HOME > Chowhound > General Topics >

Discussion

Interesting Letter from Heinz re HFCS in Worcestershire

  • 87
  • Share
LOCKED DISCUSSION

June 8, 2009

Thank you for your recent email.

As you can imagine, consumer feedback is very important to us, and we appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns about the use of high fructose corn syrup in Heinz products.

Recent media reports have called attention to high fructose corn syrup and its role in the U.S. diet. Many of these articles attempt to link its consumption to obesity.

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (December 2008 edition) published their findings from a symposium held by a group of scientific leaders where it was determined that there is no evidence to support the previously held conception that the use of high fructose corn syrup is a major cause of obesity in the United States.

This group, which included several experts who had previously voiced concern over the use of high fructose corn syrup, conceded that there is not an issue with high fructose corn syrup, which is a combination of fructose and a secondary sugar and is metabolized by the body the same as sucrose. However, recent studies of 'fructose' which is compositionally different from 'high fructose corn syrup' have created confusion for the industry and consumers.

We suggest you visit www.sweetsurprise.com for a more in-depth explanation of this most recent study.

Also, as always, it is important to recognize that excess calories from any source can contribute to increased weight in the absence of exercise. It is incorrect to focus on any specific food or ingredient in attempting to address obesity. In moderation, all foods can fit into a healthful, balanced diet.

The Food & Drug Administration's Obesity Working Group released a report whose primary recommendation was 'calorie count.' This recommendation reflects sound science and a wealth of research. This report suggests that instead of focusing on any one food ingredient, the most important message is that, to manage weight, you must balance calories consumed against energy expended. To lose weight, calorie expenditure must be greater than calories consumed.

The good news is, we here at Heinz provide an assortment of food choices for consumers interested in lower calorie alternatives and special diets. Our Weight Watchers Smart Ones frozen food line offers a vast array of entrees, desserts and snacks that are low in calories and fat, but high in taste, to fulfill those dietary needs. And, you will be especially pleased to hear that in our condiment line, we offer Heinz Reduced-Sugar Ketchup (which is sweetened with sucralose), a No Salt-Added Ketchup, and the increasingly popular Heinz Organic Ketchup, which is sweetened only with organic cane sugar.

We are also very excited to announce that growers at the H.J. Heinz research and development farm have developed a new hybrid tomato using traditional breeding techniques which is 5% - 10% sweeter than the Heinz Seed Tomatoes that are currently being used for all Heinz Ketchup. This new breed of naturally sweeter tomato will gradually be phased into the product within the next few years decreasing the amount of sweeteners needed to maintain the delicious taste of Heinz Ketchup.

Once again, we are always glad to hear from our consumers, especially one as loyal to Heinz products as you.

Heinz Consumer Resource Center
Heinzconsumeraffairs@us.hjheinz.com

  1. My incredibly unsophisticated take-away:

    Worcestershire has HFCS? I Did.Not.Know.

    17 Replies
    1. re: shanagain

      Lea and Perrin's Worcestershire had it, now they don't...Heinz and Hunt's ketchup do.

      1. re: rudeboy

        You might look again. A bottle I just purchased has HFCS.
        That is what prompted me to write the letter to Heinz as they own Lea and Perrin's.

        1. re: FoodChic

          Perhaps Lea & Perrins Worcestershire Sauce manufactured for Americans permits more additions than the original product.

          Ingredients on my British bottle: Malt vinegar, spirit vinegar, molasses, sugar, salt, anchovies, tamarind extract, onions, garlic, spice, flavouring.

          Incidentally, what is high fructose corn syrup? I don't think I've ever heard of it. Based on the OP wording, I assume it is a "bad thing"?

          1. re: Harters

            It's is a sweetener (sp?) made from corn.

            1. re: MMRuth

              That sounds disgusting. May I pass, please?

              1. re: Harters

                In the UK I think it's referred to as glucose-fructose syrup. I know it's one of the ingredients in Heinz salad cream.

                1. re: deibu

                  Doesnt seem to be an ingredient in Mrs H's salad cream (can't stand the stuff myself). Ingredients are spirit vinegar, water, sugar, mustard, salt, egg yolks, modified cornflour, stabilisers (guar gum and xanthan gum, colour (riboflavin).

