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.