Time magazine has noticed those ads for high-fructose corn syrup I wrote about earlier and wondered if the ads, touting it as perfectly natural, are right or whether widespread public perception and arguments against it are correct. It concludes the answer is somewhere in between.
HFCS does not exist in nature. Time quotes Michael Jacobson, head of the Center for Science in the Public Interest: “High-fructose corn syrup starts out as cornstarch, which is chemically or enzymatically degraded to glucose and some short polymers of glucose. Another enzyme is then used to convert varying fractions of glucose into fructose.” But he’s not sure it’s especially unhealthy.
It also cites the two scientists who put forth the theory that the way fructose is metabolized could be uniquely fattening. “But the authors say they were just putting forth a theory. It was meant to inspire further study, not be a definitive declaration.”
In short, their assessment boils down to a key word many of us use and which is in the ads: moderation. Still, not everyone is convinced, with one consumer telling Time he still prefers natural ingredients.
And so do I. One of my grandmothers was diabetic and unless or until we move beyond theory to verdict, I’m quite happy to continue avoiding HFCS and using sugar in moderation. With HFCS lurking in so many products, “in moderation” can be difficult to achieve and, so far, has no definition. So it shall remain my own bridge to nowhere. Thanks, but no thanks.
The Time article is here and my earlier post, with one of the commercials, is here. Time says the ads are part of an 18-month campaign, so we can expect more of the same, and probably not in moderation.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Not convinced. And agree with your comment that it is hidden in too many places to really know definitively about “moderation.”
Kinda like waiting for the Fed to declare there is a recession; most people with a wit of sense know it to be so, but we gotta wait until when for the government to declare it so? For some of us, the verdict is in.
A quick google of HFCS (not abbreviated) is pretty compelling, yet many refuse to open their eyes and ears. Another analogy: global warming. Some of us were squaking in 2000 it should be the only real issue on the table. A very small minority. But how long to wait for the verdict to be in?
It’s like those who see no benefit to organic gardening, when there is plenty of evidence to support the higher nutrient content of organic food, as well as the long term health of our agricultural systems.
In the words of Colonel Potter, “horse hockey.”
Thanks for the report! Glad to see that Time is still thoroughly vested in its own reality. And will keep my eyes open for the immoderate corporate marketers leading their horses along.
Word Bandit’s last blog post..Sarah Palin and The Great Divide, Pt. 2
Well said, as always. Your examples are apt; so often we see only what we wish to see.
Another concern of mine is the example of the egg: it’s bad for us, it’s okay, it’s bad, hey it’s great! Sheesh. Now that I have HFCS out of my life almost entirely, I’m not about to change, only to find out in a year or two that it really is as bad as we think it is. And most products that use it (that I’m aware of) are so over-processed there’s no place for them in my life, regardless.
I loved Colonel Potter!