Carrageenan is a common food additive that’s recently come under increased scrutiny because of possible health risks.

As a new Paleo eater, I no longer consume much dairy. To cream my coffee or make a nice soup, I turn to non-dairy substitutes like almond and coconut milk. But as I’ve recently discovered, these foods aren’t as safe as they seem. Investigate the label on popular dairy and non-dairy products, and you’re likely to see “carrageenan” listed among the ingredients. This food additive is causing a stir because of possible side effects.

What is carrageenan?

At first glance, carrageenan sounds benign: it’s extracted from edible seaweeds, usually red seaweed (pictured above). Although carrageenan has no flavor or nutritional value, it can be used to substitute fat and to create thickness in non-fat or non-dairy foods. As such, you’re likely to find it on the label of your favorite milk, milk-substitute, cottage cheese, yogurt, ice cream, and many prepared foods.

Why should carrageenan be avoided?

Since carrageenan is derived from seaweed, you might be wondering why it’s to be avoided. After all, isn’t a seaweed-based food additive better than a chemical one? Unfortunately, four decades of research suggests the use of carrageenan in common food products could be putting your health at risk.

“The chemical structure of carrageenan–unique chemical bonds not found in other seaweeds or gums–affects the body in several ways. Most notably, it triggers an immune reaction, which leads to inflammation in the gastrointestinal system. Prolonged inflammation is a precursor to more serious diseases, including cancer,” explains the Cornucopia Institute in “Carrageenan: How a “Natural” Food Additive Is Making Us Sick.”

For ethical reasons, most carrageenan research has been carried out with animal test subjects. Consumption has produced intestinal damage, epithelial cell loss, increased intestinal permeability, diarrhea, and ulcers in the colon. Results varied between species of animal however, which makes it even more difficult to isolate the effect on humans. However, as this detailed article from health and nutrition specialist Chris Kresser explains, in vitro studies of carrageenan carried out using human cells support the idea that the food additive creates unnecessary inflammation in the body.

Are you at risk?

The good news is that in most cases, food-grade carrageenan is used in such low concentrations that it probably won’t affect most people. The bad news is that if you follow a vegan or Paleo diet, in which non-dairy substitutes are used more often, you might be increasing your carrageenan intake, and with it, your risk. If you’ve been experiencing chronic digestive issues and can’t figure out why, carrageenan could be the culprit.

“[A]nyone suffering from gastrointestinal symptoms (irritable bowel syndrome/IBS, spastic colon, inflammatory bowel disease, chronic diarrhea, etc.) to consider completely eliminating carrageenan from the diet to determine if carrageenan was a factor in causing the symptoms,” advises the Cornucopia Institute.

Consult this handy shopping guide to avoid organic foods with carrageenan.

Related on EcoSalon

13 Tips to Avoid Exposure to Toxins in Common Foods

10 Foods You Didn’t Know Were Processed

Fabulous Fat: 15 Benefits of Coconut Milk

Images: JohnnyMrNinja and Peter Southwood

The post Carrageenan: What’s the Big Deal About this Food Additive? appeared first on EcoSalon.

• «
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• »

1. Oats. Ever tried to squash a groat? It’s an eye-opener into the effort required to roll an oat flat (above left). But that’s not all: the average rolled oat has also been steamed and lightly toasted. If you’re going for the steel-cut variety (above right), you’ll skip the rolling and enjoy extra bran in your diet, but they’re still steamed and then dried to keep them fresh.

• «
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• »

2. Dried Pasta. Flour and eggs, mixed and squeezed into a variety of shapes. Sounds a simple process…until you look past the pasta and at the flour it’s made of. Industrial flour-making? Next time you have a few days spare, have a look at all the processing involved, especially when preservatives enter the mix.

• «
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• »

3. Ice Cream. Ever fought to run your scoop through a tub of ice-cream fresh from the freezer? If the answer is “I only buy the soft stuff”, you’ll have stabilizers to thank. These compounds (usually polysaccharide gums) stop ice cream hardening and also separating into gritty ice-crystals. And let’s not forget emulsifiers, there to make your ice-cream smooth and whippy.

