"Corn Sugar" Is Stupid

I'm sure you're aware the corn refiners are attempting to get "high fructose corn syrup" to legally be called "corn sugar". HFCS evil-doers are constantly trying to say that it's chemically the same as sugar. (Their own website even says, "It is not high in fructose as its name would suggest." It's almost like they forgot all the enzymes they had to add to their corn syrup to force all that fructose to be in there.) By their logic, diamond and graphite are chemically the same thing, too.

Have a look at this:

Refined Cane Sugar

Refined Beet Sugar

High Fructose Corn Syrup

HFCS ≠ sugar.

The New York Times is Stupid

For Corn Syrup, the Sweet Talk Gets Harder

This article basically tries to say that high fructose corn syrup isn't bad for you, but more Americans don't want it anyway. Yet the only science the article mentions is buried deep within the article AND the conclusions were that HFCS is bad for you.

This is happening even though many scientists say that high-fructose corn syrup is no worse for people than sugar, which costs some 40 percent more.

Many scientists, huh? Like who?

Leading scientists, however, say that the product, made when various chemicals convert corn starch into syrup, is not any worse than sugar. Both sweeteners are made up of roughly equal amounts of glucose and fructose, they say.

Oh, they're leading scientists now? Let's be clear here. Sure, sugar and HFCS are made up of equal amounts of glucose and fructose, but there is a distinct difference. Sugar is actually sucrose, which is fructose and glucose bonded together. HFCS is just a pile of each. Throwing LEGOs into a bag doesn't make a Troll Assault Wagon. You have to put it together!

“I’m no fan of the Corn Refiners Association, but in this case they have biochemistry on their side,” says Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University who has campaigned against unhealthy foods marketed to children.

Marion Nestle? What's that? You have books to sell? How convenient that you're available for New York Times interviews.

Although it hasn’t done much good yet, Ms. Erickson [President of the Corn Refiners Association] continues to point out that science does not support the demonization of the product.

Of course the president of the Corn Refiners Association has plenty of "science" to say their product isn't killing Americans. They have spent millions of dollars on inconclusive studies and even more on advertising and PR. There have been plenty of studies about whether HFCS has adverse health effects. And wouldn't you know it, most of the ones defending HFCS were funded by corn refiners!

Finally, some actual science performed by actual scientists:

In the recent Princeton study... one group of rats was given access to high-fructose corn syrup, while another got sugar-sweetened drinks. The study found that rats that gulped lots of drinks with high-fructose corn syrup gained more weight than those that had the sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

You want proof that HFCS sucks? Have a Passover Coke, Mexican Coke, or Canadian Coke*. These are all made with sugar. Then have a good old corn-laden American Coke. Yeah, now you understand. (The difference is tenfold if you try them both at room temperature.)
*Although Canadian Coke does say "sucrose and/or glucose-fructose" so the presence of HFCS in it is possible, but rare.

P.S. The existence of a Facebook group does not constitute news, New York Times. One guy made an anti-HFCS page and that somehow makes him your anti-HFCS expert? What happened? Couldn't understand what the actual scientists said to you?

P.P.S. The incredibly unfunny HFCS Commercial Spoof mentioned in the article isn't worth your time or mine.

High Fructose Corn Syrup

Ever see those Corn Refiners Association commercials where the one person offers the other something, but he refuses it because it has high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in it, but the first guy essentially says, "so?"

Well, here's why HFCS and other corn products are bad:

It's killing you. It's killing the economy. It's killing the planet.

Note: I was going to sit down and write a long, drawn out post enumerating why corn is horrible, but why bother when this article does a pretty good job of summarizing it anyway?

I will leave you with this, though. You know who we have to blame for the corn subsidies? Nixon.

Zero calorie Coca Cola

Get ready for a mindfuck!

Coca-Cola Zero is a zero-calorie version of Coca-Cola. Diet Coke isn't!

Diet Coke was introduced in 1982. It raped Tab in sales and was the first new brand to use the name Coke since 1886. Coke was terrified of making a diet drink with the name of their successful product on it. Hence, the zero-calorie Tab was introduced in 1963. Meanwhile, Diet Pepsi was introduced in 1964. Pepsi just didn't give a fuck.

Anyway, instead of sugar, it contained saccharine and aspartame. The amounts of each varied during the first few years. In 2005, Diet Coke with Splenda (sucralose) was introduced. And it's okay I guess. Meh. Diet Pepsi is better at being a diet drink anyway.

...Not that 'diet' should be used to describe a soda anyway....

So, where's the mindfuck?

Diet Coke isn't a sugar-free version of the Coca-Cola formula. Instead, it's its own formula.

Here it comes...

NEW COKE WAS BASED ON DIET COKE.

WHAT!

That's right. New Coke was a high fructose corn syrup version of the Diet Coke formula. (HFCS is another horrible thing I'll get into another day.) Since real Coke is so much better than Diet Coke, it's no wonder it failed. Coca-Cola Classic was (re)introduced shortly after New Coke was introduced, only now it had HFCS in it.

In 2004, Coca-Cola released Coca-Cola Zero, which is in fact a sugar-free version of regular Coca-Cola. I thought they just switched up the ratio of aspartame to saccarhine in Diet Coke and called it "Coca-Cola Zero" so they could market a zero-calorie drink to men. But I guess I'm wrong. It's not often that happens.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_Coke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_Zero