RAW STORY IS: The Raw Story - carbon balanced with TerraPass

Corn byproduct fructose literally fuels cancer cell growth, study finds

By Reuters
Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010 -- 10:40 pm

corn bush Corn byproduct fructose literally fuels cancer cell growth, study findsPancreatic tumor cells use fructose to divide and proliferate, U.S. researchers said on Monday in a study that challenges the common wisdom that all sugars are the same.

Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways, the team at the University of California Los Angeles found.

They said their finding, published in the journal Cancer Research, may help explain other studies that have linked fructose intake with pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest cancer types.

"These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation," Dr. Anthony Heaney of UCLA's Jonsson Cancer Center and colleagues wrote.

"They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth."

Story continues below...

Americans take in large amounts of fructose, mainly in high fructose corn syrup, a mix of fructose and glucose that is used in soft drinks, bread and a range of other foods.

Politicians, regulators, health experts and the industry have debated whether high fructose corn syrup and other ingredients have been helping make Americans fatter and less healthy.

Too much sugar of any kind not only adds pounds, but is also a key culprit in diabetes, heart disease and stroke, according to the American Heart Association.

Several states, including New York and California, have weighed a tax on sweetened soft drinks to defray the cost of treating obesity-related diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer.

The American Beverage Association, whose members include Coca-Cola and Kraft Foods have strongly, and successfully, opposed efforts to tax soda.

The industry has also argued that sugar is sugar.

Heaney said his team found otherwise. They grew pancreatic cancer cells in lab dishes and fed them both glucose and fructose.

Tumor cells thrive on sugar but they used the fructose to proliferate. "Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different," Heaney's team wrote.

"I think this paper has a lot of public health implications. Hopefully, at the federal level there will be some effort to step back on the amount of high fructose corn syrup in our diets," Heaney said in a statement.

Now the team hopes to develop a drug that might stop tumor cells from making use of fructose.

U.S. consumption of high fructose corn syrup went up 1,000 percent between 1970 and 1990, researchers reported in 2004 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

(Reporting by Maggie Fox; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Mochila insert follows...

  • this is very nearly junk science ...

    please see : http://blogs.alternet.org/aionessence/2010/08/0...

    one particular secondary pathway to cell proliferation can POSSIBLY use fructose as an inducer (in the absence of glucose) ... this is a maybe - if situation ...
    compare that to the fact that almost all cancers use GLUCOSE as their primary fuel ...

    table sugar or sucrose technically contains as much fructose (& glucose) as 'high fructose corn syrup' ...

    honey contains significantly more fructose ... as do MANY fruits ...

    but as usual, a bit of hysteria in the marketplace will hasten greater control of the food chain ...

    absolutely appalling ... and shameful
  • It's true organic is better. Unfortunately many people think that organic foods are for tree-hugging hippies rather than people who are proactive in their well being. It would be much more cost effective and healthy if our country subsidized organic food production. Why is American society so engrossed with many things fake: breasts, tans, food. Who needs it! Priorities need to change from immediate profit to the physical well-being of our countries citizens. There have been multiple studies done about aggression and artificial food intake. The link has been shown yet people still wonder why we are an increasingly violent society. It is not the whole picture but certainly a viable piece of the puzzle that needs to be considered more seriously.
  • HERE'S A PIECE I DID ON HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP
    http://www.petersantillitv.com/?p=56
  • Just watch the movie "Food Inc." and you'll get what many researchers and none mainstream doctors have been saying for decades. If it's not naturally occuring then it isn't good for you.

    If our polititians, corporate CEO's, corporate board members, and physicians really gave a crap about our society and their fellow man they would do the right thing and turn the ship 180 degrees, making all synthetics illegal and focus on infastructure/policy changes to make organic farming more mainstream and cost effective.

    The problem is that the status quo is way too profitable for all those I mentioned above. In reality none of them actually care about doing the right thing...they are only concerned with lining their own pockets and the hell the rest of us. They are all a bunch of wienies chasing the money.