                  But I'll look out for glucose-fructose syrup in other things - a quick nosy on-line suggests its in Coca-Cola, various Kellogs cereals, Ocean Spray cranberry juice, and a few other things (including the cheap end of my usual supermarket's own brand yoghurts)

                  1. re: Harters

                    If you're outside N. America, remember that in the region, "corn" always means maize, not grain. Basic "corn syrup" is glucose syrup elsewhere. HFCS is a common commercial sweetener in US, where cane/beet sugar costs about twice the world price (references below).

                    'Based on the OP wording, I assume [HFCS] is a "bad thing"?' You could say some people assume it's a "bad thing." You may also see, if you view this whole thread, serious and reasoned questions about that assumption. And that even if you granted that the combination of sugars is "bad," there are further issues with a selective concern over minor amounts of it in Worcestershire sauce when the same sugar mix occurs at vastly higher concentrations in fruits (especially dried fruits), and in almost pure form in honey -- foods that ought then logically to be proportionately much more "bad" and command greater concern. Even if you assume for some reason that the sugars are "bad" only when manmade, many products, such as soft drinks, are greater dietary sources of HFCS than Worcestershire by factors of thousands.

                    1. re: Harters

                      There are quotas limiting the use of corn derived sweeteners in the Europe, supposedly to protect German and French sugar beet growers. I'm not sure how that affects their availability in the UK

                      Tate and Lyle (producer of your Golden Syrup) owns one of the larger corn (and corn syrup) processors in the USA (Staley).

              2. re: Harters

                Outside the USA it is often called glucose-fructose or something along that line. Glucose is the simple sugar, which is most commonly produced (commercially) from a starch. In the US, that starch is most likely corn. In Europe they may use other grains. In HFCS, some of the glucose is converted to another simple sugar, fructose.

                HFCS can be blended to have different ratios of glucose and fructose. A 45/55 ratio is supposed to produce a sweetness similar to that of a sugar syrup. Sugar, is sucrose, when can be split into constituent fructose and glucose. The result is often called invert sugar.

                1. re: paulj

                  How do they turn glucose into glucose-fructose syrup? What's the process?

                  1. re: rudeboy

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fru... See "Production."

                    1. re: eatzalot

                      I think that I have developed leptin resistance.

                      it's funny - it is sort of a fad to hate HFCS, but there's an anti-fad fad to berate the people who worry about it. Me, I'd rather not perform the experiment.

                      1. re: rudeboy

                        http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/con...

                        "Sprague-Dawley rats were fed a fructose-free control or 60% fructose diet for 6 mo and then tested for leptin resistance. "

                        I wonder what's in a fructose-free diet. Do you think they just controlled free fructose, or did they consider how the rat's digestion broke down more complex sugars (starches, sucrose, etc)?

                        I hate to imagine what diet consisting of 60% fructose would be like, even for a rat. Straight HFCS soda would be only a 55% fructose diet.

                        1. re: paulj

                          I noticed that some juice mix bottles now have a prominent 'Contains no HFCS' label. Ingredients instead are headed by 'apple, pear, and/or grape juice concentrate'. I wonder what the fructose content is in the 'fruit' sweeteners. On a calorie equivalent basis, how does the fructose content of these mixes compare with fruit punches using HFCS?

                          I've been avoiding the HFCS fruit punches for years, figuring that if I'm going to buy a juice, I should do so, rather than buying flavored sugar water. But I've also wondered how rational that choice is. For certain juices, cranberry, pomegranate, passion fruit, some sort of sweetening is necessary, whether it is done with a sugar syrup of some sort or a sweet juice concentrate, whether the factory makes the syrup or I make it myself.

                          1. re: paulj

                            Yes, but at least with the sweetening coming from fruit juice concentrate, it's all fructose, not 55 or whatever %, and it's got the added benefit of vitamins from the fruit.

                2. re: Harters

                  Just received my shipment of British L&P Worcestershire Sauce: the third ingredient is HFCS.

          2. It's a strange issue for multiple reasons. Worcestershire sauce (based on anchovy and tamarind, often with hot pepper) isn't normally very sweet, and people don't use much, so it isn't exactly a big dietary component. Ketchups are different, but what's weird there is that until a couple of generations ago ketchups (catsups) were savory preserves of various kinds (onion, walnut, mushroom, lobster ...), without sugar, often made at home. US condiment manufacturers weaned consumers onto a sweet variation made with tomato, and now many people know ketchups as sweet sauces. If you're going to use sweet sauces then of course you're eating sugars. And the recent focus on high-fructose corn syrup as somehow bad is an odd reversal from a few years earlier, because health-food fans long promoted fructose as the "healthier," more natural sugar, and health-food stores sold it in bags, arguing it tastes a bit sweeter (so you need less) and metabolizes slower than the commercially more common sucrose and glucose. All of these sugars are very common in fresh fruits and vegetables, so if you eat fresh fruit you get them in quantity anyway. (Together with many other nutrients and trace ingredients not found in commercial pure sugars or sweet sauces.)

