Sugar Versus Corn Syrup

It's funny to read an article about how sugar is making a major comeback into our food products. And how that is a good thing. People are excited about this. Really? Things of this nature truly depend on which way the wind blows. Today it's blowing in favor of sugar. Almost 30 years ago corn syrup was the more favorable of the sugary choices. To researchers and doctors, there is not much difference between the two when it comes to how it affects the body.

(Though there are many health-related problems arising from our consumption of sugars, I am going to focus on obesity for this article because it is a particularly alarming national epidemic.) 

Obviously, sugar has been studied longer than high fructose corn syrup, but so far, the research shows that both have a lot to do with obesity. Obesity has a lot to do with diabetes and heart disease. And we are supposed to be excited about our old friend sugar? 

Thank you to a reader who forwarded me this article from the New York Times. "Sugar, the nutritional pariah that dentists and dietitians have long reviled, is enjoying a second act, dressed up as a natural, healthful ingredient."

It made me giggle and cringe at the same time. I feel like the point is lost on people. There are those who have a vendetta against corn syrup, and those who have a vendetta against sugar. I started my blog because I had a vendetta against sugar. But, as I wrote about earlier, I realized that sugar is not evil. Read more about that here. Corn syrup is not evil. It is the food corporations and media and advertisers and people who push for sugar in our food products who are screwing with our minds and best intentions. Best case scenario is that no matter what is in our foods, we would eat in moderation. 

The problem is Americans have a very hard time with moderation. Moderation is not a motto we live by. (I just deleted an entire paragraph about restaurant buffets...)

Sugars are found in more food products today, I will speculate, than 50 years ago. I'm guessing because it is now so cheap to add to our food, why wouldn't a company add this simple, cheap sweetness, which will make a product stand apart from another. We like things that are sweet. We love a perfect balance between sweetness and saltiness. They know this and are preying upon our senses. The sugar industry folks and corn syrup folks have something in common. Neither of them care about our health individually, or the health of our nation as a whole. Rates of obesity are at an alarming, all time high. Not only are more people considered obese, but those once considered obese are now being considered morbidly obese. The money the United States spends on obesity and overweight issues is estimated to be about $90 billion annually. Billion.

The sugar industries: cane, beet and corn continue to market and sell their products because somehow we have been convinced that "in moderation" is okay. Really? I am an expert on one thing. Going without sugar for one year. It was one of the most challenging things I have ever done. Sugar/Corn syrup was in practically everything. How do those industries propose that we eat it in moderation, when they serve a disproportionate amount of sugar in their "suggested serving size?" 

Though the pendulum swings back towards an increase in sugar consumption instead of corn syrup, I believe that we still have the same problem on our hands. That is, our addiction to sweet things and our "need" for sweets in greater and greater amounts. Since going without sugar, I've come to realize that eating too much sugar and corn syrup is a problem, but so is eating too much honey and agave and brown rice syrup and dried fruit. They are all carbohydrates which our bodies turn into glucose and if we eat more calories than we burn in a day, our glucose is stored as fat. Our bodies don't care what the source of the carbohydrate is. If it's a carb, it turns into glucose (with the exception of some fiber). Obviously, if a type of natural sweetener is less likely to spike our blood sugar, it is probably better for us for that reason, but when it comes to carbs, calories and weight, we are pretty much comparing apples to apples. 

I don't typically make generalizations like this. However, I have to make the distinction between choosing something based on morals versus choosing something based on health. When it comes to white sugar and corn syrup, I don't eat either one because of health and moral reasons. Morally, I won't eat corn syrup because most corn is grown using GMO's and pesticides. I just don't support that kind of farming. Morally, I don't eat white refined sugar because I don't support the organizations selling it. It has no place in our food supply. It is empty calories, which means that it offers no essential nutrients but is extra calories in our diet that most of us don't need. I can't support the sugar and corn industries that are fattening us to death. 

Morally and for health reasons I don't eat artificial sweeteners or the new stevia products (I eat pure stevia, but not the new products of processed stevia.) Most of these products have not been around long enough to have long-term research studies done to determine their safety. I feel good about eating natural sweeteners, but I have to be careful not to overindulge. Yes, honey is natural, but to be completely grass roots and organic about it, if I were living out in nature, the fact is that I would probably only be able to swipe a finger full of honey from a bee hive before getting chased out of the area by a swarm of territorial bees. It would not be possible to eat a large amount of honey at one time. Yet, because of the industrialization of food, I can go buy a jar of honey and sit with a spoon and eat to my heart's content. But I have not evolved to eat honey in those kinds of proportions. 

