Currently browsing posts about: HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup)

The USDA’s Economic Research Service, back on the job, has the latest statistics on the availability of sugars in the U.S. food supply.

Availability means the amount produced plus imports less exports, per year, per capita.

It is not the same as consumption (availability is likely to be higher), but it is an accurate indicator of trends.

The chart shows:

• Availability of sugars peaked in about 1999 and has been going down ever since.
• The increase was almost entirely in corn sweeteners—high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and the like.
• The rise in HFCS was due to its substitution for sucrose (the sugar in beets and cane), in soft drinks starting in the late 1970s.  Soft drinks account for close to half of available sugars.
• Cane and beet sugar (sucrose) fell with substitution of HFCS, but started to increase again as HFCS got a bad reputation.
• Total availability of all sugars is now around 120 pounds per person per year.

What does 120 pounds per capita per year mean?

• Calculation: 120 pounds per capita x 454 grams per pound divided by 365 days per year = 149 grams per day per capita (approaching 40 teaspoons)
• This means about 600 calories available from sugars per day per person (which, in turn, refers to every man, woman, child, and infant in the country).  This is a lot of sugars.

Current Dietary Guidelines say sugars should not exceed 10% of daily calories.  For diets of 2000 calories a day, that means no more than 50 grams of sugars (one gram of sugar = about 4 calories).

Therefore, the U.S. food supply provides at least three times the upper amount of sugars recommended.

Pretty much everyone would be healthier eating less sugar, if for no other reason than that they provide calories but minimal or no nutrients.

Their lack of nutritional value applies to sugars of all kinds, refined and unrefined, no matter their source: beets, cane, honey, sorghum, or maple trees.

The downward trend is in the right direction.

I’m still seeing articles coming out from the USDA’s Economic Research Service, now sadly moved to Kansas City.  This one is based on an older article.*  It’s about how “consumption” of sugars (in quotes because the data actually reflect the availability of sugars in the food supply—production less exports plus imports).

Here’s how I read this chart:

• Overall sugars are down almost to the level of the late 1970s.
• Refined (table) sugar dropped at about the time High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) became widely used; it is holding steady.
• HFCS accounted for the increase in total sugars from 1975-1999.  The subsequent decline is also mainly in HFCS.

The big reason for the decline is lower consumption of soft drinks (these account for nearly half total sugars consumed).

Another trend is substitution of HFCS by table sugar.  This is to the higher cost of HFCS relative to table sugar.  It used to be much cheaper but increased demand for corn to produce ethanol has made HFCS and table sugar cost about the same.

Also, HFCS has a reputation for being worse for health than table sugar, but they are about the same physiologically.  HFCS is glucose and fructose separated.  Table sugar is glucose and fructose stuck together (but quickly separated in the body).

I’m all for eating less of either one.  This, at least, is a healthy trend.

*Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook: July 2019 , by Michael McConnell and David W. Olson, ERS, July 2019

In response to my post of last week on Bud Light’s use of corn syrup as a means to attack competing beer companies, I received this note from John Bode, the president and CEO of the Corn Refiners Association.

I met Mr. Bode years ago, when I was working in Washington DC and he was assistant secretary for agriculture under President Reagan, and we continue to correspond occasionally.

Dear Marion,

I realize you disagree with various policy positions the Corn Refiners Association has taken, but your characterization of CRA as promoting corn syrup and HFCS is out of date.  Since shortly after I joined the association five years ago, CRA policy has forbid promotion of increased consumption of corn sweeteners and other nutritive sweeteners.

As noted on our website and in comments we’ve made in comments regarding federal food regulations, we do not promote the increased consumption of sugars – “CRA recognizes that many Americans need to reduce their total intake of calories, including calories from sugars and sweeteners, thus CRA does not promote increased consumption of sugars or other caloric sources.” (see website)

I hope you find this information helpful.

As I discussed in my book, Unsavory Truth, I had some bad experiences with the CRA in its pre-Bode era.  Mr. Bode is trying to do better but it’s tough to represent sugars of any kind these days.  I appreciate his writing to me and granting permission to reproduce his note.

Nutrition labels may seem self-evident but it takes volumes of Federal Register notices to explain how every word works.  When it comes to food labels, the devil is in those details.