    Taxing will only make these dangerous products even more expensive to the ignorant consumer.

    If you don't believe this then I bet you believe that lowering your cholesterol with a statin will save you from heart desease.
  • “Americans take in large amounts of fructose, mainly in high fructose corn syrup, a mix of fructose and glucose…” This statement is completely false. Americans get more fructose from refined sugar (which contains fructose and glucose) than high fructose corn syrup, according to USDA data. More importantly, we get fructose from MANY sources like fruits and vegetables.
  • The article is referring to fructose found in corn, hence high fructose corn syrup. "efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth." Refined fructose from corn not naturally occurring fructose found in fruits.
  • emartin888
    go chrissy. if u hadnt written this i would. thanks!
  • emartin888
    go chrissy. if u hadnt written it i woulda. thanks!
  • MikeInTheValley
    The article and the comments I read miss a major point. In the US corn sweeteners are used because they are cheaper than cane sugar. Corn products are cheap because they are directly subsidized by the Federal government. Other countries use sugar cane to sweeten their food because cane sugar is normally cheaper than corn syrup (not to mention safer and better tasting).

    The cheapest, fastest, and most permanent way to reduce the consumption of corn in the US in all food products is to eliminate this subsidy.

    From Wikipedia:

    "In the US, HFCS is among the sweeteners that have partially replaced sucrose (table sugar), due to governmental subsidies of U.S. corn and an import tariff on foreign sugar, raising the price of sucrose to levels above those of the rest of the world, making HFCS cost-efficient for many sweetener applications."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn...

    A nice color chart showing the amount of US Government subsidies for cancer in our food supply:

    http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&p...
  • Cancer; it's all Bush's fault. Seriously, WTH is that picture doing there. Note how easy it is to eliminate all sense of your credibility as a reporter by simply adding a picture to an otherwise useful article.
  • Not believing it. At no point in the article was it mentioned how long this study has been going on. And since the Surgeon General cahnges it's mind about statements every 3-4 months.......... Besides the fact it's a California school. Those dumbasses will say anything to be in the news.
  • I dispise high fructose corn syrup. My 5 year old son, was recently diagnosed with an allergy to corn. I thought nothing much of it, until I noticed all the foods that were made with fructose corn syrup. Almost every product in my pantry had fructose. Pancake syrup, jello, pudding, ketchup, many cereals and of course, candy. The list is indefinate. It was amazing how many companies decided, it was better to use a synthetic product over the real thing. Of course, the reason for its massive use, the cost. It is so much cheaper to use, than regular sugar. Years back, when my mother was a young girl, obesity was not a big issue. I believe that corn syrup, has had a lot to do with it. Finding products made with real sugar was challenging, until I found Wholefoods. It was quite a bit more expensive, but it was necessary. I did not realize how much better food it, without all the added preservatives. Organic or natural foods, are the way to go. Our family is so much healthier now, thanks to the organic options. I should have known, if it is made in a lab, it has to be bad for me.
  • barrelhse
    "US consumption went up 1,000%.."
    Which means the industry foisted this upon us. We were never given a choice.
  • we were never given a choice to not guzzle sugary sodas and subsist on convenience foods? americans demanded de-naturalized, chemically enhanced food, and gladly swallowed the lies perpetuated by industry that their products were superior to natural foods. laissez-faire capitalists demanded government not do anything that might interfere with their profits, letting the manufacturers of synthetic foods and drugs to decide if their own products were too profitable to not be safe, so now we don't even know what all the stuff that's in our food does until it's started killing us. this was a setup, all right. only we did it to ourselves.
  • We always have a choice. We need to take responsibility for supporting and actively participating in such a dangerous and unhealthy lifestyle and demand change. Only when we stop buying into this crap and demand better quality food will change occur.
  • thepoliticalcat
    Welp, here's the proof. Now let's see if the soft drink and food conglomerates will continue to try and bamboozle us with their bullshit or finally admit that they've been killing us in the name of profit all these years. Miserable spawn of Satan.
  • ponderingthings
    Interesting...but why the pic of former President Bush?!? Seems rather ridiculous.
  • yes, it is ridiculous, with a ridiculous picture. just look at it. one thing you can't deny is that bush is the everlasting king of ridiculous.
  • Third_stone
    Fructose is most commonly derived from corn. It has nothing to do with fruit. This time frame of the increase is similar to the timing of Coca Cola's most recent formula change. When "classic coke" came back, it was not real. The cane sugar was gone, replaced with high fructose corn syrup. The pea under a thimble game was to distract you from this change. At the same time, most other US soda pop makers followed suit, because the corn syrup is cheaper. Reading the ingredients can be useful. Stick with actual foods, without laboratory ingredients.
  • freebird44
    The dangers of HFCS has been known for some time but companies continue to use it because it's cheap. When I began reading labels even on sweet relish I realized, even though I buy organic whenever possible, it was even in the relish, catsup, etc. etc. Organic food does not contain this crap
  • jimbo92107
    Quick, stop eating fruit!!
  • donalddefreeze
    Fruit isn't the problem.