• «
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• »

4. Olive oil. The first sight of an untreated, unprocessed olive can be a shock. This tiny green bullet is an olive? Imagine the energy expended in grinding it into paste, spread out and pressed until the oil squeezes out – at which point this oil is further processed to get the excess water out. (You’re allowed to feel a new respect for ancient farmers here).

• «
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• »

5. Tofu. Take a handful of soya beans, compress them – get tofu? Sadly no. You need to coagulate soy milk, and that requires coagulants – gypsum, calcium chloride, or a host of other chemicals used in the process. Then comes the straining and pressing. Lots and lots of it. The firmer the raw tofu, the more processing it’s had.

• «
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• »

6. Low Fat or No-fat Milk. In the old days, making low fat milk was as straightforward as skimming of the top layer to remove the cream, leaving the rest of the mix fat-depleted – but now they use centrifugal separators. Those health benefits come with an energy cost. Oh, and since no-fat milk feels watery in the mouth, dairies pop a little of the milk solids back in at the end. Yes, the cream.

7. Corn tortillas. Corn? Flour – and all the processing and additives that entails. Unless you aim for a masa that was made from maiz blanco (field corn) – and even then it can be a lengthy process to go from masa to tortilla.

• «
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• »

8. Cheese. What a marvel cheese is. Leave milk until it forms curds and whey, add a lactic starter and watch as it lumps together into cheesy goodness. Well – kinda. That’s cottage cheese, the simplest form. Commercial cheesemaking requires all sorts of enzyme coagulants, bacteria (eg. penicillin for “blue” cheese), washing, pressing, ripening, and all those special ingredients that make each cheese distinct. There’s an awful lot to it all.

9. Bread. Domestic breadmaking is deliciously good fun, making your entire house smell like your local bakery and providing you with bread that tastes like bread. Go on, you know you want to. But if you insist on the commercial variety, know that the processes involves are many. “Quick breads” (those cheaper loaves at the supermarket) are chemically hurried along the leavening cycle, while yeast breads can still be stuffed with bread improvers.

• «
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• »

10. Herbal Teas. Alas that our modern tastes demand that commercially-produced herbal teas – by their very nature bitter (but invigorating) brews – need a little adjustment before they hits our palates. Artificial flavors ahoy. Check the label carefully!

Images: little blue hen, FotoosVanRobin, St0rmz, Taras Kalapun, avlkyz, R’eyes, lucianvenutian, Karl Palutke, Emily Carlin, blgrssby

The post 10 Foods You Didn’t Know Were Processed appeared first on EcoSalon.

In the wake of Unprocessed October, you may have developed a taste for more simply-prepared fare. Problem is, you can’t trust your senses. Think that rolled oats are as untouched as food gets? Think again – and check out the rest of this list of 10 surprisingly processed foods!

1. Oats. Ever tried to squash a groat? It’s an eye-opener into the effort required to roll an oat flat (above left). But that’s not all: the average rolled oat has also been steamed and lightly toasted. If you’re going for the steel-cut variety (above right), you’ll skip the rolling and enjoy extra bran in your diet, but they’re still steamed and then dried to keep them fresh.

2. Dried Pasta. Flour and eggs, mixed and squeezed into a variety of shapes. Sounds a simple process…until you look past the pasta and at the flour it’s made of. Industrial flour-making? Next time you have a few days spare, have a look at all the processing involved, especially when preservatives enter the mix.

3. Ice Cream. Ever fought to run your scoop through a tub of ice-cream fresh from the freezer? If the answer is “I only buy the soft stuff”, you’ll have stabilizers to thank. These compounds (usually polysaccharide gums) stop ice cream hardening and also separating into gritty ice-crystals. And let’s not forget emulsifiers, there to make your ice-cream smooth and whippy.

4. Olive oil. The first sight of an untreated, unprocessed olive can be a shock. This tiny green bullet is an olive? Imagine the energy expended in grinding it into paste, spread out and pressed until the oil squeezes out – at which point this oil is further processed to get the excess water out. (You’re allowed to feel a new respect for ancient farmers here).

5. Tofu. Take a handful of soya beans, compress them – get tofu? Sadly no. You need to coagulate soy milk, and that requires coagulants – gypsum, calcium chloride, or a host of other chemicals used in the process. Then comes the straining and pressing. Lots and lots of it. The firmer the raw tofu, the more processing it’s had.

