“High Fructose Corn Syrup: A Revolution in the Making (Parts I and II )”
Bee Culture (June and July 2004), Vol. 132 (5,6)
Malcolm T. Sanford
It was during my stint as a graduate student at the University of Georgia that I attended my first convention of the American Beekeeping Federation.1 I recently became a 31-year member of that organization and have participated at most of its national meetings during my active career as an extension Apiculturist. I got many ideas from those conventions, but that first one sticks in my mind. At one of the booths in the commercial exhibition area, I saw a fountain running a clear liquid. The person manning the display proudly informed me this was a brand new bee food on the market. It was the first time I was to hear the words High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). Little did I know that I was seeing and participating in a revolution in-the-making.
Over the next few years, HFCS invaded commercial beekeeping and more than a few sideliners and hobbyist operations in the bargain. The material had a lot to recommend it. It was inexpensive to purchase (cheaper than sugar), especially in large quantities. Most important, though, it came in liquid form. This threatened (joyously so for anyone who had fed many a colony of bees like myself) to end one of beekeeping’s most time-consuming and labor-intensive tasks, making cane syrup by mixing usually by hand cane sugar crystals and water. This was somewhat of a two-edged sword in the early days, because it meant that the larger the volume the less expensive the feed. Smaller operations were often put at a disadvantage because the material was cheaper and more easily available in large (tanker truck) loads. Today smaller volumes are available, but at a cost. A local supplier will sell a 5-gallon bucket (you bring the bucket) for a little less than $10.00.
As beekeepers began to
convert to HFCS, several things became apparent. One was that the syrup came in two types from
the manufacturer, HFCS 42 and HFCS 55.
The number refers to the amount of fructose solids present in the
material. For a period there was a
debate in beekeeping circles about the merits of both products. HFCS 42 was less expensive and appeared to
provide the bees with all that they needed.
However, the fact that it had fewer solids meant that a specific volume
of the 42 variety was less nutritious than its HFCS 55 cousin. In addition, the 42 variety, because of the
way it is manufactured (older technology), may have a number of “contaminant
sugars” that 55 does not. Finally, it is
difficult if not impossible to recover HFCS 42 should it crystallize. This is apparently due to the larger amount
of glucose (dextrose) present than in 55. Thus, the beekeeper must ensure that the bees
consume it fairly quickly, especially in colder weather. My most recent information is that the vast
majority of beekeepers use HFCS 55, whereas the 42 variety is only employed, if
at all, in the southern
HFCS is made from corn. It is the
inevitable result of a very large corn-growing industry in the
Sweetness is the bottom line for HFCS. Fructose is sweeter tasting than sucrose (cane sugar) or glucose (dextrose or grape sugar), as well as most other sugars commonly in use. Thus, less of it is needed to increase sweetness. Honey is such a sweet product because it too contains a high amount of fructose. Chemically speaking honey is very similar to HFCS. This brings into play another situation corresponding to the arrival of HFCS, economic adulteration of honey.
Because of its relatively high price, honey has been the target of adulteration for centuries. In an effort to make a profit, there are few strategies more economically rewarding than adding some cheap ingredient to honey, and charging a higher price for the whole shebang as if it was a pure product. Because of its chemical nature, HFCS is almost the perfect material to adulterate honey. Why not add a material selling for 14 cents a pound to honey and sell the resultant product at forty cents? And if its worth doing at that price level, think of the profit margins at today’prices.
For some folks, this is simply too good a proposition to pass up. According to a study by Dr. Gary Fairchild at the University of Florida and funded by the National Honey Board, within the range of the observed data, a one percent increase in quantity or supply (adulterated or not) results in a producer price decrease of 5.07 percent and a retail decrease of 3.88 percent.3 The bottom line, he says, is the simple fact that expanding supply (from any source) results in a negative price response. When this comes from adulterated product, it is just plain wrong and illegal, hurting industry participants at all levels of the market, from producer (price) to consumer (adulterated product).
