The Dangers of Factory Beef - Caught On Tape!

They say ignorance is bliss. And they were right!

When I started this blog, it was out of curiosity, fueled by a passionate belief in supporting a sustainable local/regional food system. I hate to admit it, but before I got into this, I was one of those happy, mindless consumers who filled up the grocery cart without giving a thought to where my food comes from. Now, as I turn over rocks on the road from farm to grocer, it seems as though there's a scorpion under every stone!

Yesterday, it was reported that public school districts across the Denver metro area (including Denver, Cherry Creek and Jefferson and Douglas counties) have temporarily stopped serving beef in their cafeterias. That's because earlier this week, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) released videotape findings of its investigation of the Hallmark Meat Packing Company in Chino, California -- the nation's No. 2 supplier of ground beef to the National School Lunch Program. The video presents shocking images of the appalling mistreatment of "downed" dairy cows — those who are too sick or injured to walk. These downer cows present an increased risk of spreading mad cow disease and other harmful foodborne pathogens that can jeopardize human health.

You can view the entire video -- and take action to help prevent these abuses in the future -- here, at the HSUS website, but be warned. These images are graphic and disturbing. You may never eat factory hamburger again!

As awareness of the video spread, the USDA took action. According to a statement from the USDA released yesterday, "the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) suspended inspection at Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company based on the establishment's clear violation of Federal regulations and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. This Notice of Suspension is a regulatory course of action available when FSIS finds egregious violations of humane handling regulations."

The USDA suspension will remain in effect and the Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company will not be allowed to operate until written corrective actions are submitted and verified by FSIS to ensure that animals are humanely handled.

The USDA also suspended indefinitely the eligibility of Westland Meat Packing Company to participate as a supplier to Federal food and nutrition programs, specifically the National School Lunch Program, the Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.

On the plus side, this story got me motivated. I've been trying to put together a directory of retail and producer locations where you can buy locally raised, grass-fed beef and it's not easy. It's taking me longer than I thought.

This was the shot in the arm I needed to keep soldiering on....

Beef Labeling 101

So you’re looking for grass-fed beef. You find some fresh ground beef at the local grocer labeled as “grass fed” and you think you’re home free. In reality, that cow could have spent the last three to four months of its life in a Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO), been implanted with growth hormones and shot up with sub-therapeutic and therapeutic antibiotics, and, until recently -- fed any unimaginable combination of “legally approved foods.”

“Ew....”

Is that what you thought you were getting?

If not, it’s time to take a minute to understand what all the various meat labels really mean.

Here’s a quick summary:

• Grass Fed —Last October, the USDA issued a voluntary standard for grass (forage) fed marketing claims. The grass fed standard states that “grass and/or forage shall be the feed source consumed for the lifetime of the ruminant animal, with the exception of milk consumed prior to weaning. The diet shall be derived solely from forage and animals cannot be fed grain or grain by-products and must have continuous access to pasture during the growing season.” Notice that the term “access to pasture” is open to interpretation, and that the definition doesn’t include any requirements about hormone use, antibiotic use, how it’s raised, whether or not it was fed an organic diet, or whether or not it has ever been confined to a feedlot.

• Organic -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture has established a set of national standards that food labeled "organic" must meet, whether it is grown in the United States or imported from other countries. After October 21, 2002, when you buy food labeled "organic," you can be sure that it was produced using organic production and handling standards. The organic label means that the animal (1) has undergone no genetic modification; (2) was fed grass or grain that was 100 percent organic, and (3) was not treated with antibiotics, growth hormones, or chemical pesticides. In addition, all organically raised animals must have access to the outdoors, including access to pasture for ruminants. They may be temporarily confined only for reasons of health, safety, the animal's stage of production, or to protect soil or water quality. Before a product can be labeled "organic," a Government-approved certifier completes an inspection to make sure the farmer/producer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. The USDA Organic seal also tells you that a product is at least 95 percent organic.