6. Low Fat or No-fat Milk. In the old days, making low fat milk was as straightforward as skimming of the top layer to remove the cream, leaving the rest of the mix fat-depleted – but now they use centrifugal separators. Those health benefits come with an energy cost. Oh, and since no-fat milk feels watery in the mouth, dairies pop a little of the milk solids back in at the end. Yes, the cream.

7. Corn tortillas. Corn? Flour – and all the processing and additives that entails. Unless you aim for a masa that was made from maiz blanco (field corn) – and even then it can be a lengthy process to go from masa to tortilla.

8. Cheese. What a marvel cheese is. Leave milk until it forms curds and whey, add a lactic starter and watch as it lumps together into cheesy goodness. Well – kinda. That’s cottage cheese, the simplest form. Commercial cheesemaking requires all sorts of enzyme coagulants, bacteria (eg. penicillin for “blue” cheese), washing, pressing, ripening, and all those special ingredients that make each cheese distinct. There’s an awful lot to it all.

9. Bread. Domestic breadmaking is deliciously good fun, making your entire house smell like your local bakery and providing you with bread that tastes like bread. Go on, you know you want to. But if you insist on the commercial variety, know that the processes involves are many. “Quick breads” (those cheaper loaves at the supermarket) are chemically hurried along the leavening cycle, while yeast breads can still be stuffed with bread improvers.

10. Herbal Teas. Alas that our modern tastes demand that commercially-produced herbal teas – by their very nature bitter (but invigorating) brews – need a little adjustment before they hits our palates. Artificial flavors ahoy. Check the label carefully!

Images: little blue hen, FotoosVanRobin, St0rmz, Taras Kalapun, avlkyz, R’eyes, lucianvenutian, Karl Palutke, Emily Carlin, blgrssby

The post 10 Foods You Didn’t Know Were Processed appeared first on EcoSalon.

Every month it seems that there’s a different blog-driven food challenge. This month, it’s Unprocessed October. Just like the challenge of defining local for September’s Eat Local Challenge, one of the challenges (besides restricting your diet) is defining unprocessed.

Whole, single ingredient foods like fresh fruits and vegetables are obviously unprocessed. Eggs are a pretty clear-cut unprocessed food. As are meats that haven’t been smoked or cured in any way. The tomatoes in the photo above – though technically “processed” to can them safely – would be unprocessed in my book, because they are sold by a vendor I know, at a reputable farmers’ market, and don’t contain anything but whole ingredients. (Extra points if you canned your own tomatoes!) But once you venture outside of those parameters, it gets a little trickier to define “processed food.”

For example, what about grains and flour? Are steel cut oats processed? What about rolled oats? Probably not, because the outer hull is removed. Let’s say you decide that flour is unprocessed as long as it’s ground from whole grains, and butter is okay because you could certainly make it at home with fresh cream”¦

So you set out to make a fabulous dessert with fresh fruit, flour, butter, and eggs. But if you put sugar in it, you’re on shakier ground because both white and brown sugar are highly processed and sometimes bleached with chemicals. You might decide to use honey, or maple syrup, or even turbinado sugar, but for some people those foods might be considered processed.

As another example, what about dairy products? Is pasteurization considered processing? What if you remove some of their fat? Or take those dairy products and make them into cheese, or yogurt?

And what about the other stuff in the bulk bins at the supermarket besides the whole grains? Dried fruit, for instance. Or trail mix? Depends on what’s in it. If dried fruit has sulfur added to it to keep it soft and brightly colored, you might want to take a pass, while unsulphured fruit might be ok.

The trouble with defining processing is that humans have been processing foods forever. Originally, the purpose of processing was to enhance the food’s flavor, nutrition, longevity, or all three. Long ago humans figured out how to turn milk into cheese and other dairy products, grind whole grains into flour, or ferment them to make alcoholic beverages, preserve vegetables through pickling or fermentation, and smoke or dry meats to make them last until the next hunt.

But modern, industrial processing of food is a different story. This type of processing may be done to enhance shelf life but rarely does it enhance the actual food or its health-giving properties. (Don’t get me started on so-called “functional foods.”) It’s these modern processed foods we want to stay away from during Unprocessed October.

