Which part of the word "natural" could ever possibly apply to HFCS?
Adriana - 14 years ago
And if you want to eat it now you know .... you're on your own! Scientists have recently discovered that the pancreas treats fructose differently from other sugars and it effectively acts as a fertilizer on cancer tumors.
Tony - 14 years ago
The fact that HFCS is banned in Europe should be the first warning that this product is not good. HFCS is not natural it is (like the article stated) genetically modified. There are hundreds if not thousands of studies and reports that show the adverse affects of HFCS. When you say a "common ingredient" you a little off, it's in everything!!! If you shop at Walmart like me (yeah I know a whole other debate) then try and find stuff without HFCS, its a daunting task. I know it's a cheap alternative to sugar but it is definitely not better.
Alex - 14 years ago
Corn Kills! Almost all of this 'modified' stuff is an animal feed - and the animals (chicken, cattle, etc.) are food for us! Too bad.
Bill - 14 years ago
Why are we paying these huge subsidies to grow corn we don't need that is artificially and chemically processed into a sweetener that makes us fat? This is one of the stupidest things going. We should cut the subsidies to 0 and tax the hell out of them, not further encourage this nonsense!
Fact checker - 14 years ago
The "cheap" HFCS is subsidized to the tune of 25 cents/lb if you consider all of the corn subsidies to go into the 16 BILLION pounds produced annually. Considering that the RETAIL price of sugar in the U.S. is around 44 cents/lb, even a 2-cent subsidy is large, so all of this cheap corn-derived sugar is really made cheap only because your tax dollars are being squandered to produce more corn than anyone needs or wants and to support farmers to produce the corn because it costs more to grow than it can be sold for. A Faustian bargain, indeed.
Heather - 14 years ago
No, it's not more fattening. It is a processed food, so people who prefer organic or natural foods oppose HFCS because it is technically foreign to our bodies. However, it is relatively equal to sugar in terms of calories. Some recent scientific studies suggest that HFCS may cause more weight gain in rats compared to sugar, but these studies are by no means conclusive.
Beelzebub - 14 years ago
HFCS and sugar both contain no fat, so why are you asking, Ron Schmidt?
Victor Lazlo - 14 years ago
Do we really need to read "fermentation process" and "milling process"? What's wrong with fermentation and milling? Additionally, it is not "a process called liquid chromatography it IS liquid chromatography! Bad English ruining an interesting article.
Ron Schmidt - 14 years ago
Good article, but it did not answer the question--is HFCS more fattening than cane sugar? So, is it?
Which part of the word "natural" could ever possibly apply to HFCS?
And if you want to eat it now you know .... you're on your own! Scientists have recently discovered that the pancreas treats fructose differently from other sugars and it effectively acts as a fertilizer on cancer tumors.
The fact that HFCS is banned in Europe should be the first warning that this product is not good. HFCS is not natural it is (like the article stated) genetically modified. There are hundreds if not thousands of studies and reports that show the adverse affects of HFCS. When you say a "common ingredient" you a little off, it's in everything!!! If you shop at Walmart like me (yeah I know a whole other debate) then try and find stuff without HFCS, its a daunting task. I know it's a cheap alternative to sugar but it is definitely not better.
Corn Kills! Almost all of this 'modified' stuff is an animal feed - and the animals (chicken, cattle, etc.) are food for us! Too bad.
Why are we paying these huge subsidies to grow corn we don't need that is artificially and chemically processed into a sweetener that makes us fat? This is one of the stupidest things going. We should cut the subsidies to 0 and tax the hell out of them, not further encourage this nonsense!
The "cheap" HFCS is subsidized to the tune of 25 cents/lb if you consider all of the corn subsidies to go into the 16 BILLION pounds produced annually. Considering that the RETAIL price of sugar in the U.S. is around 44 cents/lb, even a 2-cent subsidy is large, so all of this cheap corn-derived sugar is really made cheap only because your tax dollars are being squandered to produce more corn than anyone needs or wants and to support farmers to produce the corn because it costs more to grow than it can be sold for. A Faustian bargain, indeed.
No, it's not more fattening. It is a processed food, so people who prefer organic or natural foods oppose HFCS because it is technically foreign to our bodies. However, it is relatively equal to sugar in terms of calories. Some recent scientific studies suggest that HFCS may cause more weight gain in rats compared to sugar, but these studies are by no means conclusive.
HFCS and sugar both contain no fat, so why are you asking, Ron Schmidt?
Do we really need to read "fermentation process" and "milling process"? What's wrong with fermentation and milling? Additionally, it is not "a process called liquid chromatography it IS liquid chromatography! Bad English ruining an interesting article.
Good article, but it did not answer the question--is HFCS more fattening than cane sugar? So, is it?