Why do companies put sugar in apple sauce?

[ur32212451]

gribbler

I read the abstracts offered at that sight, but being abstracts, they do not reveal any of the science that went into the conclusion (abstract). So they just come across as Yahoos for the subsidized corn growers and the pockets of the politicians benefiting from their support of this very profitable product. In addition, I am very well aware how the political powers that be have a strong influence on what is acceptable science, and that has to do more with ideology and/or money (e.g Global Warming, Evolution, Big Bang Theory).

High Fructose Corn Syrup has a 55% Fructose 45% Glucose mixture. Sucrose has 50-50 mixture of the two. However, in the Sucrose molecule, the Fructose is bound to the Glucose. In the High Fructose Corn Syrup, the Fructose molecules are not connected to the Glucose molecules.

Insulin levels in the blood control the levels of glucose in the body. But fructose is regulated in the liver, and when too much fructose enters the liver, the liver can't process it all fast enough for the body to use as sugar. Instead, it starts making fats from the fructose and sending them off into the bloodstream as triglycerides. These lead to heart disease. In addition, Fructose ends up circumventing the normal appetite signaling system, so appetite-regulating hormones aren't triggered--and you're left feeling hungry, thus this contributes to weight gain. And the Fructose surplus in the blood stream may lead to type II diabetes. Fruits and vegetables have relatively small, "normal" amounts of fructose that most bodies can handle quite well, but we now have High Fructose Corn Syrup in many many food products and drinks, thus people now have high levels of fructose running through their body.

Now I am not a specialist in anyway on this, but it appears to me that we have a real serious problem with so many people becoming obese with the health problems obesity brings. and the great increase in obesity in our country coincides with the rising number of foods that have High Fructose Corn Syrup. And HFCS is sweeter than sugar, and in that sense, somewhat addictive.

The Corn growers are rising to the occasion to solve the High Fructose Corn Syrup problem it presents to them, simply by renaming HFCS to sweet corn syrup, or something like it with no fructose in the name.

[giblets]

There's a particular kind of HFCS, HFCS 55, that is 55% fructose. Another widely used variety, HFCS 42, is 42% fructose and if fructose is really worse for you than glucose, that would mean the composition of HFCS 42 is less unhealthy than sucrose. Without some data on which varieties are more widely used, I don't think you can really draw any conclusions on whether replacing sucrose with HFCS is a factor in the rise of obesity.

Anyway, I think you're a bit of a loon.

[giblets]

It looks like the study with the rats may be a fluke

But, for all I know that website could be run by the corn lobby conspiracy

[Al B. Sure!]

Another sugar vs. HFCS debate?

This is all very disturbing to me. It's like EPW over at the meat glue thread. Like do yall work for the corn or meat industries? Why the **** are you cool with this ****?

HFCS was introduced en masse into American food in 1975. Why are you all rah rah about something being added into food for either no real reason or as a replacement to sugar, which itself is not great for you? The fact is there are questions about its role in the obesity crisis. Whether studies were right or wrong or complete or accounted for all variables or whatever else, the mere existence of some evidence, from multiple studies, pointing to something wrong with HFCS should give enough pause that your unrestricted support for a chemical made in a laboratory being added into food would be completely unwarranted.

Studies get contradicted all the time. It seems like there's things beyond our current understanding of molecular biology that are going on... eggs are terrible for you; eggs are good for you... fish oil and omega-3 acids are great for cardiovascular health; oh wait, maybe not as great as we though... there are so many conflicting studies out there with regards to food it's ridiculous.

What are you getting out of this?

Would you agree that et ceteris paribus, American food would be better without all the added sugar, whether real sugar or HFCS? Or are you sugar junkies? The companies must have put it in there because it's necessary!

[giblets]

Let me guess, Albert posted some anti-HFCS hysteria?

[Aeson]

The real reasons HFCS are bad are because they are less efficient to produce than sugar on a land use basis, require corn subsidies and sugar tariffs to be lower priced, and the corn is generally grown in areas that sugar cane is not suitable for and that can be more productive (in their growing season) than the areas sugar cane is grown on. So we end up growing sugars on land that could be more productive, and much of the rest of the world ends up growing corn on land that could be more productive because of it. (And sugar quotas and the like.)

The main benefit is at least this corn isn't being made into ethanol or not grown at all (for profits!). (There are of course some real benefits too, but I can't be bothered to mention them.)

[Aeson]

... and maybe those male rats that lost weight with the extra HFCS were just masturbating more, or some of them died from HFCS poisoning. I have an explanation for everything! HFCS cause sexual deviancy and death (not necessarily related to the sexual deviancy, but HIGHLY LIKELY given that a sugar diet is so bad for the heart that it can't take any real excitement.)

[giblets]

The real reasons HFCS are bad are because they are less efficient to produce than sugar on a land use basis, require corn subsidies and sugar tariffs to be lower priced, and the corn is generally grown in areas that sugar cane is not suitable for and that can be more productive (in their growing season) than the areas sugar cane is grown on. So we end up growing sugars on land that could be more productive, and much of the rest of the world ends up growing corn on land that could be more productive because of it. (And sugar quotas and the like.)

Finally, an intelligent comment that isn't based on superstition

[ur32212451]

I am familiar with the other HFCS 42, in either case, I would think what really counts is what the fructose is actually doing and how the body is responding to that.

Nice meeting you gribbler, and I wish you well, and the best.

[Al B. Sure!]

Like I said to Drake last time we had this debate, go in your cabinet and look at the ingredient label of everything you have. Whether its bread, peanut butter, ketchup, salad dressing, Raisin Bran, yogurt, etc. etc. Everything has HFCS now.

Urwhatever, this is an old topic on Apolyton. Check this one:

http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/191091-Is-the-organic-food-movement-the-most-anti-science-social-movement-out-there

Yes, we actually had a thread where posters proudly stated:

I'm doing my part. I avoid buying organic foods, so that I'm not supporting inefficient and unscientific nonsense.

[giblets]

I am familiar with the other HFCS 42, in either case, I would think what really counts is what the fructose is actually doing and how the body is responding to that.

Nice meeting you gribbler, and I wish you well, and the best.

I agree that corn farmers lobbying for subsidies is a problem and eliminating them would probably help bring sugar consumption to a healthier level.

[Aeson]

Finally, an intelligent comment that isn't based on superstition

You cut out my scathing ethanol sarcasm, that was teh whole point of my post. Ethanol is healthier than HFCS, ingest enough of it and you are sure to not die of cancer.

[KrazyHorse]

Another sugar vs. HFCS debate?

This is all very disturbing to me. It's like EPW over at the meat glue thread. Like do yall work for the corn or meat industries? Why the **** are you cool with this ****?

HFCS was introduced en masse into American food in 1975. Why are you all rah rah about something being added into food for either no real reason or as a replacement to sugar, which itself is not great for you? The fact is there are questions about its role in the obesity crisis. Whether studies were right or wrong or complete or accounted for all variables or whatever else, the mere existence of some evidence, from multiple studies, pointing to something wrong with HFCS should give enough pause that your unrestricted support for a chemical made in a laboratory being added into food would be completely unwarranted.

You're an idiot.

[Perfection]

I think the more import question is this: Why do companies put apples in apple sauce?

[Al B. Sure!]

You're an idiot.

There you go again... tell me why I'm an idiot.