liz_marcs | High-fructose corn syrup is bad, but bad science is worse....

Current Mood: calm
Current Music: Green Day - American Idiot | Powered by Last.fm

High-fructose corn syrup is bad, but bad science is worse....

OMiGAWD high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is all CONTAMINATED!!!11!!

See that statement above?

To put it mildly: it's wrong. Well, it's not entirely wrong, but there are a whole lot of devils in the details that making a statement like the one above manages to both overstate the problem while underplaying it at the same time.

Let me put it another way: It's not as bad as all that, while also being a whole lot worse than you think.

And I'm saying this as someone who can't have high fructose corn syrup in any great amount. I found out that I have a bad reaction to it, so as a result my grocery bill has gone up because I can only buy organic or all-natural. I avoid pre-packaged food when I can, or if it's pre-packaged it's something with no preservatives or HFCS in it.

Once I dumped HFCS from my life I stopped having the mid-day sleepies, the occasional (but increasing) bouts of hypoglycemia, and general sluggishness. What's more: Barring the fact that I can't have Girl Scout Cookies any more, I didn't even feel the loss of HFCS from my diet. Okay, my pocketbook did. Me? Not so much. In fact, I felt better.

So, is it possible to have a diet without it? If you're willing to pay for it, yes you can get close to 100%. Trust the girl who knows.

Now, as for the commentary (not a study) published by Environmental Health, an open-access, peer-reviewed on-line journal about environmental and occupational medicine that started all the alarmist yelling...

Much as I hate HFCS, much as I think it's an awful thing to inflict on food stuffs and on people's health, if you actually read the journal's commentary (you can download the full PDF from this page since they don't have the HTML ready yet), the problem is not HFCS.

The problem is the manufacturing process used to make some of the HFCS on the market. That's a pretty big difference.

The problematic process is called mercury cell chlor-alkali. This paper gives you the basics of why it's a problem (warning, PDF!). Here's a better overview about the process.

There's one tiny problem with the mercury cell chlor-alkali process: it generates hazardous waste containing mercury. What's more, it's been known for awhile that there is high risk that anything manufactured using this process will be contaminated with mercury.

Now, these plants produce sodium hypochlorite, caustic soda, and hydrochloric acid, all of which are used in the manufacturing process of HFCS. [As an aside, check out page 5 of the paper when environmental sleuths contact "organic" HFCS manufacturers. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA! They even use "organic" in quotes! Good show!]

In short, the paper telling us that HFCS may be contaminated with mercury because the chemicals used to manufacture it may be contaminated with mercury because those chemicals were produced by a mercury cell chlor-alkali plant is a lot like telling us that rain is wet and bears shit in the woods.

Now here's where the news gets worse. Here's a whole bunch of other things that could also be affected by mercury contamination:

high-fructose corn syrup (YES! WE KNOW!)
citric acid (food preservative)
sodium benzoate (food preservative)
corn sweeteners (food preservative)
corn oil (food preservative)
animal feed

Try finding food on your local grocery shelves that contains none of the above.

According to the Environmental Health commentary, roughly 45% of the HFCS samples collected and tested by the FDA contained detectable levels of mercury. The remaining 55% that did not most likely were the end-product of a different manufacturing process called membrane cell chlor-alkali, which has been touted as a cheaper and more environmentally friendly way of producing sodium hypochlorite, caustic soda, and hydrochloric acid.

Also, the problem isn't necessary the levels of mercury that was found, because those levels are very, very small. The problem is that this stuff is in everything. As a result, according to Environmental Health, the range of exposure for Americans is 0 to 28.4 micrograms of mercury per day. And that's just HFCS consumption. That does not include mercury contamination from other sources, such as the list of food preservatives above; from seafood; or from livestock that's been fed using fishmeal or contaminated animal feed.

There's also precedent supporting the conclusions of the FDA testing. According to the Environmental Health paper, in 2004 some of the European Union nations a similar study and found that sugary beverages, cereals, bakery products, and sweeteners had detectable concentrations of mercury because the HFCS and preservatives used in the foods were end-products of a process that used chemicals manufactured by mercury cell chlor-alkali plants.

Are you pissed yet? Because you should be, especially since the possibility of mercury contamination via HFCS should come as a surprise to no one.

I think you're starting to get the picture.

The problem is, it's impossible to tell which products have HFCS (or other food preservatives) that contain products from a mercury cell chlor-alkali plant and which contain products from a membrane cell chlor-alkali plant.

The commentary recommends avoiding all foods that contain HFCS as its first or second ingredient, just to be on the safe side, because those are the foods that are most likely to have detectable levels of mercury in them if the HFCS is an end product of a mercury cell chlor-alkali plant.

