HFCS: How Sweet It Is

Since its introduction, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has been valued as a versatile, safe sweetener. But recently, it has been mischaracterized by some as being significantly and uniquely responsible for the ongoing obesity crisis. This mischaracterization has been fueled by fundamental misunderstandings about the name, composition, uses and metabolism of HFCS. Significant efforts are underway to correct these misunderstandings and provide consumers with science-based facts to aid them in making informed daily food choices.

The properties and functionality of HFCS have made it one of the most valued sweeteners by food formulation scientists in the United States, because of its desirable taste profile and versatility in a wide range of food systems. What’s more, evidence related to the metabolism of HFCS and other caloric sweeteners leads to the conclusion that there is nothing unique about the safety of HFCS in comparison with sucrose and other nutritive sweeteners.

Search for a better sweetener

HFCS was introduced to the food and beverage industry in the late 1970s, the result of a search by corn wet-milling companies for a liquid sweetener to compete with dry sucrose, matching sucrose in sweetness and providing superior functional qualities. The industry had produced a variety of cornstarches and glucose (otherwise known as dextrose) based corn syrups since the early 1900s and was seeking a new ingredient to provide entry into markets previously dominated by sugar, while still capitalizing on the industry’s considerable corn-processing and syrup-refining experience.

By blending fructose and glucose together in various ratios, the corn wet-milling industry developed two types of HFCS: HFCS-55 (55% fructose) and HFCS-42 (42% fructose). Glucose and a minor amount of glucose polymer (from incomplete cornstarch hydrolysis) make up the difference in both product types. Small quantities of HFCS-90 (90% fructose) and crystalline fructose (+99.5%) are also produced by the industry for specialty applications.

A valued sweetener

The liquid nature of HFCS provides manufacturing convenience and labor economies in comparison to dry sucrose, since it is readily pumped from delivery transport to holding tank. At time of use, it is pumped to the mixing tank, where dilution with water to final desired solids is rapidly accomplished with minimal labor or mixing/heating energy expenditure.

At 55% or 42% fructose, HFCS roughly matches the 50/50 fructose/glucose content of sucrose, honey and dozens of fruits, juices, vegetables and nuts (percent of total sugars basis). Contrary to popular myth, HFCS-55 is not sweeter than sugar. In fact it was specifically designed to have the same sweetness as sucrose, so that the switch from sucrose to HFCS in carbonated soft drinks in the mid-1980s would cause no noticeable taste difference to consumers. Its superior flavor and sweetness stability in acidic soft drinks was of particular value to the bottling industry. Sucrose, by contrast, which is a disaccharide, hydrolyzes to free fructose and glucose at low pH, resulting in undesirable quality changes during post-manufacturing transport, warehousing and grocery store shelf storage.

Food and beverage manufacturers also value the stable supply of HFCS. Its availability is not vulnerable to hurricanes that frequent sugar cane growing climates. Before the availability of HFCS, incidents of severe tropical weather created cane sugar scarcity and wild price fluctuations; both caused hardships for the food and beverage industry.

A versatile selection

A common misconception of shoppers after a trip up and down the supermarket aisles is that HFCS is in everything. Many would be surprised to learn that there is substantially more sucrose used in non-beverage foods in the United States than HFCS. The reason for the confusion is fairly straightforward: HFCS is the primary sweetener in soft drinks, and soft drinks constitute the highest category use of added sugars; sucrose continues to be the primary sweetener in remaining non-beverage food categories.

HFCS does appear on many food labels, however, the reasons are not always clear to consumers, who may not be aware that HFCS has several non-sweetener-related attributes which add to its versatility.

For example, HFCS has flavor-enhancing properties, particularly for fruit and spice flavors. Formulators can spare flavor additives and maintain current flavor impact or achieve greater flavor impact while maintaining traditional flavor-addition levels.

Granola and energy bars are products with high fiber, low flavor and very low moisture. They are made more palatable with the addition of HFCS, which also maintains moisture, retards microbial spoilage and extends shelf life.

The reducing sugars in HFCS promote the formation of the tempting aromas and pleasing brown crust that are so characteristic of breads and cakes.

Soft, moist cookies are a relatively new product category, made possible by the use of HFCS. The monosaccharides in HFCS do not readily crystallize and, thus, produce moist cookies with a pliable texture. Traditional sugar-sweetened cookies have a drier, brittle texture with a characteristic ‘snap.’

Fructose and glucose are highly available and fermentable sugars, and are thus well suited for use in yeast-raised baked goods. They not only furnish fermentable sugars to yogurts, but enhance fruit and spice flavors, control moisture to prevent separation and moderate the tartness of unflavored yogurt.

HFCS is used in spaghetti sauces, ketchup and condiments to enhance spice flavors and balance the unpredictable tartness of tomatoes.

Health issues debunked

Despite numerous reports purporting to link HFCS in some unique fashion with increased risk of obesity and related medical conditions, there is simply no credible scientific evidence to substantiate these claims. Virtually all research seeking to implicate HFCS is based on experiments comparing consumption of pure fructose versus pure glucose — both highly contrived diets, neither of which represents the fructose/glucose mixture provided by HFCS or the human diet. Furthermore, many such experiments test fructose at extraordinarily high levels — levels exceeding typical consumption by two-to-six times. Clearly such experiments cannot be applied to HFCS, since the composition and dose tested do not represent the composition or typical use levels of HFCS.

The composition of HFCS—roughly half fructose and half glucose—is similar to that of sucrose, honey and many fruit juice concentrates. It should be apparent that equivalent amounts of each of these sweeteners deliver equivalent amounts of free fructose and glucose to the blood stream and thence to the body’s metabolic processes. A greatly underappreciated consideration is that HFCS, sucrose, honey and fruit juice concentrates are all metabolically indistinguishable from one another and, therefore, are nutritionally interchangeable.

There is a misconception that HFCS is somehow less healthy than other sweeteners because of the processes used to make it from corn. It must be pointed out, however, that sweeteners isolated from botanical sources—and this includes sucrose from sugar beets or sugar cane and fruit-juice concentrates from various fruits, as well as HFCS—all require similar refining processes in order to separate the desired carbohydrates from other plant materials, and color, odor, flavor and particulate impurities. And the use of enzymes is by no means unique to the production of HFCS; enzymes have been used for many years in the production of wine, beer, baked goods, cheeses and other diary products, and they are useful processing aids in some sucrose and fruit-juice manufacturing processes.

There is no demonstrable difference in safety between HFCS and other fructose-containing sweeteners such as sucrose and honey. And there is no supportable reason for removing HFCS from a product and replacing it with sucrose, honey or fruit juice concentrates. Such sweetener exchanges simply result in a metabolic wash—often with loss of desired functionality — yet with no net change in nutritional benefit.

John S. White consults for a variety of food and beverage companies and trade organizations in the area of nutritive sweeteners. He has worked with nutritive sweeteners for 27 years and established his consulting firm, WHITE Technical Research, in 1994. Dr. White is best known for his writings on fructose-based sweeteners. He holds a B.A. in Biology from the University of California at San Diego and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Utah. He was a Postdoctoral Fellow and Visiting Assistant Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign before entering industry.

Web Resources

The New York Times: “A Sweetener With a Bad Rap” 

Carbohydrate Sweeteners

Corn Refiners Association

“HFCS Not Linked to Obesity, Says Study”

“Similarities Between HFCS and Sucrose Revealed”

Other resources

Corn Sweeteners, High Fructose Corn Syrup