I would not have the facilities to make agave or brown rice syrup or molasses in nature. I am currently questioning my consumption of these products, as well, in an effort to be eating how I was meant to be eating, not what the media or latest fad would have me believe. In my perfect world, I would dry my own fruit, squeeze my own juice by hand and collect honey in moderate amounts before the bees got to me. These sweet items would satisfy my sweet tooth, and because of all the whole foods I would be eating, only, I wouldn't have insane cravings. In my perfect world. I am working on making this a reality, but to participate in society, I am faced with difficult food choices--eating with friends, family and going out to eat. So, in my perfect world, everyone else figures out that eating healthy is the secret to happiness and longevity and we all thrive happily. One must dream...

Are Cane Juice and Raw Sugar the Same as White Sugar?

I am again attempting to find out at which steps of the sugar refining process we get these products. Also, what is their nutritional value?

• Evaporated Cane Juice
• Cane Juice
  
• Organic Sugar
• Turbinado
• Raw Sugar
• Molasses

I posted something about this earlier in the year, but I want even more details, from more sources. The cold, hard facts. I can not get the best information from any source that is selling something. Unfortunately, I am having a difficult time finding this information elsewhere!

I have many people asking why I don't eat some of the above listed sugars. I do eat molasses. A naturopathic doctor once recommended that I eat one tablespoon of molasses a day. I was eating vegan then. I haven't touched the other sugars all year because I believe they are much more refined products of sugar cane/sugar beet than molasses. Molasses is full of iron and other vitamins and minerals. You really can't overeat the stuff--it's so strong! It makes a wonderful sweetener, especially in my favorite gingersnap cookies.

I think that the other sugars listed are advertising "gimmicks" to get us health-concious folks to think a product is okay. I really don't believe that there is a big difference between white table sugar and evaporated cane juice, cane juice, raw sugar and turbinado. If the differences are microscopic, then I think they hardly count. I think the differences should be as obvious as molasses compared to white table sugar. If there are "trace" amounts of nutrition in cane juice or turbinado, does that really make it healthy?

The research that I am looking for is harder to find than I thought. All I want is a chart that shows the sugar refining process, with these different sugars listed at the point at which they are a final product. Ideally, these different sugar products would then be charted according to their nutrition. Do these charts exist? I've looked on both sugar websites and "anti-sugar" websites.

Wikipedia apparently agrees with me, "Evaporated cane juice is used more widely across the globe and is gaining currency as a euphemism for refined white sugar." I think "euphemism" is a loose term, and definitely not a scientific term, but nevertheless...

I'm finding the same thing on most websites, "[Evaporated cane juice] may also be known by a variety of other names including dried cane juice, crystallized cane juice, milled cane sugar and direct consumption sugar."(1)

If you've heard of Sunspire Natural Chocolates, they also have something to say about raw sugar, "Raw sugar is coarse, tan to brown-colored sugar (sucrose) which results from the first processing of cane or beet sugar. True "raw sugar" cannot be sold in the USA because it contains impurities such as soil, mold yeast, bacteria, and wax. When further processed to remove the impurities it is sold as turbinado sugar."(2)

Here is an interesting perspective written by Nutritionist Vimlan VanDien, "One hundred grams of dried cane juice is pretty much the same thing as 100 grams of other sweeteners, no matter what you call it," says Vimlan VanDien, a nutritionist at the respected Bastyr University, in Seattle, Washington. "When people call these sugars something other than sugar, it's deceptive in a way if the market is uninformed. Because dehydrated cane juice is sugar. It simply sounds like a whole food."

VanDien feels that calling these sweeteners something other than what they are is a way that some consumers can sugarcoat their consciences too.

"To a certain extent," she explains, "when people buy products with so-called alternative sweeteners, it gives them an excuse to eat sugar. They'll say, Oh, it's organic, so it's O.K.' Or, It's a whole food.' But it's not whole food. If you wanted the whole food, you'd go out in the field and eat the sugar cane, and get all the fiber and nutrients it has." (3)

I found a sugar refining website (4) that talks about the process of sugar refining, but leaves out when the various sugar products are produced. The sugar refining process is very interesting to me. It reminds me that sugar is in no way a whole food. What once was a beautiful green sugar cane (sold at open markets in Hawaii and fun to chew on) ends up an embarrassed little pile of tiny white, nutrition-less crystals.