Okay, I don't know how much the above information has cleared up. But I figured it was more important that everyone get the full skinny.

So, I'll just sum up here: shouting about HFCS being contaminated with mercury really doesn't capture just how potentially big this problem is, while managing to sound alarmist at the same time.

Get all the facts, then start shouting from the rooftops.

ETA:

m_mcgregor and

ryf make some good points about the commentary in this thread, noting that the information was taken from a pre-study to determine if a full-scale study is worth undertaking. That answer is yes, but it doesn't mean that we're all going to die of mercury poisoning tomorrow.

I, however, vehemently disagree with them on their points about HFCS. While I do agree that HFCS itself is not inherently bad, I think the main issue is that amount we unknowingly consume because we don't realize just how much of it is in our food.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

... my takeaway is that this country's entire food manufacturing system is so very broken.

*nods nods nods*

Because of my son's condition we've been on a "natural" diet for years. I can always tell when he's had any preservatives or HFCS, too. his whole being changes.

I'm so down on HFCS it's not even funny. I bake all our breads because it's an arm and a leg to buy bread without it, but it's cheap as free to make it. For us, it's not just the mercury problem you outlined, but mostly the glycemic issues - you also mentioned that, too.

My hope is that people are turning the tide against crap in their diet and moving back to a more natural and healthful diet. Thanks for the links, this is a great post.

*nods*

We've switched to getting meats, eggs and produce from local organic farms. The food tastes SO much better and it supports local farmers, as well.

Also... homemade bread? Tastes SO good. We like to throw a handful of fresh rosemary or other herbs in before we mix it up. It makes the house smell yummy, too. :D

Holy crap. Why in the world do they HAVE TO use mercury cell chlor-alkali to make HFCS? Wait, I know. Because it's cheap? I was watching Discovery Channel last night and there was a program about salt (good old NaCl), how it's mined and what it's used for in industrial processes as well as seasoning food, etc. I wish I'd paid more attention to the discussion about chlor-alkali plants. We've got (or used to have) a big chlor-alkali plant in Wisconsin; it was a significant emitter of mercury until the last couple years, I think.

The answer to WTF do they do that? is almost always 'cheap.'

And this makes me laugh even more at the HFCS is good for you commercials they show around here.

Have you seen the commercials that are done by the Corn Growers Association or whatever? (may be Canadian, I don't know). They make me SO angry because they're pretentious and have someone (implied to be knowledgeable) talking to someone else (implied to not have their facts) and telling them that it's fine, and natural, and okay in moderation...

Without highlighting the fact that it's almost impossible to get in moderation due to the fact that it's in almost everything processed.

-facepalms-

*nods* The husband and I had to laugh at the commercials because they were so obviously trying to counteract the go non-processed trend that's building. *facepalms*

Sigh.

I'd really like it if the news/blogosphere was reporting on this instead of as you put it, alarmist and yet not upset enough HFCS Is Full Of Mercury headlines I've already seen.

Scary stuff.

I checked the sources and they only state how many of these plants there are in the US, not where they're located. I'd like to know because an enormous HFCS plant is located about two miles from my house.

well... that explains all the fuss. i had been wondering but hadn't felt like digging thru a lot of junk to find the truth.

thank you. ^_^

I think I could mostly get by without HFCS, but it's in Heinz ketchup and bottled Hoisin sauce. Life without either of those things would be bleak beyond my imagining.

Heinz has a HFCS-syrup free version (Organic Ketchup) that actually tastes better (it's not as sweet). I know, because I've bought it and I've got it in my fridge even as we speak.

I can tell you for sure that it's available from Whole Foods and Hannaford Supermarkets. If you've got Stop & Shop or Shaw's in your area, you should be able to find it. Check the organic aisle first. If it isn't there, you might have to dig through the ketchups.

And if you can get Heinz ketchup without it, you should be able to get Hoisin sauce without it (I don't normally use Hoisin). You just might have to look at every single jar across several stores.

...environmental sleuths contact "organic" HFCS manufacturers

*snickers* I LOLed at this.

Try finding food on your local grocery shelves that contains none of the above.

You can find it, somewhat, but gods is it expensive. We broke down last summer and started getting produce from local, truly organic farmers every week. This year we're going for produce, meats, and eggs. Not only are they all so much better for you without any of the processed crap, but they TASTE BETTER!!! So much better. My husband dropped two clothing sizes last summer eating almost no processed food.

From the abstract: "A pilot study was conducted to determine... (emphasis mine.)

Pilot study. That alone means I don't take anything it says too seriously. A pilot study isn't a real study, it's the test study you do beforehand just to make sure the whole idea isn't completely nutty.

Not only was there an incredibly small sample size (twenty samples? That's what it sounds like to me after looking at the study), but they only took samples from three factories.

