what a 'sweet surprise'

[Gaelen]

The ad campaign currently being run by the Corn Refiner's Association is being compared to tobacco companies telling us that nicotine is not addictive, and mining companies calling coal a 'clean' energy source.

Check them out here--the sweeteners quiz is particularly oddly constructed.

http://www.sweetsurprise.com

here is the .pdf on their current campaign to 'change the conversation' about HFCS:
http://www.sweetsurprise.com/files/ChangingTheConversation6-23-08.pdf

and here's the ad from youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEbRxTOyGf0

[maxlharris]

On the downside, even now, in 2008, the Internet tends towards higher income, higher education users, rather than average joes. So, critical thinking tends to be higher on the internet than in the general population (this is not as skewed as it was 10 or 15 or more years ago, as access is a lot broader, and it becomes a more accessible medium {elitist me misses the good old days}). Any good signs of bloggers denigrating the current campaign have to be temepered against readership, and the "It's News to Me" factor.

Congratulations! You have a high Sweet Smarts IQ. But there still may be a thing or two to learn, so check out the information on the rest of this web site.
I did not find anything factually incorrect in their quiz. Funny things from it.
1- Two questions about Neotame, which I cannot say I have encountered.
2- SF sweeteners are touted to promote tooth health.
3- Honey is touted as having antioxidants and lower calories, per gram, than sugar.
4- One claim that people might get upset about is the one where sugar, honey and HFCS are metabolized similarly. I don't see controversy here. HFCS is 55% fructose, 45% glucose. Table sugar is 50-50. Fructose is metabolized differently from glucose, but 95% (the 45% of HFCS that is glucose and 50% of table sugar that is fructose) would fall under my definition of similar. Maybe you run a tighter ship.
5- The other claim that might twist some's panties is that HFCS is as natural as table sugar and honey. To my knowledge, HFCS is produced from corn starch, with a few enzymes, and some seperation and remixing. This might strike some as unnatural (particularly when some of the enzymes may be gene mod, and some of the corn, too), but this (http://www.energymanagertraining.com/sugar/pdf/SugarManufacturingProcess.pdf) is how you make sugar out of sugar beets (terribly inefficient, but that's what a protectionism looks like... damn money-politics connection) (it involves lime, and we're not talking the citrus product, which is hardly healthy). Honey is truly natural, except for whatever is done to clarify it. So, yes, the claim that all three are natural might irk some, but they didn't really claim that they are all whole foods. Sugar and HFCS aren't, but then again, do could you describe how to make aspartame, sucralose, neotame, sorbitol or really any artificial sweetener that isn't stevia?

At any rate, I don't see a reason to be outraged, at least in the quiz. It comes off more like an add for honey (it's all natural, it's lower calorie than sugar/HFCS, it's got anti-oxidants, etc).

[Gaelen]

Actually, I thought the quiz was just a tad odd--not really inflammatory.

However, there is evidence that HFCS is metabolized differently. Mike blogged about it; I'll have to go search for that.

It's the two ads which are running now that I find more than a tad insulting, and the CRA's position paper on 'changing the conversation.' They are tired of being blamed for obesity.
The ads assure people that HFCS, like sugar, is safe in moderation. However, it's nearly impossible to eat HFCS in moderation, since it's part of a lot of things where people don't suspect it would be used.

[laughingW]

4- One claim that people might get upset about is the one where sugar, honey and HFCS are metabolized similarly. I don't see controversy here. HFCS is 55% fructose, 45% glucose. Table sugar is 50-50. Fructose is metabolized differently from glucose, but 95% (the 45% of HFCS that is glucose and 50% of table sugar that is fructose) would fall under my definition of similar. Maybe you run a tighter ship.

That sidesteps the question of, are we built to metabolize them in large amounts 24/7, as opposed to seasonally when finding the honey tree. And by "them" I mean industrial sweeteners, caloric or not.

Bees get sick when beekeepers use HFCS instead of sucrose solution to feed them. (random factoid!)

Honey is 38.5 percent fructose, 31 percent glucose, 17.6 percent water, 12.9 percent maltose.

Seems to me there are lots of examples where the boundary between a healthy proportion of something, versus a disease-producing one, is a small percent difference. Like oxygen in the air or being legally drunk.

The unscientific public (like my friends and family) never seem to think of that part when downing all sorts of industrial food.

[maxlharris]

However, there is evidence that HFCS is metabolized differently. Mike blogged about it; I'll have to go search for that.

It's the two ads which are running now that I find more than a tad insulting, and the CRA's position paper on 'changing the conversation.' They are tired of being blamed for obesity.
The ads assure people that HFCS, like sugar, is safe in moderation. However, it's nearly impossible to eat HFCS in moderation, since it's part of a lot of things where people don't suspect it would be used.
My understanding from Dr. Mike is that fructose and glucose are processed differently. HFCS is more fructose than glucose, and since fructose is metabolized badly, ergo HFCS is worse than sugar, but excess carb consumption is still the problem.

As to being tired of being blamed for obesity, fine. I'd be tired to. If you are a believer that it's excess consumption, fine. Most people (not around here) are in that camp. If it's excess carb consumption (many around here, self included), then it's not the HFCS, per se, but the excess carb consumption, with perhaps some marginal problem from the 5% excess fructose that our way less than rational trade policy has foisted on us in the US*.

I'm not convinced (even with Dr. Mike's posts) that HFCS is not safe in very small doses, roughly like sugar. If you have a beef with fructose, in a majority position in a food, over glucose, I suggest you immediately quit strawberries which are 50% fructose, 41% glucose, and 9% sucrose**, for the 7.4g of sugar in a cup of halved stawbs (http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/2064/2). (you have to open the carb section to get the full breakout). Blackberries, blueberries are closer to 50-50. Raspberries work out to about 54% fructose. Again, if these foods are okay, then HFCS in small doses should be okay. The problem is getting small doses. Again, excess carbs are the bigger problem, IMO. Others may differ, but they should probably put down the strawbs and raspbs.


