AOL News has a new home! The Huffington Post.

Click here to visit the new home of AOL News!

Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories
Health

New Studies Fan Flames of Corn Syrup Debate

Mar 25, 2010 – 9:45 AM
Text Size
Dave Thier

Dave Thier Contributor

(March 25) -- Anyone who's watched television this year has likely seen well-meaning but clueless high-fructose corn syrup opponents stymied when their down-to-earth friend challenges them about why they're so opposed to a natural, harmless product.

The TV ads are part of a campaign by the Corn Refiners Association to improve the faltering image of one of America's favorite sweeteners against claims that it is chemically different from table sugar and linked to rising obesity rates. A new study from Princeton that links high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) to obesity may give the silent partner a few talking points.

The researchers found that rats fed HFCS were far more likely to gain weight and exhibit signs of obesity, even when their overall caloric intake was the same as the rats consuming table sugar.
Corn in a bin
Getty Images
The corn industry is fighting to improve the image of corn syrup in the face of studies that link the product to health problems.

High-fructose corn syrup, like table sugar, is composed of both sucrose and fructose, but with typically about 5 percent more fructose. One difference that researchers believe may be important, however, is that the fructose in HFCS is chemically unbonded and more freely available to the body.

The Princeton study came just days after a Duke University study published in the Journal of Hepatology linked fructose consumption to liver scarring.

The Corn Refiners Association was quick to publish responses to both studies. In its article "Gross Errors in Princeton Study on Animal Obesity and High Fructose Corn Syrup," the organization argues that the researchers fed the rats unreasonably high levels of HFCS equivalent to about 20 cans of soda a day. The researchers, however, fed the rats the same amount of table sugar with different results.

They also accused the Princeton researchers of failing to provide the sort of sucrose controls in either their short- or long-term studies that would allow them to accurately draw their conclusions. They accused the Duke researchers of failing to accurately account for dietary sources of fructose beside beverages, such as fruits and vegetables.

Reports on HFCS seem to tip back and forth between chastising or validating the sweetener. But more dangerous than any chemical peculiarities of HFCS could be its ubiquity in the American diet. HFCS also tends to improve the texture of foods, increase shelf life, aid browning in baked goods and prevent crystal formation in frozen foods. Because of its myriad uses, it has found its way across a broad spectrum of American processed foods.

Some health professionals believe that the real problem is over-consumption of sweeteners of any kind. "The argument about which is better for you, sucrose or HFCS, is garbage. Both are equally bad for your health." Dr. Robert H. Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, told The New York Times in March 2009.
Filed under: Nation, Money, Health
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.


2011 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.