But even with those seemingly whole foods, there’s some gray area. For example, would you consider an energy bar processed? It depends on the method and ingredients. One helpful blog resource, Gastronicity, written by Nishanga Bliss L.A.c. says that a Clif Bar would definitely be processed while an 18 Rabbits Granola bar would not, due to its short list of real ingredients. Andrew Wilder’s blog, Eating Rules (where Unprocessed October originated) holds every food up to the DIY test before making the call.

According to Eating Rules, if the food is something you could conceivably make at home, even if it requires specialized equipment, it’s okay. Therefore cheese is fine, beer is all right, cooking oils, and even distilled alcoholic beverages get a passing grade. Likewise coffee and chocolate. These are eating rules I could live with.

But the Eating Rules blog also cautions readers to check labels. If the chocolate has emulsifiers, consider it processed. If the grains are refined, better skip them. There are a number of other cautionary ingredients. Yogurt is another good example. Yogurt at its simplest is easy to make at home by simply heating milk, adding some starter yogurt and then keeping the mixture at the proper temperature until it cultures and thickens. But store-bought yogurt can contain high fructose corn syrup and other added ingredients that would certainly make it processed. Nishanga Bliss of Gastronicity told me that Yoplait lemon yogurt has more sugar and more ingredients than Häagen Dazs chocolate ice cream. Read the labels!

I can’t decide for you what to consider processed or not, but for my own unprocessed October pantry, I’d say that if the food product specialized mechanical equipment or a temperature controlled room, it’s processed.

If you want to participate in Unprocessed October, don’t worry that we’re well into the month. Start with a week and extend your month into November if you’re having too much fun to stop!

There is a sea of packaged foods on a typical grocer’s shelf that you can tell at a glance are processed, but here’s a list of 10 foods to watch out for that you might normally consider whole, healthy foods.

1. Almost any type of commercial cereal, including rolled oats – because they are not made from whole grains, and are produced through a laborious process requiring special rollers and driers

2. Dried Pasta – unless you know the flour used to make it was made with whole grains

3. Ice Cream – commercial brands contain undisclosed stabilizers to keep it soft in your freezer

4. Olive oil and nut oils – laborious process for a home cook, so use butter or home-rendered lard

5. Tofu – unless you make it at home using whole organic soybeans and not commercial soy milk

6. Low Fat or Non fat dairy products – usually have processed milk solids added back into them to preserve mouth feel

7. Corn tortillas – unless you know that they were made from masa that was prepared from field corn, and don’t contain additives to keep them soft. (Store bought flour tortillas are definitely out.)

8. Many commercial cheeses and yogurts – check the labels for unfamiliar ingredients

9. Almost any commercial bread – yup! Even the ones that say “whole wheat” Read the labels!

10. Herbal Teas – some brands (even natural ones) add artificial flavors

This is the latest installment in Vanessa Barrington’s weekly column, The Green Plate, on the environmental, social, and political issues related to what and how we eat.

Image: Vanessa Barrington

The post It’s Unprocessed October: What’s in Your Cupboard? appeared first on EcoSalon.

This is Part 1 of 2 posts of in-depth analysis into the breakthrough work on high-fructose corn syrup and weight gain by Princeton researchers.

I have to admit that I was fascinated to watch the fallout over the Princeton HFCS study. What I thought would generate a “oh, look, another great reason to avoid HFCS!” reaction swiftly turned into “that study doesn’t prove a thing!” – a sentiment that nutritionists, food business columnists and the Corn Refiners Association all, remarkably, shared.

Still, several questions raised by critics are worth addressing. We contacted the lead author of the Princeton study, Bart Hoebel, to see if he could shed some light on general questions surrounding the work as well as particular objections raised by physiologist Karen Teff, Ph.D, of the Monell Chemical Senses Center in a blog post by Nicci Micco on Eating Well‘s website.

The full email transcript appears below. One clarification in particular that I found interesting has to do with claims that the researchers didn’t directly compare HFCS consumption to table sugar consumption in a key experiment and thus are not able to conclude that HFCS causes more and worse weight gain over table sugar. In the experiment in question, researchers gave rats access to a 10% HFCS “drink” in addition to their normal feed. The rats gained excess weight in their abdomens (which is associated with metabolic disorders) and their triglyceride levels increased (also a symptom of metabolic disorders).

