3 comments

• 

  Tom

  9 months ago

  The carbonation (especially in non-fountain sodas) has time in the container to act on the fructose, creating about 5x the original amount of reactive carbonyls. My brother-in-law is at high risk for heart disease and diabetes and recently switched to diet soda and he has lost some weight so I hope he has chosen the lesser of evils. Aspartame is in the yogurt my mom eats every day. In this case, the sugar sweetened one would clearly be the best alternative; or better yet just add fruit and some concentrated OJ to plain yogurt.
  reply
• 

  Jeff Ioele

  9 months ago

  This article is not accurate in facts, while raising an argument albeit hidden. The number is not relevant to sweetness, it is in the "V" (viscosity) rating. The higher the number the greater the percentage of CS (corn syrup) solids, hence a higher number rating the "thicker" the solution. Also there are more than 2 types of corn syrup, (I use HFCS 80 which is not listed in this article everyday where I work) and each customer may specify the solid content as each batch may be made custom to the preferences of the customer.
  The simple matter about the use of corn syrup is political not nutritional. There are unfair and antiquated laws regarding the amount of sugar that can be imported into this country. These laws were enacted by the initial sugar barons, to protect a young sugar monopoly in the americas. They keep the price of domestic sugar high, and prevent the import of foreign sugar without punitive taxes, therefore eliminating the world as competitor to the native trade. As such, since there are no restrictions on CS it is more economical to use it instead of costly domestic sugar. The original formula for Coca Cola (TM) uses sugar as the sweetener, and indeed outside of the americas Coca Cola (TM) is made with sugar and tastes much better. If I am wrong someone please correct me.
  reply
• 

  Andrew S.

  9 months ago

  I agree completely with your argument Jeff that HFCS is as prevalent as it is mainly due to the tariffs. I have been opposed to these tariffs since I found out about them a few years ago. I also am aware that there are different types of HFCS and I naturally assumed that there were more varieties in existence than the ones listed in Dr. Mercola's article.
  
  As far as I can tell you are correct in these two positions. These do not, however, answer the question of whether the body metabolizes these different substances in the same way. This is what deserves further testing and the existing studies do come down on both sides of the issue.
  
  What is not debatable, and what may be the most critical and obvious issue, is the question of whether the level of caloric intake that Americans derive from HFCS is safe. Even if High Fructose Corn Syrup was a perfect substitute for sugar, we would have a problem on our hands as a country if it is true that 41% of our calories come from this. Nobody can defend this high level of sugar intake as healthy. It's not impossible to escape HFCS, but it can easily add an hour to your first trip to the grocery store as you attempt to find products that don't contain it.
  
  The other night in Wegmans I was only able to find one brand of ice cream that used only cane sugar and only one brand of certain types of juices that did the same. If you drink soda then the only alternative is aspartame, which is even more widely thought to be harmful.
  
  It's an interesting question and a debate we should be having. Thanks for your input.
  reply