This is article. Actually high fructose syrup is not that different
from sucrose which I would assume under the acidic soda conditions would
invert to the 50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose. Brings back old
memories as one summer I worked in a control lab at ICI in plant that
made sorbitol and mannitol which are the hydrogenated products of
glucose and sucrose. Sorbitol and mannitol are dietetic type sweetners
but consuming to much has laxative action.


Pepsi
Sweetening it old school: Pepsi and Mountain Dew Throwback.

Recently, I wrote a C&EN News of the Week article about Coca-Cola's
plans to substitute petrochemically derived ethylene glycol with glycol
made from sugar and molasses to make polyethylene terephthalate beverage
bottles (C&EN, May 25, page 9). Researching the story made me wish that
Coca-Cola could put sugar to better use, namely, making soda.

For soda lovers like me, the past 30 years have been unkind in one
respect: High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has replaced sugar in nearly
all beverages in the U.S.

The TWO SWEETENERS are chemically different. Common sugar is sucrose, a
disaccharide of glucose and fructose. High-fructose corn syrup is a
mixture made of glucose and fructose—55% fructose in HFCS-55, the type
of syrup used in beverages. To make HFCS, corn refiners use the enzyme
glucoamylase to break cornstarch down into glucose and then use the
enzyme glucose isomerase to convert some of the glucose into fructose.

HFCS was introduced in the late 1960s, and by the 1980s, it had
conquered the U.S. beverage industry. In 1982, the U.S. government
imposed quotas that limit sugar imports. Since then, U.S. sugar prices
have generally been much higher than global sugar prices. And HFCS-55
has been cheaper on a comparable basis—it contains about 23% water—than
sugar in the U.S. Recently, however, the margin between the two has
narrowed.

Because of the price differential, and because it's easier to handle a
liquid than a solid on an industrial scale, use of HFCS in soft drinks
and processed food skyrocketed in the 1980s. According to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, per capita annual consumption of sugar was 84
lb in 1980. By 1990, it was 64 lb. During the same period, per capita
annual consumption of HFCS increased from 19 lb to 50 lb.

Today, finding soda made with sugar in the U.S. is as difficult as it
was to procure Levi's dungarees in the Soviet Union. That's an
exaggeration, but one does have to know where to look. One source is
Coca-Cola made in Mexico, typically available for sale at any grocer
that displays a Mexican flag prominently in the window. Another source,
kosher Coca-Cola, can be found in many supermarkets around Passover
because corn is shunned during that holiday.

There are other sugar-based sodas as well. One Dr Pepper bottler in
Dublin, Texas, still uses sugar. People can buy "Dublin Dr Pepper" over
the Internet or stumble across it at, say, a truck stop along a Texas
highway. There are also gourmet brands such as Jones Soda or Royal Crown
Draft that use pure cane sugar.

This past spring, Pepsi made life easier for soda aficionados. It
released Pepsi and Mountain Dew Throwback brands made with real sugar,
which was available from April to June.

One wonders about Pepsi's motives. Some nutritionists say HFCS is a
worse contributor to obesity than sugar is, so there could be some
marketing benefit.

Whatever the company's motivation, its efforts offered a rare
opportunity to settle the matter of which tastes better, soda made with
sugar or with HFCS.

I arranged a Pepsi Challenge—normal Pepsi versus Pepsi Throwback—at
C&EN's Northeast News Bureau. Admittedly, I had a very small statistical
sample for the blind taste test: three subjects, including my biased
self. All agreed that regular Pepsi made an immediate impact on the tip
of the tongue, whereas the subtler effects of Pepsi Throwback worked
toward the back of the mouth. One subject liked regular Pepsi better,
noting that Throwback "tastes like diet." The two others, including me,
preferred sugar.

Alexander H. Tullo wrote this week's column. Please send comments and
suggestions to .

In article ,
Frank wrote:

This is article. Actually high fructose syrup is not that different
from sucrose which I would assume under the acidic soda conditions would
invert to the 50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose. Brings back old
memories as one summer I worked in a control lab at ICI in plant that
made sorbitol and mannitol which are the hydrogenated products of
glucose and sucrose. Sorbitol and mannitol are dietetic type sweetners
but consuming to much has laxative action.