• Natural – As the USDA puts it: "All fresh meat qualifies as natural." The natural label refers to a product that contains no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed (a process which does not fundamentally alter the raw product.) The label must explain the use of the term natural (such as - no added colorings or artificial ingredients; minimally processed.) Notice that there are no requirements pertaining to how an animal is raised, what it’s fed, whether or not it’s given hormones or antibiotics, or how it’s treated. Because there is no government certification program for natural food products, many companies use the term “natural” in their product branding or labeling -- and research tells us that consumers are often confused about what “natural” really means. A national poll conducted by Consumer Reports in 2007 found that nine out of ten consumers expect “natural” meat to come from animals that were raised on a diet without drugs, chemicals or other artificial ingredients.”[1]

• Certified -- The term "certified" implies that the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Agriculture Marketing Service have officially evaluated a meat product for class, grade, or other quality characteristics (e.g., "Certified Angus Beef"). When used under other circumstances, the term must be closely associated with the name of the organization responsible for the "certification" process, e.g., "XYZ Company's Certified Beef".

• No Hormones -- The term "no hormones administered" may be approved for use on the label of beef products if sufficient documentation is provided to the USDA by the producer showing no hormones have been used in raising the animals.

• No Antibiotics -- The terms "no antibiotics added" may be used on labels for meat or poultry products if sufficient documentation is provided by the producer to the USDA demonstrating that the animals were raised without antibiotics.

• No Animal Byproducts, Never Confined to a Feedlot — Not defined or recognized by the USDA, these marketing claims attest that no animal byproducts were used in the feed of the cow(s) and that the animals were never confined to a feedlot.

• Irradiation — Meat that has been irradiated to reduce bacteria levels must be labeled "Treated by Irradiation" or "Treated with Radiation."

• Halal and Zabiah Halal -- Products prepared by federally inspected meat packing plants identified with labels bearing references to "Halal" or "Zabiah Halal" must be handled according to Islamic law and under Islamic authority.

• Kosher -- "Kosher" may be used only on the labels of meat and poultry products prepared under Rabbinical supervision.

• Prime, Choice, and Select — These USDA grades are a subjective measure of quality and imply nothing about how the cow was raised. Grading is based on several factors but is primarily determined by the amount of marbling – or how much fat is distributed throughout. Prime cuts have the most marbling, Choice cuts are next and Select cuts have the least amount of marbling.

• Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) is still under debate. COOL labeling became mandatory Oct. 1, 2004. However, in 2005 beef producers were granted additional time to ready their systems, and implementation was delayed until Sept. 30, 2008. On July 27, 2007, the House of Representatives passed its version of the 2007 Farm Bill, which kept intact provisions for mandatory country-of-origin labeling, and on Dec. 14, 2007, the Senate passed its version, which also included mandatory labeling. COOL labeling will help you determine if your grass-fed beef was imported from Argentina or Brazil, or raised in the USA.

That’s a quick overview of the labeling quagmire. If you care about the quality and healthfulness of your food (and the sustainability of your food system), your best bet is to get to know the retailers and ranchers who raise and sell it.

Stay tuned: we’ll be directing you to local retail outlets and local producers of grass-fed beef in upcoming posts.

[1] Consumer Reports food-labelling pollshows consumers want to know where their food comes from and expect higher label standards. http://grennerchoices.org/printProduct.cfm?product=crfood, as accessed 02/04/08

Where's the Beef? -- The Great Corn vs. Grass Debate

I grew up in the very heart of the Midwest. Back then, all you heard about was corn-fed beef – its marbling, its tenderness, its superior taste...

Now, it’s hard to find a marketing claim about corn-fed beef.

That’s because the preponderance of evidence is telling us that grass-fed (and grass-finished) beef is superior to conventionally raised, corn-fed beef in nearly every way. Let’s take a look at the research.

(Note: In this post, we’re focusing on beef, but the same thing goes for grass-fed poultry, eggs and dairy.)

Grass-fed beef is better for you.

