Nope. High fructose corn syrup does not cause pancreatic cancer


"Cancer cells slurp up fructose, US study finds"

That's the headline on Reuters, touting recent research published in the journal Cancer Research by scientists at the University of California Los Angeles. The implication—pushed by Reuters, other news agencies and even the head of the research team, Dr. Anthony Heaney—is that this study proves a potentially deadly link between diets high in high fructose corn syrup and pancreatic cancer.

Reality: This is no smoking gun. Far from it. I spoke with Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, to get some perspective and find out what's really going on.

The researchers took existing* pancreatic cancer cells and grew them in a petri dish, outside of a human body. Some were fed on pure glucose, and some on pure fructose.

Cancer cells eat sugars of all kinds, Dr. Brawley told me. And this study confirmed that. The pancreatic cancer cells slurped up not only the fructose, but also the glucose. And they grew quite well on both. The difference lay in how efficiently the cells were able use the sugary fuel.

"Basically, certain cars prefer high octane gas versus regular. And what this article is saying is that, to these pancreatic cancer cells, fructose was more like high octane gas while sucrose was regular," Brawley said. "Fructose allowed them to grow more efficiently, which is different from faster. They were deriving a little more energy from every molecule of fructose."

The study does provide an interesting jumping-off point for further research, Brawley told me. But, on it's own, it doesn't say anything about high fructose corn syrup (which isn't pure fructose, but rather little-more-than-50/50 mixture of glucose and fructose). In fact, it doesn't even mean that pancreatic cancer cells in a human body would use pure fructose more efficiently than pure glucose.

That's because pancreatic cancer cells behave differently in a body than they do in a test tube, Brawley told me.

"I have treatments that can cure pancreatic cancer in the petri dish," he said. "We've had that for more than 50 years. But they don't work on pancreatic cancer in humans. That tells me there's a difference, biologically, between cancer cells in a petri dish and cancer cells in a person and we have to respect that."

I asked Brawley whether there had been any studies done that correlate diets high in high fructose corn syrup to prevalence of pancreatic cancer in humans. There are two, he said. But both show only a very weak statistical relationship. And there are several other studies, looking at the same thing, which found no connection at all. If there is a link, nobody has proved it.

So here's what we know:
1) Pancreatic cancer cells eat all kinds of sugar and use it to grow and multiply.

2) In a test tube, they can do that process more efficiently with fructose than with glucose.

3) We don't know whether that applies to pancreatic cancer cells in a human body. There's a reasonable chance that it doesn't.

4) These results are not something that can be extrapolated to apply to consumption of high fructose corn syrup in a human diet.

That's it. That's all the evidence tells us. Nothing else. There may well be health problems with high fructose corn syrup—I'm not familiar enough with the broader research to know—but this particular study really shouldn't be pointed to as evidence for that theory.

*I underline that because some people have apparently gotten the idea that the study shows fructose causes pancreatic cancer. The study absolutely did NOT show anything of the sort.

Thanks to our own Antinous for suggesting that I look into this fascinating issue, via the Submitterator!


      1. I would not trust that article.

        Per Wiki: “CCF was set up in 1995 by Richard Berman, executive director of the public affairs firm Berman and Company, with $600,000 from the Philip Morris tobacco company. “…”Sponsors are reported to include Brinker International, RTM Restaurant Group (the owner of Arby’s), Tyson Foods, HMSHost Corp, and Wendy’s.”

        If the Wiki is accurate, CCF is a front group for profit.

        “CCF has campaigned against a number of organizations, such as the Centers for Disease Control, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.”


      2. Siting an article from that has links to:


        makes it seem way more bias and unreliable than Princeton.

  1. I thought most bodies harbor little tumors all the time — only dangerous to us when they *grow*. So it seems like the original findings are still significant.

  2. I’m gonna quote from a discussion elsewhere:

    “When the did the proliferation assays, they compared the results to cells cultured in
    10% Foetal Bovine Serum alone – which contained *0.4 mmol/L glucose*. This means at the lowest concentrations of additional sugar, they are comparing 400µM glucose + 5.5µM fructose vs 405.5µM glucose. Which kind of messes up their interpretation.”

    In other words, the great majority of what the cells were sitting in was already glucose. Then they added a teeny bit (comparatively) of either fructose or glucose. Then (wonder of wonders) they found that the samples all behaved about the same.

    Poorly, poorly designed study.

