High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a sweetener made from corn starch. It consists of fructose and glucose and is commonly used as a sugar substitute in processed foods and beverages. HFCS is cheaper and sweeter than regular sugar, which made it popular in food manufacturing. However, there are concerns about the health effects of HFCS and some countries have even banned its use.
What is high fructose corn syrup?
HFCS is a processed sweetener derived from corn starch. Regular corn syrup contains 100% glucose which is not very sweet. HFCS has had some of its glucose converted into fructose enzymatically, which makes it much sweeter. The most common formulations of HFCS contain either 42% or 55% fructose, along with glucose and water. HFCS 42 is typically used in processed foods and HFCS 55 is used in soft drinks.
Compared to sucrose (table sugar), HFCS has similar sweetness but is cheaper to produce. This made HFCS a popular replacement for sucrose in the 1970s when sugarcane prices were rising. HFCS now represents over 40% of caloric sweeteners added to foods and beverages in the United States.
Why is HFCS controversial?
There are several reasons why the use of HFCS is controversial:
– HFCS is high in fructose – Fructose is processed differently by the body than glucose and can raise triglycerides, contribute to obesity, and increase risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The higher fructose content of HFCS compared to regular sugar has raised concerns about its health effects.
– It contributes to overconsumption – HFCS is inexpensive, stable, and very sweet. This has led to its widespread use in processed foods and drinks. Some experts argue that by contributing to overconsumption of sweeteners, HFCS indirectly contributes to diabetes and obesity.
– It’s linked to metabolic syndrome – Some studies have linked excess fructose consumption from HFCS to markers of metabolic syndrome like high blood pressure and fat around the waist.
– It adds empty calories – HFCS provides calories but no beneficial nutrients. Heavy use of HFCS in processed foods has been criticized for contributing unnecessary calories and displacing nutritious whole foods in people’s diets.
Countries that have banned HFCS
While HFCS remains widely used in the food industry, some countries and regions have banned or restricted its use:
– European Union – The EU has not banned HFCS completely but has imposed quotas on HFCS imports that make it much less economical for food companies. This has effectively reduced HFCS use in Europe.
– Venezuela – In 2006, Venezuela banned all imports and production of HFCS. It argued that domestic sugar production would bolster the economy and that HFCS was unhealthy.
– Hungary – Hungary introduced a tax on foods containing HFCS in 2011. This has led to reductions in its use.
– India – HFCS imports were banned in India as the government argued the country had enough domestic sugar production. Some HFCS is still produced locally but is subject to taxes.
Reasons for banning HFCS
Countries and regions have introduced bans or restrictions on HFCS for several interrelated reasons:
Protect domestic sugar production
In many countries, domestic sugar production from sugarcane or sugar beets is economically and politically important. Imports of cheaper HFCS can displace domestic sugar production. Placing restrictions on HFCS protects jobs in the domestic sugar industry.
For example, India justified its HFCS import ban on the grounds it had sufficient domestic sugar production. The EU’s HFCS quota achieves a similar protective effect for European beet sugar producers.
Health concerns
As discussed earlier, there are legitimate concerns about negative health impacts of excess fructose consumption from HFCS. Some regions ban or restrict HFCS explicitly for public health reasons.
Venezuela banned HFCS imports in 2006 because of health concerns. Hungary introduced its tax on HFCS for public health reasons. While economic protection likely also played a role, these countries cited evidence linking HFCS to obesity and diabetes.
Consumer demand
In some countries, consumers have resisted or opposed the introduction of HFCS. Public perception of HFCS as an unhealthy additive has led to consumer demand for restricting its use in foods and beverages.
For example, British consumers have strongly opposed introducing HFCS. This kept HFCS out of the UK market even before formal EU restrictions. Consumer sentiment made the use of HFCS commercially unviable.
Protest against U.S. exports
The U.S. is the major producer of HFCS, producing over 8 million tonnes annually from corn. HFCS restrictions in some countries are trade actions intended as an economic protest against U.S. agricultural exports.
Venezuela’s ban on HFCS imports was likely motivated in part by political differences with the U.S. rather than just health concerns. Limiting HFCS imports helps reduce Venezuela’s economic dependence on U.S. agricultural exports.
Impact of banning HFCS
Banning or restricting HCFS use in food production and processing has a range of effects:
Less processed food consumption
HFCS is found in many common processed foods and drinks, including bread, cereal, pasta sauce, yogurt, juice, soda and more. Limiting HFCS use encourages food manufacturers to reduce reliance on processed foods and use natural sugar alternatives.
This may improve public health by promoting less processed food in people’s diets. However, it raises costs for the food industry.
Higher costs for food companies
Sugar is more expensive than HFCS. Swapping HFCS for sugar increases costs for food companies using sweeteners. Firms try to avoid or pass on these higher costs.
Some US food companies reformulated products for export to Mexico when HFCS taxes were imposed there. Other companies paid the taxes to keep using HFCS.
Less obesity?
By reducing intake of fructose from HFCS, a ban could potentially help lower obesity rates. Mexico’s 1 peso per liter tax on HFCS led to a decline in consumption and a small decrease in average BMI.
However, the impact depends on reformulation. Simply substituting sugar for HFCS may not achieve much. The best outcome is when companies reduce sweetener content overall.
Diet changes
Banning HFCS can encourage consumers to make healthier diet choices with less reliance on sweet processed foods. But other factors also influence diet trends.
After Hungary’s tax, one survey found 61% of Hungarians were buying fewer sugary products. But average calorie and sugar intake did not decline much. More factors affect diet than just HFCS use.
Negligible impact on fructose intake
Fructose intake may not change much if sugar replaces HFCS. The liver metabolizes fructose the same way regardless of source. Table sugar is 50% fructose while HFCS is 42-55% fructose.
Small reductions in fructose intake are unlikely to impact health significantly. Limiting all added sugars has more effect.
Case Study: Mexico’s Soda Tax
Mexico provides a good case study on the impact of restricting HFCS consumption. In January 2014, Mexico introduced pesos per liter excise taxes on sugary beverages. One stated goal was to reduce consumption of HFCS.
What the tax entailed
Mexico’s soda tax applied to sugary beverages, including:
– Carbonated sodas – 1 peso per liter tax
– Fruit juice drinks with added sugar – 1 peso per liter
– Flavored water with added sugar – 1 peso per liter
– Sports and energy drinks – 1 peso per liter
This raised the price of beverages containing HFCS by around 10% on average.
How companies responded
Beverage companies took several steps to mitigate the impact of the tax:
– Absorbed part of the tax – firms only increased prices by 70% of the tax to avoid steep price hikes
– Reformulated with more sugar – substituting HFCS for sugar to avoid the tax, but with minimal health effect
– Introduced new untaxed drinks – launching beverages with no added sugar to avoid the tax entirely
Overall, the tax increased prices on average by around 7%.
Impact on consumption
Studies found the soda tax reduced purchases of taxed sugary drinks:
– 5.5% lower purchases on average
– 12% decline for lower-income households
– Switching to untaxed beverages
Estimated reduction in HFCS consumption:
– 10% lower HFCS intake from soda
– 3.1% lower total fructose intake on average
So the tax achieved modest reductions in intakes of HFCS and fructose.
Impact on public health
Research found small improvements in population health outcomes:
– 0.15 kg/m2 lower BMI on average
– 2.1% lower risk of obesity
– Small decreases in rates of diabetes and heart disease
While observable, these public health impacts were modest, likely due to substitutions and only small changes in total sugar intake.
Revenue generated
The tax raised significant revenues for obesity reduction and health promotion programs:
– Raised $1.2 billion USD in 2014
– Equivalent to 1% of annual federal health spending
– Revenues earmarked for health programs, drinking water, and education
So while health impacts were limited, revenues supported expanded health initiatives.
Conclusion
Banning or restricting high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is controversial but has been implemented by some countries due to health concerns, protectionism, and anti-U.S. sentiment. Eliminating HFCS can modestly improve public health by reducing fructose and added sugar intake. But impacts depend on how companies reformulate products and whether overall sweetener consumption falls. Banning HFCS encourages consumption of less processed foods and beverages. But HFCS can often be directly replaced by sugar without major health gains. More comprehensive policies are needed to substantially lower added sugar consumption.
