotic to eat any corn products. Corn is for fuel!
Posted by: jk at September 9, 2008 11:28 AMPersonally, jk, I prefer my corn to be fed to cows, which I then eat.
This union, like any other, is just a bunch of goddamn morons. Nutritional value. In other words, both will make you equally fat, so it again is a matter of *flavor* and nothing else.
Now, any freshman chemistry student could easily demonstrate why their claims are typical bull**** from state-worshipping rent-seekers.
"HFCS, table sugar, honey, and several fruit juices all contain the same simple sugars."
Chemically, sucrose is more complex, needing sucrase to be digested. A sucrose molecule is the joining of one glucose molecule with one fructose molecule. Cut off a hydrogen atom from the glucose molecule, cut off an oxygen-hydrogen arm from the sucrose molecule, and the former will have an oxygen atom ready to bond with a carbon atom of the latter.
"HFCS is safe and no different from other common sweeteners like table sugar and honey."
Um, who ever asserted it's NOT safe?
"HFCS has the same number of calories as table sugar."
Wrong. There's *roughly* the same energy contained in each, but not "the same":
Let's compare C12H22O11 with two molecules of C6H12O6. Glucose and fructose are isomers, meaning they have the same molecular formula. Compared to two molecules of fructose, a molecule of sucrose has one fewer C-O bond (85.5 kilocalories per mole) and two fewer O-H bonds (111 kilocalories per mole per bond). That comes out to 307.5 fewer kilocalories (what we call a "calorie") per 6.022x10^23 molecules of sucrose, which is approximately 0.755 pounds.
Well, 300 calories per 3/4ths pound of sugar is hardly significant, especially considering a banana or piece of chocolate alone can be ~100 calories. But it's scientifically dishonest to claim "the same" when the numbers prove otherwise.
Oh, and I didn't even have to come up with an entire press kit to bore anybody.
"HFCS is equal in sweetness to table sugar."
And strychnine is as deadly as arsenic. So what?
Actually, most Americans might believe that fructose and sucrose are equally sweet, but it's more accurate to say they're only *similarly* sweet. I invite anyone to a blind taste test of Pepsi, Coca Cola, what have you, sweetened with cane sugar versus U.S. corn sugar. It's like eating rump roast all your life and then trying filet mignon for the first time.
There's just no comparison. When I'm in the Philippines, I can't get enough Royal. Then I come home and lament the pathetic flavor of any American orange soda.
"HFCS keeps foods fresh. It enhances fruit and spice flavors. "It retains moisture in bran cereals and helps keep breakfast bars moist."
So what? The state-worshipping rent-seekers say this like it's a unique property.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 10, 2008 3:12 PMAs the governor in "Blazing Saddles," played by Mel Brooks, said, "Men, we've got to do something to protect our phony-balony jobs!" In this case, it might be phony-balony subsidies, but no subsidies - no jobs in the refiners association.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at September 10, 2008 9:36 PM | What do you think? [3]