Honey adulteration using HFCS was especially rampant in the late 1980s and 1990s, when it was virtually impossible for regulators to determine that honey had in fact been adulterated (in some cases up to 80%) with HFCS. This practice was so epidemic that the American Beekeeping Federation developed a program of testing suspect honey samples sent in by beekeepers. This was only possible, however, through the efforts of Dr. Jonathon White,4 who literally came out of retirement to develop a reasonable testing procedure. According to the Syndicat des Producteurs de Miel de France, “It is only when the result of the mathematical formula is below 5% that it is deemed certain that a truly natural honey is being dealt with. This technique has become the official method for the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, registered in 1991 under the n° 991-41. It is used throughout the world.”5 This landmark research led to a curbing of HFCS adulteration, and was responsible for putting out of business some of the major outfits engaged in this deceptive practice.6 At least one company now aggressively markets this testing procedure.7
Dr. White’s test uses isotope ratio analysis (Stable Carbon Isotope Ratio Analysis or SCIRA) and is based on an interesting and simple premise. It turns out that plants assemble their sugars differently depending on their evolutionary history. Honey generally comes from what are called “flowering plants,”or the angiosperms of the plant world. One division or class of these plants is known as dicotyledons or simply dicots. They are named because they have two seed leaves, but for bees and beekeepers they are important because of their sexual organs, flowers that produce pollen and nectar. Another class of the angiosperms is called monocotyledons or monocots. This includes the grasses; they have one seed leaf and do not produce classical “flowers.” The dicots assemble or manufacture their sugars differently than the monocots. Thus, by comparing the carbon ratios in resultant sugars using isotope analysis, one can determine if a substance like honey comes from the nectar of a dicot or comes from a grass like corn (HFCS). Legitimate honey in the vast majority of cases comes only from dicots. Sugar cane too comes from a grass. It is mostly sucrose, however, and requires an enzyme from the bees (invertase) to produce a product rich in one of its components, fructose (fruit sugar). Thus, cane sugar syrup, modified and then stored by bees as a part of the honey crop (in supers), is also considered a honey adulterant.
Although on the surface both sugar cane syrup and HFCS appear similar, can it be taken for granted that the use or “metabolism” of these products by honey bees is the same and/or there is no risk involved in using them? This is a complex question and to my knowledge there is no specific answer developed for honey bees. From a users standpoint, after almost four decades of use by beekeepers, it must be concluded that there seems to be little risk involved.
On the other hand, astute observation in the field by beekeepers reveals some interesting conclusions. Comparing their use of the two main bee foods, cane sugar syrup and HFCS, has convinced some that the two foods do in fact function differently. Thus, several use them in distinct ways: cane syrup is employed to help colonies build population and comb, whereas HFCS is used simply to maintain populations. Intuitively this makes sense, given that nectar, responsible in nature for building colony populations, is mostly sucrose just like cane syrup. It requires the bees to actively invert the sugar using their own enzyme system. HFCS on the other hand does not. Questions still persist, however, at least in this writer’s mind. Does the stimulation provided by the sucrose of cane sugar make for a bigger and better colony buildup and comb building than does HFCS, which requires no enzyme to be added by the insects? And what differences, although extremely subtle, might be seen among colonies fed nectar or cane sugar or HFCS, given they have distinct stable carbon isotope ratios?
HFCS is the result of processing corn into another product. There are two ways this can be accomplished, through either acid or enzyme hydrolysis. The process most used employs enzymes just like honey bees do when they convert (invert) sucrose from nectar or cane syrup into its two principle components, fructose and glucose by adding the enzyme invertase.
According to the Corn Refiners Association, “Corn syrup technology advanced significantly with the introduction of enzyme-hydrolyzed products. In 1921, crystalline dextrose hydrate was introduced. Then in the mid-1950's, the technology for commercially preparing low conversion products such as maltodextrin and low DE syrups was developed. The purification and crystallization of dextrose meant for the first time that corn based sweeteners could compete in some markets that had been the sole domain of the sugar industry.
“The next developments
involved enzyme catalyzed isomerization of dextrose
to fructose. The first commercial shipment of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)
took place in 1967. The fructose content of the syrup was around 15 percent.
Further research enabled the industry to develop a higher conversion and the
first commercial shipment of HFCS-42 or 42 percent fructose syrup took place a
year later. Further refinements in the process were developed in the late
1970's and by the mid 1980's, HFCS became the
sweetener of choice for the soft drink industry in the
The use of HFCS in soft drinks really set the stage for the current consumption trends, and the technology to produce the product continues to improve: “High fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a primary sweetening agent, is currently produced in a long, multistep process under highly exacting processing conditions. To obtain commodity scale quantities of a fructose-rich (55 percent) corn syrup mixture, which has a sweetness equivalent to sucrose, manufacturers must recycle the glucose rich stream from an ion exchange separation step many times. This entire process requires that the active enzyme (glucose isomerase, or GI) be immobilized and that the process be conducted under precise temperature and pH conditions.
