By now almost everyone in America knows the term high–fructose corn syrup (HFCS). The artificial sweetener has stirred up tremendous controversy in the past several years as scientists, corn farmers, and the general public have debated the product's potential effects on our health. Many who oppose the artificial sweetener claim it is linked with obesity and other serious health risks, while those who support it say that high–fructose corn syrup is no worse than white sugar, has no artificial ingredients, and there is no evidence to prove that it causes obesity.

High–fructose corn syrup is a synthetic sweetener that was invented in the late sixties by Dr. Y. Takasaki at Agency of Industrial Science and Technology of Ministry of International Trade and Industry of Japan. High–fructose corn syrup is used as a replacement for sugar in a shockingly large number of products ranging from soft drinks and fruit drinks, to cookies, yogurts, crackers, condiments, cereals, breads, vitamins, and even Campbell's tomato soup. The highly processed syrup exists in almost every part of America’s food and beverage industry, making it nearly impossible to avoid or consume in moderation. On average, Americans consume 50 pounds of high–fructose corn syrup per capita every year, versus a little more than 40 pounds of refined sugar (as of 2005). More recent reports are now claiming Americans consume closer to 70 pounds of HFCS a year. Americans over the age of 2 get an average of 132 calories a day from high–fructose corn syrup and about 12 teaspoons of HFCS a day. High consumers of the syrup such as teens consume up to 80 percent more HFCS than average consumers. In fact, between 1970 and 1990, per capita intake of the syrup increased by more than 1,000 percent, exceeding the changes in the intake of any other food group tracked by the Department of Agriculture.

The two main factors that directly led to an increase in HFCS consumption are tariffs and sugar quotas that increased the cost of sugar, in combination with government subsidies on corn and the increase in corn production by farmers through out the years. Increase in consumption of HFCS is largely due to government policies brought on by heavy lobbying by the corn industry. Four companies control 85 percent of HFCS $2.6 billion industry: Cargill, Staley Manufacturing Co., CPC International, and Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), which controls about a third of the domestic market. These four companies' control over one of America's biggest agricultural industry has made them extremely powerful and influential. ADM was arguably the most politically powerful corporation of the 1970s. Then–CEO Dwayne Andreas gained legendary status as a double–dealer during the Watergate investigations, when the congressional hearings revealed that he had cut the $25,000 check used by Richard Nixon's plumbers to finance the infamous hotel break–in. Additionally, in the mid–1990s, ADM was the object of an FBI probe into price fixing of three products—HFCS, citric acid and lysine—and consumers got a glimpse of the murky world of corporate manipulation.

ADM's wide reaching influence and deep pockets allowed them to influence public policy for their benefit. An aggressive lobbying effort was made by ADM in the late 1970's to strictly limit the amount of foreign sugar that could be imported into the United States. In 1977, the government instituted tariffs that significantly raised the price of imported sugar, and in 1982 President Ronald Reagan signed into law draconian sugar quotas that remain in effect to this day. As sugar prices were driven up, HFCS became a less expensive alternative. This is partly due to the federal governments subsidies to corn growers, which have amounted to over $40 billion.

Due to the sugar tariffs in the 1980's, soft drinks, lead by Coca–Cola, began using HFCS instead of table sugar as a sweetener. In his book Fat Land on American obesity, Greg Critser proposed that the processed syrup made consumers fat because it was so cheap, making the product so available to producers. Food makers could thus afford to offer more products with it and in more abundant portions. There is little question that after beverage companies began adding high–fructose corn syrup into soda in the early 1980's, soft–drink consumption soared. From 1980 to 2000, per–person consumption of sweetened soda rose by 40 percent, to 440 12–ounce cans a year, according to the Agriculture Department's Economic Research Service.

As a result, there was also an increase in Americans' waistlines. One study conducted by Professor George A. Bray of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center mapped the correlation between the rising rates of obesity and rising rates in HFCS consumption in the past few decades. Professor Bray found amazing parallels between his two graphs. Additionally, many scientific articles and news reports have noted that since 1980, obesity rates have climbed at a rate remarkably similar to that of high–fructose corn syrup consumption. From the time HFCS replaced sugar in sodas in the beginning of the 1980‘s to 2000, the occurrence of obesity doubled after having remained relatively flat for the preceding 20 years. However, lack of sufficient evidence directly linking HSFC to obesity has caused even early supporters and researchers of HFCS to gently back off from their initial theories. In fact, no study conducted yet has found a connection between HFCS and obesity.