Dr. Hoebel points out that previous research has firmly established that if you give rats access to a 10% table sugar “drink” in addition to their normal feed, they do not gain additional fat. In other words, their bodies are able to metabolize the extra calories without creating more weight. This previous research is referenced in the study–but was apparently overlooked by critics. In other words, while the researchers didn’t compare HFCS to sugar directly in that particular experiment, we already know what happens to rats when you feed them small amounts of additional table sugar.

I understand that his answers to this and other criticisms won’t convince everyone, but I hope people will read the commentary below and think about just what level of “proof” we need before questioning the wisdom of making HFCS ubiquitous in our food system. For more thoughts on why the debate over HFCS has become so contentious, see Part 2 of this analysis.

The first two questions we had for Dr. Hoebel came from Grist Food Editor Tom Philpott:

Q: Do you have any particular comments on the issue of “statistical significance”? Is it true that the results in experiments 1 and 3 both lacked statistical significance, as some have claimed?

Hoebel: No, this is not true as a general statement. We reported results that are statistically significant as stated in the article. In Experiment 1, rats with 12-or 24-hour access to HFCS gained significantly more weight than the group with 12-hour access to sucrose. In Experiment 3, the main finding is that females rats with 24-hour access to HFCS weighed the most after 7 months , and this was overall (Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance) statistically different than the sucrose and chow fed controls.

This is important and meaningful because the 24-hour HFCS females had significantly heavier fat pads in the abdominal and uterine areas. They also had higher blood triglyceride levels than the other groups, which may have contributed to the body weight and body fat.

Q: Why did “Experiment 2” in your study, which compared rats’ access to HFCS over 12 and 24 hour time periods, not include sucrose? What are the clearest conclusions that can be drawn from its results as constructed? [Note to reader: this question is also addressed above–the bit about access to table sugar solution not seeming to show weight gain in rats.]

Hoebel: The goal of this paper was not exclusively to compare HFCS to sucrose. Rather, we were interested in assessing 1) limited vs. continuous access to HFCS, as our previous research has focused on binge eating of sugars, 2) differences in body weight gain as a results of access to HFCS that might result in males vs. females, and 3) the effects of long term access to HFCS on parameters such as triglyceride levels and fat accrual.

The vision of the paper was to study the effects of HFCS on body weight and obesity, not just to pit it against sucrose. The clearest conclusions that can be drawn from Experiment 2 are that, in male rats, long term consumption of HFCS increases triglyceride levels and fat accrual. To us, this is an important finding. It shows that not only will HFCS increase body fat, but it will also increase these obesogenic parameters

Next, we asked Dr. Hoebel to respond to criticisms of his work leveled by Dr. Karen Teff of the Monell Chemical Senses Center:

Comment #1: The solutions of HFCS and sucrose used in all the studies-there were a few-in the Princeton report provided different levels of calories. (The HFCS, in fact, was lower in calories.)

Hoebel: It is true that the solutions of HFCS and sucrose were not offered as calorically equivalent. We note this in the Methods section of the paper. However, it is important to note that the HFCS consuming rats in Experiment 1, the short-term (2-month) study, showed greater gains in body weight while taking in fewer calories of sugar compared to the groups consuming sucrose. This led us to hypothesize that there might be something different about the way HFCS affects the body. Thus, we conducted Experiment 2, the long-term (6 month) study, and measurements showed that increased triglyceride levels and increased body fat were seen in the rats will access to HCFS, but not sucrose.

Comment #2: In one of the studies, the authors reported that male rats had a higher body weight after being exposed to 12 hours of access to the HFCS plus their typical rat chow compared to 1) standard chow alone, 2) 12 hours of access to sucrose with chow, and 3) 24 hours of access to sucrose with chow. However, they did not report or do the statistics on the change in weight. Thus, this is meaningless and poorly controlled.

