The results of a soon-to-be-released study on High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) were recently summarized in Science Daily:
Not Enough Evidence to Indict High Fructose Corn Syrup in Obesity
Drs. Richard Forshee and Mauren Storey, along with their assembled team of experts, analyzed past research to find evidence of HFCS being linked to obesity . . . and didn't find a strong link between the two. They took the time to provide suggestions for future studies, so that a link between HFCS and obesity could be more clearly defined (or refuted). On the surface, the methodology used seem appropriate and the conclusions drawn, logical. But I still have some reservations about this study, including. . .
1. The source of funding. Tate & Lyle, one of the world's largest producers of starches and cereal sweeteners (including high fructose corn syrup), funded this project. I'm not challenging the integrity of Drs. Richard Forshee and Maureen Storey, or anybody else involved in this project for that matter. But I think it'd be easier to believe that this research was truly objective had the funding come from a company without billions of dollars at stake.
2. The emphasis of the research. When I came across the title, Not Enough Evidence to Indict High Fructose Corn Syrup in Obesity, my initial perception was that this study (and any study like it) was aimed strictly at refuting HFCS' link to obesity. Then I read Dr. Forshee's interpretation of the results: "the expert panel concluded that high fructose corn syrup does not appear to contribute (to obesity) differently than any other energy sources."
Differently than the other energy resources? Okay, so HFCS might not own the unique capability of generating obesity. But is it just as bad as other energy sources (i.e. other sugars), at wreaking havoc on our metabolism and prompting obesity? If so, isn't that bad enough?
__________________________________________________
Ironically, Dr. Forshee's words are similar to those spoken by Dr. Walter Willett, nutrition department chairman at Harvard's School of Public Health, who was quoted in a New York Times article last year:
"There's no substantial evidence to support the idea that HFCS is somehow resonsible for obesity. If there was no HFCS, I don't think we would see a change in anything important. I think there's this overreaction."
Dr. Willett then continued on by saying (as paraphrased by the NY Times author) . . . that he was not defending HFCS as a healthy ingredient, but that he simply thinks that it is no worse than the refined white sugar it replaces, since both offer easily consumed calories with no nutrients in them.__________________________________________________
Shouldn't the issue here be not that HFCS contributes differently, but that society as a whole is simply eating too many sugars -- including high fructose corn syrup -- and chronic ingestion of simple sugars contributes to obesity?
Wouldn't we be better served if this research was directed more at finding ways to reduce excessive simple sugar consumption (regardless of the source), as opposed to trying to figure out which sugar is a tad worse than the other?
It seems to me, that this research may be merely nitpicking at the minute details so much that it's missing the overall point.
The results of a soon-to-be-released study on High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) were recently summarized in Science Daily:
Not Enough Evidence to Indict High Fructose Corn Syrup in Obesity
Drs. Richard Forshee and Mauren Storey, along with their assembled team of experts, analyzed past research to find evidence of HFCS being linked to obesity . . . and didn't find a strong link between the two. They took the time to provide suggestions for future studies, so that a link between HFCS and obesity could be more clearly defined (or refuted). On the surface, the methodology used seem appropriate and the conclusions drawn, logical. But I still have some reservations about this study, including. . .
1. The source of funding. Tate & Lyle, one of the world's largest producers of starches and cereal sweeteners (including high fructose corn syrup), funded this project. I'm not challenging the integrity of Drs. Richard Forshee and Maureen Storey, or anybody else involved in this project for that matter. But I think it'd be easier to believe that this research was truly objective had the funding come from a company without billions of dollars at stake.
2. The emphasis of the research. When I came across the title, Not Enough Evidence to Indict High Fructose Corn Syrup in Obesity, my initial perception was that this study (and any study like it) was aimed strictly at refuting HFCS' link to obesity. Then I read Dr. Forshee's interpretation of the results: "the expert panel concluded that high fructose corn syrup does not appear to contribute (to obesity) differently than any other energy sources."
Differently than the other energy resources? Okay, so HFCS might not own the unique capability of generating obesity. But is it just as bad as other energy sources (i.e. other sugars), at wreaking havoc on our metabolism and prompting obesity? If so, isn't that bad enough?
__________________________________________________
Ironically, Dr. Forshee's words are similar to those spoken by Dr. Walter Willett, nutrition department chairman at Harvard's School of Public Health, who was quoted in a New York Times article last year:
Dr. Willett then continued on by saying (as paraphrased by the NY Times author) . . . that he was not defending HFCS as a healthy ingredient, but that he simply thinks that it is no worse than the refined white sugar it replaces, since both offer easily consumed calories with no nutrients in them.__________________________________________________
Shouldn't the issue here be not that HFCS contributes differently, but that society as a whole is simply eating too many sugars -- including high fructose corn syrup -- and chronic ingestion of simple sugars contributes to obesity?
Wouldn't we be better served if this research was directed more at finding ways to reduce excessive simple sugar consumption (regardless of the source), as opposed to trying to figure out which sugar is a tad worse than the other?
It seems to me, that this research may be merely nitpicking at the minute details so much that it's missing the overall point.