Take “Added Sugars,” coming soon to a food label near you.

How does the term apply to honey and maple syrup or, for that matter, sugar itself.  These are sugars ready to add.

Pure honey and maple syrup producers are worried that when you see grams of Added Sugars on their labels, you will think that these natural products have been adulterated with—gasp—High Fructose Corn Syrup.

The producers of sugar-sweetened cranberry products are also concerned.  They worry that the added sugars will discourage you from buying cranberries.

Here is how the FDA suggests dealing with these “problems,” in quotes because they are problems for producers, not you and me—we know what “added” means.

The purpose of this draft guidance is to advise food manufacturers of our intent to exercise enforcement discretion related to the use in the Nutrition Facts label of a symbol “†” immediately after the added sugars percent Daily Value information on single ingredient packages and/or containers of pure honey or pure maple syrup and on certain dried cranberry and cranberry juice products that are sweetened with added sugars and that contain total sugars at levels no greater than comparable products with endogenous (inherent) sugars, but no added sugars.

Got that?

Pure honey and maple syrup get a “†” indicating that they have no more sugar than any other comparable sugar.

Cranberries are more complicated:

With respect to the labeling of certain cranberry products, cranberries are a naturally tart fruit, and certain dried cranberries and cranberry juice products have added sugars added to them to bring the total sugars per serving up to levels comparable to the levels of non-cranberry competitor products that contain equivalent amounts of total sugars, but whose labels list zero “added sugars” because their fruit products are inherently sweet.

Did you get that?

If I read this FDA-speak correctly, the FDA is making an exception for cranberries.  It agrees that the Added Sugars in cranberries also deserve a “†”.

Why is FDA allowing this?  The Draft Guidance explains:

We received comments from the cranberry industry to the final rule and subsequent correspondence that the added sugars declaration would be detrimental to the cranberry industry by implying that cranberry products are less nutritious than competitive products that have similar amounts of total sugars and nutrients.

These comments were similar to those we received which noted that grape juice contains 36 grams of total sugar with no added sugars while cranberry cocktail, with sugars added for palatability because cranberries are naturally tart, generally contains 28 grams of total sugars including 25 grams of added sugars and has 30 fewer calories per serving than 100% grape juice.

Likewise, comments explained that sweetened dried cranberries contain 29 grams of total sugars including 25 grams of added sugars per serving while raisins contain 29 grams of total sugars with no added sugars per serving. Both sweetened dried cranberries and raisins have the same number of calories per serving and a similar nutrient profile.

In translation, you are not supposed to be concerned about the Added Sugars in cranberries.

But couldn’t you could buy real cranberries and add a whole lot less sugar than that?

Chalk this as a win for cranberry lobbyists.

The documents

• Download the Draft Guidance 
• Federal Register Notice
• Constituent Update
• Changes to the Nutrition Facts Label
• Additional Labeling Guidance

As a result of yesterday’s post, readers asked questions about sugar.  Here’s one:

Q: Is there a difference between cane and beet sugar?

A: It depends.

Both are 99.95% sucrose.

But the plants are different.  Sugar cane is grassy; sugar beets are a root vegetable.

The sucrose is extracted and refined by different methods.

And that remaining 0.05%: chefs say it makes a difference in cooking properties.

The San Francisco Chronicle did some comparative baking and then ran blind taste tests.

These showed big differences, with cane sugar a clear winner.

Who knew?

Just for fun, here’s another difference: sugar beets are about 95% GMO; sugar cane is non-GMO.

Also for fun, here’s cane-plus-beet versus high fructose corn syrup:

You know the drill.  Everyone would be healthier eating less sugar—no matter whether it comes from cane, beets, or corn.

Bloomberg News has an interactive infographic on U.S. corn production.  Corn now accounts for 68 percent of US grain-and-oilseed production.

The USDA gives a bit of background on the corn economy.

Scientific American explains why growing all that corn is not such a great idea.

• It’s mostly for feeding animals, not people
• 40% of it goes to fuel for cars
• It uses up lots of natural resources
• It’s monoculture, and vulnerable
• It’s taxpayer supported—at billions of dollars per year

Here’s how it is used.