Hoebel: One of the groups listed above is cited incorrectly; group 3 had 24 hours of HFCS and chow access (no sucrose access). As stated in the Methods section, the males in the three groups of Experiment 1 were “weight-matched”. That means the average (mean) weight of the rats in each group started out the same. Therefore the end-point body weights reported are in fact accurate representations of the mean body weight change. Ergo, the statistics were done on the appropriate measure. The result is meaningful and well controlled, given the use of not one but three comparison groups.

Comment #3: In a second experiment, they compared chow to chow-plus-HFCS for 24 hours and chow-plus-HFCS for 12 hours and found that access to the HFCS increased body weight. So what? Again, meaningless. This is like taking two groups of people, giving them the same diet but allowing one group to drink sweetened soda whenever they liked. Of course, they will gain weight because they are ingesting more calories. These findings have nothing to do with the controversy between sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup.

Hoebel: The result is, in fact, meaningful. As cited in the Discussion section, we have previously shown that the rats are able to compensate for the excess calories obtained when drinking 10% sucrose by taking fewer calories of chow and thereby maintaining a normal body weight. Therefore, we thought it was interesting and important to report that long-term access to HFCS causes rats to become overweight, whereas access to 10% sucrose does not. While comparisons were made to sucrose in some of the studies, this was not the sole focus of the paper. Rather, we were interested in seeing the effects of HFCS on body weight and obesogenic characteristics, and there were other variables of interest that were studied (as described in the response to the next comment).

Comment #4: Finally, in a third study, they show body weight as a percent of baseline (this is appropriate) and show that rats who had free access to both chow and HFCS gained a tiny bit more weight than chow alone, 12 hours of HFCS or 12 hours of sucrose. They did not compare it to the control of 24 hours of access to sucrose.

Hoebel: The statistical test (Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance) did show an overall significant difference between female rats with HFCS to drink 24-hr per day and the groups with chow alone or 12-hr access to sucrose, as described in the Results section. We did not compare 24-hr HFCS vs. 24-hr sucrose in this study because 1) in our previous studies (with both male and female rats) we have noted that rats with 24-hr access to 10% sucrose do not gain significantly more weight than chow-fed controls, and 2) in addition to comparing HFCS to sucrose, we were interested in the effects of limited (12-h) access to HFCS to see if it would cause binging that might enhance HFCS intake or body weight. Further, we chose to focus on assessing 12-h access as a variable because we did not know the effect of 12-hr vs. 24-hr HFCS access in female rats. This was of interest to us in light of the findings in Experiment 1 in males where we made that comparison, and because our laboratory has a long-standing interest in the effects of binge eating of palatable food. We explain and give the rationale for the choice of these variables in the Methods section.

So yes, the females drinking 24-hr HFCS showed a statistically significant increase in body weight. It is important and meaningful because these females had significantly heavier fat pads in the abdominal and uterine areas. They also had higher blood triglyceride levels than the other groups, which may have contributed to the body weight and body fat characteristics of obesity.

Our study in laboratory rats complements the growing body of literature suggesting that HFCS affects body weight and some obesogenic parameters. We cite in our paper additional evidence reported by other groups that supports our findings, and also acknowledge studies that suggest that HFCS does not affect body weight in ways different than that of sucrose. We acknowledge in the paper that at higher concentrations (e.g. 32%) sucrose has been shown to increase body weight. We are claiming, however, that at the concentrations we compared in this study, HFCS causes characteristics of obesity. The data show that both male and female rats are (1) overweight, (2) have heavier fat pads, particularly in the abdominal area and (3) have elevated circulating triglyceride levels.

For more information and references on this topic, as studied in both animals and humans, see a review published this year by George Bray, Curr Opin Lipidol. 2010 Feb; 21(1):51-7. “Soft drink consumption and obesity: it is all about fructose”.

Editor’s note: Article by Tom Laskawy. Originally published by our friends at Grist.org. Grist is a media organization that has been dishing out environmental news and commentary with a humorous twist since 1999. Be sure to visit them and say hi, and follow Grist on Twitter, too!

Image: JonathanCohen

The post A High-Fructose Corn Syrup Researcher Answers His Critics appeared first on EcoSalon.

You’ve heard it before: a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. If people are fat, it’s their own fault for eating too much.

These words are usually spouted by PR hacks for the corn refiner’s association – or the dietitians paid by them. They may not, as it turns out, be true.