*Due to import quotas (http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/imports/ussugar.asp), most sugar in the US is from sugar beets, rather than from sugar cane, like the rest of the world's sugar. The quotas are in place to protect domestic sugar beet and sugar cane growers (the cane is mostly in Florida and Hawaii, the beets come from the northern midwest). Since US Labor is expensive relative to cane growing portions of the world (think wet and hot, like Florida and the north eastern sides of Hawaiian Islands) and beets require greater inputs to produce an equivalent volume of sugar, the trade policy has been in favor of all corn syrup products (corn is subsidized, and relatively cheap to make in the US, even into syrup, or HFCS). A rationalization of trade policy would lower the price of import sugar, force some hard changes on the sugar beet industry, probably lower the price of corn due to reduced demand, and probably raise the economy of ethanol... it would also lower the cost of beef, pork and chicken, at least the feed lot/factory farm stuff. Very pro-consumer, fairly painful for some Ag sectors that tend to have good lobbies.

** Sucrose is 50-50 glucose and fructose... dividing the 9% down the middle, you get 54.5 fructose and 45.5% glucose, roughly the same proportion as HFCS.

[maxlharris]

That sidesteps the question of, are we built to metabolize them in large amounts 24/7, as opposed to seasonally when finding the honey tree. And by "them" I mean industrial sweeteners, caloric or not.

Bees get sick when beekeepers use HFCS instead of sucrose solution to feed them. (random factoid!)

Honey is 38.5 percent fructose, 31 percent glucose, 17.6 percent water, 12.9 percent maltose.

You are sidestepping the question of whether carbs are meant to be metabolized in large quantities, W. I believe no. You probably also believe no.

The thing that some people seem to be into here is that HFCS is specially bad, rather than it's the fast carbs that are the problem.

PS- if you're a bee, you are welcome to opt out of HFCS. I'm pretty sure my metabolism is fairly different from that of a honeybee.

Nice to see you back, LW.

[laughingW]

ha ha, thanks Max, nice to find a nice rant.

Seems also to me that the HFCS people saying it's metabolized the same, it really is irresponsible not to talk about what happens in the amounts used by real people. We are still studying that so how can the HFCS people say they know.

Fer instance, liver damage. Is it from too many carbs, or the fructose handling? There was an article just the other day about the number of teens with non-alcoholic fatty liver. Quel surprise.

[Gaelen]

Couldn't find Dr. Mike's HFCS-specific blog, but did find some of the articles which also referenced the studies and information he referenced in his blog.

The process of producing HFCS is a double or triple refinement process. At one
point in the process, the makeup of the end-product is about 90% fructose and only 10% glucose. This is back-blended with an earlier refinement product (HFCS-42) which is 42% fructose, and the end product of the back-blending is the 55:45 fructose:glucose mixture typically used in HFCS-sweetened soda.

However, that said, ALL of the formulation endpoints are referred to as HFCS for labeling purposes. The percentage designation is dropped in labeling. And by the Corn Refiners Assn.'s own fact sheets, different endpoint formulations are used for different things...but without the percentage designation on the labeling, you don't know if the manufacturer is using the pure 90:10 HFCS, the second endpoint HFCS-42, the first endpoint HFCS-33 or HFCS-90. By labeling alone, you can't really tell how much fructose you're getting.

Regular table sugar and unmodified corn syrup are about 50/50 fructose:glucose, but in those sugars (as in fruit), the fructose is bound to the other sugar molecules. In HFCS, there is a high percentage of free (unbound) fructose molecules, which is problematic because, according to the article linked below: "Research indicates that this free fructose interferes with the heart’s use of key minerals like magnesium, copper and chromium. Among other consequences, HFCS has been implicated in elevated blood cholesterol levels and the creation of blood clots. It has been found to inhibit the action of white blood cells so that they are unable to defend the body against harmful foreign invaders.8"

HFCS is a purer form of fructose than what you get from fruits, or even from other sugars. Sure, you can get it in a less pure form--in whole strawberries and raspberries, for instance. But the manufacturing/refining process of HFCS makes it a more pure form of fructose...and metabolically more dangerous. Sort of the crack of the sugar world.

Since fructose is metabolized only in the liver, while glucose can be metabolized by every cell in the body, the effects on the liver of consuming high doses of a purer form of fructose--specifically, effects on insulin production and non-alcoholic fatty liver syndrome (NALFS)--are of particular concern.

http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/highfructose.html

This webpage is a summation of several articles, including info from the CRA, the Weston-Price article above, and a couple of other study reports:
http://menstuff.org/issues/byissue/highfructose.html

Naturally occurring fructose in whole fruits--easy to moderate, probably okay in moderation (which is actually possible).
Refined/manufactured 'free' fructose in HFCS and in other constructed sweeteners--less easy to moderate, which makes 'okay in moderation' problematic. The only way to consume it in moderation is to eliminate it where ever you find it on labeling...

[maxlharris]

Hrm, so at what portion is the general objection to HFCS from the mystery, what from the volume and what from the process?

I should have posted the process for making beets into sugar. This isn't it:
http://www.rothamsted.bbsrc.ac.uk/Photos/beet.jpg
This is cane sugar:
http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/images/9762.gif
Which doesn't seem bad. The beets get a little harsher treatment.

FWIW: I do not dispute that HFCS is bad. I do not dispute that overeating processed food is bad. I do not dispute that excess carbs are bad. I do not dispute any of that. I do dispute the idea that HFCS-42, 50 or 55 (the majority of what you get in products is in the 42-55% Fructose, with very little 90% out there) is so much worse, in equivalent volume, than straight old cane or beet sugar, or honey for that matter.

Is there a metabolic pathway where a ton of HFCS is worse than a spoonful of sugar? Clearly. But is there a metabolic pathway where a ton of sugar is worse than a spoonful of HFCS? Ask that before responding.

FWIW: I've done my part here. I'm off to other threads.

[Gaelen]

Hrm, so at what portion is the general objection to HFCS from the mystery, what from the volume and what from the process?
I should have posted the process for making beets into sugar.

I guess my objection and personal avoidance of HFCS is partly all three--mystery, volume, and process. Add to that studies which have illustrated that purified fructose (HFCS in particular) is metabolized very differently from sucrose, glucose, or honey, and which establish that the liver cannot tolerate even small amounts of HFCS without developing liver toxicity and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and that, IMO, lands HFCS (even in small amounts or 'moderation') squarely in the no-win-situation column.

FWIW: I do not dispute that HFCS is bad. I do not dispute that overeating processed food is bad. I do not dispute that excess carbs are bad. I do not dispute any of that. I do dispute the idea that HFCS-42, 50 or 55 (the majority of what you get in products is in the 42-55% Fructose, with very little 90% out there) is so much worse, in equivalent volume, than straight old cane or beet sugar, or honey for that matter.