            For anyone interested, McGee's popular reference book ("On Food and Cooking") summarizes many features of the various sugars, and how they're made.

            4 Replies
            1. re: eatzalot

              Umm, there's a huge difference between fructose by itself,or in fruit, and HFCS.....

              1. re: rudeboy

                And there's a big difference between eating refined fructose and fructose in fruit and veggies.

                1. re: Full tummy

                  Thanks Full tummy, I hope I also made that point clear above. And, umm, the comparison was never HFCS vs fructose. It was HFCS vs. more traditional, mainly-glucose, corn syrup (called "glucose syrup" outside US, a point that has come up before). It's strange that people complain, in effect, about the replacement of glucose with fructose (or replacement of sucrose with glucose + fructose, where HFCS replaces cane sugar). Given that until a few years ago, people (maybe even the same people?) long praised fructose as a desirable replacement for sucrose or glucose, on health grounds. I have no horse in this race -- no stake in any of it, I don't use much sugar of any kind, nor sweetened drinks -- but it looks like an interesting study in public moods about nutrition.

                  Honey, by the way, is another (but entirely natural) mainly fructose-glucose syrup very close to industrial HFCS in sugar composition. I hear little clamor against honey as an ingredient. Of course unlike HFCS it's relatively expensive, and has some flavor of its own -- and trace nutrients said to be beneficial in their own right.

                2. re: rudeboy

                  I have a bottle of L&P I bought a couple months ago, and it has HFCS in it.

              2. I think it's a very good response. Talks about how they are addressing current concerns and where they intend to go in the future.

                16 Replies
                1. re: mojoeater

                  My concerns about HFCS have less to do with the nutritional detriments associated with cheap eating (and the 100% increase in type 3 diabetes over the past decade), and more to do with how its increased use in the past 25 years represents the stranglehold agribusiness has on our own domestic policy. ADM et al pressured the gov't to cut sugar imports by 80%, then funnel corporate welfare to farmers to grow corn for HFCS and now ethanol - farmers with adjusted gross income (personal) of less than $750,000/year. So while HFCS on its own does not test to be particularly problematic, its contribution to the national diet has been catastrophic and most directly affects the poor: wealthy corporations diverting our tax dollars to wealthy farmers to negatively impact oue ever increasing lower and working classes.

                  1. re: almansa

                    I'm onboard your train, and would like to add another detail about the evil HFCS: It's a lot cheaper than sugar, allowing, for instance, soda manufacturers to sell giant bottles of their products dirt cheap, encouraging over consumption. In addition, HFCS holds moisture in foods like bread and other baked goods, thereby extending shelf-life. This has led to the appearance of HFCS in things that should not be sweet, such as pizza dough and white bread. The damned stuff is everywhere.

                    1. re: pikawicca

                      I'm from Canada and am not sure we have the same issue with sugar and HFCS; I haven't compared myself, but other Canadians say we don't have as much of it in products up here. Anyone?

                      1. re: Full tummy

                        Canada and Mexico, all other countries, in fact, haven't had their processed foods overrun by HFCS. It's possible in the U.S. solely because of trade restrictions, as cited by another poster.

                        1. re: pikawicca

                          Great reason to shop the ethnic markets - even occasionally a good dollar store. (In L.A. ours have plenty of Mexico import items, and from other places that haven't gotten on the HFCS bandwagon.)

                      2. re: pikawicca

                        You are right..it is ubiquitous and pernicious...ruined many soft drinks.

                      3. re: almansa

                        As someone who's allergic to corn & its numerous derivatives, its been interesting to watch how HFCS has now become a bad ingredient that many want to avoid. I have to bite my tongue when I hear one mom discussing with another mom why she's choosing brand A over brand B, as it doesn't have HFCS. Both products are still highly processed conglomerations of little real nutritional value...and both products still have plenty of 'corny' ingredients. ADM & their cohorts started with HFCS three decades ago, as you stated, but now they have spun such a web of countless corn derivatives/by products sold to the American people, they have no idea what they are eating.

                        Did anyone else notice Heinz referred the OP to the sweetsurprise site, which is funding by the Corn Refiners Association? Of course they are going to say HFCS is good/isn't going to hurt us. Didn't the cigarette makers say the same things about their own products a few years back?

