March 17, 2009

Eye View:

The link between corn subsidies and obesity is not
immediately obvious.

Americans give their farmers $10 billion a year to grow too
much corn.

Excess corn creates market distortions when corn is dumped
in world markets. Cheap corn creates hardship for farmers
in counties that don't subsidize. In Mexico, where corn
originated, subsistence farmers have been driven from the
land by the flood of cheap U.S. corn.

According to a report by Oxfam International, subsidies
allow American corn farmers to sell their grain at prices
far below what it costs to produce. ''There is a direct link
between government agricultural policies in the U.S. and
rural misery in Mexico,'' according to the report entitled
Dumping Without Borders: How U.S. agricultural policies are
destroying the livelihoods of Mexican corn farmers.

Excess corn invents new schemes to justify its existence.
But far from being the mother of invention, most schemes
don't result from necessity.

Whose bright idea was it to make ethanol from corn when the
cost of making the fuel is about the same as the input
costs?

What genius decided to turn corn into high-fructose corn
syrup (called glucose-fructose in Canada)? While corn
syrup naturally contains glucose, it doesn't taste as sweet
as other sugars. To compensate, manufacturers use a complex
process to boost its sweetness by turning it into another
sugar. Now corn is dumped into our foods and drinks as well
as world markets.

There is nothing wrong with fructose itself. It's found in
fruit which is a great source of fiber, minerals, and
photochemicals.

But too much fructose is a problem for a number of reasons.
We are consuming more fructose than at any time in the
history of humans with uncertain results.

Large amounts of HFCS may be linked to kidney and liver
disease. Unlike other sugars, most fructose is broken down
in the liver where it can boost the production of fats
(triglycerides), lower levels of "good" cholesterol (HDL)
and increase "bad" cholesterol (LDL).

And we eat a large amount of HFCS. An average of 10 per
cent of our calories comes from fructose and that figure is
closer to 20 per cent for children who consume more fruit
juices, granola bars, and soft drinks with HFCS.

But even without any medical complications from fructose,
the added empty calories alone are devastating in their
contribution to diabetes heart disease and other
weight-affected complications.

In an intriguing twist, Mexico may get even for the invasion
of cheap U.S. corn. Mexican Coca Cola is made from cane
sugar, not HFCS. Cane sugar requires little processing, is
naturally sweet, and the effects of consumption of sugarcane
are well known. Sugarcane grows easily all over Mexico and
represents a major industry.

American bottlers used to make Coke from cane sugar. That
was when they advertised it as "the real thing" before they
switched to HFCS in 1985.

To the dismay of American Coke bottlers, Mexican Coca Cola
is becoming popular. Mexican Coke looks authentic,
"natural," and is even sold in old fashioned glass bottles.

So, which Coke is the real thing?

Unlike fructose, cane sugar has fewer digestion problems and
its history of consumption is better known. Because it is
sweeter, less sugar can be used and the calorie content can
be lower.

Some drinkers claim cane sugar tastes better than HFCS. A
U.S. spokesman for Coca Cola in Atlanta says there is "not a
perceivable difference" between the two products.

Yet in taste test conducted by the San Antonio Express News
in Texas, students were given unmarked samples of Coke from
both sides of the border. They noticed a difference. The
students raised in Mexico identified and preferred the
Mexican product and U.S. students liked the American one.

One thing is sure: human appetite is keenly tuned to sugar
regardless of the variety. Once kids taste it in spaghetti
sauce and wieners, anything without sugar is not as good.

High calorie drinks contribute to weight gain because fluids
don't reduce appetite the way an equal amount of calories in
solid foods does. Not only do soft drinks add extra empty
calories but they encourage more eating through unsatisfied
hunger.

From a marketing viewpoint, the dumping of HFCS into the
food change is a good strategy. It justifies the
subsidization of corn and ensures life-long desire for sweet
food.

From a health strategy, excess sugar of any kind is bad
news.
 

David Charbonneau is the owner of Trio Technical.
He can be reached at dcharbonneau13@shaw.ca

go back to my Columns in the