Trouble with logic is that it always hinges on its premise that may, or
may not be correct.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/532433/#imagetop
Soda Warning? New Study Supports Link Between Diabetes, High-fructose
Corn Syrup

So it appears that the Journal of Nutrition is battling it out with
PubMed over the toxicity of HFCS (IIRC nutritionists are paid well by
large companies like Kelloge, ConAgra, Nestl, Cargill, Kraft,
Pepsico, and General Mills to tout their products).

That just leaves us with, Dicarbonyls attacking the mitochondria
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=2639773
and the GMO enabler, Cabbage Mosaic Virus (CaMV).

Think I'll just try and stick with stevia.
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
Frank wrote:

This is article. Actually high fructose syrup is not that different
from sucrose which I would assume under the acidic soda conditions would
invert to the 50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose. Brings back old
memories as one summer I worked in a control lab at ICI in plant that
made sorbitol and mannitol which are the hydrogenated products of
glucose and sucrose. Sorbitol and mannitol are dietetic type sweetners
but consuming to much has laxative action.

Trouble with logic is that it always hinges on its premise that may, or
may not be correct.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/532433/#imagetop
Soda Warning? New Study Supports Link Between Diabetes, High-fructose
Corn Syrup

So it appears that the Journal of Nutrition is battling it out with
PubMed over the toxicity of HFCS (IIRC nutritionists are paid well by
large companies like Kelloge, ConAgra, Nestl, Cargill, Kraft,
Pepsico, and General Mills to tout their products).

That just leaves us with, Dicarbonyls attacking the mitochondria
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=2639773
and the GMO enabler, Cabbage Mosaic Virus (CaMV).

Think I'll just try and stick with stevia.

Got me thinking about how many folks know of bitter melon. Bitter
seems to be lacking in our foods and wondered if we had it then perhaps
our sweet could be countered will simple sweets. I remember being
enamored with sucking on common honey suckle as a youth.

Bill

http://www.google.com/search?client=...ter+mellon+ben
efit&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

--

Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

http://prototype.nytimes.com/gst/articleSkimmer/

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

This is article. Actually high fructose syrup is not that different
from sucrose which I would assume under the acidic soda conditions would
invert to the 50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose. Brings back old
memories as one summer I worked in a control lab at ICI in plant that
made sorbitol and mannitol which are the hydrogenated products of
glucose and sucrose. Sorbitol and mannitol are dietetic type sweetners
but consuming to much has laxative action.

Trouble with logic is that it always hinges on its premise that may, or
may not be correct.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/532433/#imagetop
Soda Warning? New Study Supports Link Between Diabetes, High-fructose
Corn Syrup

So it appears that the Journal of Nutrition is battling it out with
PubMed over the toxicity of HFCS (IIRC nutritionists are paid well by
large companies like Kelloge, ConAgra, Nestl, Cargill, Kraft,
Pepsico, and General Mills to tout their products).

That just leaves us with, Dicarbonyls attacking the mitochondria
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=2639773
and the GMO enabler, Cabbage Mosaic Virus (CaMV).

Think I'll just try and stick with stevia.

Had never heard of it but brief google shows it has detractors too.
Of interest to all those that profess "organic", all these sweeteners
are natural products

In article ,
Frank wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

This is article. Actually high fructose syrup is not that different
from sucrose which I would assume under the acidic soda conditions would
invert to the 50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose. Brings back old
memories as one summer I worked in a control lab at ICI in plant that
made sorbitol and mannitol which are the hydrogenated products of
glucose and sucrose. Sorbitol and mannitol are dietetic type sweetners
but consuming to much has laxative action.

Trouble with logic is that it always hinges on its premise that may, or
may not be correct.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/532433/#imagetop
Soda Warning? New Study Supports Link Between Diabetes, High-fructose
Corn Syrup

So it appears that the Journal of Nutrition is battling it out with
PubMed over the toxicity of HFCS (IIRC nutritionists are paid well by
large companies like Kelloge, ConAgra, Nestl, Cargill, Kraft,
Pepsico, and General Mills to tout their products).

That just leaves us with, Dicarbonyls attacking the mitochondria
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=2639773
and the GMO enabler, Cabbage Mosaic Virus (CaMV).

Think I'll just try and stick with stevia.