                        1. re: anniemax

                          Thanks for pointing the Sweetsurprise.com site. I scolded them over pointing me in the direction of propaganda.

                          I also sent them a link to the recent study finding mercury in HFCS.

                          1. re: anniemax

                            I'm not surprised by that (source of website). You have to expect that sort of thing. And question the validity, otherwise they could direct you to any number of non-affiliated sites, journals, studies confirming their argument...

                          2. re: almansa

                            Are you sure it was ADM (corn processors) who cut sugar imports? What exactly are the sugar restrictions in the US? Are they quotas, or just tariffs? I thought sugar tariffs were there to protect domestic sugar cane growers from lower price imports.

                            As an aside on this, many European countries have quotas on corn syrup products, as a way of protecting their domestic beet sugar growers. I also believe beet sugar technology was developed in France in response to English blockades during the Napoleonic wars.

                            Mexico has a major cane sugar industry, so it shouldn't be surprising that they favor that sweetener. Canada does not have any cane sugar growers, though it does have a modest beet sugar production.

                            Sweetener production, whether from cane, beets, or corn, is a industrial process. It also has a long history of trade and trade protectionism. Colonial New England was part of a trade triangle - with England, Africa, and the West Indies, involving slaves, sugar, molasses, and rum.

                            1. re: paulj

                              Historically U. S. sugar import restrictions were primarily quotas and secondarily tariffs. Prices in the U. S. were substantially above world prices for many years, so the quotas were essentially a form of foreign aid to selected sugar producers. There was quite a scramble to reallocate Cuba's quota once Castro took over. Domestic production of both cane and beet sugar was uncompetitive at world prices, so political clout was involved in several ways. Sugar cane was produced primarily in Florida and Louisiana while sugar beets were produced in a fair number of states with notable acreages in Colorado, California, both Dakotas, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. Add up the number of senators and representatives from these states in the 1950s and 60s. Note that this all goes back well before the process for HFCS was invented. Once HFCS came on the scene, there was additional political support from corn growers. Without artificially high prices for sucrose the market for HFCS would not have been very large.

                              The whole business has produced some conflict for senators from Illinois. Chicago was a major center for the confectionery business until high sugar prices pretty well wiped it out while downstate grows a lot of corn and produces a lot of corn syrup.

                              1. re: Eldon Kreider

                                That raises the question of whether any country has a 'rational' sugar policy, and whether that makes any difference in the consumption habits, and the health of their people.

                                1. re: paulj

                                  I do not pretend to know what a rational sugar policy is. Sugar policy definitely makes a difference in consumption because people respond to price differences. Whether this makes any difference in health is debatable and has been almost ad nauseum. My complaint against corn syrup of all types is that I do not like the taste. Obviously, not every one agrees with me or is at least willing to put up with the taste for lower prices.

                                  Many years ago I substituted sorghum syrup for corn syrup in making a pecan pie and never made another pecan pie using corn syrup. The flavor was a lot better, richer and rounder with no bitter aftertaste. Since then I have substituted sorghum syrup whenever a recipe called for corn syrup as a viscosity modifier. While great for rum balls, this approach would not work in many candies.

                                  1. re: Eldon Kreider

                                    Lyle's Golden Syrup is also a wonderful substitute, as is shagbark hickory syrup.

                                    1. re: Eldon Kreider

                                      But isn't sorghum syrup just as sweetener made from animal feed? :)

                                      According to an attra.nca.org fact sheet, it is made by squeezing the stalks of sweet sorghum, which 'is grown for syrup or forage' (as opposed the grain types). Seed heads go to chickens, the leaves and stalks can be feed to ruminants. The stalks, after squeezing the juice out, can also be fed to livestock.

                                      Come to think of it, the first place I heard about sorghum was on a farm where it was being processed into silage - chopped up and buried in a trench to 'spoil'.

                                      Of course the use of sorghum as a sweetener source is not all that different from using sugar cane. I've even chewed young corn stalks for the sweet juice. I wonder what the mix sugars is in sorghum. That fact that it is left in syrup form suggests that it isn't mostly sucrose.

                                      Producing sorghum syrup was quite wide spread in the American South a century ago, usually on a small scale, something akin to maple syrup production in the NE (sweetener from a tree sap). Its suitability for use in pecan pie is not surprising, though I'm pretty sure the popularity of that pie was carried to the rest of the USA on the backs of corn syrup bottles.