    Chemically-synthesized fake sweetener is.
  • Thank you. People seem to think all fructose is the same. It's not. For goodness sake be informed before you post these ridiculous and wrong comments.
  • d f bizzle
    Other commenters hit on hat about something I've always wondered about...what of the fruit from which fructose derives its namesake? When I was growing up, the sucrose in my cake and pie were derided as junk versus the "sweeter" and more natural sugar in fruits. We're told to eat fruits and vegetables...maybe we should just stick to vegetables now...
  • ericroded
    Apples Pineapples and Pears....

    Oh my....
  • MYMY
    Ban the stuff. I have been wondering about the sudden proliferation of pancreatic cancers--
  • ericroded
  • MYMY
    I believe this research regards not naturally occurring fructose in fruits, but the artificially compounded high fructose corn syrup, which contains mercury and corn processing byproducts once considered waste. Some genius figured out how to use it and sell it more cheaply than regular sugar, so that it now appears as an ingredient in 1000s of products, including ketchup...
  • smallbear
    they are also high in fiber, which works together with the natural fructose to benefit your body.
  • Savantster
    really? you're bringing naturally occurring fructose into the HFCS discussion, after it's been discussed several times in this thread? I guess it's too much to read the comments..
  • ericroded
    Yeah, it's too much to ask.

    The article is about Fructose not HFC fucking S.

    BIOYA.
  • High Fructose Corn Syrup contains fructose. Thus the "F". It's been artificially concentrated, and stripped of natural fiber (which, by it's bulk, and absorbing quality, limit fructose intake) and other ingredients that have protective effects, making it into a highly concentrated solution. salt is good for you in small quantities, but you wouldn't want to drink concentrated brine.
  • gypski
    Bush photo caption: "Ok, who stuck the cob up my ass? was it you Cheney?"
  • Savantster
    Is that "the other turd blossom"?
  • Fuck that, bring back C & H !

    YOU KNEW THIS BACK IN THE 80'S YOU FELT IT'S EFFECTS
  • Savantster
    you just made me jingle a little..

    . . . That's the one!
  • Elim
    Oh, shit, it's gonna be hard to give up this sweetener. But not impossible.
  • marblex
    You just KNOW when they put something in EVERY goddamn thing you eat, it MUST be bad. Fortunately for me, I'm allergic to HFCS and never have used any food with it... but they even put that shit in bread.

    30 years later they decide sugar is healthier because HFCS (a MANUFACTURED BYPRODUCT, not a natural byproduct of corn) has mercury and carcinogens.

