In High Fructose Corn Syrup to be Rebranded as "Corn Sugar", Brian wrote " the mounting pile of evidence that high fructose corn syrup is unhealthier than ordinary table sugar continues to grow." The problem is that people start thinking that sugar is actually healthy. Kiera Butler at Mother Jones answers the question "Is Sugar Really Healthier Than Corn Syrup?" and comes up with a pretty unequivocal no.Butler writes:
Now the pendulum has swung back: Corn syrup is the demon, while sugar (sometimes cleverly disguised as "evaporated cane juice") is back in vogue. But all this back-and-forth makes little sense since, nutritionally speaking, the two sweeteners are practically identical. Yes, fructose is bad for you. (More on that later.) But every nutritionist I spoke with agreed that table sugar--a molecule composed of one part fructose to one part glucose--is no better, really, than food-grade HFCS, which contains the same ingredients in a roughly 55/45 ratio. The main distinction is that the fructose and glucose units are joined in sugar and detached in corn syrup. But since the small intestine promptly breaks that bond, it doesn't matter.
One expert she consults sums it up:
Since sugar and corn syrup are equally efficient as fructose delivery vehicles, the obvious conclusion is simply that we're consuming too many sweets. As for the HFCS-vs.-sugar smackdown, you might as well debate whether whiskey is healthier than rum. "In high-enough quantities, they're both poison," says [pediatric endocrinologist] Lustig.
More at Mother Jones
I have said much the same thing here:
Pepsi Throwback Uses Real Sugar, But Is It Better For You?