WI: No High Fructose Corn Syrup

During the 1970's a few researchers found a new way to create a sweetener that doesn't rot your teeth. It was made from corn which was plentiful in America at the time. American candy and soft drinks companies managed to use this as a cheaper replacement instead of using sugar and it wasn't that much worse than the usual sucrose cube. So, I began to wonder if it had never been invented at all and sugar remains dominant throughout the world.
 
During the 1970's a few researchers found a new way to create a sweetener that doesn't rot your teeth. It was made from corn which was plentiful in America at the time. American candy and soft drinks companies managed to use this as a cheaper replacement instead of using sugar and it wasn't that much worse than the usual sucrose cube. So, I began to wonder if it had never been invented at all and sugar remains dominant throughout the world.
:confounded:
Fructose, like other sugars, promotes bacterial growth by providing a food source. This encourages the growth of S. mutans and S. sobrinus bacteria that produce lactic acid as a byproduct from their metabolism. Sweeteners that don't cause tooth decay don't contain sugars, any sugars.
 
During the 1970's a few researchers found a new way to create a sweetener that doesn't rot your teeth. It was made from corn which was plentiful in America at the time. American candy and soft drinks companies managed to use this as a cheaper replacement instead of using sugar and it wasn't that much worse than the usual sucrose cube. So, I began to wonder if it had never been invented at all and sugar remains dominant throughout the world.
What? Just no. High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is just another form of sugar and is no better for teeth or worse than any other form. What it did was allow American food manufacturers to use subsidised American corn instead of imported sugar. This meant that much American food tastes odd to British or European taste and has an excess of sugar, compare American and Belgian chocolate.

With out HFCS America would have a slightly worse trade balance (or more likely hidden tariffs) with sugar producers, more sugar beet grown and the whole world would have very slightly more expensive processed food.
 
This is a interesting question. With more expensive sugar does the obesity/diabetic rate decline proportionately?

Not really, but I've always assumed (possibly wrongly) that the cheapness of high fructose corn syrup allowed it to be put into more items that made it to market, and thus increased the obesity rate.

Here's a bit more info on corn syrup vs. sugars:
"Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose is so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose does. "
 
This is a interesting question. With more expensive sugar does the obesity/diabetic rate decline proportionately?

I'm pretty sure the rate is a lot less than Big Sugar would want you to believe. From what I know, HFCS is less bad than traditional sugar, but it isn't really the solution, especially since Big Sugar will make sure that sugar is added to food and drink in the same amount, and thus cause diabetes, obesity, and other health issues. And at the same time, Big Sugar will shrug when they're called out on it and use the same tactics Big Tobacco did when faced with health researchers and have their paid-for researchers be the "merchants of doubt" and undermine legitimate science.
 
Probably not. The price difference will be small and sugar will still be a very cheap ingredient.
If I remember right food is not very elastic in an economic way. If you can afford less you buy poorer quality and probably end up with more sugar salt and fat not less.
Food has to get to a very large % of income before people start to eat less.
 
What really started happening was that HFCS started being used as an additive in nearly everything. Between that and artificial flavors most people have no idea how things are supposed to taste.
 
Top