    Motto: Stick to what dear old mom gave ya. Beware ANY food addatives (i.e., HFCS, asperitame, etc.) they suddenly start putting in EVERYONE's food.
  • Elim
    I avoid aspartame completely. That stuff is poison.
  • Yep. I don't eat anything with aspartame, or sucralose/Splenda, or any other artificial sweetener. Last year I began to have aches and pains in just about every joint in my body. Unexplained headaches, and a couple of dizzy spells. I had remembered reading about a lady who had similar (but much worse) symptoms. She had gone to a few doctors and they could find nothing wrong with her. She decided to cut out all artificial sweeteners. And after a few months, lo and behold, her symptoms started to disappear.

    I did the same thing. I cut out everything and all my aches, pains and dizzy spells are gone (It's a few days over 1 year ago. August 1st, 2009 is when I cut all that stuff out). I told my parents about what I had done about 6 months ago, so they did the same thing. Cut out all AS, and my mom noticed she doesn't get weekly headaches any more. Same with my dad.

    I now use stevia, xylitol or eurythritol for baking and to put in my teas. They're natural sweeteners.
  • crash2parties
    You might want to rethink your Stevia usage *unless* you use the actual leaves. The commercial sweetener version of stevia goes through a process almost the same as HFCS and has many of the same problems. There's a reason the FDA banned it as not safe for decades...it was the processed version that was/is bad & the corn industry was gracious enough to point it out and lobby against it. Ironic, no?
  • Well, if that's true, then shit. Back to the drawing board..
  • ... to redesign another synthetic food replacement? eat sugar, just less of it, and from natural sources.
  • A tax. Yes of course we need a tax, we've got a problem. Taxing it is the way problems go away because, you see, problems don't like taxes. That's what makes them the perfect solution.

    Let's not forget also that they seem to stem from an inexhaustible source called the working class. Though shrinking, those who continue to provide us with the gifts of their labor seem content to give even more as we continue to make these bogus requests of them.

    ____
    Wow, these people graduated from which ivy league cabal?

    What we need is to not put this crap in everything we consume. (As well as abolish the FDA for not really doing a damned thing about this and all of the other cancer causing additives they knowingly and "un"knowingly let into our food and water supply)

    Our bodies have become the rug under which the government hides what it make farmers grow to excess simply so food prices for everything else remain high. (see False Scarcity)
  • Third_stone
    Taxing this stuff is not meant to curb behavior. It is meant to prepay your funeral plan, so you are not a burden on people with better sense.
  • Savantster
    taxing to curb behavior is a right-wing mentality thing to do. It fits in with the "don't tell people what they can or can't do!" meme they push while trying to avoid regulations. Congress only has two tools to social engineer with, regulation and taxation. And regulation, laws saying what can and can't be done, are considered too taboo these days (and the lobbyists keep regulations out of the equation, so the only other option in modern politics is to discourage bad behavior by making it expensive... and I agree with you, it hurts the poor much MUCH more, but that's the other 1/2 of their goal).
  • smallbear
    When operating properly, the FDA servies an important function: it protects us from snake-oil salesmen, poor quality pharmaceuticals, and dangerous food additives. When not operating properly, as it has been under lax regulation standards and oversight, it is useless, and even encourages abuse. The solution is to fix it, not throw it away and leave us all exposed to corporate predators.
  • Sorry smallbear but you must know better since you visit and post on this site as you know we don't come here to discuss hugging puppies and kissing unicorns.

    If you don't see that we are under assault by corporate predators at every level of our society then it isn't even worth debating this minuscule point with you at all.

    But just for schlitz and giggles...

    The FDA has had their hands in the Americans cupboards for over 100 years now. They've had their chance to get it right in that time. They have not and we've seen a consistent drip of new poisons added to or allowed into our food supply on an ongoing basis.

    Perhaps you've heard of obesity. Do you think kale causes it or is it more likely partially hydrogenated something or other that's to blame?

    Cancer is on the rise everywhere, why? Could it be broccoli, or is it more likely to be food coloring, a sugar substitute, or pharmaceuticals in the water lowering our immunity to such things?