• Research shows it’s lower in fat and calories. Meat from grass-fed animals can have as much as one-third less fat when compared to a similar cut from a grain-fed animal.[1] According to Jo Robinson -- one of the industry’s strongest advocates -- if you eat a typical amount of beef, switching to grass-fed beef can save you nearly 18,000 calories a year![2]


• It provides more omega-3 fatty acids. Omega-3 fatty acids are good for you. They’ve been shown to significantly reduce triglyceride levels in the blood[3] and reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.[4] Research suggest that people who consume a sufficient amount of omega-3s are less likely to have high blood pressure and are 50 percent less likely to have a serious heart attack.[5] They are also less likely to be depressed, or be afflicted with schizophrenia, attention deficit disorder, or Alzheimer’s disease.[6] Meat from grass-fed animals typically contains 50 to 85 percent more omega-3s than meat from grain-fed livestock.[7]


• It provides more conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). CLA is another healthy fat found in the meat and dairy products of ruminants. Studies done in animals and in vitro demonstrate that CLA can inhibit cancers (especially breast cancer), reduce risk factors for cardiovascular disease, improve insulin sensitivity and produce an anti-inflammatory effect.[8] CLA may also protect against cancer. Robinson cites a Finnish study that showed women with the highest levels of CLA in their diet had a 60 percent lower risk of breast cancer than those with the lowest levels.[9] Another study measured CLA levels in the breast tissue of 360 French women and found that the women with the most CLA had a 74 percent lower risk of breast cancer than the women with the least CLA.[10] Research shows that meat from grass-fed ruminants can contain 3 to 5 times more CLA than meat from grain-fed animals.[11]


• It’s higher in vitamins. Products from grass-fed animals have also been shown to be a superior source of Vitamins A, C, D, E and beta-carotene. According to a study completed at CSU, meat from pastured cattle is four-times higher in vitamin E than the meat from feedlot cattle.[12]
  

It’s better for the animals.

• Raising animals on pasture used to be a predominant model of food production in the U.S. However, during the 50s, new techniques were introduced to improve the efficiency of beef production, a trend which continues even as we speak. As a result, most of the meat, eggs and dairy products sold in grocery stores today come from Confined Animal Feeding Operations, (CAFOs). These operations apply the same principles of mass production we see in factories. Thousands of animals are housed together in cramped quarters, with little or no exercise. While CAFOs provide maximum production at minimum cost, they also raise serious questions about ethics, food safety, and environmental impacts. Here’s what a cattle feed-lot looks like:
  

For an expose of CAFOs, check out The Meatrix. Clearly, animals allowed to forage for grass in pastures have a better life.

• The diets of factory-raised animals are hard on the animals. Ruminants (i.e., cud-chewing animals such as cattle) are built to eat and digest cellulose-based products such as grasses, plants and shrubs. When you feed them corn, it can cause serious intestinal disorders, such as “feedlot bloat” (a condition that causes trapped gas to accumulate in the rumen, causing the rumen to press against the lungs; if left untreated, the animal can actually suffocate)[13] and “subacute acidosis” (a condition similar to heartburn, which causes animals to pant and salivate, kick at their bellies and eat dirt; if left untreated it can lead to diarrhea, ulcers, liver abscesses and even death.[14]
  

It’s safer.

• Do you know what factory-fed animals are eating? As the industry continually seeks less to lower feed costs, truly astonishing materials are finding their way into our food chain. According to Sapkota, et al, (2007) “In 2003, the U.S. rendering industry produced > 8 million metric tons of rendered animal products, including meat and bone meal, poultry by-product meal, blood meal and feather meal. Most of these products were incorporated into animal feed.” [15] Since the advent of "mad cow" disease, the U.S. has banned the feeding of protein sources from ruminants to other ruminants.[16] However, under current law, pigs, chickens, and turkeys that have been fed rendered cattle can be rendered and fed back to cattle—a loophole that may allow mad cow agents to infect healthy cattle. Other legally permitted ingredients include rendered road kill, dead horse, euthanized dogs and cats, [17] animal waste, antibiotics, byproducts of drug manufacture, arsenicals, copper compounds, urea, ammonium chloride and ammonium sulfate, enzymes, preservatives, nutraceuticals, and plastics.[18]

