The Corn Connection
Is the obesity epidemic an unintended consequence of U.S. food policy?
By Eric Roston

GETTY IMAGES |
 |
June 7, 2004
The U.S. produces so much corn so cheaply that Americans have
become quite clever at inventing uses for it, from fuel to power
cars and trucks to the polymers in plastics. But most of all, we
eat it. Our cats and dogs eat it. Even the cattle, chicken, hogs
and fish that we eat eat it. In the form of high-fructose corn
syrup, it is cheaper than sugar and as ubiquitous as advertising.
Harvesting about 286 million tons of corn a year is no accident.
It's U.S. industrial policy.
But is the obesity epidemic an unintended consequence of that
policy?
A no-brainer, say nutritionists. They see a simple progression.
As much as 57% of the corn we produce becomes inexpensive animal
feed that helps keep meat prices down. But it also makes the meat
fattierand consumers fatterthan if the animals were fed
grass.
About 5% of our corn is refined to high-fructose corn syrup,
which is cheaper, sweeter and, because it is a liquid, easier to
transport and mix into foods than sugar. Beverage and food
manufacturers see that low price as a signal to use the
high-fructose cocktail in virtually everything, substituting it
for more nutritious ingredientsnot just for sugarin peanut
butter, fruit juices and spaghetti sauce.
From 1972 to 2002, the amount of sugar and syrup produced
annually per American grew 21%, from 104 lbs. to 126 lbs.,
according to the Department of Agriculture. In that same time
period, the percentage of syrup sweetener in that total grew from
less than 1% to nearly 50%.
But corn refiners say it's a mistake to blame their products for
obesity. They note that in countries that consume almost none of
the syrup, such as Mexico and Russia, obesity is still a problem.
Corn growers and refiners also insist that the body treats sugar
and high-fructose corn syrup identically, an argument that has
recently been challenged by scientists studying sugar metabolism
at the molecular level.
So the question is trickier than it seems. Although U.S.
taxpayers subsidize American farmers generouslyto the tune of
$20 billion a yearthat's not likely to change anytime soon.
Besides, corn is so cheap that even a farm policy that doubled
the crop's price might make only a marginal difference in
grocery-store prices.
To discourage consumption of what they see as unhealthy corn
products, food activists have proposed a variety of measures,
from junk-food taxes to tough labeling laws. Michael Jacobson,
executive director of the Center for Science in the Public
Interest, says even something as simple as labeling products as
healthy orin the case of highly sweetened carbonated
beveragesas unhealthy would help consumers make better food
choices.
Soft-drink makers and the corn growers whose products sweeten
them will mightily resist anything that threatens to come between
them and their consumers. But the nutrition activists believe
that the wind may be shifting their way. "The soda-pop industry
is more powerful than we are," Jacobson says. "But the obesity
epidemic has a power of its own."
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|