    Based on that alone, a new system should be put in place that serves the health of the individual and not the corporation.

    And it should NOT be called "Federal", nor should it be associated with the federal government, because we know anything federal serves the corporation and NOT the people. (See Federal Reserve system - (PS how's that working out for us?))

    HFCS fuels cancer growth and cancer is a growth industry, it's a match made in federal heaven. It just took a couple of generations to rear it's head.

    If as you claim, we just need to get it to work properly, well, let's just see what they do armed with this new information. Do you see cola coming off the market anytime soon? Me neither... Point made.
  • Savantster
    You have exactly ONE system of exercising your collective authority. GOVERNMENT. Period. We're all on the same page, our government has been hijacked by corporations. The solution is not to abandon the only mechanism of collective power we have, the solution is to take it back from the top 1%.

    but that requires the collective population to do that. And in America, the general population is just too stupid, lazy, and fat (by design!) to do that. Ignorant and self-governing don't work, as proved here. You're not going to magically make the 50% of the population that doesn't even know how many States their nation has become "engaged" in the full political system.

    The "nation" is dead, our power stolen, and you can't do jack shit about it by yourself. This is a fascism, and it isn't going to get any better.. it can't get better when the power the people has is WILLINGLY given to the top 1%. Period.

    The factual statement by Smallbear can't be disputed. A PROPERLY functioning FDA bans this shit. We don't have a properly function FDA, as you note. And as we all know, we aren't getting one any time soon. Since that is the only vehicle we CAN have that has the AUTHORITY to protect us, what is your suggest solution? .. I thought I heard you suggest we should "create a body" to protect us, but under what AUTHORITY?
  • I never mentioned creating another body. (We need less government, not more.)

    I don't think people should engage the political system. (Engaging the political system and not each other is why we're here and is akin to combing the hair in the mirror rather than what's on your head)

    I believe people are their own authority. (Don't buy items containing the known bad stuff)

    I am not limited in my tools to the point where I look outside of myself for change.

    I am an avid gardener who enjoys growing and cooking healthy and nutritious food for my family and friends. I give them produce to help cut back on the pesticides and other additives that make it through our wonderful system.

    I write music supporting these themes and I've posted them in the hopes that the message within them is heard, reverberates and grows.
    http://www.youtube.com/user/HIStoryindeed

    Other than jumping on my ass, regarding a comment I made to someone else, I trust you are also trying to influence the noosphere with good intentions, right?
  • Third_stone
    There once was a time when the FDA actually did their job. Scientist worked for them. They contracted testing to universities, before corporations got control of the science capacity of the universities. Like so many things, it has been corrupted and become the tool of corrupt men. We need them back. While it is valid that all of us should be reading the ingredients on the package, it is the job of the FDA to know that what the label says is in fact what is in there, and understand the consequences of something like Kellogg's recent poisoning of their customers with something they were adding to the packaging, so was not declared on the package. The FDA should be the one handling the enforcement on the Kellogg matter. Who else will? You? The local police? It is this sort of thing that is the most serious damage we have taken during the republican years, the total corruption of our government. Obama has made some strong moves getting new people in, but those who know the benefits of the corruption try to fillibuster his every move.
  • Savantster
    "I never mentioned creating another body."

    Then what the hell is "a new system should be put in place"?


    "Based on that alone, a new system should be put in place that serves the health of the individual and not the corporation.

    And it should NOT be called "Federal", nor should it be associated with the federal government, because we know anything federal serves the corporation and NOT the people."

    "I am an avid gardener who enjoys growing and cooking healthy and nutritious food for my family and friends."

    good for you. I don't enjoy gardening, not one bit. The modern world allows for me to spend my time doing other things while still having vegetables, and it can be done in an way that doesn't kill me with poison.