“Goal: To develop a stable cross-linked crystalline CLEC® enzyme form of glucose
isomerase (GI). The additional thermostability of the CLEC® form of the GI should
enable a more direct conversion of glucose to fructose syrup and eliminate the
chromatography and water evaporation steps from HFCS processing.”9
the vast majority of HFCS is produced via enzymes, there continues to be some
manufactured by the older technology, acid hydrolysis.10 Some of this material (called in some
cases “off spec,” and thus rejected by food manufacturers) may still be
available and has been found to be damaging to honey bees in
The first part of this series discusses the rise of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) use in beekeeping and some of the consequences of this new bee food for the apicultural industry. In addition, it reveals a little of the history of corn processing and specifics of corn syrup manufacture. In the second part, I will describe the ubiquitous use of HFCS in the human food chain, and what the future might hold for this amazingly successful food product.
1. http://www.abfnet.org/ American Beekeeping Federation web site accessed April 20, 2004.
2. http://www.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn Environmental Working Group web site accessed April 20, 2004.
3. Fairchild, Gary F., John P. Nichols and Oral Capps, Jr. 2003. "Observations on Economic Adulteration of High-Value Food Products: The Honey Case." Journal of Food Distribution Research 34(2): 38-45.
4. http://www.libraries.psu.edu/speccolls/FindingAids/white.html Penn State Libraries web site accessed April 19, 2004.
5. http://www.apiservices.com/spmf/adulteration.htm Apiservices web site accessed April 19, 2004.
6. http://www.fda.gov/fdac/departs/1997/397_irs.html FDA Investigations web site accessed April 20, 2004.
7. http://www.iso-analytical.com/page9.html Isoanalytical web page accessed April 20, 2004.
8. http://www.corn.org/web/history.htm Corn Refiners Assocation web site accessed April 20, 2004.
9. http://www.oit.doe.gov/agriculture/factsheets/corn_syrup_processing.pdf Office of Industrial Technologies Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy U.S. Department of Energy web site accessed April 20, 2004.
10. http://www.corn.org/web/history.htm Corn Refiners Association web site accessed April 20, 2004.
11. http://apis.ifas.ufl.edu/apis97/apfeb97.htm#3 Apis Newsletter web site, February 1997, accessed February 20, 2004.
High Fructose Corn Syrup: A Revolution in the Making (Part II)
Malcolm T. Sanford
Last month I discussed how using High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) has revolutionized one of the most labor intensive and messy jobs in beekeeping, mixing and providing food to bees. One of the reasons for this is that HFCS is less expensive than honey and often sugar cane as well. This certainly is true if one factors in the costs of mixing by hand cane sugar and water to make sugar syrup. The low cost is only true, however, because of the vast scale of the highly subsidized corn-producing industry, and new technological advances to process the corn’s starch (complex sugars) into its simpler sugars like fructose and glucose (dextrose) as I discussed last month. The driving force to reduce manufacturing costs of HFCS continues to be use of the material in the human food chain.
A few years ago, research showed that diets high in fats and a substance called “cholesterol” were found to be responsible for a condition called atherosclerosis, clogging and the arteries leading to heart attacks and strokes. A landmark work in this area, the Framingham Study, revolutionized how physicians looked at fat and cholesterol in the diet.1
The food industry quickly picked up on this trend. Suddenly, the words “fat free” and “no cholesterol” were found everywhere. My favorite continues to be “cholesterol free- never had it, never will” on foods of vegetable origin. Left out of this message is the fact that cholesterol is an animal product; it never will be found in vegetables; as such this claim is misleading and redundant at best. Also left out in the cacophony was the fact that people, as animals, make their own cholesterol. It doesn’t come just from foods containing the substance. Certain foods containing fat and cholesterol, nevertheless, were immediately suspect, like eggs and cheese (dairy products), and it was not recommended to consume much of them, if at all. As one can imagine, the egg and dairy industry were not happy with this situation.
