Slate HFCS article

[Sillygirl]

I think this gives a pretty balanced view. HFCS isn't great, but focusing on it as opposed to other forms of added sugar may miss the point. I learned many things. Including the fact that the ultra-natural agave nectar is 90% fructose.

http://www.slate.com/id/2216796/

[kayte]

I thought the article was interesting. I will say that I have read several places -here's one I can find quickly

http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/highfructose.html

that HFCS can be 55% fructose mix as referenced in your article but can vary up to 80% fructose and still be labeled as HFCS and now be considered natural. There is no way to know if you are ingesting something similar (in fructose amount) to table sugar or way worse from the label.

“HFCS can be manufactured to either contain equal amounts of fructose and glucose, or up to 80 percent fructose and 20 percent glucose.”

[brittone2]

I would agree w/ much of this. I personally don't think sugar is that great, period, regardless of the form. I dislike HFCS for a variety of reasons (political, GMOs, recent concerns over mercury, etc.), but I think focusing on it vs. natural sugar alone misses the big point nutritionally, kwim?

I used to use agave before reading more about it and becoming convinced it isn't as "low glycemic" as many advocate, and I'm not sure super-concentrated fructose is very natural, regardless.