    I wasn't jumping on your ass, I was asking you to explain a statement you made.. and your response was to deny making it. /shrug

    government is a concept 10s of thousands of years in the making. The "best" government is a Democratic Republic, and that's what we have in America. But no system can exist outside of nature (and that's exactly what societies and civilizations are, structures outside of nature) without constant attention. Americans have abandoned their posts and abdicated their duty, a duty required of them if they want to live in a modern society. The result is a corrupted government run by those who ARE engaged and active in politics. It also happens to be the exact same people that are the enemies of the general public (those being abusers looking to exploit others for their own gain).

    As I noted, you don't have an alternative that can be worked against the frame of reality. Suggesting we "engage each other" quite literally means returning to a State of Nature where the biggest stick rules the debate. To move from that, we formed groups of like minded people, and when those groups got too big to have direct conversations, we formed governments. We did that just about the time we left the caves, so I don't know what part of evolution you want to alter, but I don't have any alternatives that lets humans not have to participate.
  • I can’t have a discussion with someone who has faith in government simply because it’s been forced upon us in a variety of subjugating manners for tens of thousands of years or who thinks that people engaging others literally means someone has to have a big stick in order for us to peaceably coexist.

    You mention evolution, that’s a train I’d not miss my friend.

    We have outgrown the society in which we live and need some healthy imagination to create a new one and your vote for continuing down the path of democracy or going back to thugs with big sticks us tells us you're working with a limited tool kit with respect to solving such problems as both result in external control through fear. Been there done that.
  • So much violent agreement... system can mean a philosophical system, not necessarily a corporate body. So let's see what the FDA does... I know I will continue to read labels. and grow what i can
  • Knock off the sensationalist apocalyptic reporting, Chicken Littles.

    All this study says is that pancreatic cancer cells grow faster when fed fructose over other sugars. It says absolutely nothing about whether your chances of getting cancer (pancreatic or otherwise) are increased with a diet high in fructose.

    The ONLY reasonable conclusion you could make from this study is that if you have pancreatic cancer, cutting down on fructose intake may be helpful, but given the relatively low 5-10 year survival rates of people with pancreatic cancer, nobody knows what difference it would make to extend your life. Concluding that cutting down fructose intake == lowering your chances of getting cancer is a complete, 100% fallacy.
  • Savantster
    Correct, this specific study just proves that the crap industry gives us to eat kills us more readily if we get that cancer.

    OTHER studies have linked it to various diseases. THIS study just ADDS to the mountain of evidence that would prompt SANE people to BAN this toxic shit.
  • But it doesn't consider all the other BS we are being fed by the fed
  • smallbear
    Knock off the stupidity, DrewC. Everybody has cancer cells running around inside their body, at all times. Whether that cancer gains a foothold or not is a function of how healthy the body is and how well it is able to throw off the cancer cells. If pancreatic cancer cells find something yummy to munch on, like hight fructose corn syrup in large quantities (your average 12oz. soda pop) that not only feeds the cancer cells, but weaknes other body defenses, they will feast and grow, and VOILA, you've got cancer, buddy.
  • "Everybody has cancer cells running around inside their body"? Really? Care to provide some proof of that?

    Seriously, if that is what you believe, you don't deserve any more response than this because you're 100% wrong. What an idiot.
  • you may prefer a more prosaic description, but it's essentially correct that cancerous cells arise all the time due to genetic damage. the body can clear up a certain amount of these abnormal cells, but if the abnormal cells start developing more frequently, and have more free energy available to use for expansive growth, they turn into cancers.
  • So why not just cut out the darned stuff and not take the chance of either speeding up the cancer or having it develop at all?

    I have personally cut the stuff out of my diet and my family's diet so if there are any chances for diabetes or cancer etc our chances are much, much lower than the rest of the country's.
  • why not just pay for us to "cut out the darned stuff" since the cost is extremely high along with the footwork to find out what is even safe to eat. Oh you can't pay us? Or are you really saying it's okay to give us crap in the first place? Or are you really saying the government is screwed up an you figured out how to help yourself.\\\

    Or are we both making excuses for the BS the fda, usda has become, after fucking all, they're talking about SMELLING FISH to see if it has OIL in it! What a fucking joke that is. Mind you I don't hate you or want to knock you off your pillar.