Drawn into the “no fat” and
“no cholesterol” fads were a variety of institutions, including the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. From this came the now infamous food pyramid,
which showed that instead of a lot of animal fats, people should instead
consume complex carbohydrates (starches) like bread, pasta, rice, and potatoes. There are many now who are reconsidering how
to draw the pyramid as fats and proteins are no longer considered quite as
“bad” nor carbohydrates quite as “good” as noted by the Messenger-Inquirer
concerning suggestions to the USDA: “The national debate on carbohydrates was
reflected, with carb-friendly industries cautioning
against sticking them with the dreaded top of the pyramid -- the smallest slot,
reserved for foods deemed less healthy. Walnut growers were the most prolific,
with more than 20 letters touting the nut's alpha-linolenic
acid, an essential fatty acid that cannot be manufactured by the body.”3
There ‘s a problem with no fat foods; they don’t taste very good. The food industry, in search of something to improve the taste of its products, while reducing or eliminating fats, came to the conclusion that the best way was to sweeten the product line. HFCS is a perfect vehicle for this, being cheap and readily available. The result of this is that almost all processed foods have some amount of HFCS. These include things like “no fat” salad dressing. It’s also found in things not normally thought to contain sweets at all: pizza, yogurt, and beer.
Enter the newest thing to catch the public’s and physician’s attention, the obesity epidemic. People are over weight because they eat more calories than they burn. Surprise, carbohydrates are a big reason for this; they contain a lot of energy and if it isn’t used up, it turns to fat. Added weight also brings on other conditions like diabetes, the inability to maintain a balanced sugar level in the blood, often directly influenced through consumption of carbohydrates.
In an effort to loose weight some are re-examining the wisdom that fats and cholesterol are all bad. Suddenly, an old, but now resurrected dietary regimen proposed by Dr. Atkins has taken hold. This states that carbohydrates must be minimized and one can often do that by substituting proteins and fats. Foods like eggs and cheese, anathema to the “no fat” philosophy, have been given a new lease on life.4 At the same time, concentrated orange juice, once considered “healthy,” is now being eschewed because it has a high carbohydrate level; it is full of fructose.
Carbohydrates can measured by something called the glycemic index (GI). Rick Mendoza, a writer on diabetes concludes: “Before the development of the glycemic index beginning in 1981, scientists assumed that our bodies absorbed and digested simple sugars quickly, producing rapid increases in our blood glucose level. This was the basis of the advice to avoid sugar, a proscription recently relaxed by the American Diabetes Association and others.
“Now we know that simple sugars don't make your blood glucose rise any more rapidly than some complex carbohydrates do. Of course, simple sugars are simply empty calories, and still should be minimized for that reason. Many of the glycemic index results have been surprises. For example, baked potatoes have a glycemic index considerably higher than that of table sugar.”
Honey and fructose have moderate to high GI’s. And then there’s HFCS. Nobody eats this solely of course and that’s a problem when one attempts to determine health benefits. But there is a lot of it consumed. An article in the Washington Post concludes, “That switch largely reflects the steady growth of high-fructose corn syrup, which climbed from zero consumption in 1966 to 62.6 pounds per person in 2001.”6
Much of the HFCS story is not well studied and so it is “murky,” the title of one article on the World Wide Web by Weston A. Price Foundation Board Member Linda Forristal, “Consumers trying to avoid genetically modified foods should avoid HFCS. It is almost certainly made from genetically modified corn and then it is processed with genetically modified enzymes. I've seen some estimates claiming that virtually everything—almost 80 percent—of what we eat today has been genetically modified at some point. Since the use of HFCS is so prevalent in processed foods, those figures may be right.
“But there's another reason to avoid HFCS. Consumers may think that because it contains fructose—which they associate with fruit, which is a natural food—that it is healthier than sugar. A team of investigators at the USDA, led by Dr. Meira Field, has discovered that this just ain't so.
“Sucrose is composed of
glucose and fructose. When sugar is
given to rats in high amounts, the rats develop multiple health problems,
especially when the rats were deficient in certain nutrients, such as copper. The researchers wanted to know whether it was
the fructose or the glucose moiety that was causing the problems. So they repeated their studies with two
groups of rats, one given high amounts of glucose and one given high amounts of
fructose. The glucose group was
unaffected but the fructose group had disastrous results. The male rats did not
reach adulthood. They had anemia, high
cholesterol and heart hypertrophy—that means that their hearts enlarged until
they exploded. They also had delayed
testicular development. Dr. Field
explains that fructose in combination with copper deficiency in the growing
animal interferes with collagen production.
(Copper deficiency, by the way, is widespread in
"’The medical profession thinks fructose is better for diabetics than sugar,’ says Dr. Field, ‘but every cell in the body can metabolize glucose. However, all fructose must be metabolized in the liver. The livers of the rats on the high fructose diet looked like the livers of alcoholics, plugged with fat and cirrhotic.’