  3. A 50/50 mix of glucose and fructose is called sucrose (cane or beet sugar) a bi-saccharide(sp?). Be careful of the add campaign (High Fructose is NOT just sugar.)

    When you do your research on High Fructose Corn Syrup, please point out that high fructose does not trigger appetite satiation like regular sugar (you stay hungry); in a normal body it is burned in the liver (too much can lead to Cirrhosis of the liver); it is not digested by insulin, only glucose is and a diet high in high fructose corn syrup increase the likelihood of type-2 diabetes.

    However, it is dirt cheap compared to natural sugars, allowing for massive profits while giving us massive quantities of uber-empty calories (Big Gulp anyone?).


    1. Everyone! Just do a simple test yourself and take out HFCS out of our diet for 3 months and you will see you digest food WAY better.. having regular sugar is FINE.. your body will tell you when to cut off with the insulin as long as you aint a sugar-rush addict.. if so you will just pass out a lot.. if you use HFCS you wil go on and on and on and your insides will ROT and BLOAT

      1. Everyone! Just do a simple test yourself and take out HFCS out of our diet for 3 months and you will see you digest food WAY better.. having regular sugar is FINE.. your body will tell you when to cut off with the insulin as long as you aint a sugar-rush addict.. if so you will just pass out a lot.. if you use HFCS you wil go on and on and on and your insides will ROT and BLOAT

        Pass out a lot? I am a sugar addict and I’ve never passed out. My body doesn’t “tell me” jack.

        Anti-HFCS people are just looking for a magic bullet. The truth is that eating too much sugar, any kind of sugar, is bad for you. Heck that can be said for almost anything, but with sugar the problem is that the “too much” line is pretty darn low.

        Just drink water.

        1. Pass out a lot? I am a sugar addict and I’ve never passed out. My body doesn’t “tell me” jack.

          You have never passed out from a sugar coma? It took me a while to realize my college urge to drink a bottle of Pepsi and a box of Nerds was to help me nap. Gulped it down, and within 20 minutes, sugar coma and out for 2 hours.

          Three years ago I bought a 99 cent bag of knock-off “Smarties” (the U.S. stuff; compacted sugar candy) and ate it all. Not only did I pass out, but when I woke up to go to the bathroom, I stood up, walked, just unzipped my zipper and then POW blacked out for 5 seconds and fell like a pile of meat into a corner. Read the package: The stuff was mainly dextrose.

          In contrast I have never had either of these things happen when I have eaten–or even binged–on pure sugar snacks.

          Sorry, but my body doesn’t like fake sugar.

    2. Do you know the ratio in HFCS? 55% Fructose, 45% Glucose.
      What that means is besides the small variation in ratio, HFCS is almost the same as sugar except your digestive system doesn’t have to break it down to the 2 base components

  4. Not to change the issue, but this is why we need to emphasize more critical and statistical thinking in our schools. Media often twist complex scientific findings into simple (inaccurate) headlines.

  5. It seems like there is a group of people who really, really want to find that HFCS is considerably less healthy than plain old sugar. Why? Everything I have read (including the Princeton study) seems to show that sugar is sugar and it’s probably a good idea to avoid it any formulation.

    Secondly, why do so many people equate fructose and HFCS? It’s like talking about how bad it is to ingest chlorine and then concluding that salt is evil.

    1. Not quite.

      In that illustration, sucrose would be salt. HFCS would be a mixture of chlorine and sodium.

      As has already been mentioned, sucrose has to be split into its component parts of glucose and fructose before starts hitting the system. In HFCS, the fructose is already free.

      Imagine round and square holes, and a two buckets of pegs. The bucket which is sucrose has round pegs glued to square pegs: you have to split them up before you can put them in the holes. The bucket which is HFCS is a mixture of round and square pegs, with no glue: you can just put them straight in the holes with no preparation.

      Given how quickly sucrose is hydrolysed, the difference is likely to be in the ratio of fructose to glucose in the syrup. Sucrose is fixed (as it’s a compound, not a mixture) at 50:50. At the same sweetness, HFCS is 55% fructose, 45% glucose – 10% more fructose than in sucrose.

      The biggest problem, though, comes with either of them – the “empty” calories which an earlier poster said don’t exist. You satiate your hunger with sugar and simple carbohydrates, but take in no other nutrients with those calories, so you have the paradoxical situation of obesity combined with malnutrition.

