So what is the “ose” gate? It is a combination of misunderstandings/misperceptions/misinformation that are plainly scandalous.
The Sugar Switcheroo
First it is the ‘sugar switcheroo.' Unfortunately, many people confuse the compound fructose with high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Even worse, because it is “high fructose” corn syrup, they think that it is a sweetener that is really high in fructose compared to others. The undeniable truth is the fructose levels in HFCS are not that different from table sugar. Its 55%. But sugar is also 50% fructose. So, if fructose is bad, then HFCS and regular sugar are equally bad on the grand scheme of things. It is all in a name. If we are comparing sweeteners based on fructose content, we could just as easily call table sugar “High Fructose” table sugar- or ‘HFTS.’ The scandalous part is that food marketers are catering to this ignorance by advertising that they have removed HFCS from their foods and switched it with sugar. It makes no tangible difference in terms of fructose content or calories, and consumers are being duped by the old ‘switcheroo.’
Big Fat Lies
So, if it makes no tangible difference in fructose content, or calories, then it likely will make no difference on obesity rates. That brings us to the ‘big fat lies’ myth. In the media and on social media folks often like to claim that the massive use of HFCS is leading to obesity, but advocating that we replace it with HFTS (my new acronym). It makes no sense, but anti-agricultural activists and politicians are making hay with it. (1) Besides that, according to USDA data, the most abundant sweeteners in American's diets is not HFCS but HFTS (2) (both are about equal but HFTS as aways had the lead). Simply switching one for the other isn't expected to have any impact on obesity rates (1). The goal should be healthier eating not subbing in and out different types of sugar.
The Subsidy Scape Goat
Then there are the attacks on farm programs, which sometimes comes from both democrats and republicans. Those on the left don’t like the idea of subsidizing politically incorrect (i.e. modern) farming practices (more on this later) and some from the right like to point out unintended consequences of government policies. The misconception is that subsidies lead to more corn production and cheaper HFCS and then cheaper high calorie foods- that lead to obesity. (I’ve already addressed obesity). Research from UC Davis blows this myth out of the water. If we get rid of all corn subsidies the impact on corn production would not be large enough to have a major impact on retail prices or consumption (they estimated the impact on would decrease consumption by at most .2%) (3) Subsidies , which amount to less than ½ of 1% of our federal budget become a scape goat for all of our problems. Absolutely our trade and tariff policies favor HFCS but that is a different matter altogether.
The Dilemma of the Omnivore's Dilemma
Next, there is the dilemma of the Omnivore’s Dilemma:
“If you eat industrially, you are made of corn. It holds together your McNuggets, it sweetens your soda pop, it fattens your meat, it is everywhere. It is fed to us in many forms, because it is cheap- a dollar buys you 875 calories in soda pop but only 170 in fruit juice. A McDonalds meal was analyzed as almost entirely corn."-Michael Pollan Omnivore's Dilemma (4)
The fact that modern family farmers are able to feed the world in so many different ways and do it cheaply should be acknowledged as a miracle. We are talking about first world problems here in terms of having a safe abundant food supply unprecedented when compared to any other time in history. That doesn't preclude making healthier food choices, but it's certainly not an indictment of HFCS in comparison to any other sweetener.
Anti-Capitalist Propaganda
Finally, there is the myth that HFCS is the product of industrial agriculture and industrial farms, which are unsustainable and are having a negative impact on our environment. These beliefs have made modern family farming practices politically incorrect, or socially irresponsible in the minds of many consumers and politicians. According to USDA data, 98% of all farms in the U.S. are family farms and they account for 85% of all production.(5) Large family farms are more diversified (5) and benefit the community according to recent research at Iowa State(6). In terms of sustainability, the technology used on modern family farms has led to drastic reductions in greenhouse gases, decreased soil erosion, decreased groundwater pollution, improved water use efficiency, and has increased wildlife diversity and food safety. (7). Ultimately the attacks on HFCS are leveled at capitalism, technological advancement, and market innovations that allow us to provide the safest most sustainable food in the history of the world. Policy proposals suggested to curb HFCS consumption could only make a central planner's dream come true including:
Finally, there is the myth that HFCS is the product of industrial agriculture and industrial farms, which are unsustainable and are having a negative impact on our environment. These beliefs have made modern family farming practices politically incorrect, or socially irresponsible in the minds of many consumers and politicians. According to USDA data, 98% of all farms in the U.S. are family farms and they account for 85% of all production.(5) Large family farms are more diversified (5) and benefit the community according to recent research at Iowa State(6). In terms of sustainability, the technology used on modern family farms has led to drastic reductions in greenhouse gases, decreased soil erosion, decreased groundwater pollution, improved water use efficiency, and has increased wildlife diversity and food safety. (7). Ultimately the attacks on HFCS are leveled at capitalism, technological advancement, and market innovations that allow us to provide the safest most sustainable food in the history of the world. Policy proposals suggested to curb HFCS consumption could only make a central planner's dream come true including:
a) reducing the hours retailers are open
b) controlling the location of retail markets
c) tightening the licensing requirements on vending machines in schools and workplaces
d) designating an age limit on who can buy the fructose
e) doubling of the price through taxation.
So, there you have it - 5 ‘sweet’ scams or misperceptions that define what I am calling"ose"gate:
So, there you have it - 5 ‘sweet’ scams or misperceptions that define what I am calling"ose"gate:
1) The Sugar Switcheroo
2) Big Fat Lies
3) The Subsidy Scape Goat
4) The Dilemma of the Omnivore’s Dilemma
5) Anti-Capitalist Propaganda
References:
1 Adolescent beverage habits and changes in weight over time: findings from Project EAT1,2,3Am J Clin Nutr (October 28, 2009). doi:10.3945/ajcn.2009.27573
Nutrition July-August 2007, Volume 23, Issues 7-8, Pages 557-563 "Is sugar-sweetened beverage consumption associated with increased fatness in children?"
2 http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Sugar/data/table49.xls
3 Farm Subsidies and Obesity in the United States
Julian M. Alston, Daniel A. Sumner, and Stephen A. Vosti
Agricultural Resource Economics Update
V. 11 no. Nov/Dec 007
U.C. Davis
4 http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/food_fight_is_c.php
5 Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms: Family Farm Report, 2007 Edition / EIB-24 Economic Research Service/USDA
6 Large Agriculture Improves Rural Iowa Communities
http://www.soc.iastate.edu/newsletter/sapp.html
7 Matt Bogard. "Sustainable Agriculture Bibliography" 2010 Available at: http://works.bepress.com/matt_bogard/6