Max, you might want to wade through these studies to decide whether that's a valid dispute. Or take the Abstract/Results shortcut in reviewing them. In either case, both make a case for discoveries that HFCS consumption, when compared to either equal amounts of sucrose, glucose, and disaccharide combos like table sugar, produced significantly faster (bad) metabolic changes--altered liver enzymes, worsened cholesterol/triglyceride profiles. The HFCS rats also developed non-alchoholic fatty liver syndrom (NAFLS), gained more weight, and ate more food than rats fed other types of sugars. Insulin resistance can be resolved/reversed by diet. NAFLS--not so much. The fatty liver damage can result in permanently impairing the liver and thus the metabolism. And while these studies were in rodents, since humans have a more efficient PPAR level, the effects of HFCS on a human liver stand to be even more pronounced and more dangerous.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114130180/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
"Abstract
Fructose makes up a significant proportion of energy intake in westernized diets; its increased consumption has paralleled the growing prevalence of obesity and metabolic syndrome over the past two decades. In the current study, we demonstrate that fructose administration (10% wt/vol) in the drinking water of rats reduces the trans-activating and trans-repressing activity of the hepatic peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR). As a consequence, fructose decreases hepatic fatty oxidation and increases pro-inflammatory transcription factor nuclear factor B (NF-B) activity. These changes were not observed in glucose-administered rats (10% wt/vol), although both carbohydrates produced similar changes in plasma adiponectin and in the hepatic expression of transcription factors and enzymes involved in fatty acid synthesis. Fructose-fed, but not glucose-fed, rats were hyperleptinemic and exhibited increased tyrosine phosphorylation of the signal transducer and activator of transcription-3 (STAT-3) transcription factor, although they did not present a similar increase in the serine phosphorylation of nuclear STAT3. Thus, an impairment in the hepatic transduction of the leptin signal could be responsible for the observed alterations in PPAR activity in fructose-fed rats. Because PPAR activity is lower in human than in rodent liver, fructose ingestion in humans should cause even worse effects, which would partly explain the link between increased consumption of fructose and widening epidemics of obesity and metabolic syndrome. Conclusion: Hypertriglyceridemia and hepatic steatosis induced by fructose ingestion result from a reduction in the hepatic catabolism of fatty acids driven by a state of leptin resistance. (HEPATOLOGY 2007;45:778-788.)"

http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/45/5/1012
"RESULTS: Effects of FED
Baseline parameters did not differ between the rats that were scheduled for FED and the rats that were scheduled for further maintenance on SRCD. After 3 weeks, both groups had similar weight gain. However, the group on FED had 18% higher BP values, 188% higher plasma triglyceride levels, and 55% higher plasma insulin levels. After 5 weeks, the rats on FED again had similar weights but 15% higher BP, 223% higher plasma triglycerides, and 114% higher Homeostasis Model Assessment score than the SRCD rats (Tables 1 and 2Down). No change in liver enzymes was observed between both groups. However, the ratio of alanine to aspartate aminotransferase that was 1.2:1.0 in the SRCD group increased to 2.0:1.0 in the FED rats (Table 2). The livers of the FED rats had higher concentrations of total lipids (+28%), triglycerides (+198%), and cholesterol (+89%), but lower concentrations of phospholipids (–36%) than the livers of the SCRD rats (Table 3). The livers of the SRCD group had no signs of macrovesicular steatosis or evidence of fibrosis. Minimal microvesicular steatosis and minimal lobular and portal inflammatory changes were present. The livers of the FED rats showed evidence of mild to moderate deposition of macrovesicular and microvesicular fat with minimal signs of perisinusoidal fibrosis in 3 (out of 12) rats (Figure)."

Is there a metabolic pathway where a ton of HFCS is worse than a spoonful of sugar? Clearly. But is there a metabolic pathway where a ton of sugar is worse than a spoonful of HFCS? Ask that before responding.

Asked...and answered, by the researchers (but certainly not by the Corn Refiners Association. I believe these studies (and there are more, these were just the first two that came up with immediately relevant results) answer that question pretty dramatically--and they're soundly designed studies, not garbage science.

Purified forms of fructose (i.e., forms outside of whole fruits in which the fructose molecule is attached to molecules of other types of sugars and partly metabolised in other cells before it hits the liver--forms like HFCS, and powdered fructose sweeteners) have a dramatically faster and more serious metabolic and long term effect on the liver--whether eaten in small, medium or large quantities.

And for the record, I'm not in favor of consuming large amounts of any straight or added-to-things type of sweetener, whether it's honey off the comb taken directly from the hive, ultra-refined fructose as in HFCS, some form of beet or cane sugar, or one of the poly-ol artificial sweeteners. I would define a 'large amount' as more than a tablespoon per day (about 12-15g if it's sugar, less if it's an artificial sweetener). Also for the record, the average American consumes (per the CRA's own website) over 40 POUNDS of HFCS, and over 44 POUNDS of 'sugar' per year. That average includes those of us who don't even approach that number, as well as those who far exceed that.

32 tablespoons (dry weight) in a pound. A tablespoon of sugar (or HFCS) per day (3 teaspoons x 365) comes to a little under 11.5 pounds of sugar annually--well under what is reported as 'average' consumption of any kind of sweetener, sugar or HFCS. Is it metabolically worse if that sweetener is HFCS than if it's table sugar or honey? According to those studies--quite possibly, yes.

http://www.hfcsfacts.com/PerCapitaConsumption.html

[Ammy]

I haven't read thorugh all the posts, I will tonight, but my comment is around the new tv commercials I saw when I visited the site...

"HFCS is fine in small doses..."

My problem is that it is in SO MANY things, especially things that don't NEED it, that we're not just getting A small dose...we're getting a LOT of small doses...

[bigdawg_SLC]

I haven't read thorugh all the posts, I will tonight, but my comment is around the new tv commercials I saw when I visited the site...

"HFCS is fine in small doses..."

My problem is that it is in SO MANY things, especially things that don't NEED it, that we're not just getting A small dose...we're getting a LOT of small doses...

Any food that is processed ... has a "small does" ... most people entire menu is chuck full of processed food ... that's one way to keep the corn growers in business. :)

[Ammy]

... that's one way to keep the corn growers in business. :)

boy, you sure don't hear statements like this where I grew up...
Iowa IS the "corn state"...

