Hfcs and the Ethics Thereof

High Fructose Corn Syrup

There has been some discussion in certain quarters about the idea of banning high fructose corn syrup from the food supply. Before such a determination can be made, one must understand what high fructose corn syrup is and what it is not. HFCS became popular by the mid-1970s as a replacement for sucrose. It has the same sweetness level of sucrose, but is more stable (White, 2008). Further, it derives from corn, a crop which is more plentiful in the United States that sugarcane. At this point, HFCS has nearly the same market share as sucrose in the United States (White, 2008).

One of the issues with high fructose corn syrup is that it is said to be less healthy than other sugars. Since the mid-1970s when it came into popularity, high fructose corn syrup use increased by 10,000%. It contributes 132 kcal per day, on average, for non-infant Americans. The top consumers of HFCS derive double the calories per day from it (Bray, Nielsen and Popkin, 2004). One of the differences with HFCS is that "the digestion, absorption and metabolism of fructose differs from those of glucose" (Bray, Nielsen and Popkin, 2004). Given that there has been spike in obesity in the United States that correlates with the spike in HFCS use, many have suggested that there is a correlation between the two (Bray, Nielsen and Popkin, 2004).

The link between HFCS and obesity, however, is equivocal. For example, while it has been shown that fructose-sweetened beverages "result in lower 24-hour plasma concentrations of glucose, insulin and leptin in humans"(Stanhope and Havel, 2008), studies have proven inconclusive with respect to the long-term effects of fructose consumption and obesity (Stanhope and Havel, 2008). Being able to demonstrate equivocally a link between a product and harmful outcomes is essential to the question of whether or not it should be banned from the food supply. When compared with aspartame, a calorie-free sweetener, it was found that the aspartame sodas resulted in reduce caloric intake, and that HFCS increased caloric intake and body weight (Tordoff & Alleva, 1990). The issue of course is not whether a diet soda has fewer calories and a lower contribution to weight gain than one with HFCS -- this is long-established fact -- but whether HFCS is any worse than any other sugar form. The FDA points out that in sucrose, fructose and glucose are joined by a chemical bond that breaks down upon exposure to stomach acid while in HFCS this bond does not exist (FDA, 2014).

There are very few things that are banned from our food supply. We sell cigarettes and alcohol, among other toxic substances. There are instances where food processing agents and additives can be toxic, but are allowable in minute quantities. The reality is that something has to be demonstrably toxic, with no perceived benefit, in order to find itself banned. Ethically, singling out high fructose corn syrup for such a ban simply does not fit with either the will of the American people, nor the mandate of the FDA, the agency that would enforce such a ban. The FDA has specifically stated that they "are not aware of any evidence ... that there is a difference in safety between foods containing HFCS and foods containing similar amounts of other nutritive sweeteners (FDA, 2014).