  6. I think things like this are all in the eye of the beholder. Lots of things are processed differently by different people, even if we have an idea of how they should work. Even basic things like sugar or corn syrup, much less complex medicines like thyroid, or birth control.

    I’ll agree it’s not a good idea to get a vast majority of your sugar calories from HFCS, but being lazy and leading sedentary life styles isn’t helping either.

    Most dietitians will tell you eating bacon and eggs everyday is bad for you, yet all of my relatives grew up that way. And all of my grand parents/uncles/aunts who lived to be 90+ ate that way. Of course they worked on farms most of their lives as well….

  7. A 50/50 mix of glucose and fructose is not entirely the same as a sucrose. Sucrose is a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose monomers linked together via a glycosidic bond. That bond must first be broken by a glycosidase enzyme before the monomers are released. The energy yield from a sucrose molecule vs. a free glucose and fructose molecule is different. So yes, HFCS is not entirely analogous to sugar.

    Also, insulin is a peptide hormone regulating glucose uptake from the blood, not a digestive enzyme. Also, there’s no such thing as an “empty calorie”. Energy is energy. However, it’s clear that excessive calorie consumption and inadequate uptake of micronutrients should be avoided.

    1. In reply to myself. It looks to be a Franklins supermarket, judging by the price tags. Been thinking about that all day…

  8. Isn’t the real problem that HFCS is put in all sorts of processed food that you don’t think as sweets? Like chef Jamie Oliver mentions in his TED talk. Because it is cheaper than sucrose you can put it in even more products. You might skip a doughnut and think you are healthy but then cook a ready made spaghetti sauce with as much sweetener.

  9. Would one of the learned commenters here be able to tell us whether there is anything in nature that’s the same at the molecular level as HFCS? My concern is that something novel to nutrition may be processed in novel ways.

    1. Honey is essentially the same thing as HFCS, chemically. HFCS is not novel, nor to novel foods get processed in novel ways. That’s pretty much the definition of magical thinking.

  10. I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss this. The key finding of the study is that the fructose switches on additional growth pathways within the cancer cells, inducing an enzyme called transketolase. The fructose isn’t feeding into the engine of the cancer cell, it’s helping it to assemble more spare parts.
    Transketolase expression is associated with poor prognosis in a large number of cancers.
    As we discover the limitations of traditional cancer drugs like chemotherapy, there is increasing interest in exploiting cancer-specific pathways, and there is a whole field looking at metabolomics in cancer.
    Direct inhibition of the transketolase enzyme is being explored. Another fascinating (but very preliminary) clinical study is one recently published in Science Translational Medicine, looking at an old drug called dichloroacetate. This again abrogates the cancer cells additional metabolic advantage, and at least in a few small sample of brain cancer patients, it looked to stabilise the cancer in some of them. Early days but.

    In any case, high fructose corn syrup is just one of many massive caloric foods that are leading to an epidemic of obesity in the US and worldwide. That epidemic will lead to the first fall in life expectancy in modern times. Any more evidence to show it’s effect is harmful is just gilding the lily.

  11. With all the food studies that get sensationalized, oversimplified sound bites in the news, I can’t keep track of what’s healthy and what’s not.

    Is there any well-researched and unbiased list on the web of all the known benefits and detriments of everything one might find in their food and beverages? I’d really like to see something like that.

  12. Ya, lame analogy. This is a scientist explaining science by using an analogy of the octane rating of gasoline, while at the same time describing octane in a completely bogus form.

    Higher octane gas is not more energetic gas.

  13. Nice article based on some current studies and all, but it does not make HFCS any better for you.

  14. Fun facts: that picture was taking in Australia what with the Pash and the Solo and the Australian labels of American branded Soda (having lived there I can attest, no corn syrup to be found in Anything australian.) Those sodas are australian brands.

    Due to the Australian sugar crop, all soda is Australia is made with Sugar, not corn syrup.

    This is a relevant picture fail.

    1. Not so.

      I think it’s Fountain tomato sauce (the brand with the old-timey rosella on the packaging) that contains HFCS. Bizarre, considering the amount of sugar cane in North Queensland.

  15. What a grandiose article. First, you start with a strawman headline “Nope. High fructose corn syrup does not cause pancreatic cancer” — straw because the original articles never said it causes pancreatic cancer. And then you valiantly explain how pancreatic cancer prefers high fructose corn syrup — “The difference lay in how efficiently the cells were able use the sugary fuel” — exactly as the original articles did. In short, you uncovered nothing new, and tried to give the impression you’re correcting something. You did neither.

