Sugar is certainly not good for you. The problem with HFCS is that it makes it cheap easy for the food industry to create hyperpalatable foods jacked with sugar. But choosing foods with "cane sugar" does nothing to improve health outcomes.
Sugar is certainly not good for you. The problem with HFCS is that it makes it cheap easy for the food industry to create hyperpalatable foods jacked with sugar. But choosing foods with "cane sugar" does nothing to improve health outcomes.
HFCS has the commercial benefit of being substantially cheaper than cane sugar, in part via massive subsidy by the US federal government, and in part because maize is so fantastically productive of starch cheap to convert to glucose and thence via chemical-engineered wizardry to fructose.
HFCS originated as a clever way to consume the massive influx of surplus maize produced by the Nixon adminstration's agricultural subsidies for mono-crop maize production instituted under Earl Butz, still in place. The public health catastrophe we still suffer is just an unfortunate side effect of the disproportionately representated rural voting bloc that keeps the subsidies in place.
in theory, but in practice there can be impurities from the production process, e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00216-012-5817-x
Dicarbonyls are blamed for "obliterative bronchiolitic lung disease", which sounds unpleasant.