A Response to "The Sugar Industry - The Next 'Big Tobacco'"

I was quite surprised - and thrilled - to see that a comment from someone arrived in my mailbox regarding the sugar post. I was thrilled for simple fact that I welcome comments and debate, but let's be honest. There are a 'ginormous' amount of Web sites, some with information and some with disinformation, so it is hard to 1. get any sort of steady readership, 2. entice people to read it when I tend to write far more than most are willing to read and c. I might write about anything under the sun - and not to everyone's liking.

I digress...

Getting any response is a plus, but this one piqued my interest:

"Hi,

My google alert picked up your article.

Well written and informative; however, I disagree that HFCS is nutritionally the same as table sugar. Yes they bothhave 4cal/gram and they both contain fructose and glucose, but that's where the similarities end.

I am sure you are well aware that sucrose is a disaccharide where as HFCS is just a mixture of the monosaccharides, fructose and glucose. It takes the regulatory enzyme, sucrase, to cleave the disaccharide into its component sugars. Not only does the enzyme split the molecule but it serves as a metabolic checkpoint, how fast and how much sugars enter the bloodstream. When you ingest HFCS, sucrase is not required, so there is no regulatory control.

HFCS-55 (55%fructose:45% glucose) sweetens all national brands of soda, lemondaes, flavored teas, and ironically, most sports quenchers. While the ratio appears to be similar to the 50:50 ratio of table sugar, sucrose, it is not. 55/45=1.22. That means that everytime you chug a Coke or Pepsi (bottled in the US) your liver is receiving the health "benefits" of 22% more fructose, compared to glucose.

As you have elegantly written, it is the fructose moiety that leads to long term health hazards. Ditch the HFCS, especially in sweetened beverages. Try StopHFCS.com for an extensive list of HFCS-free foods and beverages.

To your health."

Hmmmm...

Food for thought. I have to first say that as much as I appreciate the compliments to my writing skills (I'd like to think I write well, but what do I know?), this posting had about 75% Wikipedia-based information. I cut and past what was there into my blog. And yes, I left the disclaimer in... that is only fair. So thank you for the compliment, but I am only the author of a small bit of this particular post...

I did not actually say that table sugar is worse or better than HFCS - it is just not healthy either, and I found it puzzling that the corn syrup manufacturers would say that table sugar has some kind of healthy value attached to it. I don't believe that anymore than I believe that processed salt is good for one's health.

Salt, however, has not affected my life or diet. I use salt on one thing only: scrambled eggs, a meal choice that I might have 4 times a year.

High Frustose Corn Syrup, however, is much lower on my list of approved foods than salt or naturally occuring sugars, such as in fresh fruit. And I don't drink iced tea, soda (in any format: diet, not diet, zero, whatever; my parents are soda junkies, though, and my husband used to be) or sports quenchers. I do drink tons of water but I hate the taste (or is it non-taste?) of water, so I put Crystal Light in it. This contains:

Inulin (for fiber)
Citric Acid
Malic Acid
Aspertame*
Contains less than 2% of natural flavour
Acorbic Acid (vitamin C)
Calcium Carbonate
Acesulfame Potassium
Soy Lecithin
Red 40

*Phenylkentonurics (contains phenylalanine)

The irony, of course, is that this is made by Kraft Foods, a subsidiary of the evil and heinous Philip Morris Company, maker of tobacco products. SIGH.

The sodium on this, at least, is low, but again, I don't crusade for or against salt. And let's be honest, here, if you want food to taste like anything other than cardboard, you have to have one or more of the following:

1. Sugar
2. Fats
3. Salt

Anything missing all three of these things has no hope of being anything but bland.

Back to the comment left me... I went to the Web site. I can't tell what exactly the support is - is it against HFCS or against table sugar or does the thrust of it suggest all sugar is bad? I honestly wasn't sure. I also can't tell if this is one person's site or something funded by a company, although I'm guessing it is the former...

I did see an interesting link: "Diet Soda also Makes You Gain Weight - A Lesson in Sweeteners"
(http://www.ourhealthcoop.com/blog/hugo/2008/05/diet-soda-also-makes-you-gain-weight.html)

Now I see that Splenda is considered bad news, too.