                                      You can learn more about sorghum syrup than you will ever need (unless you plan to produce it) from this Indian research station:
                                      http://www.nariphaltan.org/nari/techn...
                                      Note it is
                                      "
                                      - Honey like taste. Rich in vitamin C, proteins and Nicotinic acid.
                                      - Rich in glucose and fructose
                                      "

                                      1. re: paulj

                                        Grain sorghums such as milo produced in the U. S. tend to have short stalks to facilitate harvesting with a combine. Tall grain sorghums are pretty much of a historical thing in the U. S. because they are hard to harvest mechanically although they are the basis of much silage sorghum. Silage sorghum may be sweet or not. The fermentation reactions involved in curing silage require carbohydrates to produce acids. The reactions are not all that different from making sauerkraut from cabbage. Harvesting corn or sorghum for silage is usually done when the grains are somewhere in the dough stage with the leaves and stalks still mostly green. Using sweet sorghum or varieties produced by crossing sweet and tall grain types has the advantage of having higher carbohydrate levels. Sweet sorghum is close enough genetically to sudan grass to allow crossing to produce sweet sudan grass. Sweet sudan is often preferred to regular sudan for green forage or silage for cattle because of the higher energy content with little or no tonnage reduction.

                                        Sorghum syrup is largely a product of small farms. Southern Illinois and Indiana represent the typical northern range for production although there is one grower in Elkhart Lake, WI who sells at some winter farmers' markets in Chicago. The cane cane is crushed and pressed to extract the juice, which is then boiled down to a syrup. The process is similar to producing raw cane syrup, but the flavor of the resulting product is different. Sorghum syrup is the main product. The seeds and stalks are byproducts that can be used as animal feed although the squeezed-out stalks would not retain enough carbohydrates to cure as silage.

                                        If you buy sorghum syrup, look out for mixtures with stuff like cane molasses or other sugars. The flavor could be really different, like the difference between pure maple syrup and maple syrup blends or maple-flavored syrups. Molasses in particular can really dominate the mix.

                          3. Amazon offers a Chinese (!) Worcestershire sauce that is "all natural," which would preclude HFCS. It's the only one I've been able to find.

                            2 Replies
                            1. re: pikawicca

                              pikawicca,

                              Just FYI, there's plenty of American products that say "all natural" because HCFS is ultimately a corn product. It's becoming less common, though.

                              Does the chinese version include tamarind and anchovy? As an aside, I've noticed some "high end" worcestershire sauces (like Central Market and Annie's) don't taste right: Annie's has no fish product and it contains corn starch and xanthan gum. I can't find the ingredients for Central Market's, but it's like water - not enough intense flavor.

                              1. re: rudeboy

                                I had the exact same thoughts about CM worcestershire. It was bland and anemic.
                                Glad it wasn't just me.

                            2. anniemax, I share your amazement at a selective focus on HFCS. Many valid concerns are in this thread but their causes transcend HFCS.

                              Data: US/CDN mass-market food producers use HFCS because it costs half what traditional (cane/beet) sugar does. In other countries there's no such incentive, so they still use sugar (from Wiki article below). Sugars have been creeping into "things that should not be sweet, such as pizza dough and white bread" since decades before HFCS, because that's what consumers choose in taste tests, another commercial incentive. From Ketchup (cited above) to breads to salad dressings. The Hesses' classic critique _The Taste of America_ documented this trend in detail -- in the 1970s, before HFCS was present. And since the 1970s I've seen published US per-capita total refined sugar intake rise from around 125 to 145 pounds per year.

                              When people prefer to buy sweet versions of foods that don't need it, and voluntarily consume rising volumes of sugary products, then the consequences have a lot to do with those choices. HFCS might be an easier scapegoat, but I think the current obsession with it distracts from the real and deeper issues.

                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HFCS

                              8 Replies
                              1. re: eatzalot

                                eatzalot,

                                I like your arguement points,but you lost me with the wikipedia link. Bad choice for reference.

                                1. re: FoodChic

                                  FoodChic, I cited Wikipedia for the price information and USDA consumption data. What sources do you recommend if you dispute those details, and why? Your response didn't say. Also, you can propose edits to the Wikipedia entry if you have more definitive information.

                                  ETA: One point I skipped was mercury contamination. It's associated with impure materials used in processing some HFCS, and presumably they'll get it out pronto, because toxic contaminants have a chilling effect on consumer buying. In the 1970s I remember the problem was trace sulfuric acid in refined sucrose (the then-current sugar demon). Same basic situation, different details.