Ah, I should write a children's book about the sugar refining process from the sugar cane's point of view. Poor guy.


(1) (-http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=120)
(2) (http://www.worldpantry.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ExecMacro/nspired/sunspire/faq.d2w/report#gsweet)
(3) (http://organicanews.com/news/article.cfm?story_id=23)
(4) (http://www.refinedsugar.org/)

Coca-Cola's New Stevia Product: "Truvia"

You won't believe this. The Coca-Cola Company has come out with a "healthy" sweetener that is now available to consumers. It is a stevia-derived sweetener that has no calories, and is now being marketed as "Truvia: A healthy alternative to artificial sweeteners." "Rebiana" is the trade name for this sweetener, probably named after the compound Rebaudioside A, which they isolated from the stevia plant. The reason they have isolated this compound is because it is apparently the sweet part of the plant separated from its usual bitter aftertaste. I do not know how much processing is involved in turning the stevia leaf into "Truvia", but I am guessing from the tiny, pure white granules that there is quite a bit of processing involved. Could we be looking at the same sort of processing that goes on with sugar cane and sugar beets? These are healthy plants--until they have been processed to death!

What I find highly amusing is that stevia has been used as a sweetener for years (for centuries in some countries) and has health benefits including: treating obesity, high-blood pressure, glucose intolerance and diabetes, to name a few. The amusing part is that despite stevia's health benefits and ability to be used as an alternative sweetener, in 1991 it was ousted by the FDA. The FDA labeled stevia "unsafe" and banned it until 1994 when the Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act got the FDA to revise their stance. Even then, however, it was only considered safe to be used as a dietary supplement, not a food additive!

Here is what has happened over the years: Coca-Cola comes out with soda in the late 1800's. It is loaded with sugar and two main ingredients: cocaine and caffeine. They reconfigure the ingredients after 1904. The company is under the constant watch of nutritionists because of the links between its soda and diabetes, obesity, caffeine addiction and other health issues. In 1985 Coca-Cola switches its formula again. They now no longer use white refined sugar. It is now cheaper to use high fructose corn syrup. They are still under careful watch because corn syrup has its own list of negative side effects. The company is still under careful watch for using other controversial ingredients like sodium benzoate. In 2005 they come out with a soda containing Splenda and aspartame. Artificial sweeteners. Coca-Cola is currently working on phasing out the ingredient sodium benzoate, which has been linked directly to DNA damage and hyperactivity in children. They say they will phase it out as soon as they find an alternative ingredient to use in its place. Now, it's 2008 and they have produced Truvia, which sounds like a nice, natural sweetener to get the health nuts out there to lay off. But, not so fast! How is this processed? What are the effects of consuming this product, short term and long term? Is it still capable of being a health tool and treating obesity and diabetes? Or have those constiuents been left out because of the mildly bitter aftertaste?

What has happened is that Coca-Cola can not last without revamping their product model. It is common knowledge that their ingredients are less than desirable, have been studied to show health risks, and they don't want to be sued! They are going to jump on the "natural sweetener" gravy train, if you will, and offer a product to people who will believe they now have unprecedented rights to consume all they want without any risk. Imagine the FDA banning stevia now. It's never going to happen now that the giant, multi-billion dollar Coke company has begun using it. How they have been using it is still in question.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia -http://truvia.com/

Sugar Beets

Do you know where your sugar comes from? "Sugar cane!" you might say. Actually, there is a high probability that your white refined sugar does NOT come from the sugar cane plant! Much of our sugar actually comes from sugar beets! What is a sugar beet? A sugar beet "is a plant whose root contains a high concentration of sucrose... Beet sugar accounts for 30% of the world's sugar production... The United States is one of the world's three largest sugar beet producers."-Wikipedia. For more information about the sugar that may be sitting on your table, go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_beet
http://www.idahofb.org/commodities/sugarbeets.aspx

Today I called a local sugar beet factory and asked if they gave tours. I would love to see with my own eyes the steps involved in the sugar refining process, be it sugar cane or sugar beets. There is probably a slight difference in the refining process of each. I was told that since 9/11, they are no longer able to give tours for bio-terrorism reasons. Shucks! I asked if someone who worked there would be interested in an interview and was given the name and phone number of two people at corporate headquarters. Cool! The outcome of this interview is TBA!

Let's not leave out sugar cane. Here is a link to information about sugar cane:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_cane