  16. But sugared sodas may well be linked with increased pancreatic cancer risk:

    From the abstract: “Individuals consuming ≥2 soft drinks/wk experienced a statistically significant increased risk of pancreatic cancer (hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-3.15)”

    In other words, people who drank two or more sugar-sweetened carbonated beverages had 87% more pancreatic cancer.

    In this one study. So if you were thinking of quitting sugary sodas, quit.

  17. That is a truly awful headline.

    There’s a huge difference between “The study absolutely did NOT show [that fructose causes cancer]” and “HFCS does not cause pancreatic cancer.”

    The study also absolutely did not how that HFCS does not cause cancer.

    1. Yes, that’s because the study wasn’t about causes of cancer. That’s the whole freeking point of the article – the study isn’t about the causes of cancer, reveals nothing about the causes of cancer, and should not be used to make claims about the causes of cancer.

      It might possibly be a bit of evidence that HFCS may or may not contribute somewhat to the growth of existing pancriatic cancer. Needs more study. Can’t draw any conclusions, so don’t make any claims about that either, really – but if you DID make claims, at least they’d be related to the dang study.

      1. You sound like you think you’re arguing with me and I’m not sure why.

        My point was that since the article is saying we don’t know anything from this study about the causes of cancer, it’s a little odd that the headline of the post makes an unsustainable claim about the causes of cancer.

  18. Too much sugar is bad for you. It does not matter in which form you consume that sugar, if you are consuming too much. If you drink two liters of a cane-sugar sweetened soda a day, you’re going to be doing just as much damage as if you drank two liters of HFCS sweetened soda a day.

    Additionally, right now cane sugar is cheaper than HFCS. That’s why companies like snapple have changed their formulas, and pepsi made pepsi throwback.

    Finally, when glucose is processed by your body, in a process called glycolysis, it’s broken down into fructose anyway. Each glucose molecule becomes two fructose molecules before going through a series of other processes that derive energy from it.

  19. With all the food studies that get sensationalized, oversimplified sound bites in the news, I can’t keep track of what’s healthy and what’s not.

    Is there any well-researched and unbiased list on the web of all the known benefits and detriments of everything one might find in their food and beverages? I’d really like to see something like that.

    So far as I know, there is no such thing. First, because science is an active field and new discoveries are made that legitimately change what constitutes ‘good advice’; secondly, because food is a deeply emotional and controversial topic. I don’t know why — maybe because it is so closely linked with survival. Sexual issues are also emotional and controversial.

    As a non-expert myself, I look at “big picture” stuff, on which most advisors seem to agree. Eat enough calories. Don’t eat too many calories. Try to eat a fruit or vegetable, or both, with every meal.

    Though I suppose my ignorance may eventually lead me to my death, I don’t worry whether food additive XYZ-123 or natural ingredient ‘whatsit-root’ is going to injure my health in some small way. If that food was acutely or immediately dangerous, we’d know by now — so what we’re looking at are second- and third- order effects on health, at most. I can accept some uncertainty.

  20. The scary thing about the Princeton rat study is not so much the scary rat results, but the statement by one of the researchers that the equivalent experiment has never been done with humans. Given that HFCS has become a pervasive ingredient in human food, it’s pretty bizarre that a similar experiment has not been conducted. For everyone assuming hippy dippy alarmism on the behalf of myself and others, I would suggest you review the history of trans fats.

    1. @Snig Please see studies below:

      Kathleen J. Melanson, et al., at the University of Rhode Island reviewed the effects of HFCS and sugar on circulating levels of glucose, leptin, insulin and ghrelin in a study group of lean women. The study found “no differences in the metabolic effects” of HFCS and sugar. (Melanson KJ, Zukley L, Lowndes J, Nguyen V, Angelopoulos TJ, Rippe JM. 2007. Effects of high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose consumption on circulating glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin and on appetite in normal-weight women. Nutrition 23(2):103-112.