We finally have the smoking corn cob, as it were: the study processed-food foes have been waiting for, indicating that high fructose corn syrup may be the cause of the huge upswing in childhood obesity and diabetes.

American consumption of all sugars is much higher than it should be for our health, but high fructose corn syrup has become a larger share of our sugar consumption due to the fact that much of our ingestion of this super cheap, highly processed sugar is involuntary. That’s because it’s not just used as a sweetener in cookies and sodas but as a food additive in things like bread, ketchup and other condiments, pasta sauce and coatings for frozen fried foods.

Why is it used so liberally? It increases shelf life and has other characteristics that food processors like. The reason it’s really cheap is because the government subsidizes corn so heavily (and if you’ve read your Michael Pollan you already know this so I’ll shut up now).

The rise in childhood diabetes and obesity roughly corresponds to the period of time in which food processors started using high fructose corn syrup with such prevalence. That’s why so many scientists have been trying to determine if there’s a link between the two.

Depending on whom you ask, Americans consume anywhere from 45 to 60 pounds of the syrup a year. Scientists and food activists have long thought that the body metabolizes the high fructose corn syrup differently than regular sugar and that it is therefore a big problem for our health.

But the corn refiner industry has been spending a lot of money debunking this hypothesis. Over the past few years, ads have flooded the web, print and TV. Consumers were encouraged to get “the truth” at Sweetsurprise.com.

The ads make assertions that directly address the many criticisms of high fructose corn syrup:

“Many dietitians agree that high fructose corn syrup, like any sugar, can be part of a balanced diet. Doctors have concluded that high fructose corn syrup doesn’t appear to contribute to obesity any more than other sweeteners.”

But this new finding is the first involving humans, and its results point to a different truth: high fructose corn syrup can actually damage human metabolism.

In a study conducted by University of California researchers, 16 volunteers were given a strictly controlled diet including very high levels of fructose. Another group was given the same diet but with high levels of glucose (regular sugar) replacing the fructose. Over 10 weeks, the volunteers that were given fructose produced new fat cells around their heart, liver and other digestive organs. They also showed signs of food-processing abnormalities linked to diabetes and heart disease. The control group of volunteers on the same diet, but with glucose sugar replacing fructose, did not have these problems.

People in both groups did put on a similar amount of weight, but researchers thought the levels of weight gain among the fructose consumers would be greater over the long term.

Here’s what happens: Fructose seems to bypass the digestive process that breaks down other forms of sugar. It arrives intact in the liver where it causes a variety of reactions. One of the results is a metabolic change that keeps the body from burning fat normally.

This was a small study and it was the first one done on humans, but 10 weeks? That’s some pretty fast acting syrup, if you ask me.

I look forward to seeing how this plays out, but in the meantime, I’ll leave you with this rather gruesome video done by New York City’s anti-soda campaign.

This is the latest installment in Vanessa Barrington’s weekly column, The Green Plate, on the environmental, social, and political issues related to what and how we eat.

Image: RogueSun Media

UPDATE 1/6/10 FROM THE EDITOR: We received the following statement from a representative of Corn.org wishing to address statements in this post:

Dr. Kimber Stanhope of UC Davis posted comments in which she discredits the information from the Sunday Times article that was used as the source of information for the story by Vanessa Barrington [at EcoSalon] (http://www.grist.org/article/draft-new-research-links-high-fructose-corn-syrup-and-diabetes-heart-diseas/#c279652). Dr. Stanhope begins her post with the following statement:

“The information about the UC Davis study came from a Sunday Times article in which almost every sentence in the article contained at least one inaccurate statement.”

The statement continues:

The Ecosalon.com article confuses scientific research about distinctly different sweeteners, treating a study involving abnormally high levels of pure fructose as if it involved high fructose corn syrup, which it does not.  Peer reviewed research has shown that high fructose corn syrup and sugar are handled the same by the body and have similar metabolic effects.

We sincerely regret that we relied on the Times as a source of information for this post. If you have further questions, you may contact us at editor at ecosalon dot com.

The post How Sweet It Isn’t: High Fructose Corn Syrup Proven to Cause Human Obesity CORRECTION: STUDY DISPUTED appeared first on EcoSalon.