While I am not fan of fructose or any other sugar, I question whether HFCS can be guilty of everything with which it is charged.  Sucrose is, I believe, half fructose and half glucose. HFCS is 55% fructose, 45% glucose.  Do I have those figures wrong, or does that extra 5% really make that much difference?

Andrea

--- On Wed, 7/1/09, steve <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: steve <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Zero Carb
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 5:02 PM
> Robert Kesterson wrote:
> > On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:41:34 -0500, Bill Wilcox <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >> 
> >> The worse part of high fructose corn syrup is the
> fructose, not the glucose.
> > 
> > Actually I think the worst thing about HFCS is that it
> is added to almost everything these days.  It is
> amazing to me how hard it is to find anything in the grocery
> store outside the produce and meat aisles that don't have
> added sugar, HFCS, or some other form of sugar.
> 
> The US sugar industry lobbied congress to impose tariffs on
> imported sugar so US food manufactures converted to corn
> syrup many years back as a cheaper way to sweeten their
> products.  This is, in my opinion, part of the genesis
> of the obesity epidemic and has an impact on heart disease
> since fructose converts almost directly to trigs.
> 
> I'm a free market person and don't believe in protecting
> domestic industries since it mis-allocates capitol resulting
> in decreased economic activity, decreased jobs, and
> increased prices for US consumers.
> 
> -- 
> Steve - [log in to unmask]
> 
> "The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you
> run out of Other People's Money." --Margaret Thatcher
> 
> "Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American
> Patriotism"
> 
> Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at
> http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
>