At the coffee shop, Lucius Flatley
announced this week’s topic as sugar – the kind you eat or imbibe,
not “the kind to whom you offer rides on a rainy night.” He defined
sugar as either sucrose – refined beet and cane sugar – or high
fructose – corn syrup. His interest was triggered by new studies on
the relative effects the two are believed to have on the human
constitution and circumstance.
Sugar has long been high on the public’s list of sinful substances.
In the 1970s, sucrose (beet or cane) was attacked by concerned
crusaders – apprehensive folks who had not yet discovered Ralph
Nader – for causing everything from tooth rot to night sweats. The
same cluster of critics decided that high fructose (corn) was much,
much bettah, and it became the white knight for sweets
lovers.
Those industries that profited from sugar helped sell the public on
high fructose as a replacement for the evil sucrose. This sales
campaign was profitable for them because high fructose provides
more bang for the buck – especially when government subsidies are
factored in. (Beet and cane sugar also receive government
“assistance” but mostly in the form of tariffs, which were not as
directly profitable as corn subsidies). So the industry designed
its new white knight to be indistinguishable from the nasty old
sucrose, especially when used in soft drinks – perhaps the major
customer.
But after a few decades of enriching the corn industry, it now
seems as though the brouhaha about sucrose was a case of Chicken
Little. The sky is not falling after all. Years of research have
failed to award a blue ribbon or a laurel wreath to the super sweet
of Iowa farmland. In fact, because its reputation encourages
excessive entry to entrails, it now appears evident that corn syrup
may be a Judas Iscariot of the sweets world.
It is now is clear that, in similar amounts, the two sugars are
essentially identical in their effect on humans. They are equally
harmful.
Glucose (not to change the subject) is a substance that appears in
many carbohydrate-rich foods like bread or potatoes. It is also a
major component of sugar, but the human digestive mechanism handles
glucose somewhat differently when it appears in sugar. It is now
known that glucose in sugar has deleterious effects on the human
body because of the way it is metabolized (a word equating roughly
to being elected and sworn into office). Glucose from potato or
bread is metabolized by individual cells, while glucose from sugars
is metabolized mostly by the liver. Therefore, sugar means more
work for the liver. And, since fructose is approximately twice as
sweet (dense?) as sucrose in relation to its accompanying glucose,
it means more work for the liver.
As every Frenchman knows, the liver is a mechanic in the fat
factory, but something that every Frenchman may not know is that
fat from the liver leads to obesity, heart disease and type 2
diabetes. It now appears that it might also be the Sneaky Pete in
many cancers.
In rats and mice, it’s clear that fructose can easily overburden
the liver. If what happens in laboratory livers also happens in
human livers – and, if people are eating enough sugar to swamp
their livers, they are in trouble.
“There is a lack of scientific agreement about the amount of sugars
that can be consumed in a healthy diet,” announced an Institute of
Medicine report. But it did go on to admit that plenty of evidence
suggested that sugar could increase the risk of heart disease and
diabetes – even that it might raise LDL cholesterol, the “bad
cholesterol.”
In a tactic perfected by the cigarette people, the Sugar
Association and the Corn Refiners Association – aka “the industry”
– rebutted, “No conclusive evidence on sugars demonstrates a hazard
to the general public when sugars are consumed at the levels that
are now current.”
According to Professor Flatley, “sucrose and high-fructose might be
toxic, but so might any substance if it’s consumed in excessive
quantities.” He added, “The question is – what is excessive? How
much do we have to consume before we all look like Rush
Limbaugh?”
Devil’s Dictionary Quote of the Week
Slavery: 1. Capitalism carried to its logical
conclusion in human relations; 2. A grossly immoral institution
that flourished for 1,500 years in Christian countries.
Rodney Quinn, a former Maine secretary of state, lives
in Gorham. He can be reached at
rquinn@maine.rr.com.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