• Factory-raised animals are given antibiotics and growth hormones. In an effort to manage the effects of grain-based feeds in ruminants and to protect against the potential spread of disease, CAFO operators tend to administer antibiotics – including penicillin, erythromycin, and streptomycin[19] -- routinely. Robinson reports that “an estimated 70 percent of all the antibiotics used in the U.S. are now being given to healthy animals to improve their growth and performance.”[20] Moreover, cattle CAFO operators use growth hormones or steroids to help the animals gain the maximum amount of weight on the least amount of time; in fact, nine out of 10 U.S. calves are given growth hormones, including estrogens, progesterone, testosterone and others.[21]

• Grain-fed animals may be promoting food-borne diseases. Raising animals in such close quarters creates concern about the potential spread of disease (not to mention increased vulnerability to terrorist attack.) A study by Cornell University determined that grain-fed animals have approximately 300 times more E. coli than grass-fed animals.[22] This proliferation may be due to the fact that when cattle are grain fed, their digestive tracts become acidic, which promotes E. coli growth. E. coli 0157:H7, a strain first isolated in the 1980s, is now found in the intestines of most U. S. feedlot cattle. In the U.S., this bacteria is estimated to cause infection in more than 70,000 people a year.[23] Last October, it sparked the second largest food recall in the history of the U.S., when nearly 22 million pounds of frozen beef patties were recalled due to E. coli concerns. Other bacteria are also causing alarm. In a 2003 study of food-borne pathogens, Australian researchers found that campylobacter – a bacteria that can cause nausea, vomiting fever, headache, muscle pain and potenitally serious long-term effects -- is carried by 58 percent of cattle raised in feed lots versus only 2 percent of cattle raised and finished in pastures.[24]

It’s better for the environment.

• Waste from CAFOs poses a serious threat to the environment. The sheer population density of CAFOs creates a huge issue in terms of animal waste. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that CAFOs account for more than 250 million tons of manure every year.[25] In studies of CAFOs, CDC has shown that chemical and infectious compounds from animal waste are able to migrate into nearby soil and water,[26] and the EPA has acknowledged that hog, chicken and cattle waste has polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states.[27] According to the Center for Disease Control, pollutants possibly associated with manure-related discharges at CAFOs include antibiotics; pathogens; excess nutrients, such as ammonia, nitrogen, and phosphorus; pesticides and hormones; solids, such as feed and feathers; and trace elements, such as arsenic and copper, which can contaminate surface waters and possibly harm human health.
  

Heard enough? Are you ready to try some good old grass-fed beef? Then stay tuned. In the next post we’ll take a look at where to find it in Colorado….