Then, eight of the nine samples that actually had mercury (which kind of mercury? Ethylmercury? Methylmercury? It makes a big difference), none of them had over .570 parts-per-million. .570 microgram. That's roughly half of one-millionth of a gram, and that's the high end of an EXTREMELY limited sample size.

This is not a study. It's basically a quick glance at a potential issue that, as of yet, has no well-produced evidence to back it up. It's worth further investigation, but it's definitely not worth getting all upset about.

And mercury saide, if your specific medical condition means having to avoid HFCS, then by all means, do so. But if you're the average person, HFCS is pretty much the same as any other sweetener, including sugar. The only real difference is slightly higher fructose as compared to glucose, which may leave you feeling slightly more hungry even after ingesting the same amount. That's about the only difference, as far as I know.

As for this "study," I find it deeply disappointing that anyone reads about a twenty-item sample size from three apparently regional factories and attempts to conclude ANYTHING from it.

As for this "study," I find it deeply disappointing that anyone reads about a twenty-item sample size from three apparently regional factories and attempts to conclude ANYTHING from it.

Agreed. And wasn't it only two? I read the story earlier and I remember two. But anyways, the real sample size in that case is not twenty, but two/three, as anything taken from the same factory will not be a real sample, only replicates within a sample. And two/three is such a small sample size that I am quite annoyed that even published it - I would certainly not be allowed to publish something like that.

which kind of mercury? Ethylmercury? Methylmercury? It makes a big difference

Dito to that. They say in their article that all forms of mercury are highly toxic, which is just not true. Toxicity is a function of compound and dosage. Without knowing the compound, nothing can be said and even with that, one has to look at the dosage. Nothing is toxic in a dosage of a few molecules.

What I found when looking for mercury poisoning information was: "The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a maximum permissible level of 1 part of methylmercury in a million parts of seafood (1 ppm)." That's twice as high as they found in the worst case in that "study".

I really think this is just one more sign how much science journalism sucks today, when a pilot study is blown out of proportion like that.

I hope you don't mind if I provide a link to this discussion in my own post?

I think it's a useful discussion. (Although I think I gave it less than you, calling it a commentary).

FYI, I disagree with you fairly hard on HFCS.

Again, it's not because I think HFCS (and other food preservatives) are necessarily bad in and of themselves. My issue is the amount that Americans consume via food they eat every day.

Now you're probably right: If you eat very little prepared food, you're probably only consuming a minimal amount of HFCS. For someone who doesn't have a bad reaction to HFCS (someone, like, say...ME!) a small amount isn't going to make a much of a difference.

That said, I didn't have bad reactions to HFCS until the past year or so. It is entirely possible that I developed the bad reaction to it because it's in everything. Even in food you'd think would actually be healthy for you, i.e., yogurt (not the imported Greek kind), whole wheat bread, tomato sauce (tinned diced tomatoes are an easy substitute), some "healthy" frozen meals (organic frozen is the only way to go here — be prepared to pay through the nose), just about anything touted as "low fat," "low carb," and "low cal"...the list goes on.

[I've been reading the ingredient labels waaaaaay too much in the past year.]

So, again, I agree: HFCS in and of itself is not bad. The sheer amount that's in everything, however, is.

Once you start getting into a diet that is heavy on the cheap/prepared food end of the scale because of 1) finances or 2) convenience...foods that do have a lot of HFCS as the first or second ingredient, you're going to have problems. We already know the health-related "cheap food problem:" a contributory factor to the development of metabolic syndrome, which can, in turn lead to type II diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and high blood pressure.

And let me be clear: I suspect that the "cheap food problem" will kill you loooooong before mercury poisoning will. That said, there is a potential issue for young children, pregnant women, and immunocompromised people because it could be yet one more drop in the bucket that could contribute to current and future health problems. If you are especially sensitive (and there's no way to know at first whether or not you are...it took me 6 months to figure out my problem was HFCS), you could find yourself getting really sick before you can fix the problem.

And the problem is happening more and more often, even in an area like mine where we do have access to plentiful farm produce. Strange as it sounds, food allergies and hypersensitivities to preservatives like HFCS is saving the New England family farm because there are a lot of us who can't eat anything else.

I think that ultimately our food manufacture and distribution chain is FUBAR'd. The problems didn't start under the Recent Evictee, even if they picked up steam and speed. The problems go back to Reagan's cost-cutting (because Government Is The Problem Always — Even When It Isn't), but none of the presidents since then have done anything to reverse the problem. The crash was a-gonna come, it was a matter of time.

That's my .02 cents. I wouldn't be quick to dismiss the potential health risks posed by HFCS — because I think there's enough evidence out there suggesting that it's real and a real problem.