                                  1. re: eatzalot

                                    Wikipedia is not a reliable, or credible, source of information as anyone can go in and make edits without any oversight. That's my issue.

                                    Also, as for the mercury; don't count on the removal of it anytime soon. Food manufactures are not known to modify a process if there is any real cost involved.
                                    I think you give them way too much credit.

                                    1. re: FoodChic

                                      Actually, wikipedia is quite credible. As credible as Encyclopedia Brittanica, in many cases. Of course, there are topics that have endured many inaccuracies, and there are often warnings posted on such pages that citations are needed, or sections need to be improved.

                                      http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/1...

                                      Do you have any reason to believe the information eatzalot is referring to is inaccurate?

                                      1. re: Full tummy

                                        I've spent years preparing evidence for court and finding ways to debunk others evidence. Trust me, Wikipeida is inadmissable because of it's credibility issues.

                                        I'd just like to see some credible sources, and not stuff funded by the Corn Growers Association.

                                        1. re: FoodChic

                                          I can see why Wikipedia would be inadmissible in court, but that's why the References section is so helpful: It takes you right to the source, at least some of which would be admissible. Anyway, we're not in court, and there are 53 references on the page eatzalot referred to, and at least a good number of them seem to have no affiliation with the Corn Growers Association. Are those sources not good enough?

                                          1. re: Full tummy

                                            Yes, many are good sources, I just don't like Wiki it's too easy to paste a Wiki link without fully investigating its sources and where they come from.

                                            Anyway, I think he makes a good point but at the same time if the awareness of the issues of HFCS in our foods lead to other awareness, isn't it all a good thing?

                                            Like milk, for instance, I can't recall seeing a single post about the Bovine Growth Hormone that Monsanto has put in our milk supply. It was tested on rats for 90 before they considered it "safe for human consumption."
                                            But things like that are easy to avoid by purchasing organic products and reading labels, however, a huge portion of the population is ignorant to the bovine hormones. It is consumed by millions daily, and it's in our school lunch programs.

                                            People are becoming aware of HFCS because of the controversy ,and it is in EVERYTHING. It's becoming increasingly difficult to avoid. As I originally posted, it's in our most trusted condiments now too. Things that should be free of it are now being infultrated. Items labeled as "natural" contain it. So, the lobby of the corn growers association is making it harder for the public to avoid it.

                                            So if the public generates an awareness to one product is it possible to lead to the awareness of another? I'd hope so, and it would only make us a better and healthier nation to control our food, not have our food controlled for us.

                                          2. re: FoodChic

                                            But is stuff published by some 'HFCS is evil' web page any more credible? I suspect that on this topic, there are more anti-HFCS activists trying to edit the Wiki page than industrial spokemen.

                                            Doesn't Wiki have a record of editing, and discussions about controversial issues? Obviously Wiki is not a final authority on most matters, but I think it is a good source for uncontroversial facts. It also provides an overview of the controversies surrounding certain issues.

                                2. Why would anyone buy anything but Lea and Perrins Worcestershire? Nothing else comes close. My older bottle of L&P does have HFCS right behind molasses. I do hope the poster who claimed this is no longer the case is correct. I love my L&P.

                                  I recently saw a documentary video called King Corn which was entertaining as well as informative. The story is they are city kids and recent college grads wanting to make a documentary about corn in America. So they go to Iowa and grow an acre of corn with the help of a delightful farmer. They want to trace what happens to their crop and find out more than they want to know along the way.

                                  Among the more amusing factors in the DVD is they learn how to make HFCS at home from their own GMO corn. They give the recipe. It is enough to frighten anyone. First thing they had to find was sulfuric acid and it gets worse from there.

                                  This is probably a hard DVD to find, but I found it in my local library. It really gave me insight into our corn culture and all the health hazards regarding it.

                                  The funny thing is though, even the farmers growing this commercial corn can't eat it as it needs to go through industrial processing to be even somewhat edible. Even stranger though is the fact these huge farms cannot make a profit without you and me paying them government subsides to injure our health.

                                  13 Replies
                                  1. re: Greyghost

                                    looked at a bottle of L&P in the supermarket today -- HFCS, sadly.

                                    1. re: pikawicca

                                      Hmm - I guess I could be wrong. I could swear that it was L&P that had it, then didn't.