Had never heard of it but brief google shows it has detractors too.
Yeah, Monsanto, who owns Nutrasweet. Stevia has been used for a millenia
in South America with no problems. Presently, Japan and Germany use it.
Of interest to all those that profess "organic", all these sweeteners
are natural products
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

This is article. Actually high fructose syrup is not that different
from sucrose which I would assume under the acidic soda conditions would
invert to the 50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose. Brings back old
memories as one summer I worked in a control lab at ICI in plant that
made sorbitol and mannitol which are the hydrogenated products of
glucose and sucrose. Sorbitol and mannitol are dietetic type sweetners
but consuming to much has laxative action.

Trouble with logic is that it always hinges on its premise that may, or
may not be correct.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/532433/#imagetop
Soda Warning? New Study Supports Link Between Diabetes, High-fructose
Corn Syrup

So it appears that the Journal of Nutrition is battling it out with
PubMed over the toxicity of HFCS (IIRC nutritionists are paid well by
large companies like Kelloge, ConAgra, Nestl, Cargill, Kraft,
Pepsico, and General Mills to tout their products).

That just leaves us with, Dicarbonyls attacking the mitochondria
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=2639773
and the GMO enabler, Cabbage Mosaic Virus (CaMV).

Think I'll just try and stick with stevia.
Had never heard of it but brief google shows it has detractors too.
Yeah, Monsanto, who owns Nutrasweet. Stevia has been used for a millenia
in South America with no problems. Presently, Japan and Germany use it.
Of interest to all those that profess "organic", all these sweeteners
are natural products

Reminds me of one of my favorite stories when I was working.
Eating at company cafeteria in US, only artificial sweetner available at
the time was Sweet & Low with saccharine. At company cafeteria in
Canada, all that was available was Sweet & Low with cyclamate. But, at
company cafeteria in Switzerland, the Sweet & Low contained both
saccharine and cyclamate. US considered cyclamate carcinogenic while
Canada considered saccharine carcinogenic and Switzerland was not
concerned about either.

In article ,
Frank wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

This is article. Actually high fructose syrup is not that different
from sucrose which I would assume under the acidic soda conditions would
invert to the 50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose. Brings back old
memories as one summer I worked in a control lab at ICI in plant that
made sorbitol and mannitol which are the hydrogenated products of
glucose and sucrose. Sorbitol and mannitol are dietetic type sweetners
but consuming to much has laxative action.

Trouble with logic is that it always hinges on its premise that may, or
may not be correct.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/532433/#imagetop
Soda Warning? New Study Supports Link Between Diabetes, High-fructose
Corn Syrup

So it appears that the Journal of Nutrition is battling it out with
PubMed over the toxicity of HFCS (IIRC nutritionists are paid well by
large companies like Kelloge, ConAgra, Nestl, Cargill, Kraft,
Pepsico, and General Mills to tout their products).

That just leaves us with, Dicarbonyls attacking the mitochondria
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=2639773
and the GMO enabler, Cabbage Mosaic Virus (CaMV).

Think I'll just try and stick with stevia.
Had never heard of it but brief google shows it has detractors too.
Yeah, Monsanto, who owns Nutrasweet. Stevia has been used for a millenia
in South America with no problems. Presently, Japan and Germany use it.
Of interest to all those that profess "organic", all these sweeteners
are natural products

Reminds me of one of my favorite stories when I was working.
Eating at company cafeteria in US, only artificial sweetner available at
the time was Sweet & Low with saccharine. At company cafeteria in
Canada, all that was available was Sweet & Low with cyclamate. But, at
company cafeteria in Switzerland, the Sweet & Low contained both
saccharine and cyclamate. US considered cyclamate carcinogenic while
Canada considered saccharine carcinogenic and Switzerland was not
concerned about either.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/704432
ENDO 2009: Use of Artificial Sweeteners Linked to 2-Fold Increase in
Diabetes
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
Frank wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

This is article. Actually high fructose syrup is not that different
from sucrose which I would assume under the acidic soda conditions
would
invert to the 50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose. Brings back old
memories as one summer I worked in a control lab at ICI in plant that
made sorbitol and mannitol which are the hydrogenated products of
glucose and sucrose. Sorbitol and mannitol are dietetic type
sweetners
but consuming to much has laxative action.

