High-Fructose Corn Syrup: Health and Economic Effects Educating Students of the Difference between HFCS and Sugar and Providing An Alternative To Regular Pepsi In Rutgers Vending Machines Tag Words: High fructose corn syrup; Obesity; Farm Bill; Corn Subsidies; Pepsi Authors: Lynn Ma and Eliza Ahmed with Julie Fagan, Ph.D Summary High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is present in nearly every American beverage because it is a cheap substitute for the domestically high prices of cane sugar. Corn subsidies render the prices of corn byproducts like HFCS cheap, leading to its addition to many of our food products as well. Studies show that HFCS may be more detrimental than sugar, so we aim to provide the all-sugar Pepsi Throwback in our vending machines as an alternative to regular Pepsi and educate the Rutgers community about the health effects of HFCS and how it differs from sugar. The “Truth” About High-Fructose Corn Syrup Introduction High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has lately been the focus of many nationwide television ad campaigns. Some commercials claim that it’s harmful to our health, and that consumers would do best to avoid it. Other commercials claim that it’s no different from refined sugar. This paper will attempt to reconcile these two conflicting statements and find the “truth” behind HFCS by exploring the economic and health effects of HFCS in the US. Behind the Claims (EA) The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) claims that HFCS is the same as regular sugar. After all, both are composed of roughly equal amounts of glucose and fructose. They’re both sweeteners, they’re both produced from (subsidized) crops, and they even have the same amount of calories. Despite all of these similarities, this paper will prove that HFCS is nutritionally and economically different from sugar. Recall your last trip to the grocery store. With such a variety of food available to choose from, what did you check for first? Price? Brand? Nutrition label? Chances are you did one of the three. If the only difference between two food products is whether they contain HFCS or refined sugar, then the number of calories they both have will be the same. However, it’s likely the product containing HFCS is cheaper than the one containing refined sugar. Faced with two products similar in calorie and taste, it is not unreasonable to think that the consumer would choose the lower priced one. But that choice is a short-sighted one, and fails to take into account the external cost of HFCS to health and environment. The CRA asserts that HFCS and sugar are metabolized in exactly the same way. Let’s examine this claim. Sugar--otherwise known as table sugar, beet sugar, cane sugar, or sucrose-- is made of a 1:1 ratio of glucose and fructose linked together with glycosidic bonds. This polysaccharide is digested in the small intestine, where it is broken down into equal numbers of fructose and glucose which are then absorbed into the bloodstream. High fructose corn syrup is also digested in the small intestine and made up of a mixture of fructose and glucose molecules—however, in HFCS-55 (the variation of HFCS most commonly used in sodas) there is, as the name suggests, a slightly higher proportion of fructose to glucose. Though fructose and glucose are both monosaccharides, their metabolism in the body is very different. Glucose is vital to the body as it provides the materials for synthesizing ATP via certain metabolic pathways performed in muscle tissue throughout the body. In excess, glucose is converted into glycogen and stored in the liver. On the other hand, fructose metabolism occurs almost entirely in the liver, where it is used to replenish liver glycogen and synthesize triglycerides (which are used in fat synthesis). Excess fructose consumption increases hepatic de novo lipogenesis and causes increased blood triglyceride levels, both of which are markers for obesity. Fructose also reduces insulin secretion, an important hormone that detects the level of glucose in the blood and regulates the storage of glucose, especially after meals. Insulin also triggers other hormones involved in the feeling of satiety, which means that excess fructose consumption allows people to eat more before they feel full. According to the CRA, HFCS-55 contains 55% fructose, 42% glucose, and 3% higher saccharides. The question still under debate is whether this slight difference in proportion between 50:50 and 55:42 matters. Can 5% more fructose really do so much harm to our health? Studies That Don’t Link Obesity to HFCS (LM) White (2008) certainly claims that it is not a problem. However, his assertion that the 55:42 fructose-glucose ratio results in no real increase in dietary fructose is not connected back to health or backed up by any experimental data, and seems to be based only on the fact that 55 is a number close to 50. He makes more compelling arguments later with statistical analyses. Even though recently there has been a downtick in the consumption of HFCS--no doubt due to its bad press--obesity rates are still as high as ever. The world is also by-and-large a sugar- sweetened world, and despite the fact that HFCS is not widely used in countries other than the U.S., obesity rates have increased in foreign countries as well. From this we can conclude that HFCS is not the sole contributor to the global and domestic obesity trend. This isn’t surprising. The most obvious causes for obesity are the most likely: 1) the overall increased caloric intake through higher consumption of fats and sugars and 2) decreased activity levels. We’ve already 2 established that fructose is the “bad” sugar. Frankly, every added sugar in our food products, whether it’s refined sugar, HFCS, honey, or fruit concentrate contains fructose. However, we’ve focused on HFCS because it is the main contributor of fructose in our diets due to its prevalence in soft drinks and processed foods. So while replacing HFCS with refined sugar in sodas or avoiding food products that contain it probably won’t result with an end to obesity…it’s definitely a good place to start. The studies below enforce that idea. Studies That Link Obesity to High Fructose Corn Syrup (EA & LM) There have been several studies that demonstrate that HFCS does seem to be more detrimental to health than sugar. In Bocarsly et al. (2010), experiments showed that male rats given water sweetened with HFCS (along with a standard diet of rat chow) gained more weight than male rats that were given water sweetened with table sugar (along with the standard diet). The study had both short term and long term experiments. The long-term effects of high fructose corn syrup in a six-month period were measured in weight gain, body fat, and ultimate triglyceride levels. There were two groups of rats—a control group with a standard rat chow diet and the other with a diet rich in HFCS. The latter showed various characteristic signs of metabolic syndrome, which includes abnormal weight gain, augmented fat deposition, and significant increases in circulating triglycerides. The animals consuming the high fructose corn syrup gained forty eight percent more weight than those on the normal diet. Professor Bart Hoebel, the principal investigator of the study, discussed the results of these rats: "When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight." About 30% of our consumption of HFCS comes from soda alone. According to Ventura et al. (2010), it seems that these sodas contain even more fructose than the assumed 55:42 fructose-glucose ratio. A high-performance liquid chromatography of various beverages for their fructose, glucose, and sucrose levels revealed that the three most popular sodas--Coca-Cola, Sprite, and Pepsi—actually contain 64-65% fructose; not what anyone would call a near 1:1 ratio with glucose anymore. Bocarsly et al. (2010) used the standard HFCS-55 solution in their experiments and still received significant negative results in weight gain and triglyceride levels. How much worse would the rats have been if they had tested using a solution with 65% fructose? To put this fructose amount in sodas into perspective, consider the following: a 20 fl. oz. bottle of Pepsi contains 7.4 g/mL of fructose, which means that you’re drinking down around 43.7 grams of fructose per bottle. If we were eating small apples instead (weighing 100 grams each), we’d have to eat 5 apples in a row to equal that amount of fructose (Britell, 2013). Pepsi however, lacks many of the vitamins and minerals that make an apple nutritious, and most heavy soda drinkers don’t just drink one bottle a day. The Bocarsly et al. (2010) study indicates that long term consumption of HFCS results in higher adiposity and blood triglyceride levels, which are both markers for obesity. Other studies 3 observing the long term consumption of sucrose did not show such drastically negative health effects. So it seems that HFCS is indeed nutritionally different from sugar. However, the CRA refutes this study by claiming that rats are not humans. While it’s true that these rats are simply animal models, such across-the-board increases in weight gain makes it clear that there is something off about the metabolism of HFCS. So why use HFCS when it appears to be riskier to our health? Because it is cheaper than sugar.