However, that is not to say that no negative health effects of HFCS have been found. While numerous scientists and advocates have softened the debate over HFCS by stating that the product is no worse than table sugar, that HFCS is nutritionally the same as sugar, and that any form of sugar is bad when it is not consumed in moderation, recent studies have shown that those who consume a HFCS diet have more severe health risks than those who consumed a diet containing regular sugar. Studies have shown that the human body metabolizes fructose, the sweetest of the natural sugars, in a way that may promote weight gain. Specifically, fructose does not prompt the production of certain hormones that help regulate appetite and fat storage, and it produces elevated levels of triglycerides that researchers have linked to an increased risk of heart disease caused by an increase level of fat in the bloodstream. A study conducted in 2007 on rats that were fed a diet high in HFCS for 16 weeks found that the rats had developed multiple health problems. Within four weeks of the study the rats showed signs of Fatty Liver disease and Type II diabetes.

To determine whether the health effects were caused by glucose or fructose, the study was repeated, this time for six months and compared two groups of rats, one fed a high–fructose diet, and one fed a high–glucose diet. At the end of the study, there was no significant change in weight between the two groups, but the rats that consumed a high–fructose diet faced numerous health problems including anemia, high cholesterol, heart hypertrophy (when hearts are enlarged until they explode), delayed testicular development, and destroyed livers. While any cell in the body can metabolize glucose, only the liver can metabolize fructose, which explains why the liver of the rats on a high–fructose diet was plugged with fat and cirrhotic. When the rats were then switched to a high–fat diet, the rats that originally consumed a high–fructose diet gained more weight than those whose diet was fructose–free, suggesting that a high–fructose diet may increase the chance of weight–gain when consuming a high in fat diet.

Other studies have shown that fructose does not suppress the production of ghrelin, a hormone that increases hunger and appetite. Still, another study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 2004 showed that females whose diet contains a high amount of carbohydrates and fructose had an increased risk of colorectal cancer.

Furthermore, a 2009 control and randomized study found that drinks sweetened with fructose led to higher blood levels of L.D.I., otherwise known as bad cholesterol, and triglycerides in overweight test subjects, while drinks sweetened with another sugar, glucose, did not. Both L.D.L. and triglycerides have been linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease,. Those who consumed fructose drinks in the study had a larger increase in fat inside the abdomen, which is also associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

All of these studies and controversy have only lead the corn refiners who produce the sweetener to institute an aggressive ad campaigns combating the negative connotations with HFCS. The advertisements, as well as the industry, promote the product as natural and containing no artificial ingredients. Yet there is nothing natural about it. “High-fructose corn syrup is not a product that anyone could cook up at home using a few ears of corn. The process starts with corn kernels and takes place in a series of stainless steel vats and tubes in which a dozen different mechanical processes and chemical reactions occur—including several rounds of high-velocity spinning and the introduction of three different enzymes to incite molecular rearrangements. Two of the three enzymes that are used in the process have been genetically modified to make the process smoother, and some of the corn HFCS is made from is also genetically modified. Sugar goes through a chemical process as well, but no chemical changes occur while it is processed so the method of production is considered natural. However, the process for HFCS is causing a change in the molecular structure, making the product unnatural. Furthermore, though corn exists in nature, HFCS does not.

Yet the corn refiners can get away with labeling HFCS as natural thanks to the FDA. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has stated that if the final product has come in contact with synthetic agent glutaraldehyde, then it cannot be called natural, which they define as meaning no artificial or synthetic ingredients were added. But if the manufacturer uses the artificial agent in its production, and it does not come in contact with the corn starch, it can be considered a natural product. So its possible that some high-fructose corn syrups may be able to claim ‘no artificial ingredients’. So although HFCS is processed using artificial ingredients and genetically modified enzymes, those artificial ingredients do not come in contact with the corn starch during the process, allowing the product to be labeled as natural.