Resources:
[1] Health Benefits of Grass-fed Products, http://www.eatwild.com/healthbenefits.htm as accessed 1/23/08
[2] Robinson, J., Grass-fed Meats Research, http://sevensons.net/why-grass-fed/benefits of grass-fed-meats.htm
[3] Wikipedia, Omega-3 Fatty Acids, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid, as accessed 01/28/08
[4] Ibid.
[5] Robinson, J., Grass-fed Meats Research, http://sevensons.net/why-grass-fed/benefits of grass-fed-meats.htm
[6] Ibid.
[7] Robbins, J., What About Grass-fed Beef? http://foodrevolution.org/grassfedbeef.htm, as accessed 1/25/08.
[8] Conjugated Linoleic Acid and Dietary Beef, Beef Facts, Human Nutrition Research,© Cattlemen’s Beef Board, 06/15/2007
[9] Dhiman, T. A., Anand, G. R., et al (1999) “Conjugated linoleic acid content of milk from cows fed different diets.” Journal of Dairy Science 82 (10): 2146-56
[10] Bougnoux, P., Lavillonniere, F., Riboli, E., “Inverse relation between CLA in adipose breast tissue and risk of breast cancer,” Inform 10;5:S43, 1999
[11] T. R. Dhiman (2001). "Role of diet on conjugated linoleic acid content of milk and meat.". Journal of Animal Science 79. http://www.adsa.org/jointabs/iaafs108.pdf, as accessed 01/25/08.
[12] Smith, G.C., Dietary supplementation of vitamin E to cattle improve shelf life and case of beef for domestic & international markets, Colorado State University,
[13] Power Steer, by Michael Pollan, N Y Times Magazine, March 31, 2002, http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2002/msg05843.htm, as accessed 1/25/08
[14] Grass Fed Basic, by Jo Robinson, http://eatwild.com/basics.html, as accessed 01/23/08.
[15] Sapkota, A. R., Lefferts, L. Y., McKenzie, S., and Walker, P., What do we feed to food-production animals? A review of animal feed ingredients and their potential impacts on human health. As published in Environmental Health Perspectives, 115:5 663 – 670, May 2007. [16] Cattle Feeding, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/corn-fed_beef, as accessed 01/25/08
[17] The Reality of Feed at Animal Factories http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/sustainable_food/they-eat-what.html, as accessed 1/25/08
[18] Sapkota, A. R., et al, 2007.
[19] Russel, S., Fight to curtail antibiotics in animal feed, as published in SF Gate.com, January 28, 2008, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file+/c/a/2008/01/28MNSTUGD8E.DTL &type, as accessed 01/28/08.
[20] Robinson, J., What you need to know about the beef you eat, as published in Mother Earth News, February/March 2008, pp 74 -84.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Cattle Feeding from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.orf/wiki/corn-fed_beef as accessed 1/25/08
[23] http://www.medicinenet.com/e_coli__0157h7/article.htm
[24] Ibid
[25] Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO), http://www.cdc.gov/cafos/about.htm, as accessed 01/28/08
[26] Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/cafos/about.htm, as accessed 01/29/08
[27] Keep Animal Waste Out of Our Waters-- Stop Factory Farm Pollution http://www.sierraclub.org/factoryfarms/ as accessed 1/28/08

More on Processed Foods: Just Say No

O.K., I'm a little late.

By now most people have abandoned their New Year's Resolutions. I'm just getting ready to make one.

After I researched the last article, I took an inventory to see how much high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) we were harboring in our own kitchen. And I found a lot!

Some surprises? Breakfast cereals, even some of the "healthy" ones. Fruit juice. Low-fat yogurt. Spaghetti sauce. Bread. Soups.

I am fairly representative of the average American. We eat more processed foods and fast foods than the rest of the world's population.

For a very graphic representation of this fact, take a look at these pictures from Hungry Planet, What the World Eats, by Peter Menzel and Faith D'Aluisio. These two went around the world, photographing families posed in front of a week's worth of food. Their photos demonstrate in a very powerful way that as countries become more and more industrialized, the populations of those countries eat more and more junk. And that contributes to rising rates of obesity and related diseases, such as heart disease, diabetes and other chronic ailments.

Take a look: here's a typical American family, the Revis family of North Carolina. They spend about $342 a week on food.

Now take a look at the The Namgay family of Shingkhey Village in Bhutan. They spend about $5 a week on food:

So, who's getting the better deal?

You've got to wonder.

So here's my resolution -- no processed foods for at least a month. I'm going to focus on fresh foods: fresh fruits and vegetables and fresh meats -- grass-fed whenever possible.

We'll see how hard it is to cook and eat real food in Colorado.

Issue Spotlight: Is Too Much Corn Making Us Fat?

Everything I’ve been reading lately points to corn and corn-related products as a major culprit in the growing obesity epidemic.

What?