More Wikipedia goodies (this came up when I entered Splenda):

"Sucralose is a no-calorie artificial sweetener which does not promote tooth decay, and is sold under the brand names Splenda and SucraPlus. In the European Union, it is also known under the E number (additive code) E955. Sucralose is approximately 600 times as sweet as sucrose (table sugar), twice as sweet as saccharin, and four times as sweet as aspartame. Unlike aspartame, it is stable under heat and over a broad range of pH conditions and can be used in baking or in products that require a longer shelf life. Since its U.S. introduction in 1999, sucralose has overtaken Equal in the $1.5 billion artificial sweetener market, holding a 62% market share. According to market research firm IRI, as reported in the Wall Street Journal, Splenda sold $212 million in 2006 in the U.S. while Equal sold $48.7 million. The success of sucralose-based products stems from its favorable comparison to other low calorie sweeteners in terms of taste, stability, and safety.

Health and safety regulation
Sucralose has been accepted by several national and international food safety regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives, The European Union's Scientific Committee on Food, Health Protection Branch of Health and Welfare Canada and Food Standards Australia-New Zealand (FSANZ). Sucralose is the only artificial sweetener ranked as "safe" by the consumer advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest. According to the Canadian Diabetes Association, one can consume 15 mg/kg/day of Sucralose "on a daily basis over a ... lifetime without any adverse effects". For a 150 lb person, 15 mg/kg is about 1 g, equivalent to about 75 packets of Splenda or the sweetness of 612 g or 2500 kcal of sugar.

“In determining the safety of sucralose, the FDA reviewed data from more than 110 studies in humans and animals. Many of the studies were designed to identify possible toxic effects including carcinogenic, reproductive and neurological effects. No such effects were found, and FDA's approval is based on the finding that sucralose is safe for human consumption.” For example, McNeil Nutritional LLC studies submitted as part of its U.S. FDA Food Additive Petition 7A3987, indicated that "in the 2-year rodent bioassays...there was no evidence of carcinogenic activity for either sucralose or its hydrolysis products...."

Splenda usually contains 95% dextrose (the "right-handed" isomer of glucose - see dextrorotation and chirality), which the body readily metabolizes. Splenda is recognized as safe to ingest as a diabetic sugar substitute.

Public health and safety concerns
Results from over 100 animal and clinical studies in the FDA approval process unanimously indicated a lack of risk associated with sucralose intake. However, some adverse effects were seen at doses that signficantly exceeded the estimated daily intake (EDI), which is 1.1 mg/kg/day. When the EDI is compared to the intake at which adverse effects are seen, known as the highest no adverse effects limit (HNEL), at 1500 mg/kg/day, there is a large margin of safety. The bulk of sucralose ingested does not leave the gastrointestinal tract and is directly excreted in the feces while 11-27% of it is absorbed. The amount that is absorbed from the GI tract is largely removed from the blood stream by the kidneys and excreted in the urine with 20-30% of the absorbed sucralose being metabolized.

Thymus
Some concern has been raised about the effect of sucralose on the thymus. A report from NICNAS cites two studies on rats, both of which found "a significant decrease in mean thymus weight" at high doses. The sucralose dose which caused the effects was 3000 mg/kg/day for 28 days. For a 150 lb (68.2 kg) human, this would mean an intake of nearly 205 grams of sucralose a day, which is equivalent to more than 17,200 individual Splenda packets/day for approximately one month. The dose required to provoke any immunological response was 750 mg/kg/day, or 51 grams of sucralose per day, which is nearly 4,300 Splenda packets/day.

Environmental effects
According to one study, sucralose is digestible by a number of microorganisms and is broken down once released into the environment. However, measurements by the Swedish Environmental Research Institute have shown that wastewater treatment has little effect on sucralose, which is present in wastewater effluents at levels of several μg/L. There are no known eco-toxicological effects at such levels, but the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency warns that there may be a continuous increase in levels if the compound is only slowly degraded in nature.

Organochlorides
The basis for some of the concern about sucralose derives from the class of chemical to which it belongs. Sucralose is an organochloride (or chlorocarbon), some of which are known to cause adverse health effects in extremely small concentrations. Although some chlorocarbons are toxic, sucralose is not known to be toxic in small quantities and is extremely insoluble in fat; it cannot accumulate in fat like chlorinated hydrocarbons. In addition, sucralose does not break down or dechlorinate. In contrast to these concerns, many organochlorides occur naturally in food sources such as seaweed."

Seems harmless enough - I don't come anywhere close to the daily recommended maximum. Let's see what the three listed ingredients in Splenda bring up:

Dextrose: comes up as Glucose (no health risks listed)

Maltodestrin: comes up as Dextrin (no health risks listed)

Sucrlose: See above

I realise that this is all chemicals. I'd rather that than sugar as of this posting. I'll see how it works out!

To your health, too!