Time to do some rethinking, no?

If you can find it, watch the film King Corn.  It’s a lot of fun and enormously revealing.

I can’t believe that I am writing about sugar policy again.  The Trump Administration has just gotten a preliminary agreement with Mexico about the sugar it exports to us.

Mexico says OK, (1) it won’t make us pay as much for it, and (2) it will restrict how much refined (white) sugar it sends.

This is great for U.S. sugar processors who turn raw sugar into white.  They want Mexico to send raw sugar so U.S. processing plants stay busy.

But food and beverage companies making products will have to pay more for sugar.  They belong to the Coalition for Sugar Reform, which is not happy about the agreement.

Under NAFTA, Mexico could sell unlimited amounts of sugar to us.   But our domestic sugar producers complained the Mexicans were “dumping” subsidized sugar and undercutting their prices.  In retaliation,

• We threatened to impose tariffs.
• Mexico threatened to stop buying our high-fructose corn syrup (it currently buys 80% of our HFCS).

Three years ago, we got Mexico to agree to set minimum prices and limit the amount of sugar it sells to us.  The new arrangement confirms that deal, at least for the moment.

As for us public health types, sugar policy is endlessly weird.  Domestically, we don’t produce enough sugar to meet demands so we have to import sugar from other countries.  We keep domestic prices high through quotas, buy-backs and price-support loans.  This ought to discourage consumption, but does not.

How come?  Because the higher price, amounting to billions a year overall, works out to only about $10 per year per capita.

This is not high enough to:

• Reduce sugar consumption
• Improve health
• Generate outrage

Want to read more about this?

• The  US International Trade Commission did a report in 2011 stating that a liberalized sugar trade policy would increase food sales.
• The American Enterprise Institute says higher sugar prices cost Americans almost $3 billion a year.
• Reuters: Coke, Cargill enter fray as sugar dispute threatens Mexico trade 
• Nasdaq: U.S., Mexico closer to sugar trade deal: Mexican economy minister 
• Mexican News Daily:  US sugar industry accused of lying

McDonald’s ran a full-page ad in yesterday’s New York Times:*

“At McDonald’s we’re on a journey: What’s important to you is important to us.”

The ad says McDonald’s is taking these actions [with my comments]:

• Removed artificial preservatives from Chicken McNuggets and other items [Fine, but no big deal in my book.]
• Removed high fructose corn syrup from hamburger buns [And replaced it with what?  Sugar?  This matters? I’m guessing the price of HFCS must be close enough to the price of sugar to make this possible.]**
• Committed to only source chickens that have not been treated with antibiotics [OK.  Now we’re talking important.  For this alone,  McDonald’s deserves high praise.  My only question: by when?]*** 

The ad also summarizes the company’s additional actions, done and promised:

• Burgers are 100% beef
• Eggs are freshly cracked
• Salads feature baby spinach, kale, Tuscan red leaf lettuce, and carrots
• Buttermilk chicken uses real buttermilk
• Milk is sourced from cows not treated with rbST
• 2 billion sides of fruit were served (including 59 million clementines)
• Espresso beans are Rainforest Alliance Certified
• Eggs will be cage-free by 2025

Amazing, no?

It’s worth a field trip to see how all this works in practice.  I’m on it.

Additions, corrections, and updates

*Jill Cornish writes that the ad also appeared in the Washington Post.

**I get a Bingo for this one.  Martijn Katan writes: “The price of beet sugar fell below that of HCFS in April 2015. By June 2016, 1 lb of HFCS-55 cost $0.412 as opposed to $0.297 for beet sugar.”  He even sends a reference: www.cornnaturally.com/Economics-of-HFCS/price-calculator.aspx

***Andy Smith points out that “In 2015, McDonald’s announced that it would stop buying chicken raised with non-therapeutic, medically-important antibiotics by 2017– but a few weeks ago announced that it had already done so.”  He too provides a reference: See QSR. “McDonald’s Eliminates Antibiotics From Its Chicken,” QSR Magazine, August 2, 2016. Retrieved at https://www.qsrmagazine.com/news/eliminates-antibiotics-its-chicken.

Thank you readers!  Much appreciated.