      Tina Akhavan and G. Harvey Anderson at the Department of Nutritional Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto studied the effect of solutions containing sugar, high fructose corn syrup, and various ratios of glucose to fructose on food intake, average appetite, blood glucose, plasma insulin, ghrelin and uric acid in men. The researchers found that sugar, high fructose corn syrup, and 1:1 glucose/fructose solutions do not differ significantly in their short-term effects on subjective and physiologic measures of satiety, uric acid and food intake at a subsequent meal. (Akhavan T. and Anderson GH. 2007. Effects of glucose-to-fructose ratios in solutions on subjective satiety, food intake, and satiety hormones in young men. Am J Clin Nut. Vol. 86(5) 1354-1363.

      Both table sugar and HFCS have largely the same effect on insulin production. Insulin is essentially responsible for the uptake of glucose into cells and the lowering of blood sugar. All caloric sweeteners trigger an insulin response to a greater or lesser extent. Among common sweeteners, pure glucose triggers the greatest insulin release, while pure fructose triggers the least. Both table sugar and HFCS trigger about the same intermediate insulin release because they contain nearly equal amounts of glucose and fructose. (Akgun S, Ertel NH. 1985. The effects of sucrose, fructose and high-fructose corn syrup meals on plasma glucose and insulin in non-insulin-dependent diabetic subjects. Diabetes Care 8(3):279-83.

      You can find more scientific studies at

      Therese Pompa, Social Media Manager, Corn Refiners Association
      Twitter –

      1. Therese! Thank you for the references. The studies you cite lasted for a few hours, and I’m delighted as you that the subjects survived even a few hours after HFCS dosing. The Princeton study on rats I cited lasted months, and that’s when noticeablely more obesity was seen in the HFCS vs. the sugar group. There is, to my knowledge, no human study on sugar vs. HFCS that lasted months or years. Since your lobby likely has a couple billion sitting around, please fund that with a legit researcher.

  21. Yup, High Fructose Corn Syrup causes obesity which leads to heart disease among many other silent killers.

    Read your food labels and you’ll find it in a lot of foods, including the soda.

    The heading on this post is misleading, IMO.

  22. I’m far from overweight, but 2 years back I drank soda and ate HFCS stuff without too much thought. I was 185 pounds. This is despite the fact I was eating better in other ways. When I switched to purely sugar based sodas and avoiding goopy sauces in food (which are filled with HFCS) I lost 10 pounds and went down to 175 pounds. Dropped sodas except for once/twice a week and now I am 170.

    While a scientific connection between HFCS and health problems has not been formally connected, my own anecdotal evidence and evidence from friends/acquaintances say otherwise. Avoid HFCS and you simply become healthier.

  23. “Cancer cells slurp up fructose, US study finds”

    OK, if I’m diagnosed with cancer, I’ll be sure to avoid high fructose corn syrup. Thanks for the tip.

    The implication […] is that this study proves a potentially deadly link between diets high in high fructose corn syrup and pancreatic cancer.

    So, they’re saying it’s the cause of a correlation? Time to consult xkcd.

  24. Maggie, the heading of yours is quite, if not utterly, misleading. If I were you, I’d change it.

    Anyone with Nutrition & Food Science 101 under their belt know the fact: any form of sugar including HFCS is not good for your health.

  25. Here’s my anecdotal evidence: my wife died of pancreatic cancer last year. She was a diabetic and never touched any hfcs. She did have doctor that would throw the latest and greatest medicines for diabetes at her and then missed early detection of the disease that took her.

  26. Diabetes is of course another question….

    I’d look at this study very VERY carefully, and I’m glad people are. Studies that say “Corn Syrup is A-OK” should probably be taken with about as much salt as studies that say “petroleum is A-ok”…. there’s about as much money on the line.

  27. And let’s not forget that some cancers are considered ok to have… as long as they don’t grow.

    Most men end up with cancerous cells in their prostate, but as long as those cells don’t start multiplying exponentially, they won’t be a problem. Ideally the men live a long life and die of old age without the cancer cells having proliferated.

    (So it is not appropriate to dismiss the warning that some types of cancer cells apparently love HFCS — depriving cancer cells of what they can use most effectively may be great advice.)

  28. What about the fructose in fruit? I am particularly fond of grapes, raisins, bananas, plums, and peaches.

  29. Not only was the article picture taken in Australia (and so all of the pictured bottles were sweetened with cane sugar, not HFCS) but I can detect that it was taken at a Woolworths (shelf and labelling style) in Queensland (Kirks Pasito is a local brand).

  30. I have a friend who was recently tested for food allergies, and it would appear that she is “allergic” to HFCS and corn starch. But not corn fructose, sucrose or glucose on their own.

    Since there is a growing body of evidence linking inflammation (the allergic response) with heart disease, obesity and cancer, maybe some factors are being overlooked.

    My friend is beginning to suspect allergies to GMOs, and will be doing more tests.

    Her rationale is that most feed corn, HFCS and corn by-product additives are derived from genetically modified corn. The corn you eat (on the ear or in a can) is generally not GMO as people would not buy it.

    She may be on to something…

  31. This study is flawed from the beginning. He is testing Pancreatic Cancer cells reaction to Fructose. Those cells are the result of cancer not the cause. This is a common absurdity in cancer circles. It’s the HFCS reacting with normal cells, metabolism, and organs, that should be studied. HFCS is processed in the liver in much the same way as alcohol. Drives me nuts to hear smart people like scientist say in effect that cancer is the cause of cancer, so let’s test this substance on cacao cell and not the body and systems that interact with this substance.

  32. Well, I’ve already acknowledged that the CCF is probably a biased site, but none of those links actually appears in the cited article. Apparently you didn’t read my second post.

  33. The matter not addressed by this study is whether the new widespread replacement of real chocolate with corn syrup and brown food coloring will lead to suicide and stress in chocolate junkies.

    1. I recommend you take a look at Alan Aragon’s response to Dr. Lustig’s presentation

      Dr. Lusting is a physician, a pediatric endocrinologist at UCSF, one of the world’s top hospital/research centers. Alan Aragon has a Bachelor’s in Nutrition which he uses to write articles for magazines like Men’s Health.

        1. One of them has eight years of pre-med and med school, six-plus years of residency and several years of fellowship. And actually does research. At an actual research facility.

          One of them has four years of college. And writes articles for trashy mass media publications that exist solely to sell bogus health supplements.

          So, yes, one of them is an authority and one of them isn’t. I’ll let you go now so that your barber can do that appendectomy that you need.

          1. So you’re implying that Dr. Lustig’s entire training was devoted to the endocrine system, and specifically the effect of glucose/fructose on it?

            I’m not dismissing either ‘authority’, since they’re both essentially saying the same thing (particularly since Dr. Lustig’s comments were heavily misconstrued by the anti-HFCS crowd, of which I am a member). My point is that there are plenty of heavily-credentialed authorities who have been paid to shill for various unworthy causes, and to claim ‘This guys gots lots o’ degreeses, therefore I win’ is playing the fool.

          2. The Foxification of science reporting has made the average citizen believe that the opinion of “I’m not a big fancy expert; I’m just someone who loves kids/America/apple pie” is as valid as someone with decades of education, years of experience in the field and the oversight of a major, and publicly funded, medical institution. Do you think that Aragon son of Arathon has an ethics committee overseeing his blog? Because Dr. Lustig certainly has one overseeing his research.

          3. Remember, “Airborne” was created by a school teacher.

            And the Earth was created by an old man in the sky.

    2. And Alan Arathon, heir to Isildur, would be prefectly fine as a researcher, just as soon as he completes his PhD, a couple post docs and gets a good decades of appropriate independent research under his belt.

  34. Sighh… if only you and everyone else in the science fabulism business took the same pains to point out that the way X acts in an animal model doesn’t predict how X will act in a human.

  35. Many vegitables and fruits contain fructose and glucose in the same forms and proportions as HFCS. Some fruits contain as much of these sugars as found in soda. Honey is almost indistinguishable from HFCS with only very minor differences. By the way organic cane juice extract (sugar usually with some of the impurities (molassus) left on is converted into glucose and fructose almost before it hits the stomach. If you do not like the food industry say so. Remember when reading news and science reporting, corrilation is not causation. Also remember most problems especially those in biology are much more complex than they first seem.

  36. did I miss the headline article? where is the proof that HFCS does not cause pancreatic cancer?

    I like that part that says “there’s a reasonable chance that it doesn’t [apply in humans]”

    fructose is bad stuff. plants use it to trick animals into spreading their seeds. side effect: fat storage. good if youre hibernating through a winter. bad if youre a human and living in modern times. and yeah, sucrose is half fructose so just as bad. ditto for honey, agave syrup, organic cane juice or whatever else tastes sweet…

  37. Tell that to my 40 year old cousin that drank a coke with nearly every meal he had. He’s dead. Guess from what?? PC…

Comments are closed.