SUCROSE VS FRUCTOSE VS HFCS-WHICH IS BETTER FOR HEALTH?

Sugar, that historic source of sweetness is traditionally used for preparing almost all foods that need sweet taste. It is derived from Sugar cane in many countries while a few producing countries use Sugar beets as a source. Chemically both are same, viz Sucrose, a disacharide containing the monomers Glucose and Fructose. Sugar cane cultivation was mentioned in history as early as 8000 BC as being grown in Africa, According to some reports India was the first nation to make crytal sugar in 350 A.D though regular production started only in 500 A.D. The major competitor for sugar cane as a source of sugar,viz Sugar Beets made its appearance relatively late in 19th century in Europe and to day this accounts for 30% of global sugar production.

Is there any difference between sugar from the above two sources? Theoretically both are sucrose and taste wise there ought not to be ant difference. One major difference in to day's modern world is that R & D on sugar beets has been substantial while sugar cane production continues without much of a new development either in cultivation or in processing except for use of stainless machinery for most of the unit operations in newly set up factories. Another positive development has been in the area of utilization of Bagasse, the left over residue during crushing, with most modern sugar mills having co-generating facilities using it as a fuel. Besides the molasses left over after recovery of crystal sugar became the major source of alcohol for chemical industry, beverage industry and Gasohol industry. Brazil one of the major growers of sugar cane produces huge quantity of alcohol used in automobile industry.

Not till 1975 any one heard about high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) which is made from corn through hydrolysis of starch extracted from it and conversion to a product containing glucose and fructose by chemical or enzymatic isomerization process. As the American corn is dirt cheap, being priced low because of heavy subsidization of corn production by the government there, food industry adopted this sweetener immediately to improve their bottom line. On sweetness scale sucrose and HFCS score equally with practically no difference in their taste perception. While HFCS was hailed as a harbinger of good things to come for the industry as well as the consumer, there was a sour note a few years ago that threatened to mar the explosive growth of HFCS industry. With the rabid spread of obesity in the US, threatening the health security of the country seriously, HFCS became the "whipping boy" and serious questions were raised regarding the role of HFCS in making people obese.

It is to be conceded that Sucrose and HFCS are almost same in terms of chemistry, the only difference being that gluose and fructose are in free form in HFCS whereas they are chemically bound in sucrose. Theoretically when sucrose is digested in GI by sucrase enzyme within a few minutes of ingestion, the result is a mixture of glucose and fructose, almost in the same proportion as in HFCS. If this is so the logical question is why should HFCS behave differently than sucrose as being claimed by some credible scientific studies? It is by now well established that fructose metabolism in human body differs sharply compared to that of glucose but whether ingesting both together as with HFCS intake will make a difference is the subject matter of current day controversy.  

Further confusion is created by a recent finding by a group of scientists that there are two forms of enzymes that metabolize fructose. This is being touted as a reason for the behavior of fructose differently compared to other sugars. It is suggested that human body is not designed to handle fructose in high quantities unlike glucose which is fast metabolized into energy through Citric Acid Cycle. It seems that the two isoforms of the enzyme Fructokinase-C and A have different functions in the body. While one form causes fatty liver, obesity and insulin resistance the other one protects the body from on set of these disorders. What triggers this switch between these two forms is still not clear. There is also the suggestion that fructose, in presence of glucose behaves differently while high load of fructose can behave differently. These findings still do not answer the question as to why HFCS is more obesogenic than sucrose alone. For centuries humans have been consuming sugar and no adverse findings have been recorded in history due to this. Probably there may be other factors not currently understood as to why Sugar and HFCS do cause health disorders to day as diet and living styles have undergone sea change during the last 100 years.      

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

FRUIT JUICES-THE NEW VILLAIN!

It is the conventional wisdom that consumption of fruits regularly is good for health. There are many processed products from fruits like juice, beverage, preserves, dried pieces, fresh cut pieces, fruit bar etc out of which most commonly sought after and promoted is the juice, singly or in combination. A break fast for a western consumer is incomplete unless a juice is served. Most important reason for the juice to become popular is its presumed health conferring values due to presence of many phytochemicals, vitamins and minerals. But a juice can never be a satisfactory substitute for the whole fruit and its high sugar content is increasingly attracting the attention of the health critics who advocate restricted consumption of sugar and sugar based products to prevent development of many of the modern day diseases.