Trouble with logic is that it always hinges on its premise that may, or
may not be correct.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/532433/#imagetop
Soda Warning? New Study Supports Link Between Diabetes, High-fructose
Corn Syrup

So it appears that the Journal of Nutrition is battling it out with
PubMed over the toxicity of HFCS (IIRC nutritionists are paid well by
large companies like Kelloge, ConAgra, Nestl, Cargill, Kraft,
Pepsico, and General Mills to tout their products).

That just leaves us with, Dicarbonyls attacking the mitochondria
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=2639773
and the GMO enabler, Cabbage Mosaic Virus (CaMV).

Think I'll just try and stick with stevia.
Had never heard of it but brief google shows it has detractors too.
Yeah, Monsanto, who owns Nutrasweet. Stevia has been used for a millenia
in South America with no problems. Presently, Japan and Germany use it.
Of interest to all those that profess "organic", all these sweeteners
are natural products

Reminds me of one of my favorite stories when I was working.
Eating at company cafeteria in US, only artificial sweetner available at
the time was Sweet & Low with saccharine. At company cafeteria in
Canada, all that was available was Sweet & Low with cyclamate. But, at
company cafeteria in Switzerland, the Sweet & Low contained both
saccharine and cyclamate. US considered cyclamate carcinogenic while
Canada considered saccharine carcinogenic and Switzerland was not
concerned about either.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/704432
ENDO 2009: Use of Artificial Sweeteners Linked to 2-Fold Increase in
Diabetes

I'm old fashioned and think soda pop is a real treat. BUT noticed it
became a stable in my refrigerator over time. Coke junk too. Still
have 2 12 oz bottles of Black Cherry Wisanick (Sp) hidden.

Bill thinking the remedy is worst than the illness. Corn...Sugar...

....................
From Medscape Medical News
ENDO 2009: Use of Artificial Sweeteners Linked to 2-Fold Increase in
Diabetes
Crina Frincu-Mallos, PhD
Authors and Disclosures
Print This Email this
*


