HFCS threat wasn't its chemistry, it was its economy

This is the last in a trio of entries (Part 1, Part 2) about a guest blogger Sara Ross's post at the maize-pimping website Corn Commentary that talks about "misconceptions" around high fructose corn syrup. It wasn't so spellbinding as to demand a three-part retort; I split them merely to reduce word count for a media-saturated readership.

”Misconception” 3: “‘High fructose corn syrup is causing wide-spread obesity in the United States.’ Answer:  In 2008 the American Medical Association (AMA) concluded that HFCS does not appear to contribute more to obesity than any other caloric sweeteners.” Again: “Not especially indicted” is not the same as “not indicted.” Most people eat far more processed sugar — of any chemical design — than is healthy.

But also: The globesity pandemic did take off in the ‘70s, about the same time that HFCS was synthesized in an industrially scaleable way. This is why many people thought that the substance was more harmful than other processed sugars.

But the danger laid not in its chemistry but in its economy. Manufacturers had previously known that sweetness sells but had been economically prevented from sprinkling it over ... everything. HFCS was cheaper to make, making that possible, which is why today it’s in soda, bread, hot dogs and other protein, salad dressing, condiments, and many other products in which it's neither needed nor expected.

Ross adds a fourth misconception, but it’s so dippy I’m not bothering with it. The bottom line is that most people eat way too much refined/processed sugar, to the detriment of our health. There’s no misconception there.