Fruit juice is now being compared to man made sugary beverages with different flavors turned out by the soft drink industry because of the concentration of fructose present in both. Soft drink consumption is now being frowned upon because these products are supposed to cause obesity if consumed regularly in large quantities and there are even proposals to impose punitive taxes on them to discourage production and consumption. High fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a processed sugar concentrate derived from corn starch through hydrolysis and isomerization, is the sweetening base used in the recipes of most of the soft drinks and obesity pundits blame this particular ingredient responsible for fat build up in the body. Fructose is reported to be more readily converted to fat in the liver than glucose and this poses greater risk for development of CVD and Type 2 diabetes.

According to some scientists fruit juice contains more sugar than that present in soft drinks and other sweetened beverages. Levels of sugar in juices can be 10-50% more depending on the source of the juice. Grape juice can have sugar as high as 152 kC equivalent per cup while Coke or Pepsi contains only 97-100 kC, mostly derived from the sugar component in the product. Apple, cherries, grapes, banana, mango, pineapple all can have high sugar content and the fructose levels can be 1 to 2.5 times more than glucose. Natural juice generally contain 95-100% fruit solids with very little added water. Presence of suspended solids in some juice products is another variable when fruit juice nutrition is considered and such juices are always more preferred compared to clarified juices. A natural question that arises is whether consumption of fresh fruit also can be risky in the long run. Will this new findings rewrite present day's nutrition concepts?

The fact, that some scientific studies, critically peer reviewed, have raised the question of fruit juice nutrition, especially in kids, calls for further detailed investigation internationally with more objectivity. It should not appear that these studies are intended to buttress the case of soft drink manufacturers who do not subscribe to the view that fructose is an undesirable sweetener causing obesity in people as being claimed in the Western world.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

FRUIT JUICE CONSUMPTION-A POSSIBLE HAZARD?

Fruit and vegetables are on top of any list that identifies good foods for sound and diseases-free health. Presence of health boosting nutrients, dietary fiber and phytochemicals make them unique compared to many other staple foods. It is a universally accepted norm that for maintaining good health one must take 4-6 servings of fruits and vegetables daily. True, fruits are also rich in sugars like sucrose, fructose, glucose and organic acids like citric, malic, maleic etc which so far have been considered safe when consumed regularly. The sugar content in fruits can vary from a low of 7% to a high of more than 15% depending on the variety. Fruits like Banana (16%), Grapes (18%), Mango (15%), Apricots (13%, Pineapple (12%) are considered high sugar foods, most others like Watermelon, Cantaloupe, Grapefruits, orange, peach, plum etc having less than 10% sugar.

Sugars in fruits can be a mixture of mostly sucrose, glucose, fructose and maltose. Apricot, Banana, Jack fruit, and Mango are sucrose rich while Sweet Cherries, Grapes and Pomegranate contain more glucose. Fructose rich fruits include Apple,Grapes, Cherries and pears. Does the nature of fruits consumed make any difference as far as the consumer is concerned? Obviously it does, according to some studies recently published from Israel. It appears that consumption of even two servings of fruit juices a day has the potential to cause long term liver damage, attributed to the presence of fructose. Probably the fact that metabolic route of fructose, different from that of glucose, is supposed to explain the basis for such a finding. Fructose is metabolized only in the liver and too much of it may produce fat, causing non-alcoholic fatty liver. First observed with fizz drinks based on HFCS, freshly squeezed fruit juices were also found to cause liver damage if taken in 'large' quantities, about two glasses a day.

Studies such as the above raises more questions regarding the age old practice of drinking fruit juices for good health. If fructose is the real culprit, juices from such fruits like Apple, Grapes, Pears etc, which are rich in this sugar could be more dangerous if consumed regularly! Also not clear is whether only juices cause this problem or even eating whole fruits could be potentially hazardous. Fructose has a low GI of about 19 compared to 100 for glucose and it is doubtful whether human liver does not have the capability to handle low influx of fructose caused by drinking fruit juices. Besides, fructose is a component in sucrose and why the normal consumption of sucrose in the diet should not cause the same problem?

World consumption of sucrose from sugarcane and beets jumped from 11 million tons (mt) at the beginning of the lat century to 130 mt by beginning of this century and the per capita annual consumption is in the range of 16-18 kg in Asia and Africa while North American figure is around 36 kg and in South America it is 47 kg. This works out to an average intake of 50 to 150 gm a day but the proportion of population consuming much above the average figures can be substantial. Are they compromising the health of their liver by taking sugar equivalent to 2 to 6 servings of fruit juices every day?

These findings are bound to cast a shadow on the fruit juice industry and it is unfortunate that a high nutrient product like fruit juice is being bracketed with fizz drinks. Unless more exhaustive studies confirm the claims by the above report from Israel, there is no place for any panic.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com