“HFCS contains more fructose than sugar and this fructose is more immediately available because it is not bound up in sucrose. Since the effects of fructose are most severe in the growing organism, we need to think carefully about what kind of sweeteners we give to our children. Fruit juices should be strictly avoided—they are very high in fructose—but so should anything with HFCS.”7
A recent article in the AARP Bulletin has a title, “What’s Worse
According to author M.F. Cohen quoting Dr. George Bray, Professor at
Not so says the Corn Refiners Institute on its web site, where it put responses to three myths that it sees in many published reports attacking HFCS:
“As a result of this ‘good food/bad food’ debate, there have been a number of recent inaccurate news reports regarding a product found in many of the foods we consume each day: high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Following is a list of the three major inaccurate ‘myths’ contained in recent news reports, accompanied by the corrected technical facts:
MYTH #1: Studies performed on pure fructose can immediately be extrapolated to HFCS.
FACT: HFCS and pure fructose are not the same product. HFCS is made up of only about half fructose (and about half glucose). Humans rarely consume pure fructose. "Fructose in the absence of other dietary sugars is unrealistic," said John S. White, Ph.D., of White Technical Research Group. "Fructose has always been in the human diet and there's nothing extraordinary about it. But it's always found in about a 50 percent ratio to glucose. The percentage is what's important, not the total amount of fructose in grams. The sugars have a buffering effect on one another and don't act independently.” As such, it is scientifically inaccurate to apply results of studies on pure fructose to HFCS.
MYTH #2: HFCS and table sugar (sucrose) are vastly different products.
FACT: Table sugar (sucrose) is made up of equal parts fructose and glucose – essentially the same composition as HFCS. HFCS and sucrose are both 4 calories per gram, and both contain about an equal amount of sweetness. According to Guy H. Johnson, Ph.D., of Johnson Nutrition Solutions, LLC, "Once absorbed, the body has no way of knowing whether a molecule of fructose came from sucrose, HFCS, honey or fruit. Since the proportion of glucose and fructose in HFCS and sucrose are similar, these two sweeteners are virtually indistinguishable by the body."
MYTH #3: A rise in HFCS consumption during the past few decades has resulted in a rise in the consumption of pure fructose.
FACT: That assertion is patently false. While there has been a rise in HFCS consumption during the past two decades, there has been a concurrent decrease in the consumption of sucrose during that same time period. Remember – both HFCS and sucrose contain about an equal portion of fructose. As a result, the ratio of fructose in the diet (especially as it relates to HFCS consumption) has not changed considerably. In fact, a study by the Office of Special Nutritionals, Food and Drug Administration, found the total amount of fructose in the diet has remained relatively constant since 1977, accounting for about 7 to 9 percent of our caloric intake.9
The debate rages on, but I can’t forget Richard Anderson at the Human Nutrition Research Center in Beltsville, MD10 quoted by Mr. Cohen in the AARP article mentioned above as stating, “High fructose corn syrup is metabolized differently than other sugars and it has a different effect on health.” If we also see this in bees, as I discussed in last month’s article, is it not conceivable there could be a parallel in humans? I am left to conclude no one yet knows for sure what this revolutionary product really means to either the bees or ourselves.
References:- 12 is the first reference in the second part, 13 is the second and so on.
12. National Library of Medicine JAMA. 1987 Apr 24;257(16):2176-80 . <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3560398&dopt=Abstract>, accessed May 4, 2004.
13. British Heart Association web site <http://www.bhf.org.uk/professionals/index.asp?secondlevel=72&thirdlevel=945?, accessed May 4, 2004.
14. Messenger-Inquirer web site <http://www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/usworld/7031511.htm>, accessed May 4, 2004.
15. Atkins Nutritionals web site <http://atkins.com/howto/>, accessed May 4, 2004.
16. <http://www.mendosa.com/wolever.htm>, accessed May 4, 2004.
17. Washington Post, March 10, 2204, <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8003-2003Mar10?language=printer>, accessed May 4, 2004.
18. Weston A. Price Foundation web site, <http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/cornsyrup.html>, accessed May 4, 2004.
19. Cohen, M.F. 2004. AARP Bulletin/April 2004, “What’s Worse Than Sugar?” pp. 18-19.
20. Corn Refiners web site <http://www.hfcsfacts.com/hfcsmyths.htm>, accessed May 4, 2004.
21. <http://www.barc.usda.gov/bhnrc/nrfl/nrflsci.html>, accessed May 4, 2004.