                                      Maybe I procured a bottle from England, somehow. Wikipedia lists different ingredients for the bottles actually produced there. I want to say that I got the bottles in a double pack from Costco well over a year ago. They're gone now. But I remember being surprised that there was no HFCS.

                                      1. re: rudeboy

                                        The L&P I picked up last weekend at Costco had HFCS listed as the third ingredient...

                                        Time to hit your legislators to require "contains HFCS' on the front label in letters at least half as big as the product name.....

                                        1. re: NVJims

                                          Well, heck....maybe it was all just some wonderful dream!

                                          For anyone in HEB's realm: there is a generic product called "Hill Country Fare" that's called Wocestershire Sauce (Salsa Inglesa). It's made with anchovy, sugar and tamarind, plus the other spices. Has a good flavor (better than Central Market), but still tastes like they thinned it with water to stretch it further. If there were less salt, I could water it down.

                                          1. re: rudeboy

                                            Salsa Inglesa (English sauce) is the common name in Spanish for this. Salsa China is soy sauce.

                                        2. re: rudeboy

                                          The double pack that I got from Samsclub has HFCS as the 3rd ingredient. I'm guessing I bought it 5 yrs ago.

                                          The English version quite likely does not have HFCS. Instead it may have sugar or invert sugar. I don't see why that matters, though.

                                          http://www.leaperrins.ca/heritage.asp
                                          L&P Canada claims their sauce is aged in the UK. Their ingredients are:
                                          'including molasses from the Caribbean, tamarinds from Calcutta, British red onions, French garlic, shallots from Holland, cloves from Madagascar, and chillies from China.' This, though, is not regulation list.

                                          Looking at that, I suspect the original was quite heavy on molasses. The US version appears to have toned that down, by substituting HFCS for some of the molasses. That does not mean it is sweeter.

                                      2. re: Greyghost

                                        Was this GMO corn any less edible than any other field corn? Only 'sweet corn' is edible directly off the cob. This harvest earlier so it still has a lot of sugar, and a tender hull. It also comes from varieties that were created for that purpose. They are no more 'natural' than corn intended for industrial use.

                                        Corn as used for tamales, tortillas, grits, and hominy has also gone through an 'industrial' process, nixtamalization - one that looses the tough hull, releases vitamins like niacin, and changes the amino acid balance. Just because it done at home using wood ashes or slaked lime, does not make it any lest 'chemical'.

                                        Look up Pellagra to learn what it is like to live on untreated corn (pre-GMO).

                                        1. re: paulj

                                          Paul,

                                          Thank you for your reply which brought up issues regarding corn. The GMO aspect of your post did confuse me a bit. As you seem well informed, you know fully well that corn can be treated to avoid Pellagra in societies which use corn as a main dietary staple.

                                          Hominy is one of my favorite forms of corn and is processed with lye and I have no problem with that as it allows nixtamalization which you rightly observe prevents vitamin loss and goes a long way in preventing Pellagra.

                                          However, I find you make no case for genetically modified corn. GMO is an entirely different issue and the subject has issues within issues regarding it. I do think a few highlights might clarify things fairly easily though:

                                          GMO corn is lab created by industrial giants to increase yield per acre by the main method of making the GMO corn immune to the pesticides the farmer must spray this crop with. These pesticides are sold by the same giant companies selling the GMO corn. The pesticides are so powerful, they will kill every kind of plant, including corn, unless it is their lab created corn.

                                          GMO corn is an invasive crop which will alter a neighbors traditional crop, thereby making it unsellable to his market.

                                          Most American corn is GMO, 90% or so and rising. This fact is kept from consumers as we have no right to know we are eating and consuming Frankinfood as the corporate lobbies have made sure we do not have a choice in the matter. GMO does not have to be labeled on products for fear no one would buy them if it were disclosed.

                                          I do understand your defense of processed corn, Paul, but I do await a focused defense of GMO without throwing in red herrings which GMO corn may well contain.

                                          1. re: Greyghost

                                            The GMO issue has little, if anything to do with HFCS. HFCS can be made from non-GMO corn. GMO corn can be used in other ways. Other crops are grown with GMO seed. The lawsuit mentioned by someone else involving supposed 'cross pollination', actually involved rape seed (Canola) in Canada, not corn. For all I know, GMO technology could be applied to sugar beets and sugar cane.

                                            So in the context of this discussion, I believe GMO is a red herring.

                                            What is your favorite way of dealing with dandelions in your lawn? Pull them one by one? Broadleaf weed killer? Let them take over?