    There's no happy answer, and your not my enemy.
  • You have to make your own choices in life. I can't do it for you.

    I choose to read the *(Y(#$Y* labels on my food, choose locally grown foods and organic when I can to ensure that I'm healthy and have a better chance at living a long time, and healthy in that time, too.

    I may pay a bit more for food, but I see it as a type of health insurance. "Preventative medicine," if you will. And my food tastes fresh, and better than all that preprocessed crapola that's out there.

    Europeans pay more for quality food while in the US we try to get by with as little income as possible towards food. Who do you think is more healthy?

    Here's a link to one article I found:
    http://www.europolitics.info/eurobarometer-euro...
  • Savantster
    They pay more for food and are healthier, and don't have to do all the "hunting" we do here. Who do you think has more time to enjoy their lives instead of constantly battle profit-mongers?

    The way for the masses to enjoy their lives without it being a constant fight is for them to use their power via government to mandate their lives be safe without all that personal time spent doing the leg work themselves. Efficiency of scale. It makes the world a better place.

    ban HFCS. Stop making 350 million people do all the leg work, make the few running the companies do it. Which is better, making a few thousand people use good ingredients for food, or making 350 million people waste their "free time" tracking down safe food?
  • Savantster
    you can also ban it to cut it off.

    calm down :D
  • High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is not exactly what is sounds like. Sucrose or cane sugar is a disaccharide made up of glucose and fructose in equal proportions. When eaten, cane sugar is split into those monosaccharides, and yields 50% glucose and 50% fructosee. Corn sugar starts as 100% glucose. To make HFCS, some of the glucose is converted to fructose. Two commercial varieties are produced, a 42% fructose-58% glucose version and a 55% fructose-45% glucose version. In the 42% version there is actually less fructose than in cane sugar, while in the 55% there is only slightly more fructose than in cane sugar.

    Honey is primarily glucose and fructose, and has a higher ratio of fructose to glucose than HFCS55. Honey typically contains 20-25% more fructose than glucose, far more fructose than in either HFCS42 or HFCS55.

    Personally I prefer the taste of sucrose to fructose/glucose mixtures. But while the name HFCS may sound terrible it is well within the range of foods that we eat without a thought as to the glucose/fructose ratios.
  • There are real dietary concerns, and there are dietary concerns which are inane passing fads. There are real pollution and contaminant concerns, and there inane passing fads. Feel free to spend your time and energy having panic attacks over plant made fructose vs industrially made fructose. Since they are the same molecule, you are wasting your time. But that is your privilege. For me, the real issue is how much sugar I consume, and what it does to my weight and potential for type II diabetes. Not if it is 55% fructose or 50% fructose. Or god forbid honey, which can be as high as 60% fructose.
  • Personally I think your wrong. Folks who abused CANE SUGAR exhibited activities of action and speed and being basically what you could term "methed up" however without the side effects of HFCS. "being methed up was equal to a sugar buzz" now with HFCS we have obesity, mind control, genetics, and hell of dangerous heart attacks -- To hell with cancer.

    I think there is a solution, and it starts with ridding the government with these pieces of crap who sold us down the river stix for a short term profit. As well as preventing LONG TERM fascists from getting a-hold of power.

    It starts with being an INFORMED VOTER, and a JURY NULLIFICATION INFORMED population.