*
INFORMATION FROM INDUSTRY
Diabetes in America: This important 4-part series addresses four
critical aspects of type 2 diabetes: beta-cell function, the impact of
incretins on glucose regulation, current research findings on incretins
that may have implications for diabetes care, and formulary care access
Start Diabetes in America
June 15, 2009 (Washington, DC) ‹ People who use artificial sweeteners
are heavier, more likely to have diabetes, and more likely to be
insulin-resistant compared with nonusers, according to data presented
here during ENDO 2009, the 91st annual meeting of The Endocrine Society.
Results show an inverse association between obesity and diabetes, on one
side, and daily total caloric, carbohydrate, and fat intake, on the
other side, when comparing artificial sweetener users and control
subjects.
First author Kristofer S. Gravenstein, a postbaccalaureate researcher
with the Clinical Research Branch at the National Institute of Aging
(NIA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), said the association may
reflect the increased use of artificial sweeteners by obese and/or
diabetic study participants. "This is a cross-section study," Mr.
Gravenstein told Medscape Diabetes & Endocrinology, "so there are
limitations ‹ we cannot say that artificial sweetener use causes
obesity, we can say it is associated with it."
Increased Use vs Increased Glucose Absorption
Artificial sweeteners activate sweet taste receptors in enteroendocrine
cells, leading to the release of incretin, which is known to contribute
to glucose absorption. Recent epidemiologic studies in Circulation
(2008;117:754-761) and Obesity (2008;16:1894-1900) showed an association
between diet soda consumption and the development of obesity and
metabolic syndrome.
This report tested whether participants in the Baltimore Longitudinal
Study of Aging (BLSA), which began in 1958, differ in anthropometric
measures, daily caloric intake, and glucose status, separating them into
3 different groups: artificial sweetener users, artificial sweetener
nonusers, or controls.
A total of 1257 participants, with a mean age of 64.8 years (range, 21 -
96 years), had data on self-reported 7-day dietary intake, 2-hour oral
glucose tolerance test (OGTT), and anthropometric measures. The major
artificial sweetener consumed was aspartame, preferred by 66% of BLSA
participants, followed by saccharin (13%), sucralose (1.0%), and
combinations of the three (21%).
"In our study, we were actually able to isolate what type of sweetener
was used at a certain point in time, as we used food diaries, and not
food questionnaires," Mr. Gravenstein pointed out.
"When we first did this analysis, we found that people ate more fat
before 1983, which is the year [of] a big increase in artificial
sweetener consumption in the American population ‹ it was actually when
aspartame was approved and diet Coke was introduced," he explained.
As a result, the study further analyzed data from a subset of
participants, starting in 1983. Compared with 550 people who did not use
artificial sweeteners, the 443 people who did were younger, heavier, and
had a higher body mass index (BMI), yet they did not consume more
calories from people who did not use artificial sweeteners. Fat,
carbohydrate, protein, and total caloric intake were not different
between the 2 groups (users vs nonusers).
Furthermore, Mr. Gravenstein noted that people who used artificial
sweeteners "were less likely to have a normal OGTT, or they were less
likely to be diagnosed as having a normal glucose homeostasis."
In terms of glucose status, the impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and/or
impaired fasting glucose (IFG), the data show that artificial sweetener
users "were not different than the prediabetics, ie, they had the same
prevalence of prediabetes," he said, adding that "in our population,
people who used artificial sweeteners were twice as likely to have
diabetes, 8.8% compared to 4.4% for controls."
Analyzing the data further, the investigators focused on a
subpopulation, in which fasting insulin values were available from 374
nonusers and 311 artificial sweetener users. The users had a higher
fasting glucose levels, higher fasting insulin levels, and a higher
measure of insulin resistance, as measured by the homeostasis model
assessment, but glycosylated hemoglobin A1C levels were similar between
the 2 groups.
Alternative Hypothesis and Clinicians' Role
The researchers suggest an alternative hypothesis, that artificial
sweeteners modulate the metabolic rate through enteroendocrine cells,
therefore contributing to the development of diabetes and/or obesity.
However, this hypothesis needs further testing in longitudinal analysis
and intervention studies, said the investigators.
"Also, it could be that artificial sweeteners are causing diabetes, or
it could be that there is a higher use of them because a lot of
physicians actually recommend people to use artificial sweeteners to
prevent diabetes...." Mr. Gravenstein said. The researchers are planning
to address this question with a prospective analysis.
"This is a very interesting study," Rachel C. Edelen, MD, a pediatric
endocrinology practitioner at the Aspen Centre in Rapid City, South
Dakota, told Medscape Diabetes & Endocrinology in an interview. "I diet
screen all my patients, and they are not drinking enough milk. Usually,
they replace the milk with something else, sweetened tea, Gatorade, etc,
not just water. With my type 1 diabetics, the information they were
getting from the hospital was to drink diet pop. But who even goes into
the hospital and drinks pop?" she wondered.
Support for this study was provided by the Intramural Research Program
of the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Edelen and Mr. Gravenstein have disclosed no relevant financial
relationships.
ENDO 2009: The Annual Meeting of the Endocrine Society: Abstract P2-478.
Presented June 11, 2009.
*

--

Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

http://prototype.nytimes.com/gst/articleSkimmer/

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Frank wrote:
are natural products
Reminds me of one of my favorite stories when I was working.
Eating at company cafeteria in US, only artificial sweetener available at
the time was Sweet & Low with saccharine. At company cafeteria in
Canada, all that was available was Sweet & Low with cyclamate. But, at
company cafeteria in Switzerland, the Sweet & Low contained both
saccharine and cyclamate. US considered cyclamate carcinogenic while
Canada considered saccharine carcinogenic and Switzerland was not
concerned about either.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/704432
ENDO 2009: Use of Artificial Sweeteners Linked to 2-Fold Increase in
Diabetes

Not my point but I have no problem with artificial sweeteners, i.e. my
blood sugar.

Use of such additives depends on the ruling authority, in the US, the FDA.

In the case of food additive, sucralose, which I don't like the looks of
chemically, took over 20 years to get FDA approval.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucralose

On Jul 13, 1:22*pm, Frank wrote:
This is article. *Actually high fructose syrup is not that different
from sucrose which I would assume under the acidic soda conditions would
invert to the 50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose. *Brings back old
memories as one summer I worked in a control lab at ICI in plant that
made sorbitol and mannitol which are the hydrogenated products of
glucose and sucrose. *Sorbitol and mannitol are dietetic type sweetners
but consuming to much has laxative action.

Pepsi
Sweetening it old school: Pepsi and Mountain Dew Throwback.

Recently, I wrote a C&EN News of the Week article about Coca-Cola's
plans to substitute petrochemically derived ethylene glycol with glycol
made from sugar and molasses to make polyethylene terephthalate beverage
bottles (C&EN, May 25, page 9). Researching the story made me wish that
Coca-Cola could put sugar to better use, namely, making soda.

For soda lovers like me, the past 30 years have been unkind in one
respect: High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has replaced sugar in nearly
all beverages in the U.S.

The TWO SWEETENERS are chemically different. Common sugar is sucrose, a
disaccharide of glucose and fructose. High-fructose corn syrup is a
mixture made of glucose and fructose—55% fructose in HFCS-55, the type
of syrup used in beverages. To make HFCS, corn refiners use the enzyme
glucoamylase to break cornstarch down into glucose and then use the
enzyme glucose isomerase to convert some of the glucose into fructose.

HFCS was introduced in the late 1960s, and by the 1980s, it had
conquered the U.S. beverage industry. In 1982, the U.S. government
imposed quotas that limit sugar imports. Since then, U.S. sugar prices
have generally been much higher than global sugar prices. And HFCS-55
has been cheaper on a comparable basis—it contains about 23% water—than
sugar in the U.S. Recently, however, the margin between the two has
narrowed.

Because of the price differential, and because it's easier to handle a
liquid than a solid on an industrial scale, use of HFCS in soft drinks
and processed food skyrocketed in the 1980s. According to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, per capita annual consumption of sugar was 84
lb in 1980. By 1990, it was 64 lb. During the same period, per capita
annual consumption of HFCS increased from 19 lb to 50 lb.

Today, finding soda made with sugar in the U.S. is as difficult as it
was to procure Levi's dungarees in the Soviet Union. That's an
exaggeration, but one does have to know where to look. One source is
Coca-Cola made in Mexico, typically available for sale at any grocer
that displays a Mexican flag prominently in the window. Another source,
kosher Coca-Cola, can be found in many supermarkets around Passover
because corn is shunned during that holiday.

There are other sugar-based sodas as well. One Dr Pepper bottler in
Dublin, Texas, still uses sugar. People can buy "Dublin Dr Pepper" over
the Internet or stumble across it at, say, a truck stop along a Texas
highway. There are also gourmet brands such as Jones Soda or Royal Crown
Draft that use pure cane sugar.

This past spring, Pepsi made life easier for soda aficionados. It
released Pepsi and Mountain Dew Throwback brands made with real sugar,
which was available from April to June.

One wonders about Pepsi's motives. Some nutritionists say HFCS is a
worse contributor to obesity than sugar is, so there could be some
marketing benefit.

Whatever the company's motivation, its efforts offered a rare
opportunity to settle the matter of which tastes better, soda made with
sugar or with HFCS.

I arranged a Pepsi Challenge—normal Pepsi versus Pepsi Throwback—at
C&EN's Northeast News Bureau. Admittedly, I had a very small statistical
sample for the blind taste test: three subjects, including my biased
self. All agreed that regular Pepsi made an immediate impact on the tip
of the tongue, whereas the subtler effects of Pepsi Throwback worked
toward the back of the mouth. One subject liked regular Pepsi better,
noting that Throwback "tastes like diet." The two others, including me,
preferred sugar.

Alexander H. Tullo wrote this week's column. Please send comments and
suggestions to .

How touching is the angst articulated by the drinkers of Coke and
Pepsi
as they debate sweeteners vs. sugar.

They all taste like medicine to me. I just drink water or Chinese
green tea*
with my meals, unless you are buying and offering good wine or beer.
Drinking flavored sugar water with meals is sacreligious (sp?) How can
you taste the food? Same with smoking at meals.

*BIG difference between green tea from my Chinatown store that
sells the real thing loose, by weight, and the yeeech sold in
supermarkets.
The good stuff is expensive, but you only use a few leaves per brew,
so
$50 worth can last months.

Persephone

In article
,
Higgs Boson wrote:

On Jul 13, 1:22*pm, Frank wrote:
This is article. *Actually high fructose syrup is not that different
from sucrose which I would assume under the acidic soda conditions would
invert to the 50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose. *Brings back old
memories as one summer I worked in a control lab at ICI in plant that
made sorbitol and mannitol which are the hydrogenated products of
glucose and sucrose. *Sorbitol and mannitol are dietetic type sweetners
but consuming to much has laxative action.

Pepsi
Sweetening it old school: Pepsi and Mountain Dew Throwback.

Recently, I wrote a C&EN News of the Week article about Coca-Cola's
plans to substitute petrochemically derived ethylene glycol with glycol
made from sugar and molasses to make polyethylene terephthalate beverage
bottles (C&EN, May 25, page 9). Researching the story made me wish that
Coca-Cola could put sugar to better use, namely, making soda.

For soda lovers like me, the past 30 years have been unkind in one
respect: High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has replaced sugar in nearly
all beverages in the U.S.

The TWO SWEETENERS are chemically different. Common sugar is sucrose, a
disaccharide of glucose and fructose. High-fructose corn syrup is a
mixture made of glucose and fructose‹55% fructose in HFCS-55, the type
of syrup used in beverages. To make HFCS, corn refiners use the enzyme
glucoamylase to break cornstarch down into glucose and then use the
enzyme glucose isomerase to convert some of the glucose into fructose.

HFCS was introduced in the late 1960s, and by the 1980s, it had
conquered the U.S. beverage industry. In 1982, the U.S. government
imposed quotas that limit sugar imports. Since then, U.S. sugar prices
have generally been much higher than global sugar prices. And HFCS-55
has been cheaper on a comparable basis‹it contains about 23% water‹than
sugar in the U.S. Recently, however, the margin between the two has
narrowed.

Because of the price differential, and because it's easier to handle a
liquid than a solid on an industrial scale, use of HFCS in soft drinks
and processed food skyrocketed in the 1980s. According to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, per capita annual consumption of sugar was 84
lb in 1980. By 1990, it was 64 lb. During the same period, per capita
annual consumption of HFCS increased from 19 lb to 50 lb.

Today, finding soda made with sugar in the U.S. is as difficult as it
was to procure Levi's dungarees in the Soviet Union. That's an
exaggeration, but one does have to know where to look. One source is
Coca-Cola made in Mexico, typically available for sale at any grocer
that displays a Mexican flag prominently in the window. Another source,
kosher Coca-Cola, can be found in many supermarkets around Passover
because corn is shunned during that holiday.

There are other sugar-based sodas as well. One Dr Pepper bottler in
Dublin, Texas, still uses sugar. People can buy "Dublin Dr Pepper" over
the Internet or stumble across it at, say, a truck stop along a Texas
highway. There are also gourmet brands such as Jones Soda or Royal Crown
Draft that use pure cane sugar.

This past spring, Pepsi made life easier for soda aficionados. It
released Pepsi and Mountain Dew Throwback brands made with real sugar,
which was available from April to June.

One wonders about Pepsi's motives. Some nutritionists say HFCS is a
worse contributor to obesity than sugar is, so there could be some
marketing benefit.

Whatever the company's motivation, its efforts offered a rare
opportunity to settle the matter of which tastes better, soda made with
sugar or with HFCS.

I arranged a Pepsi Challenge‹normal Pepsi versus Pepsi Throwback‹at
C&EN's Northeast News Bureau. Admittedly, I had a very small statistical
sample for the blind taste test: three subjects, including my biased
self. All agreed that regular Pepsi made an immediate impact on the tip
of the tongue, whereas the subtler effects of Pepsi Throwback worked
toward the back of the mouth. One subject liked regular Pepsi better,
noting that Throwback "tastes like diet." The two others, including me,
preferred sugar.

Alexander H. Tullo wrote this week's column. Please send comments and
suggestions to .

How touching is the angst articulated by the drinkers of Coke and
Pepsi
as they debate sweeteners vs. sugar.

They all taste like medicine to me. I just drink water or Chinese
green tea*
with my meals, unless you are buying and offering good wine or beer.
Drinking flavored sugar water with meals is sacreligious (sp?) How can
you taste the food? Same with smoking at meals.

*BIG difference between green tea from my Chinatown store that
sells the real thing loose, by weight, and the yeeech sold in
supermarkets.
The good stuff is expensive, but you only use a few leaves per brew,
so
$50 worth can last months.

Persephone

LA DEE DA. Got money and cheap too, hmmm, hmmm, hmm.
--
Racial injustice, war, urban blight, and environmental rape have a common denominator in our exploitative economic system.*
~Channing E. Phillips

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm