by Dr. Joseph Mercola, Mercola:
Story at-a-glance
- High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is not chemically identical to table sugar. While table sugar is a bonded disaccharide of fructose and glucose, HFCS contains these sugars separately as unbound monosaccharides, leading to different metabolic effects in the body
- When consumed, HFCS’s fructose component bypasses normal sugar metabolism and goes directly to the liver where it is stored as fat, while providing no satiety signals to the brain, contributing to overconsumption
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
- A Princeton University study found that rats fed a steady diet of HFCS all became obese, suggesting a link between increased HFCS consumption and America’s obesity epidemic that began in the early 1990s
- The food industry has attempted to obscure HFCS content by renaming high-concentration versions (HFCS-90) as “fructose” or “fructose syrup” on ingredient labels, allowing products to claim they contain no high-fructose corn syrup
- Natural sugars found in whole foods like honey, maple syrup, and fruits contain additional beneficial compounds like antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, and fiber that help moderate sugar metabolism and provide health benefits not found in isolated sugars
The world is ready to move away from artificial ingredients masquerading as food — those lab-created imposters that promised convenience but delivered a hidden health crisis.
As a nurse, I thought I understood what was making America sick. But it wasn’t until I dove into creating my own bottled iced tea business that I uncovered a sobering truth: high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) had silently crept into nearly everything we drink.
This industrial sweetener wasn’t just another ingredient — it symbolized how far we’d strayed from real food. Like most Americans, I had been blind to how thoroughly artificial ingredients had colonized our food supply, transforming our drinks from sources of refreshment into vessels of hidden harm.
I was inspired to create my teas because the overwhelming use of chemicals and artificial flavors in commercially produced bottled teas was unhealthy and tasted nothing like naturally brewed tea. Most commercial bottled teas rely on shortcuts to mimic the flavor of real tea, often using artificial ingredients with unpronounceable scientific names. There’s nothing natural — or healthy — about that process.
I knew I could make better tea. I also knew consumers wanted a better product, a naturally brewed tea without artificial ingredients. Seems fairly simple. Why wasn’t anyone doing this?
The answer came in a workshop our state university had for food entrepreneurs. Food scientists presented one workshop in the series, which explained how to turn a kitchen recipe into a commercial product. The audience was filled with budding producers, like myself, looking to launch a commercial product from a cherished recipe. Most of us had in mind the creation of a healthy, natural product that not only tasted good but was good for you. Indeed, that was my goal.
Two audience members owned a small farm, a father and daughter. The daughter wanted to jar her deceased mother’s tomato sauce and asked about sourcing commercial ingredients.
The formulation process is complex, and to ensure consistent flavor, the advice was to use artificial flavorings and colorings designed to mimic the natural ingredients. Instead of using real carrots, onions, garlic, and other whole foods, the food lab suggested creating a flavor profile that resembled the original recipe. It’s easier and cheaper to produce this way (and devoid of nutrients.)
The room fell utterly silent. A mix of shock and disappointment hung in the air. Then, the questions started rolling in, marking the beginning of my eye-opening education on processed foods.
As I began commercially sourcing ingredients, all of the converging stories led me to investigate high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), and what I discovered was astonishing. To this day, whitewashing and controversy over HFCS persist.
What Is Sugar, and How Is It Metabolized?
When reports tell you that the body metabolizes all sugar similarly, consider it false advertising. Not all sugar is metabolized the same, and I’ll explain why. Sugar (sucrose) is a complex carbohydrate that occurs naturally in every fruit and vegetable in the plant kingdom. It is a major product of photosynthesis.
| Chemically, sugar is the disaccharide sucrose. It results from the biochemical bonding of the naturally occurring monosaccharides fructose (fruit sugar) and dextrose (glucose). |
| White sugar is a simple carbohydrate and contains trace amounts of sodium, potassium, and iron. Like all carbohydrates, sugar contains about 4 calories per gram. |
| Human biochemical pathways do not distinguish calorically between refined table sugar and sucrose in an orange, for example. |
| The sucrose present in a bowl of table sugar is chemically identical to the sucrose found in fruits and vegetables. |
| Fructose occurs naturally in fruit. The advantage of eating fruit is that it comes with vitamins, minerals, and fiber. |
| The sucrose in pure cane sugar is naturally occurring, but unfortunately, it is stripped of nutrients. |
High-Fructose Corn Syrup
There’s a perception that high-fructose corn syrup isn’t worse for you than regular table sugar. I beg to differ, and here’s why.
The statement pushed in food, medical, and health circles that “high-fructose corn syrup isn’t worse for you than regular table sugar” is misleading and a myth. I’m not saying regular table sugar is good for you; I’m saying HFCS and table sugar in the form of pure cane sugar are not equal.
HFCS is a processed product from a genetically engineered plant grown under organized agricultural technology and regulated systems.1 It is not a biologically evolved natural product.
HFCS is a mixture of two monosaccharides: fructose and glucose. A common form, HFCS-55, contains approximately 55% fructose and 45% glucose, though other ratios, such as HFCS-42, are also used in food production.
HFCS is not a naturally occurring sugar; it is derived from corn. The production process involves breaking down corn starch into glucose and using enzymes to convert a portion of that glucose into fructose. As a result, HFCS is a mixture of free monosaccharides, not a disaccharide.
Although HFCS contains fructose and glucose, they are not chemically bonded, making it a monosaccharide containing two separate sugars. This critical difference is at the heart of most deliberately conflicting messages. It distinguishes it from sucrose (table sugar), a disaccharide in which fructose and glucose are chemically linked.
When consumed, the body metabolizes HFCS as individual monosaccharides, meaning it does not need to break down a disaccharide bond as it would with sucrose. As such, the body metabolizes fructose and glucose differently, as I discuss later.
Technically, sucrose is a naturally occurring disaccharide found in many plants and is commercially obtained from sugar cane or sugar beets. HFCS, however, is not sucrose. The “tell” that HFCS is promoted for the manufacturers’ best interests and not the consumer is the FDA’s statement attempting to cover this fact.
“We also note that some Federal courts, as a result of litigation between private parties, have requested administrative determinations from the FDA regarding whether food products containing ingredients produced using genetic engineering or foods containing high-fructose corn syrup may be labeled as “natural.”
Although the FDA has not engaged in rulemaking to establish a formal definition for the term “natural,” we do have a longstanding policy concerning the use of “natural” in human food labeling. The FDA has considered the term “natural” to mean that nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in that food.
However, this policy was not intended to address food production methods, such as the use of pesticides, nor did it explicitly address food processing or manufacturing methods, such as thermal technologies, pasteurization, or irradiation. The FDA also did not consider whether the term “natural” should describe any nutritional or other health benefit.”