                                            1. re: paulj

                                              Paul, to be fair we both threw it into the mix. I do think HFCS has a lot to do with GMO though.If it were not for GMO, HFCS would be too expensive to produce. I do have issues with all GMO food though, including corn.

                                              If you have any defense of GMO you can support,create an appropriate thread regarding it and I will be happy to discuss it with you.

                                              1. re: Greyghost

                                                On the GMO thing... I agree with greyghost here. From all I've read, ALL of the HFCS in this country is made from commercial GMO corn. I have seen an organic corn syrup in natural foods markets, but nothing like that on regular store shelves. There's no way major food mfrs would use non GMO corn to make HFCS- the cost would be very high.

                                        2. re: Greyghost

                                          "The funny thing is though, even the farmers growing this commercial corn can't eat it as it needs to go through industrial processing to be even somewhat edible."
                                          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                          Native Americans who domesticated maize had to put it through an "industrial" process before it was even somewhat edible. Nixtimalization starts by boiling the corn kernels in a strong alkaline solution, either lime (calcium hydroxide) or potash (potassium hydroxide). Both of those chemicals are equally as scary as sulphuric acid.

                                          The need to process the corn kernels prior to eating them has nothing to do with the corn being "commercial" or GMO. The variety of corn which they were growing was never intended to be eaten in its whole kernel form. Sweet corn, what the vast majority of Americans imagine when someone says "corn", accounts for a tiny fraction of the corn grown in the US (or the world for that matter).

                                          1. re: Greyghost

                                            Pellagra! Notorious early export of the Americas, when people in other regions tried to base their diets on maize ("corn," for anyone who doesn't know this, means something else outside N. America; "maize" is the general worldwide English word).

                                            Further relevance: Vitamin B3, which prevents Pellagra (and has remarkable circulatory effects, reportedly even reversing some arterial disease) was traditionally called Nicotinic Acid. According to one of my medical texts (Goodman/Gilman?), the name "Niacin" arose as a euphemism to discourage mistaken confusion with the addictive stimulant Nicotine. Just as ingredients lists must euphemize sodium ferrocyanide as "yellow prussiate of soda" when it's a trace additive (e.g. to table salt). Reducing misplaced anxiety from people extracting the "cyanide" part of the chemical name without taking the vital next step and learning that ferrocyanides are fairly benign. (Free cyanide radicals like to bind closely with iron; that is what makes them so toxic; ferrocyanides result when that affinity is satisfied. Ferrocyanides are less toxic than many natural components of foods.) I could give several other cases. Reacting to details poorly understood is a byproduct of technology meeting consumer society, yet it's a voluntary byproduct, under considerable individual control. As with choosing to consume sugary foods, how much of a picture we choose to see before judging it has a lot to do with our results.

                                          2. Here's a recipe for homemade worchestershire sauce from Saveur:

                                            http://www.saveur.com/article/Food/Wo...

                                            2 Replies
                                            1. re: Ima Wurdibitsch

                                              I can't wait to make this. We have an old family recipe for beef shanks that uses lots of onions and a bottle of worchestershire sauce and it's always bugged me how sweet it is. It would be even better with this version.

                                              1. re: Ima Wurdibitsch

                                                Note that if you order the Saveur ingredients by proportion you get an order similar to L&P sauce
                                                Vinegar, molasses, soy sauce, sugar, ...

                                                My bottle of L&P doesn't have soy sauce, but does have hydrolized soy and corn protein.

                                              2. FYI if Annie's is the brand I know by that name, it caters to a health-food - vegetarian market. Vegetarian products would naturally omit the fish sauce traditional in Worcestershire.

                                                Bottles of Worcestershire last years in many home refrigerators, and it isn't mainly a sweet sauce. An ounce or two of a commercial soft drink would have the HFCS content of a BOTTLE of Worcestershire. I don't know anyone consuming bottles daily. Dwelling on Worcest. as an HFCS source reminds me of those nouveau Absinthe enthusiasts belaboring risks of herbal thujone content, when a visit to any public library reference room would inform them the alcohol content is the dominant toxin by factors of hundreds.

                                                Apropos of references, OP repeatedly dismissed Wikipedia as vehicle of two data points I cited (elevated US/CDN sugar price, US sugar consumption) though one is from an article (Wiki ref [17], repeated below) highly critical of HFCS, the other from a USDA graphic. Those sources would be credible to most people in the context of this discussion.

                                                Greyghost: HFCS can be made from "sulfuric acid and it gets worse from there." