7 ms·
Why high fructose corn syrup replaced sugar in US
- wcunning 13y agoLiveJournal is still a website? Since when...?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- eatitraw 13y agoIn Russia, LiveJournal is popular and serious blog platform.
- baddox 13y agoSee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_failure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_failure.
- nickff 13y agoThe government-backed sugar cartel in the US simply drove up the cost of (cane and beet) sugar, resulting in a comparative cost advantage for HFCS. I am surprised at how many people think HFCS is a corporate conspiracy, and are wholly ignorant of the government's role in the matter. Here's a similar article with an interesting graph: http://mjperry.blogspot.ca/2011/01/big-sugar-cartel-cost-consumers-45b.html http://mjperry.blogspot.ca/2011/01/big-sugar-cartel-cost-con...
- ericcumbee 13y agosame as Corn Ethanol- the Iowa Caucus
- Florin_Andrei 13y agoFuel made from food is a terrible idea, in more ways than one.
- ericcumbee 13y agoEspecially when it can be made from things like Switchgrass or from industrial byproducts like saw dust and wood chips.
- Florin_Andrei 13y agoA field covered with solar panels produces orders of magnitude more energy than same field covered with any kind of plants. Saw dust and wood chips are not food (unless you're a mushroom).
- ericcumbee 13y agoI am well aware of that...why make ethanol from corn, or sugar , when you can use switch grass, which is cheaper, requires less energy to grow, is more resistant to adverse weather than your other cash crops. Or when you can take a byproduct of an existing industry such as from saw mills or cotton gins. Sugar Cane and Corn is very expensive compared to these options.
- btilly 13y agoIt is worth noting that here, as is typical in politics, a focused interest (sugar growers) beats a diffuse interest (the general public). We would all benefit from ending this ridiculous practice. But we would individually benefit very little, and it isn't worth much from us to do so. But it gets worse. Because there is a second layer of beneficiaries here. Corn growers. And they have great political power, as is seen in the subsidies they get and the ethanol additives that are legally require (which damage engines, and are a net negative on energy once you consider the costs of growing that corn). Not the least among the advantages that corn growers have politically is the simple fact that they are important in Iowa. Which means that any national politician who dreams of being President, or of working with any other that has that dream, has very direct incentives to keep corn growers happy.
- rhizome 13y agoThen I'd think it's not a coincidence that Iowa is designated as a swing state, since both parties have to play into this scheme.
- patmcguire 13y agoIt's mainly that it's always the first primary election and the presidential primaries are very much momentum-based. If you crash and burn in the Iowa caucus you're basically done.
- saraid216 13y agoI wonder. Why is it first? Should we randomize the order?
- ycombobreaker 13y ago> Why is it first? Because it starts with an 'I'.
- tptacek 13y agoIowa isn't "designated" a swing state; it emerges as one every election season because of its particular mix of urban and rural counties and its proximity to Chicago and Minneapolis, both Democratic bastions, and its large number of reliably conservative rural voters.
- pdknsk 13y agoThere is an interesting conspiracy theory suggesting that New Coke was released to mask the switch of sugar to HFCS in the then re-introduced Coke Classic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke#Conspiracy_theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke#Conspiracy_theories
- T-hawk 13y agoA theory that has been roundly debunked. Coca-Cola already had HFCS five years earlier, since 1980. Here's Snopes on the topic: http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp And the whole category of Cokelore: http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cokelore.asp http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cokelore.asp
- rayiner 13y agoThe page linked in the article is worth a couple of chuckles: "The US sugar industry is almost as important to our economic vitality as is a steady supply of affordable energy. Subjecting sugar to the unpredictable forces of global laissez faire capitalism would likely lead to 'dumping' by countries whose own sugar industries are much more protected than is ours." In a sense, this quote isn't wrong. That's exactly what the sugar producing countries would do. The U.S. almost certainly does not have a competitive advantage in sugar production, and if the industry were deregulated domestic sugar production would end, and we'd become sugar importers. And that would be okay, because sugar isn't the strategically important commodity it once was. But the same reasoning applies to steel and arms manufacturing too. The difference is, it wouldn't be okay if all our domestic steel production went overseas.
- bitops 13y ago> The difference is, it wouldn't be okay if all our domestic steel production went overseas. I think I know the rationale behind this statement, but I'm always curious as to why we hold on to these beliefs. If we let industries move around based on true competitiveness, stripped of subsidies and other anticompetitive practices, we might find that to be a force for good. That said, I've come to believe that this is most likely a minority view. Everyone believes in free markets until it starts affecting their bottom line.
- Guvante 13y agoThink about it like this, lets say we let people make Steel wherever they want and everyone starts making it in China, causing the local production to grind to a halt due to being unable to compete. Now a year later, China decides it doesn't want to export to us anymore and bans exports of Steel to the US, now we are screwed for at least 6 months, since we don't have the ability to create the product anymore. The difference with sugar is we do have an alternative available (corn syrup) so the loss wouldn't be as big.
- ztoy 13y agoThere are three good solutions: 1. Maintain a 6 months (or whatever time is necessary to restart production) stockpile 2. Have a highly credible policy that, if any foreign country actively opposes free trade of anything important, an ICBM loaded with a nuclear warhead is launched on their main government building or biggest city 3. Change things so that there is no advantage to producing abroad, if possible (e.g. allow unlimited immigration, remove taxation, remove minimum wages, remove regulations, etc.)
- xSwag 13y agoI read researched this a few days ago. You have to consider the taste, it tastes nicer because fructose has only 5 carbon in it's ring instead of 6 which leads to more pleasurable experience as it makes it fit better into the sweetness sensing in the mouth[1] With Corn Syrup you get both glucose and fructose together whereas with sugar you just get sucrose. Another reason would be that more corn is grown in the US than sugar cane which makes it more efficient to produce corn syrup instead. [1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23537367 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23537367
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- vetinari 13y agoFYI, sucrose aka saccharose is 50% glucose and 50% fructose ;)
- xSwag 13y agoI stand corrected! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose#Metabolism_of_sucrose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose#Metabolism_of_sucrose
- pohl 13y agoIt hasn't broken down yet at the taste receptors. That happens in the duodenum, doesn't it?
- vetinari 13y agoYes, but it does not really matter. It tastes differently than HFCS, but not that differently and both are sweet :) In practice, nobody is bothered by very slightly different taste. Coca Cola uses different sweeteners (including artificial ones) in different parts of world and mostly nobody notices.
- kunai 13y agoIt "tastes" like synthetic crap. Before I was put on dietary restrictions I made my own ginger ale, because the stuff that was sweetened with HFCS tasted acidic and far, far too sweet. More sweetness doesn't always taste well.
- grecy 13y agoIn the documentary King Corn [1] they suggest that HFCS is ubiquitous because of the government subsidies for growing corn. The surplus of corn was so large, they started looking for creative ways to use it all up. HFCS was one of those, as-is feeding it to livestock (which traditionally don't eat corn). The subsidies are such that a cattle farmer can actually make a profit buy growing corn, selling it (with subsidies), then buying corn back to feed their own livestock. [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1112115/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1112115/
- Guvante 13y ago> The subsidies are such that a cattle farmer can actually make a profit buy growing corn, selling it (with subsidies), then buying corn back to feed their own livestock. I fail to see how this is enlightening, of course growing corn creates a profit. If you are excluding the base profit of the corn, why wouldn't a subsidized market create additional profit?
- grecy 13y agoTo be able to grow, sell, buy, use and still come out ahead, you must be able to sell the corn for more than you can buy it for, which is nonsensical.
- Guvante 13y agoThat is the way subsidizing works, you get more than just the purchase price. You could subsidize production, but it is easier and has other benefits to subsidize sale.
- tptacek 13y agoThis debate has come up on HN repeatedly; it is again worth pointing out that HFCS is "HF" relative to "CS", not to table sugar. Table sugar is ~50% fructose, HFCS 55%. The point isn't that HFCS is good for you --- it isn't --- but that a flight to "natural" sugars isn't a good response. The problem is hyperpalatable foods and (even moreso) liquid calories, not which sugar is being used. HFCS alarmism probably works to the advantage of junk food companies, who can simply market equally unhealthful products built on table sugar as a premium alternative.
- rhizome 13y agoHFCS alarmism probably works to the advantage of junk food companies, who can simply market equally unhealthful products built on table sugar as a premium alternative. That's fine, let them try. It would equalize the market among these players and those who are already not using HFCS.
- tptacek 13y ago... resulting in no net gain for consumers, who would still be prey for the multibillion dollar junk food industry.
- rhizome 13y agoThat's a separate problem.
- qb45 13y agoThe customers would benefit by spending less money on their unhealthy junk food. And on their healthy, reasonably-sugared food as well.
- tptacek 13y agoOr, the customers would suffer by purchasing more unhealthy junk food, which is what economics suggests will happen when you reduce the cost of something, especially when its demand is spurred by physical dependence.
- fein 13y agoHFCS is almost in the same place as sugar if we look at it in terms of regulation. Both are victims of price fixing through government subsidies. It doesn't matter if you don't contribute to the purchase of the product, as your tax dollars already fund its creation.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- codereflection 13y agoRelevant: The Rise of Mexican Coca-Cola http://kalinnacheff.com/2012/03/01/the-rise-of-mexican-coca-cola-and-why-it-tastes-better/ http://kalinnacheff.com/2012/03/01/the-rise-of-mexican-coca-... An interesting point in the article: "Coke suppressed demand for cane sugar formula because it would cost more to produce and consumers would not pay the extra cost."
- yoster 13y agoI live in a state where Coke with sugar is widely available. The taste between that and HFCS is like night and day. Too bad the rest of the states do not have that choice.
- triplesec 13y agoI used to like Coke in the UK but then I think they switched. Night and day indeed. Great news for my health, though!
- jimzvz 13y agoI am not sure what they were using in the UK in the mid 2000s but it was way too sweet for me. Same with chocolate over there.
- smsm42 13y agoI find Coke with sugar tasting better but I almost never drink it anyway since both are drinks that are very bad for my health. Not theoretical statement - I have stopped drinking sugary sodas when my blood analysis showed bad signs, and now I drink water and unsweetened tea and occasional juice. And, frankly speaking, I don't miss it too much - now that I'm out of the addictive habit, both sugar and HFCS one taste not that good to me.
- jmspring 13y agoThe article says nothing about corn subsidies which affect both HFCS and ethanol.
- defen 13y agoThe linked page on sugars.com is hilarious. "sugar is an indispensable part of everyday life." "The US sugar industry is almost as important to our economic vitality as is a steady supply of affordable energy. " They could at least come up with some reasons that don't insult our intelligence.
- stfu 13y agoWhat do you guys think of Stevia[1]? Has been recently approved in the EU for use as an all natural sweetener and I see products popping up here and there pretending to be based on it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia
- X-Istence 13y agoI have eaten stuff with Stevia, not sure what it is about it though, but it causes my muscles to ache. I can be completely fine, eat something sweetened with Stevia and about an hour or two later my muscles will start aching. It is worst in my shoulders :-(.
- jwn 13y agoI've used Stevia a few times, but am not a fan. While it's definitely sweet, it's a very different sweet compared to sugar. When drinking something (like coffee) with Stevia, I notice that it's sweet on a different part of my tongue, and it's a latent sweet - initially the drink tastes completely unsweetened until it reaches the back of my mouth. This is just my experience, maybe I'm weird.
- triplesec 13y agoEven though too much refined sugar is bad for you (there was very little tooth decay before 1850), I don't like ingesting HFCS because it makes things taste horrible. It doesn't taste the same as sucrose, which has much better flavour. OTOH the more things have HFCS the fewer sugary products I eat, which is good for my health. Wouldn't work if everybody did that, of course.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- aaron695 13y ago>Once in a while I come across an animated debate on health benefits of sugar vs. high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). It is enzymatically produced mixture of glucose and fructose that approximately matches the chemical composition of sucrose, aka sugar. It is not this debate that is my concern; Why are people discussing what the article specifically says it is not about?
- gcb0 13y agoThe only thing i can't grasp... If sugar is such a certain deal, why there is even one person investing in a HFCS factory instead of yet another sugar came farm?
- pasbesoin 13y agoI skimmed the article, but I did not see mention of the U.S.'s petro-chemical-based agriculture. Without the outsized contributions that petro-chemicals make to the production process of corn and corn syrup (engine fuel, fertilizer, distillation, etc.), corn syrup and HFCS production would be much more directly (as opposed to externalized costs) expensive. I guess we should also toss soil erosion into the mix. Productive topsoil is a finite resource, and modern agriculture -- while it has improved somewhat, recently -- is expensive in this regard.