I don't disagree that there are potential health risks, I just have never seen any evidence to suggest that HFCS alone has more health risks associated with it than with the next most-used alternative, cane sugar. Eating foods high in either actual sugar or HFCS is not going to be a healthy thing for anyone, but I don't think there's any reason to assume that HFCS is more harmful than any other sweetener or food additive.

The only evidence to suggest that that I have ever seen is the fructose-based rather than sucrose-based (I mistakenly said glucose earlier) sweeteners may (may) suppress the feeling of fullness that one has after consuming large portions of it.

In terms of other detrimental health effects, I have never read of any that are not also found in sugars and other natural sweeteners. I've seen plenty of "processed food is bad for you, ahhh!" stuff, but never actual examples of why HFCS is in more of a problem than other sweeteners.

I also agree, cheap-and-easy is much more the problem than anything else. Cheap-and-easy leads to transfats and high sugar/sweetener content, which is going to be bad for you regardless of what kind of sweetener it is.

I'm just wary of the "artificial=bad" "natural=good" arguments that show up a lot when this kind of stuff is discussed. Or even "preservatives=bad." Yes, certain artificial ingredients and preservatives are bad for you. Many are not. And without some real evidence to suggest to me that HFCS are particularly worse for you than sugar, I will continue to say that, in moderation, it's fine to consume.

(Perhaps the biggest problem is that "in moderation" is very subjective, and most people, myself included, don't moderate nearly as well as they should. I also of course don't mind linking to it, as I also find it very interesting.)

Oh, and again, I stress that it's okay for someone with the average metabolism, immune system, and digestive system to ingest it in moderation. If your doctor says you can't handle HFCS, then you should of course be avoiding them. Honestly, I can't ever say it's a bad thing for anyone to avoid products with high amounts of sugar in them in the first place, although even many products that aren't necessarily "sugary" do have HFCS in them.

Allergies are one thing, but there's a lot of self-diagnosing and placebo effecting going on in many situations like this. Jenny McCarthy "curing" her son of his "vaccine caused" autism by eating raw foods or somesuch springs immediately to mind.

But to be clear, I'm not suggesting that some people legimately cannot handle HFCS, and there's nothing wrong with them wanting and being able to have access to an alternative.

Ah, I re.read and you are right, it's three. Which is still a way to slow sample size to say anything in general.

Holy...shit.

That is scary. And yes, I'm pissed. One part of me is screaming, "What the fuck were they thinking!?" while the other part of me is shaking it's head, saying, "They weren't thinking at all."

What pisses me off most is the presence of "animal feed" on your little list of bullets. I am a pet owner, and it's my responsibility to ensure that furry children get a proper, nutritionally-balanced diet. However, this means that in doing what I've known is the right thing, I'm also slowing killing my pets. I've already been sent on a guilt trip from hell no thanks to my father's sister, who insisted I'd fed my dearly departed Siamese the contaminated food when he died two years ago this past Sunday (we didn't feed him any of that food, but it hurt when she all but said I'd killed him). I'd really rather avoid a repeat of the situation.

I've cut out most of the HFCS from my diet because it makes my blood sugar roller coaster like whoah. I'd say my grocery bill has easily gone up 25% because of this.

And now to find out there's a possibility of mercury contamination? Holy crap. The food industry really is trying to poison us.

My brother has to avoid anything with fructose anyway, including tomatoes and most other fruits, so I'm familiar with the joys of trying to form an entire diet without HFCS. If we both have to start doing that, it could offer some convenience, but I miss the days when companies actually used sugar to sweeten things.

Hmm. Taking note and keeping an eye on this topic in the future.

I personally am not worried - I eat limited amounts of processed food, but what gets me is that yet again, as you say upfront, all of this - knowledge as well as the ability to enact countermeasures - depends on wealth and/or class.

Word on the difficulty avoiding corn syrup. I have allergies. The last time I was dumb enough to indulge, I got dermatitis on my eyelids.

This are some very useful info-- thank you for sharing your thoughts!

I once spent a weekend in Minamata with a friend who was writing his dissertation on the community response to Minamata disease*. We went to the museum, toured the site, and met with survivors. Ever since, mercury scares the fucking shit out of me. That stuff is so incredibly toxic and so hard to clean up, any chemical process that requires the use of mercury is batshit crazy.

* The first known widespread incidence of mercury poisoning

Ooooh yeah! I admit you did a much better job writing it up than I did, LOL. And wow, thanks for the tip off on the other stuff as well. I'm gonna link this in my journal if you don't mind, 'Cause damn woman, you do a mighty fine job of doing up an article. I like it!

I'm more of a blurb and rant person and let 'em look up the rest on their own, LOL.

Great piece!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

High-fructose corn syrup is bad, but bad science is worse....

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject