High Fructose Corn Syrup proposed to be renamed "corn sugar"

[bob1852]

What impact would this have to our beloved dextrose, which we all already call corn sugar?

http://www.foodprocessing.com/industrynews/2010/106.html

And on that note, there is a difference between HFCS and dextrose, right?

 

[devilishprune]

High fructose corn syrup that is used in beverages and other food products is usually something like 55% fructose and 45% glucose, I think. Similar composition to sucrose.

Dextrose is just 100% D-glucose.

 

[RogerMcAllen]

This will have no effect on the dry product known as corn sugar since you cannot crystallize HFCS. The fact that HFCS doesn't crystallize means that you can use it to make things like chewy granola bars or thick sauces that won't solidify like honey. The name change will only affect the way food products are labeled for PR reasons.



The simplified HFCS process:

1. Corn comes into the plant where it is steeped, crushed, and separated into starch, protein, and oil.
2. Chop up the starch with amylases and you end up dextrose (starch is a polymer made up of many dextrose molecules linked together. Dextrose is aslo known as glucose and corn sugar. Dextrose syrup is also known as corn syrup)
3. React the dextrose syrup with an enzyme that converts dextrose into fructose (Before this enzyme was discovered, corn syrup contained only dextrose. The name high fructose corn syrup came about because any syrup containing fructose had higher levels of fructose than regular corn syrup. Right now the Corn Syrup/HFCS limit is 39% fructose)
4. Fractionate the syrup until the syrup has the right fructose level (42% fructose for baking, 55% fructose for beverages, 99% fructose for fructose syrup or for crystallizing into crystalline fructose)


In response to Devils,
Sucrose is made of a fructose linked to a glucose so it has a 50/50 ratio of fructose/glucose. If you have ever made invert sugar, you are splitting this bond and essentially making HFCS 50. HFCS 55 is 55/45 and HFCS 42 is 42/58. If the logic of "fructose is bad and will make you fat" held true, products made with HFCS 42 should be healthier than those made with sugar since they contain less fructose. Following the same logic you should also avoid fruit (high in fructose) and eat only smarties (pure dextrose) if you want to lose weight.

 

[bob1852]

Thanks Roger...

I bet you detassled corn in your younger years? (I did, for Oetting's in Nebraska)

 

[RogerMcAllen]

No corn detassling for me. I just happen to be living in the city where ADM and Tate & Lyle are headquartered. Between them they account for something like 70% of the world's HFCS production.

 

[bob1852]

without turning this into a debate thread, then the "fears" of HFCS causing health problems compared to "real" sugar are pretty much unsubstantiated?

 

[kxx]

An interesting post regarding HFCS and other sweeteners....

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501

 

[Mermaid]

Meh. I'm one of those freaks that can taste the difference between Coca Cola produced in Mexico vs. US... and the US version gives me a headache.

But.. It's not going to stop me from using corn sugar in my bottling bucket. If it makes the yeast happy, I'm not going to get in the way of that.

 

[RogerMcAllen]

The fears are unsubstantiated, the real sugar thing is a PR campaign by sugar refiners who want to sell more sugar and by food companies who want to sell more product by differentiating from the competition by using advertising statements like, "now HFCS free" or by launching new products like Pepsi Throwback.

Pound for pound HFCS is the same for sugar. The only valid reason HFCS might make you fat is because it is so cheap that food companies can afford to use much more of it than they would sugar. In a blind taste test, people almost universally prefer things that are sweeter (a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down). Since HFCS is cheaper than sugar, for the same price you can formulate a sweeter product. A sweeter product will be more preferred by consumers so you will sell more. Over time the American palate's perception of sweetness has risen, so products in the US have more sugar in them than their foreign counterparts. A classic example is tea. In Asia they drink it strong and bitter, in Britain they take it with a cube of sugar, in the US we have the monstrosity Sweet Tea. To us Sweet Tea is a great drink, to most other people around the world it is mind blowingly sweet.

 

[bob1852]

thanks again roger....