    The informed voter part, needs to research who is affiliated with corporate and foreign interests, and the jury nullification part comes from knowing what your talking about, and sending a message.
  • Savantster
    Don't forget liver failure tied to HFCS.. It's all find and good to pretend that HFCS is just like "natural fructose", but the liver can't metabolize HFCS like it can 'natural fructose'. .. and that begs the question, if natural fructose is digestible and HFCS is not, doesn't that imply they are actually different compounds? And, why not use naturally occurring fructose if it isn't bad for you? (hint: profit motive from the subsidized corn industry)

    Oh, and the foundation of any functioning democracy is an engaged and educated public. We don't have that in America, and haven't for decades.
  • Savantster
    The problem is that it is in everything you eat, and in high quantities in many things you eat. It is also "produced" by boiling the corn in sulfuric acid. Kind of implies to me it might be something you don't want to eat.

    Being that we're natural creatures, it stands to reason that eating non-natural concoctions is a bad idea. Many of the chemicals in our food are there for color, smell, adjusted or enhanced flavor, or to make it last longer on the shelves (less risk of not being purchased before it goes bad and can sit on your shelves longer at home). Almost all of those chemicals are bad for you, yet we let industry use them because it helps their profits. Pretty stupid to kill natural creatures with synthetic chemicals for profits. But, that's the American Way, apparently.
  • smallbear
    And soda pop is a witch's brew of noxious chemicals. HFCS is not the only evil lurking in soda pop.

    Thanks, Savanster. Brilliant as always.
  • Mercury. I heard through the grapevine. But the DIET crap is worse!! So Let's go to CANE SUGAR and responsibility
  • smallbear
    Better yet, don't drink soda pop. My beverage of choice is water, as clean as I can get it.
  • 1N (very strong) Hydrochloric acid. Sounds like something that you don't want to consume. But your stomach makes it, uses it as a digestive aid, and occasionally vomits it up.

    A lot of strong acid, and sometimes strong bases (alkali process coca for example) are used in the preparation of food stuffs. They are neutralized before eating. Think of table salt. It is the product of lye, a strong caustic alkali and a potent mineral acid. But sodium and chloride ions are necessary for life. Sulfuric acid molecules are quickly neutralized to harmless sulfates.

    Even a chemist can not tell by a name just what the issues are. It depends on circumstance, concentration and other factors. Its easy to come up with scary chemical names for substances which are harmless, necessary to life, or a natural part of the body. Shall we call that nameism?
  • Savantster
    You ever get dizzy from all that spinning?

    Baking is about chemistry. Too much heat and you destroy proteins and breads get tough, not enough heat and sugars don't break down and you have goo. Same goes with "processing food".. you burn the shit out of molecules with acid and you change their structure. You turn it into something it wasn't.

    And, as a side note, one of the things corn is not is nutritious. It's not a decent grain or food to begin with! yet it's in all our food..? Seems odd that most things you buy today have a ton of useless FILLER.. why is that, do you think? I'm guessing it means you need to buy more food to get the nutrition your body needs.. mmmmm.. buy more.. more profits.. rigged game killing people for profits!

    your pseudo-intellectualism won't work here. sorry.
  • hey now, corn is pretty awesome. it's one of the three sisters, an ancient staple. of course, modern corn is totally different from ancient maize, but you wouldn't say that if you were sucking the kernels off the cob of some sweet ohio corn.
  • And how do unpronouncable names do anything to stop the eugenicists?
  • smallbear
    The difference is that the stomach is adapted to contain hydrochloric acid. Contact any other part of the body with that same acid and severe burns will result. Foods that must be processed using strong chemicals are definitely suspicious as to their safety and nutritional value. And salt is not produced from lye. It occurs naturally in salt formations and seawater. A tiny bit of salt is required by the body. Most raw vegetables provide adequate amounts for the human diet. Large amounts are dangerous and harmful.
  • jimbeaux
    I quit using any & all refined sugar products a 10 years ago & have lost 15 pounds & feel great.
    I use an herbal supplement called Stevia - I can't call it a sweetener because that would violate FDA rules. (i.e. - the sugar lobby doesn't allow it)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia (scroll down to the "political controversy" part)
  • I quit and then re-gained it all. And I feel like shit.

    What about the FDA rules on smelling fish which could be toxic from the Gulf? ej?
blog comments powered by Disqus