[laughingW]

I think I've shared this before.... my sis worked as a caterer for the Univ. of Illinois, which is a huge agro-business university in the heart of corn/soybean/hogs corporate farms.

She would cater parties for all these departments like corn syrup and stable fats and says that in cocktail hour they would talk about this health stuff and the scientists expressed frustration - the whole country asked for cheap, stable lower-sat-fat calories, and that's what the food scientists came up with. So like now, we want healthy too? and my sis laughed and said all the food scientists would laugh too at how ridiculous that sounded. But that is what happened over the last 25 years.

[maxlharris]

When you have a study that is people, not rodents, you will have something. Till we're talking people, I have better things to wade through. *Fully aware that rat studies can lead to breakthrough in people, but also not ready to confuse Rodent with Primate. I suppose I could make some exceptions where it might be easy to confuse certain homo sapiens with ratus ratus, but surely, not all.

If the fructose as bad as some suggest, in as small dose as some suggest, btw, I'd continue to suggest they put away their berries, stone fruits, and many vegetables as well... post haste. Or is there something wonderful (antioxidants) in the fruits that offsets the danger? I wonder.

[Omlette]

I have been skimming "The 30 Day low Carb Diet Solution" this week. I remembered reading this, and thought it appropiate.

"Most sugars, whether table sugar, fruit sugar, honey, syrups, or molasses, are all two simple sugar molecules - usually glucose and fructose - hooked together. Becaues teh digestive tract quickly breaks these apart for absorption into the blood, they cause a quick rise in blood sugar, and for three-quaters of us that spells trouble. An exception is fructose (or the more-commonly used high-fructose corn syrup), which is absorbed differently. Fructose doesn't stimulate a rise in blood sugar and insulin and for years was thought of as a safe sugar for diabetics; however, research has clearly shown that it promotes insulin resistance by another mechanism and is therefore potentially the most dangerous and damaging of all the sugars."

So, this is what the Eades think about fructose or HFCS.

************
I have laughed and been appauled at the commercials. My sis and I had a conversation about them the other day. People like my mom will continue to think that it is not harmful. I have tried to explain to her that it is.

I feel that I get it in moderation because I try to not buy anything with HFCS or fructose in it. Not 100% successful, but I try hard. I really watch it for my kids.

[Gaelen]

If the fructose as bad as some suggest, in as small dose as some suggest, btw, I'd continue to suggest they put away their berries, stone fruits, and many vegetables as well... post haste. Or is there something wonderful (antioxidants) in the fruits that offsets the danger? I wonder.

Well...you can wonder, or you can discover. The answer, the 'something wonderful' in whole fruits/vegetable which offsets the danger, has been posted in this thread at least three times. :rolleyes:
Most recently Omlette, quotes from the Eades' "30 day low carb diet solution":

"Most sugars, whether table sugar, fruit sugar, honey, syrups, or molasses, are all two simple sugar molecules - usually glucose and fructose - hooked together. Because the digestive tract quickly breaks these apart for absorption into the blood, they cause a quick rise in blood sugar, and for three-quaters of us that spells trouble. An exception is fructose (or the more-commonly used high-fructose corn syrup), which is absorbed differently. Fructose doesn't stimulate a rise in blood sugar and insulin and for years was thought of as a safe sugar for diabetics; however, research has clearly shown that it promotes insulin resistance by another mechanism and is therefore potentially the most dangerous and damaging of all the sugars."

Refined fructose (the powdered stuff sold as a sweetener) and HFCS (the liquid stuff added in the manufacturing/processing of foods) are not like the sugars found in whole fruits. HFCS is a purer form of fructose, and unlike the disaccharide 'fruit sugar' in whole fruits and vegetables, it isn't joined with or paired with a glucose or sucrose molecule. It's all free fructose, all the time. The other sweeteners can be broken down by any cell in the body. Refined fructose, including HFCS, aren't broken down and can't be absorbed outside the liver. HFCS goes directly to the liver, where the metabolisation of it quickly overloads that organ and short-circuits normal insulin metabolism, elevating liver enzymes and causing, among other things, early onset non-alchoholic fatty liver syndrome.

[bigdawg_SLC]

Well...you can wonder, or you can discover. The answer, the 'something wonderful' in whole fruits/vegetable which offsets the danger, has been posted in this thread at least three times. :rolleyes:
Most recently Omlette, quotes from the Eades' "30 day low carb diet solution":



Refined fructose (the powdered stuff sold as a sweetener) and HFCS (the liquid stuff added in the manufacturing/processing of foods) are not like the sugars found in whole fruits. HFCS is a purer form of fructose, and unlike the disaccharide 'fruit sugar' in whole fruits and vegetables, it isn't joined with or paired with a glucose or sucrose molecule. It's all free fructose, all the time. The other sweeteners can be broken down by any cell in the body. Refined fructose, including HFCS, aren't broken down and can't be absorbed outside the liver. HFCS goes directly to the liver, where the metabolisation of it quickly overloads that organ and short-circuits normal insulin metabolism, elevating liver enzymes and causing, among other things, early onset non-alchoholic fatty liver syndrome.

Sound to me like a bag full of TROUBLE! So, with all of these "sugars" out there ... what are the SAFE alternatives? Stevia, Aspartamine, Equal, splenda ... I've seen pro/con studies for these too.

[Missy]

I just couldn't WAIT for this subject to be brought up in our forum! :D

[maxlharris]

Refined fructose (the powdered stuff sold as a sweetener) and HFCS (the liquid stuff added in the manufacturing/processing of foods) are not like the sugars found in whole fruits. HFCS is a purer form of fructose, and unlike the disaccharide 'fruit sugar' in whole fruits and vegetables, it isn't joined with or paired with a glucose or sucrose molecule. It's all free fructose, all the time. The other sweeteners can be broken down by any cell in the body. Refined fructose, including HFCS, aren't broken down and can't be absorbed outside the liver. HFCS goes directly to the liver, where the metabolisation of it quickly overloads that organ and short-circuits normal insulin metabolism, elevating liver enzymes and causing, among other things, early onset non-alchoholic fatty liver syndrome.
So, it's the refinement that makes them bad?
They're chemically the same, yet the body knows that this is refined and this is natural, and gags on the refined?