We love corn! Picked fresh, peeled, boiled, flavored with butter and sprinkled with salt? Is there anything better? It’s a peak experience! Anyone who has shared this experience – or purchased fresh Olathe sweet corn from a Local Farmers’ Market -- must share my dismay. And popcorn! Who can get through a DVD rental without it?

Corn now takes up an inordinate amount of space in our food chain. Not the sweet, fresh-picked corn-on-the-cob variety, but the commoditized, mass-produced variety. According to the USDA, in 2007 more than 90 million acres of land in the U.S. were planted to corn, delivering more than 13 billion bushels. Most of the crop is used in livestock feed; in fact, corn accounts for more than 90 percent of the total value and production of feed grains. It is also processed into a multitude of food products, in the form of high fructose corn syrup, glucose and dextrose, starch, beverage alcohol and cereals and other products. About 3.2 million bushels are earmarked for the production of ethanol. Whatever is left (about 20% of the total) is exported to other countries.[1]

The pervasive use of corn is causing alarm in two key areas. First, researchers tell us that livestock and poultry raised on corn produce meat that is higher in saturated fats and lower in essential nutrients than meat from animals fed with grass. (Look for more on this in future postings.) Second, the increased use of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) – a widely used corn derivative -- is being blamed for everything from obesity, to diabetes, to pancreatic cancer and more.

In 2004, Dr. George Bray and others analyzed food consumption patterns in the U.S. and noted that the dramatic increase in the consumption of HFCS mirrored a rapid increase in obesity. According to Bray, the consumption of HFCS increased more than 1000 percent between 1970 and 1990, far exceeding the changes of any other food or food group.[2] According to the National Center for Health Statistics, over the same period of time, the prevalence of obesity in the U.S. more than doubled, after remaining relatively stable for prior decades.[3] Bray also reported that the digestion, absorption and metabolism of fructose differ from those of glucose, which may contribute to overconsumption and weight gain. While Bray conceded that his hypothesis would require further testing, he concluded that “an argument can now be made that the use of HFCS in beverages should be reduced.”[4]

Since then, a significant number of studies have implicated fructose in increased levels of triglycerides,[5] negative impacts on appetite regulating hormones,[6] insulin resistance,[7] obesity, Type 2 Diabetes,[8] liver damage[9]and even pancreatic cancer.[10] Here’s a sampling:

• According to University of Minnesota professor John Bantle, people who use HFCS as a sweetener increase their triglycerides 32 percent relative to people who use mostly sugar.[11]
• Earl Mindell and Virginia Hopkins, authors of Prescription Alternatives, report that studies done at the US Department of Agriculture's Human Nutrition Resource Center reveal that consuming fructose in this form causes chromium levels to drop, in turn raising LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, and impairing immune system function. Mindell states, "As our consumption of high fructose corn syrup has risen 250 percent in the past 15 years, our rate of diabetes has increased approximately 45 percent in about the same time period.” [12]
• Research by the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reveals that high fructose diets shorten the life span of laboratory mice from the normal two years to a mere five weeks![13]
  

Other studies suggest it’s not fructose -- in and of itself -- that creates the problem, but the delivery medium (as in soft drinks and other fructose-sweetened beverages) that is making us fat.[14] This has prompted an aggressive response from members of the food and beverage industries, who are promoting their own studies that show that frequent consumption of soft drinks does not lead to higher obesity rates,[15] that beverages sweetened with HFCS and sucrose affect satiety[16] and blood levels of glucose, insulin, leptin and ghrelin[17] similarly.

On the website of the Corn Refiners Association they present their side of the story:

• on obesity: “there is currently no convincing evidence to support a link between HFCS consumption and overweight/obesity.”
• on sugar consumption: “Bottom line: high fructose corn syrup has not changed the sweetener mix in the country's diet.”
• on insulin production/resistance: “Both [sucrose and fructose] have essentially the same effect on insulin production.”
• on differences in metabolism: “Some studies claim that the body processes high fructose corn syrup differently than other sugars due to the fructose content. Conclusions from these studies cannot be extrapolated to high fructose corn syrup. That is because the studies looked at the effects of fructose independently.”
  

I have two things to say here. First, anyone who lived through the “does tobacco cause lung cancer?’ debate will remember similar pronouncements from the Tobacco Industry back in the 70s. Second, they are side-stepping the key issue – that because HFCS is so plentiful and cheap, it is now in nearly every processed food we eat, and the resulting sugar load is killing us!

Let’s look at some facts:

Fructose exists naturally in small amounts in honey, root plants and various fruits. When eaten in small amounts in a regular diet, fructose can be beneficial to your health. A process for producing HFCS was developed in the late 1950s and refined by Japanese researchers in the 1970s. Basically, you mill corn to produce corn starch and process the corn starch to produce corn syrup. (Corn syrup is almost entirely glucose, the human body’s primary source of energy.) Then you subject that glucose to a three part enzymatic process which turns the glucose into fructose. The fructose is then back-blended with glucose (and other sugars) to create high-fructose corn syrups.

HFCS was found to have a number of desirable qualities. It is about 75 percent sweeter than regular table sugar [18]-- and cheaper to produce.[19] It transports well, mixes easily, extends shelf life, retains moisture in foods, enhances flavors, helps breads brown and helps to prevent freezer burn.[20] The food industry has found ways to put it in practically everything, including breakfast cereals, beverages, sauces and marinades, snack foods, fast foods, syrups and sweeteners, meat products, dairy products, canned soups, condiments, and miscellaneous foods. They’re even putting it into cough syrups and antibiotics!

As a result, the use of HFCS has grown rapidly, from 56,000 short tons in 1970 to nearly 8.8 million short tons in 2006[21] -- and per capita consumption in the U.S. has increased from half a pound a year in 1970 to nearly sixty pounds a year in 2006. In 1970, HFCS supplied less than 1 percent of our total sugar intake; now it provides nearly 42 percent.[22] When you add up all sugar consumption (refined sugar, corn sweeteners, honey, etc.), on a per capita basis we’re consuming nearly 140 pounds of sugar every year! [23]

As Jessica Fraser reports, “many people unknowingly consume food and drinks containing ridiculous amounts of sugar. But don't expect labels to help you determine how much sugar is added. Sugar has all sorts of names: dextrose, glucose, fructose, lactose, corn syrup, maple sugar, honey, invert sugar or malt.” [24] In fact, many people get 30 percent or more of their calories from these hidden sugars.[25]

The USDA recommends that people limit themselves to 10 to 12 teaspoons of added sugars a day. With the pervasive use of HSCS, the average American now eats nearly three times that.[26] Drink one 12 oz. Pepsi and you’ve met the daily objective. Eat one Berkeley Farms low-fat yogurt with fruit -- or drink one Hansen’s Super Vita orange-carrot Smoothie -- and you’re done for the day.[27]

If you’re eating a lot of processed and/or fast foods, it adds up quickly. Take a look at the following hypothetical menu and its sugar load.

Breakfast:
· 8 oz. Ocean Spray grape juice – 10 teaspoons[28]
· 1 cup Post/Kellogg’s Raisin Bran cereal – 4+ teaspoons
· 1 grande Starbucks nonfat or soy chai latte – 11+ teaspoons[29]

Lunch:
· MacDonald’s Double Cheeseburger
· Large French Fries
· 2 T Ketchup
· Large Coke
Total – 24 teaspoons[30]

Dinner:
· 4 oz. sweet and sour shrimp – 6 teaspoons
· ½ c. rice – 0
· Mixed green salad with tomatoes – 1 teaspoon
· 1 T red wine vinaigrette – 3 teaspoons
· 2 Fig Newtons – 6 teaspoons

Grand Total: 65 teaspoons of sugar, or 6.5 times the recommended amount!

So, all you corn lovers, you'll be happy to hear that corn -- per se -- is not the culprit. My ear of corn – arguably one of the sweetest vegetables -- has less than one teaspoon of sugar. The real culprit is fast foods and processed foods, which, with all of their affordability, availability and convenience, are tipping the proverbial scales toward disaster.

[1] http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/feedgrains/StandardReports/YBtable1.htm
[2] Bray, G., Nielsen, S.J., and Popkin, B. M., Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity, in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2004; 79:537-43.
[3] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm
[4] Bray, et al, 2004.
[5] Elliot, S.S., Keim, N.L., Stern, J.S., Teff, K., and Havel, P. Fructose, weight gain, and the insulin resistance syndrome. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 76, No. 5, 911-922, November 2002
[6] Teff, K.T., Elliott, S.S., Tschoep, M., Rader, D., Heiman, M, Townsend, R.R., Keim, N.L., D’Alession, D., Havel, P.J., 2004. Dietary fructose reduces circulating insulin and leptin, attenuates postprandial suppression of ghrelin and increases triglycerides in women. Clinical Endocrine Metabolism. 89:2963-2972.
[7] Elliott, et al, 2002.
[8] http://www.cornsyrupnews.com/ as accessed Jan 19, 2008
[9] Wikipedia, High Fructose Corn Syrup, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HFCS as accessed 1/11/2008.
[10] Soda warning: High sugar intake linked to pancreatic cancer, Thursday, November 09, 2006 by: Ben Kage, www.newstarget.com
[11] Dangers of High Fructose Corn Syrup - HFCS, http://www.femhealth.com/DangersofHFCS.html
[12] Ibid
[13]Ibid
[14] Mattes, R.D., Beverages and positive energy balance: the menace is the medium, International Journal of Obesity, 2006, S60-S65.
[15] Sun, S.Z., Empie, M.W., Lack of findings for the association between obesity risk and usual sugar-sweetened beverage consumption in adults – A primary analysis of databases of CSFII-1989–1991, CSFII-1994–1998, NHANES III, and combined NHANES 1999–2002. Regulatory, Nutritional and Scientific Affairs Group, James R. Randall Research Center, Archer Daniels Midland Company. 12 February 2007
[16] Monsivais, P., Perrique, M.M., and Drenowski, A., Sugars and satiety: does the type of sweetener make a difference? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 86, No. 1, 116-123, July 2007 (Supported by a grant from the American Beverage Association, by the Corn Refiners Association, and by fellowship T32 DE07132 from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research)
[17] Melanson, K.J., Zukley, L., Lowndes, J., Nguyen, V., Angelopoulos, T.J., and Rippe, J.M., Effects of high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose consumption on circulating glucose, insulin, leptin and hrelin and on appetitie in normal-weight women. Nutrition 23( 2007) 102-112.
[18] High-fructose corn syrup: sugar on crack? By Phil Lempert, Today Food Editor, March 2006, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12058364/, as accessed 1/21/08
[19] Sugar Coated, by Kim Severson, San Francisco Chronicle, February 18, 2004
[20] Ibid.
[21] Sugar and Sweeteners Team, Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDA. Last updated: 3/15/2007
[22] Sugar and Sweeteners Team, Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDA. Last updated: 4/11/2007
[23] Ibid
[24] Dangers of High Fructose Corn Syrup - HFCShttp://www.femhealth.com/DangersofHFCS.html
[25] How Much Sugar Is Too Much, by Chris Woolston, CONSUMER HEALTH INTERACTIVE, http://www.ahealthyme.com/topic/toomuchsugar
[26] Sugar and Your Health, the University of Georgia Extension Service, http://www.fcs.uga.edu/pubs/PDF/FDNS-E-67a.pdf, as accessed 1/20/08
[27] http://www.cspinet.org/reports/sugar/popsugar.html, as accessed 1/20/08
[28] http://www.co.mohave.az.us/WIC/sugar.htm, as accessed 1/20/08
[29] Ibid
[30] McDonald’s Web Site, Food and Nutrition, http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/about/mcd_faq/food_and_nutrition.html, as accessed 1-20-08