 

[kxx]

right... The catch is fructose is much sweeter tasting, thus allows manufacturers to use less (almost half) when sweetening products. To get the same sweetness with sucrose they'd have to put substantially more. It is BS... as in the end fructose levels are about the same.

America's palate for sweetness and also its waist line have grown over the last few decades, the latter having severe consequences for many.

And hey, I like sweet tea.

 

[rico567]

As it apparently needs to be re-stated, to go over some basics which may ultimately be nice for the homebrewer to know:

Carbohydrates exist in many forms.

What we call sugars, some of the simplest carbohydrates, normally exist in the form of one molecule or two linked molecules of the formula C6H12O6.

One molecule of C6H12O6 is termed a monosaccharide, although the atoms may be linked differently, and thus actually be a different compound.

Depending on how the atoms in C6H12O6 are linked, we may call it glucose (dextrose is a synonym for glucose) or fructose (there are several others, such as galactose & ribose, but these are irrelevant to brewing).

When two monosaccharides of the formula C6H12O6 link together, we call them disaccharides, and have the formula C12H22O11 (there is a loss of 2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen atoms when the two monosaccharides link).

The disaccharides of most interest to the homebrewer are maltose (two glucose molecules), sucrose (a glucose and a fructose), and lactose (a glucose and a galactose).

Maltose is the fundamental fuel of brewing. It's the overwhelming volume of the sugar we get when we mash the grain (or what's in those packages of LME and DME).

Sucrose is used to make invert sugar for some beers, or sometimes is added directly for a certain flavor profile or to just add ABV.

Lactose is used when we want a sweeter profile to our beers, because yeast cannot metabolize lactose.

A "polysaccharide" is technically any carbohydrate with more than two simple sugar molecules linked together. The polysaccharide we encounter as brewers -almost to the exclusion of any other- is starch, which must ultimately be broken down in the grain kernel in several steps before we can make delicious, delicious beer. First the grain is malted, which develops the enzymes (which may be looked upon as chemical keys to the bonds that lock together the sugar molecules in starch) that are going to be used to mash (providing a perfect storm of starch, enzymes, water, and the correct temperature and pH) the grain and convert the starch to sugar (as mentioned earlier, maltose). We may regard maltose as a steak dinner for yeast.

Further knowledge of carbohydrates can be obtained online or by taking an organic chemistry course.

 

[febbrewro]

Meh. I'm one of those freaks that can taste the difference between Coca Cola produced in Mexico vs. US... and the US version gives me a headache.

But.. It's not going to stop me from using corn sugar in my bottling bucket. If it makes the yeast happy, I'm not going to get in the way of that.

I'm the same way. I don't know if there are any health consequences to using HFCS vs sugar, but there's definitely a taste difference. Soft drinks that use real sugar taste 100% better in every way than ones that use HFCS.

I think the major health issue behind HFCS is that its in literally everything, because its so cheap. Because the gov't gives corn subsidies to farmers, HFCS is dirt cheap. Why use other flavorings when you can use cheap HFCS? Because of this, Americans are getting way more sugar in their diet than most people realize, well above healthy levels.

 

[Mermaid]

The fears are unsubstantiated, the real sugar thing is a PR campaign by sugar refiners who want to sell more sugar and by food companies who want to sell more product by differentiating from the competition by using advertising statements like, "now HFCS free" or by launching new products like Pepsi Throwback.

Pound for pound HFCS is the same for sugar. The only valid reason HFCS might make you fat is because it is so cheap that food companies can afford to use much more of it than they would sugar. In a blind taste test, people almost universally prefer things that are sweeter (a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down). Since HFCS is cheaper than sugar, for the same price you can formulate a sweeter product. A sweeter product will be more preferred by consumers so you will sell more. Over time the American palate's perception of sweetness has risen, so products in the US have more sugar in them than their foreign counterparts. A classic example is tea. In Asia they drink it strong and bitter, in Britain they take it with a cube of sugar, in the US we have the monstrosity Sweet Tea. To us Sweet Tea is a great drink, to most other people around the world it is mind blowingly sweet.

Probably why I avoid soft drinks in general these days. Aspartame is pretty disgusting stuff, and the soda made with HFCS tasts odd to me - as you pointed out, it's the sweetness difference. Never bought into the hype, but I know the stuff when I taste it.

I do not prefer overly sweet foods or drinks. I tend to avoid them, actually.

 

[jbrookeiv]

without turning this into a debate thread, then the "fears" of HFCS causing health problems compared to "real" sugar are pretty much unsubstantiated?

Baring all other health concerns, I still think HFCS is lessing filling. That translates to people drinking/eating more empty calories than before since they are getting full, which makes them fatter, which then causes health concerns down the road.

It's a vicious cycle. Drink a Mexican Coke and a US Coke and tell me you can't feel the difference.

 

[Pivovar_Koucky]

My concerns about HFCS have to do more with the highly processed types of food which tend to have HFCS in them. Pound for pound, yes, HFCS and table sugar are treated pretty much the same by your body, but most people don't add 200 calories worth of table sugar to each meal they eat, but you could pretty easily get that much corn syrup in your meal.

 

[BBBF]

Baring all other health concerns, I still think HFCS is lessing filling. That translates to people drinking/eating more empty calories than before since they are getting full, which makes them fatter, which then causes health concerns down the road.

It's a vicious cycle. Drink a Mexican Coke and a US Coke and tell me you can't feel the difference.

This is definately true. I bought a bottle of throwback Pepsi at 7:30AM and I was still drinking it at lunch. If it had been the regular stuff, I would have been done with it by 8 and filling the bottle with water because I'm still thirsty.

This is why I think HFCS is fundimentally bad for you. It's just not filling, not to mention cheap and used more often.

 

[kxx]

FWIW... there have been quite a few controlled studies on the effect of fructose and sucrose on satiety. And the majority conclude there is no difference.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence supporting the idea that sucrose or other "natural" sweetners are any better than HFCS... in terms of health.

 

[Scooby_Brew]

If this goes trough (I hope not), we brewers will have to start calling the real corn sugar "dextrose" or "glucose".
I will not buy food with HFCS nor will I ever use it in brewing. They started using HFCS in our food back in the 80's, at the same time we started seeing an epidemic of obesity and diabetes. Not in my house, thank you.

 

[bob1852]

If this goes trough (I hope not), we brewers will have to start calling the real corn suggar "dextrose" or "glucose".
I will not buy food with HFCS nor will I ever use it in brewing. They started using HFCS in our food back in the 80's, at the same time we started seeing an epidemic of obesity and diabetes. Not in my house, thank you.

I try to avoid HFCS as well, but I haven't found many published sources that = causation and correlation...

 

[kxx]

If this goes trough (I hope not), we brewers will have to start calling the real corn suggar "dextrose" or "glucose".
I will not buy food with HFCS nor will I ever use it in brewing. They started using HFCS in our food back in the 80's, at the same time we started seeing an epidemic of obesity and diabetes. Not in my house, thank you.

There are a lot of other events that occurred back in the 80's that severely confound the correlation you draw between the rise in obesity and diabetes epidemics with the rise in HFCS. The causes are many, and one contributor may be HFCS.

I agree, avoid HFCS. Evidence supports that there is a greater risk attributed to fructose consumption, compared to other sugars, for developing obesity, and related complications.

Fructose is found in a lot of other foods, often times in similar amounts to those found in foods with HFCS, and one can achieve the same level of risk by over eating those foods.

 

[pjj2ba]

Fructose is found in a lot of other foods, often times in similar amounts to those found in foods with HFCS, and one can achieve the same level of risk by over eating those foods.

The biggest one being HONEY which is largely a mixture of fructose and glucose. Yup, we should ban honey, nature's HFCS.

As the saying goes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. HFCS doesn't make people sick, people eating too much sugar (of any kind - or just too much food period) makes them sick. As others have said, because it is so cheap, it has found it's way into everything.

 

[Trouble_Brewing]

Over time the American palate's perception of sweetness has risen, so products in the US have more sugar in them than their foreign counterparts. A classic example is tea. In Asia they drink it strong and bitter, in Britain they take it with a cube of sugar, in the US we have the monstrosity Sweet Tea. To us Sweet Tea is a great drink, to most other people around the world it is mind blowingly sweet.

So true. Even the rice in most restaurants is sweetened here in the US. Sweet tea is gross though in my opinion. It just tastes wrong to me.

 

[david_42]

Beg to differ, HFCS gives me diarrhea. A couple servings of fruit will do the same thing. Funny how just about everyone accepts lactose intolerance, but so many refuse to believe fructose intolerance exists. Sucrose is not a problem because your body controls the rate of conversion, instead of getting a big blast of fructose all at once.

I also have problems with sugar-alcohol sweeteners, like Xylitol.

If you really don't believe that a chemical compound can be different from its components, chew a couple grams of sodium and inhale a couple lungfuls of chlorine gas. Big difference from salting your fries.

Back on topic.

Pure PR, just like "organic dried cane juice" is different from table sugar.

 

[DryHeave]

Not to argumentative at all but I've read (from multiple sources) that HFCS is much harder for the body to convert than simple sugars, which is why some studies link it to obesity and diabetes. I personally try not to eat/drink anything containing HFCS. Yes, I'm a grocery store label reader.

 

[elkdog]

Sweet tea is gross though in my opinion. It just tastes wrong to me.

...as does unsweetened tea to me, but there's some geographical conditioning at play there. Sweet tea tastes so right with barbecue and cole slaw. Knowing what we know about sugar consumption, I don't drink a whole lot of it, but it's better than a soft drink.

 

[Scooby_Brew]

I just wonder has anyone used HFCS in brewing or winemaking and did you noticed any difference in taste between HFCS and table sugar?
And since some people say there is no difference between HFCS and table sugar, why is that HFCS can't be crystallized like sugar?

 

[rico567]

I just wonder did anyone used HFCS in brewing or winemaking and did you noticed any difference in taste between HFCS and table sugar?
And since some people say there is no difference between HFCS and table sugar, why is that HFCS can't be crystallized like sugar?

It's molecular magic, I tells ya!

 

[rico567]

The biggest one being HONEY which is largely a mixture of fructose and glucose. Yup, we should ban honey, nature's HFCS.

As the saying goes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. HFCS doesn't make people sick, people eating too much sugar (of any kind - or just too much food period) makes them sick. As others have said, because it is so cheap, it has found it's way into everything.

The quoted post above should be put up in 20-foot letters everywhere. And lit up. With neon lights & fireworks. It's time for an end to the BS about this.

Up to 150 years ago, sugars were available only as a virtual luxury item, and existed in a relatively pure form in nature only as honey. The invention of the vacuum pan to crystallize sugar and the spread of cane growing was a quantum leap in availability and drop in price. This was complete with the monoculture of crops like sugar beets and corn. It's produced in megatonnes, it's dirt cheap, and as long as people continue to pull the trigger, the damage will be done. Just. Stop.

The same analogy works perfectly with the coca plant of South America. The leaves in nature, when chewed, are the rough equivalent to an aspirin for the indigenous population. Concentrate the active components in the leaf, and you have cocaine, and no end of trouble- IF you use it. Just. Stop.

NB: And I am not talking about any need for the damn government to ban anything here, just to be clear.

 

[Pivovar_Koucky]

I just wonder did anyone used HFCS in brewing or winemaking and did you noticed any difference in taste between HFCS and table sugar?
And since some people say there is no difference between HFCS and table sugar, why is that HFCS can't be crystallized like sugar?

I don't know for sure, but I would hypothesize 2 possibilities:

1) There is a small amount of water remaining in HFCS which is extremely expensive and difficult to remove from the syrup.

2) HFCS is a mixture of glucose and fructose which, although they have the same molecular formula, have different structures. These structures are unable to pack tightly enough to crystallize.

I tend to lean towards #2, but I don't know for sure