Here's a nice hypothetical. Say world history is the same today as it is today. Except for one thing. Fidel Castro never comes to power. Or whatever point in Cuban history you think would have kept Cuba open to the US ("Your honor, I object... relevance?" "Mr. Harris?" "Relevance will become clear in a moment, your honor." "I'll allow it.").

In this alternate universe, no one ever creates HFCS. US Trade policy on sugar stays normal, because we don't have to worry about funding the Beard by buying his cheap Communist Sugar. In this alternate universe, Ancel Keys still is the most important man in the history of nutrition. The only real difference is that consumer products are made with cane sugar, rather than HFCS (oh and Havana looks like Miami Beach, and MLB has a team in Cuba).

Now, in this universe, you are suggesting to me, that with the fat removed from many packaged goods, and replaced with carbs, the sweet addiction of the US doesn't run as sweet, because there isn't HFCS, there's just 100% cane sugar (and maybe some of that beet junk too). And kids don't overeat, particularly fast carbs, nearly as much, because of some mystical property of cane sugar, instead of HFCS?

Again, I understand the pathology where FRUCTOSE in LARGE DOSES is problematic. I understand that jacking the carb consumption up by 30% in 30 years is problematic. And that, assuming a third of that would be free sugar, you've increased the fructose intake by a considerable amount. But I still don't see that HFCS, in and of itself is that dangerous. And based on the writings of Dr. Eades on his blog, Gaelen's attempts to conflate rat results with human results, and LaughingW's, I don't see anything to change my mind. Is that obstinate? Probably, but when you have a lab study with people, or when you can put some numbers on the unsafe dose, based on something more than boogeyman fear, gimme a call. No one has met that burder of proof.

Last thing: If you are keeping carbs in the ketogenic carb ranges, you're probably not drinking a lot of sugar coke, or eating a lot of confections (If you are, you're doing your ketogenic plan incorrectly). So, the point is moot. You're not going to be buying a lot of high carb consumer packaged goods. Which raises the question of why even have the discussion. Perhaps we need to feel some sort of superiority to the masses who are munching away or the corporate schills who have products to sell. I couldn't say, and I wouldn't hazzard a guess.

[bigdawg_SLC]

Last thing: If you are keeping carbs in the ketogenic carb ranges, you're probably not drinking a lot of sugar coke, or eating a lot of confections (If you are, you're doing your ketogenic plan incorrectly). So, the point is moot. You're not going to be buying a lot of high carb consumer packaged goods. Which raises the question of why even have the discussion. Perhaps we need to feel some sort of superiority to the masses who are munching away or the corporate schills who have products to sell. I couldn't say, and I wouldn't hazzard a guess.

Max, I did enjoy your hypothetical world! I would like to see test subjects be humans, not rats, or monkeys ... or whatever NON-homosapian creature they test on! More true to life there.

I also understand this last paragraph of yours ... if we keep the carbs down (like this WOE does) ... it really becomes irrelavant, right?:jawDrop:

[Missy]

I think....and I suppose my thoughts don't compare to those more able to write more thoroughly....:o but....I think what bothers me most about these ads are that they are geared to helps those who already are unwilling to educate themselves about nutrition justify continuing to eat something that more then likely is harming them. Certainly not everyone...but surely a great deal of the population.

It reminds me of the 'food pushers' or the "good" and "evil" self talk you have on your shoulder saying "Go on, just have one, one won't hurt you!" :cool: ~ It's that slippery slope.

lol...when I saw this ad on TV I thought..."OH GOODY!! I'm SURE we'll talk about it on our board!" and I ALSO thought..."I'm sure Max will see it from another perspective!" LOL ~ Max, your predictable! LOL :lol:

[laughingW]

Now, in this universe, you are suggesting to me, that with the fat removed from many packaged goods, and replaced with carbs, the sweet addiction of the US doesn't run as sweet, because there isn't HFCS, there's just 100% cane sugar (and maybe some of that beet junk too). And kids don't overeat, particularly fast carbs, nearly as much, because of some mystical property of cane sugar, instead of HFCS?

That's an interesting thought experiment. Sugar doesn't mix the same as HFCS in food. HFCS is much easier to make more or less sweet, we know from Gaelen's notes. HFCS when added to things like spaghetti sauce, jack up the sweetness without changing the texture the way sugar would.

Another fact is our human response to the sweet taste in foods.

Put those together and it seems to me that using HFCS, it's much easier to get on the upward spiral of increased consumption, especially when that is profitable for all sides - the mfrs like it, consumers like the taste.

[maxlharris]

That's an interesting thought experiment. Sugar doesn't mix the same as HFCS in food. HFCS is much easier to make more or less sweet, we know from Gaelen's notes. HFCS when added to things like spaghetti sauce, jack up the sweetness without changing the texture the way sugar would.

Another fact is our human response to the sweet taste in foods.

Put those together and it seems to me that using HFCS, it's much easier to get on the upward spiral of increased consumption, especially when that is profitable for all sides - the mfrs like it, consumers like the taste.
That ignores the history, which was that the trade policy that made sugar expensive was the causal factor in the creation of HFCS. No Latin American/Caribbean communism, no need for a cheap substitute. You might be looking, if you believe that HFCS is completely bankrupt as a product, as a tipping point event in the health of the world. Personally, I like Ancel Keys over Fidel/Kennedy for the role of nutritional boogeyman. Taubes seems to agree.

[Gaelen]

LOL, Max...this is your idea of "FWIW, I've done my part here--I'm off to other threads"? Or your way of trying to redirect a discussion? :D

So, it's the refinement that makes them bad? They're chemically the same, yet the body knows that this is refined and this is natural, and gags on the refined?

Yes, it is the refinement which makes HFCS worse (for the body, and especially the liver and endocrine system) than other types of sugars.
No, the free fructose molecules found in HFCS are not 'chemically the same' as the bound-to-other-sugars fructose molecules found in fruits and vegetables. Google the chemical formulas; see for yourself. Speaking of the chemistry--or side-stepping it:

Here's a nice hypothetical. Say world history is the same today as it is today. Except for one thing. Fidel Castro never comes to power. Or whatever point in Cuban history you think would have kept Cuba open to the US ("Your honor, I object... relevance?" "Mr. Harris?" "Relevance will become clear in a moment, your honor." "I'll allow it.").


Nope--you've bought the wrong judge. I would be the crazy one that tells you 'you're dangerously close to contempt, sir.'

The political angle of this discussion, while interesting, isn't directly relevant to the chemical makup of HFCS vs. the originally occurring fructose in whole fruits and vegetables.

Did the political angle contribute to the development of HFCS? I think that's a bit of a stretch, and while an admirable effort to switch the course of the discussion, I'm not buying it. For one thing, I don't really care about the politics when I'm talking about the chemistry...or about the CRA insulting the intelligence of all of us with its current ad campaign. For seconds, after HFCS discovery formulation in the US, the scale-up industrial production method was actually developed and perfected by Japanese food scientists/chemists. Japan is not a country with a strong corn lobby. Not the country now profiting from the mass production/distribution of HFCS. They don't bottle Coke for US sale. They don't make Hostess CupCakes, or Bogey's favorite witch, Little Debbie anything. The Japanese enabled the use--the US manufacturers jumped in with both feet and arms flapping.

Did the political angle (corn subsidies, et al) contribute to the boom in HFCS use? Probably. It was easy to make, cheap to use, easy to transport, and sugar from beets and cane was getting pricier, while the corn lobby was keeping corn cheap. Still, even without a political angle, US food manufacturers/growers/processors have shown repeatedly that they'll jump on any chance to reduce their costs with a readily available, easily produceable and transportable ingredient or additive. If it replaces something that is politically or financially more expensive, all the better. All that said--politics still isn't responsible for the chemistry...and the chemistry is different.

Objection sustained...the political argument regarding sugar production is not relevant to an discussion about HFCS chemistry and the effects of one substance vs. another.

(next two paragraphs--Max's interesting thought experiment--don't happen because the objection to his redirect into the politics of sugar was sustained.)

Again, I understand the pathology where FRUCTOSE in LARGE DOSES is problematic. I understand that jacking the carb consumption up by 30% in 30 years is problematic. And that, assuming a third of that would be free sugar, you've increased the fructose intake by a considerable amount. But I still don't see that HFCS, in and of itself is that dangerous. And based on the writings of Dr. Eades on his blog, Gaelen's attempts to conflate rat results with human results, and LaughingW's, I don't see anything to change my mind. Is that obstinate? Probably, but when you have a lab study with people, or when you can put some numbers on the unsafe dose, based on something more than boogeyman fear, gimme a call. No one has met that burder of proof.

some of the burden of proof:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VNH-48WJWGF-6&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=efeef59b3c725e76610099285c5d85df

disclaimer: I don't have a current subscription to this journal; I don't feel like shelling out $31 and change to satisfy self-aware obstinancy, and the abstract unfortunately doesn't go into the specific numbers. Also, this study was updated in 2006 and presented to a new group, with even more damning information regarding fructose consumption. Analysis is of metabolism in man.
Oh--the authors? Loren Cordain and Drs. Mike and Mary Dan Eades.

There are more studies of HFCS metabolism and its effect on food intake in both non-human primates and in humans. A couple show that there was no difference in satiety between sucrose-sweetened foods and HFCS-sweetened foods. One shows that there was a significant intake difference when people ate solid foods with added sugars (several sweetener types compared; all groups ate less food at their next meal) versus when the same people drank HFCS-sweetened drinks (all HFCS groups ate a higher amount of food at their next meal than they'd eaten when they were 'pre-loaded' with the sweetened solid foods). Important things to note in all of these studies--the bloodwork of all of the subjects, when consuming HFCS, was altered. No matter how little HFCS they ate, they all showed elevated liver enzymes and triglycerides...and at certain consumption levels (small amounts regularly consumed over a period of time, large amounts consumed in a short period of time), the elevated liver enzymes took longer to resolve than subjects who only ate a little bit now and then. As has been pointed out before--part of the problem with HFCS is its inclusion in many things where you wouldn't expect any sweetener at all.

Last thing: If you are keeping carbs in the ketogenic carb ranges, you're probably not drinking a lot of sugar coke, or eating a lot of confections (If you are, you're doing your ketogenic plan incorrectly). So, the point is moot. You're not going to be buying a lot of high carb consumer packaged goods. Which raises the question of why even have the discussion. Perhaps we need to feel some sort of superiority to the masses who are munching away or the corporate schills who have products to sell.

It's the Media Watch forum, Max. I saw some pretty idiotic, unrealistic and insulting commercials from the Corn Refiners Assn. which try to promote HFCS as a 'natural' sweetener which is 'okay in moderation'--by making someone who questions its use look like an idiot...and then found the position papers on their website and thought they'd make an interesting discussion. As if moderate consumption of HFCS is even possible unless you are specifically reading labels to see if it's in the foods you're eating. And no--I've got no illusions about the label-reading habits of the average American. :rolleyes:

To your version of this discussion--while you could be keeping to a ketogenic PP 40g ECC, as a hedonist those 40g of carbs could be entirely composed of HFCS sweetened soda, if that's what you wanted to. And from what I've researched regarding HFCS, even that level of consumption (160 calories, 40g more or less) could cause the human liver, which is far more efficient in PPAR use than a rodent liver, to be negatively impacted by the HFCS. Leptin resistance would be increased. Insulin resistance would be increased. Liver enzymes would be negatively affected--all from 40g of HFCS-55 sweetened soda.

Imagine.

[maxlharris]

Nope--you've bought the wrong judge. I would be the crazy one that tells you 'you're dangerously close to contempt, sir.'
I could do a lot with this. An awful lot. I probably wouldn't like the result though.

PS- a 12 ounce coke does not fit into a 40g carb limit. On a 60g limit, you may have 17 ounces of coke, and have 2.625g left over for 2 large stalks of celery or 2/3rds of a cup of chopped broccoli. Now we're living the high, hedonist life.

[laughingW]

PS- a 12 ounce coke does not fit into a 40g carb limit.

Max, when Gaelen said 40g of soda, did that make you think she was talking about drinking a 12 oz serving? How funny to make the serving the limit, instead of the grams. Just what they say about us eating what is served.

i was thinking if a PP person wanted to drink 40g of HFCS soda they would be all diligent about measuring, pour it in a glass from the 2 liter bottle. Or one of those giant Sunny D containers.

[maxlharris]

I suppose you are welcome to mete out 40g of cola (measuring on your self-tare scale, in a graduated cylinder so you can repeat at a later date). Let's see, fluid ounces to grams... no that doesn't work, you need the mean density of a carbonated cola. Must weigh. Let's case interview - estimate this problem. Cola will be more, less, or equally dense to water. If it's flat, it's denser. But the carbonation is low density. We'll call it roughly equal to water as an assumption.

Water goes what, 8.6 lbs to the gallon? 128 fluid ounces to the gallon, so ... well, the wife is ready, you do the math.

To get 40g of carbs from coke, you are consuming slightly less than a 12 ounce can. With sloppy rounding, you can actually have the whole can. But then, you're not getting your protein, unless you have a completely carb free protein source.

In short, if you're having a real world serving of coke, you're not in the weight loss phase of PP. Hedonist or not.

[laughingW]

In short, if you're having a real world serving of coke, you're not in the weight loss phase of PP. Hedonist or not.

I believe Gaelen's comment was, a person could get all their carbs from HFCS in the Hedonist world, if that's what they wanted. The 40g wouldn't have to be done in one sitting like we normally do with a can of soda. And it could be done with protein on the side. The Hedonist prescription doesn't say "you have to" get the ECC from this or that.

But with the chapters on sweet, it would be hard to reconcile doing that every day, with health.

[Gaelen]

At this risk of reinforcing argumentativeness for argument's sake, LaughingW is correct--what I said and meant was that if a PP Hedonist chose to get all of the daily ECC from things sweetened with HFCS, s/he could. No problem...except the long-term damage HFCS intake would do to the person's leptin and insulin thermostats, even in that small dose.

Since you brought up Coke, Max...not sure where you're getting your ECC count or how you're doing the math, and I don't drink soda so don't have a can handy. But this is the nutrient info from the coke website. Note that it's for 8 oz. servings--and that Coke Classic is 27g carbs for 8 oz. So I'm guessing that makes a 12 oz serving (the single can) approximately 40g of carbs, give or take a half gram of carbs. Not the menu choice I'd make, but completely do-able. As for zero-carb protein sources, that's also pretty easy--any meat not organ meat, most fin fish, all poultry, etc. It's a pretty wide variety, actually...but of course, you know that.

http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/mail/goodanswer/soft_drink_nutrition.pdf

[maxlharris]

Same source. ~40.5g (possibly more, figuring a fudge factor in down rounding).

Uhm, I said "zero," not "zero for all intents and purposes." There is small, residual carb in muscle meat. There is more carb in shellfish, there is some carb in cheese and there is carb in eggs. But maybe your zero is a little looser than mine.

*tongue inserted firmly in cheek*
I suppose you could mix your 12 ounces of coke, spread across four servings of 3 ounces a piece, and for real fun, mix it with 100% whey protein. Of course, you are still not doing a real ketogenic diet (or PP{LP}) for that matter. Because you need some fat. I suppose you could drop a small scoop of lard in there. *remove tongue*

I'm not gonna food nazi anyone else. If you want your 3 oz shooter of coke (remember, PP/LP is about 7-10g/serving), and you want to be strictly on plan, you could do it with some (admittedly small) number fudge.

IMO any hedonist who is wasting carb on regular coke with either sugar (imported from Mexico, for instance) or HFCS is wasting their carb count and probably blowing their diet. But that's an opinion. You're welcome to yours, as well. Enjoy your coke. Chase it with some Peter Pan.

[Gaelen]

well--back to the original topic--I think the thing that bothers me the most about these commercials is the CRA's use of people's tendency to make statements without understanding/knowing the supporting evidence. I just saw commercial #2 this morning, called 'Two bites.' It's even more mind-numbingly insidious than the two moms at the party.

http://www.sweetsurprise.com/tvads.php?vid=TwoBites.flv

Apparently, Connie Bennett from the Sugar Shock blog (another blog I discovered this week doing my week#2 one-new-thing of checking out nutrition bloggers) agrees that the only logical thing these commercials promote is that consumers should do a little research and get the facts before stating opinions about sweeteners. That's a position with which I heartily agree. ;)

http://www.sugarshockblog.com/

[maxlharris]

The real solution is probably to watch less TV.

[Gaelen]

The real solution is probably to watch less TV.

Max, I agree that typically American watch too much TV...but how is that 'the real solution' to an ad campaign which misrepresents nutritional information and portrays people who would prefer not to eat too many foods which contain too much of a highly refined manufactured food additive as idiots?

[maxlharris]

Less TV = Smarter People
Less TV = More Critical Thinking
Less TV = More Reading
Less TV = Less Opportunity to See the Offending ad

Take your pick from above theories. At the very least, not seeing the ad will probably lower your blood pressure a little. You'll probably live longer.

From the less stress thought camp, I'd suggest less Internet, too. :evil:

[Ammy]

Less TV = Smarter People
Less TV = More Critical Thinking
Less TV = More Reading
Less TV = Less Opportunity to See the Offending ad

I think you are making assumptions!!

Less TV = More gossiping for entertainment
Less TV = Less knowledgeable people
Less TV = People that are not aware of impending bad weather (or impending bad elections-like any are "good")
Less TV = More drinking/eating/compulsive behaviors because they never learned how to read and they're bored.

:razz:

[Ammy]

I still think the funniest thing about the tv ad is that it states it's "okay in moderatation"...
There IS no moderation to high fructose corn syrup unless you are trying to avoid it...it's in EVERYTHING!!!

[laughingW]

I still think the funniest thing about the tv ad is that it states it's "okay in moderatation"...
There IS no moderation to high fructose corn syrup unless you are trying to avoid it...it's in EVERYTHING!!!
Ammy that is just a perfect succinct summary. I shall use it often! well done you

[maxlharris]

I think you are making assumptions!!

Less TV = More gossiping for entertainment
Less TV = Less knowledgeable people
Less TV = People that are not aware of impending bad weather (or impending bad elections-like any are "good")
Less TV = More drinking/eating/compulsive behaviors because they never learned how to read and they're bored.

:razz:
Let's see. Let's debunk these one at a time.
1- Without TV, will you have more to gossip about? Remove celebrity gossip from your discussion and focus on your peers. I suspect it will reduce overall gossip by 10%.

2- Less knowledgeable people. Consider that TV news is a very small percentage of TV. That documentaries that aren't about spectacle are an even smaller percentage. And all the inherent problems with tv news. Do you really think TV makes you informed? If by informed, you mean, up to date on Brittney Spears' latest coming, the trials and tribulations of tattoo artists and fishermen and the latest spin on the slightest word of any politican, then yes, you might be less knowledgeable. You'd also be less knowledgeable about the benefits of HFCS. I don't buy this for a second.

3- If no elections are good, then all you have to do is consult your calendar. Or allow your TV besotted coworkers to let you know what's news. It works really well. If you are concerned about bad weather, open your front door. As was famously said, I don't need a weatherman to tell me it's raining. (PS; radio can tell me there is possible rotation in beaver hollow county).

4- Since one of the big things many diet people tell you to focus on is the elimination of mindless eating, and a TON of mindless eating takes place with the TV as the mind's main attraction, I think reducing TV would reduce mindless eating, rather than increase it. Didn't you see Wall-E?

[bigdawg_SLC]

Let's see. Let's debunk these one at a time.
1- Without TV, will you have more to gossip about? Remove celebrity gossip from your discussion and focus on your peers. I suspect it will reduce overall gossip by 10%.

2- Less knowledgeable people. Consider that TV news is a very small percentage of TV. That documentaries that aren't about spectacle are an even smaller percentage. And all the inherent problems with tv news. Do you really think TV makes you informed? If by informed, you mean, up to date on Brittney Spears' latest coming, the trials and tribulations of tattoo artists and fishermen and the latest spin on the slightest word of any politican, then yes, you might be less knowledgeable. You'd also be less knowledgeable about the benefits of HFCS. I don't buy this for a second.

3- If no elections are good, then all you have to do is consult your calendar. Or allow your TV besotted coworkers to let you know what's news. It works really well. If you are concerned about bad weather, open your front door. As was famously said, I don't need a weatherman to tell me it's raining. (PS; radio can tell me there is possible rotation in beaver hollow county).

4- Since one of the big things many diet people tell you to focus on is the elimination of mindless eating, and a TON of mindless eating takes place with the TV as the mind's main attraction, I think reducing TV would reduce mindless eating, rather than increase it. Didn't you see Wall-E?

Max, you may not hear this from me often ... but in this case ... I LIKE the way you think! Other then sports, I don't turn on the TV, I do NOT read the newpapers, and other than financials -- I am NOT a web surfer. I have yet to see these ADS on TV -- I just DO NOT watch it enough.

I can also see Gaelen's point, turning off the TV does NOT make the AD more or less truthfull. For those people who are glued to the TV the ad effects them tremendously ... HFCS is OK -- that's the message they are getting.

Now, the real point, there are very few people of those who are GLUED to the TV, present company excluded that really give a rip about the truthfulness or validity of the commercial. Take the SuperBowl for example, the "judging" of the half time commercials are based on whether or not they are "catchy" or "funny" or if they made us laugh ... not necessary on the content (with few exeptions, I can only think of 1 or 2 that were pulled because they offended a few).

[maxlharris]

I saw two of the ads last night (There I go, watching the Idiot Box again, having my mind polluted with life destroying commercial messages :evil:). Maybe I look at commercials a little differently (my undergrad degree is in Radio Television and Film, critical and cultural studies), but I think they are telling cultural artifacts.

Here (http://sweetsurprise.com), you have a guy and a girl on a date in the park, and she offers him a bite of her popsicle. He refuses and says she doesn't love him, because it contains HFCS. "You know what they say about HFCS..." She asks what "they" say, and he's at a loss. This very moment is a testament to the times we live in. A number of people (I'm sure you know some) have soundbyte opinions on nearly everything. Health, the economy, politics, etc. They know, in short, what they are told to know, and not much more (no one here, obviously, but you're here, rather than looking at whatever it is these people look at on the Internet). If any one of you were offered the popsicle, and were declining SOLELY on the grounds of it containing HFCS, I'm sure you'd mostly have good responses when your girlfriend asks what "they" say about HFCS.

I still don't see a problem with the ad. It says to me that sheeple get non-alkie fatty liver. And to think, we have to get all gavardy* on geese and ducks to get pate, and here are the sheeple who don't ask questions, doing it to themselves.

*- Don't have a problem with le gavard. Once you look into it, it's not what the PETA people would have you believe.

[laughingW]

I wonder if the Corn Growers are already seeing a drop in consumption, or are just gearing up for it.

I would have thought it was a little early for consumer backlash, this rejection of HFCS being confined to the fringes still.

[maxlharris]

It's probably a proactive stance.

The big lessons you learn in some of your business school classes:
1- The type of communication that keeps you employed is honest, soft and timely. (Effective Managerial Communications)
2- The best time to handle a problem is the moment you understand you have it (Managerial Ethics)
3- The best way to handle a crisis is directly and promptly, assuming you can't handle it before it's a crisis, which is best. (Crisis Communications)

I think HFCS rejection is in the fringes. But given our accelerated culture, things move from Fringe to Norm to post norm very quickly. Very very quickly. So, if it's moved just up off the fringe, it's time for a company to act.

A good book on the phases of ideas, from fringe to mass, is my friend, Watts Wacker's, "The Deviant's Advantage. (http://books.google.com/books?id=LYsNAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:Watts+inauthor:Wacker)" If you consider Watts' ideas on progression, and the acceleration of culture, you can see what's going on here. They're trying to head off the HFCS fears before your average person has an informed fear of HFCS. First idea in takes 30 repetitions to get out. Standard psychology.

[Omlette]

I still don't see a problem with the ad. It says to me that sheeple get non-alkie fatty liver. And to think, we have to get all gavardy* on geese and ducks to get pate, and here are the sheeple who don't ask questions, doing it to themselves.



Max, I know that this won't make a difference, but the a will likely cause the only partially informed to think that it is okay. I have had my mom tell me on many occassions that it is made from corn. I'm more afraid of what the uninformed will fee their children and grandchildren which will harm them before becoming adults.

I search products high and low to know buy ones with HFCS. I was disappointed that Gerber puts it in their products. I have an 11 month old, so she gets 'nilla wafer to munch/teeth on.

I think people will hear - only in moderation or it's made from corn - and think it is fine and dandy to consume it without realizing how much it is in everything.

[maxlharris]

So, it IS made from corn. This is not an inaccurate statement.

As to other people, I think it was Jean Paul Sartre, in "Huis-Clos" who described them most accurately.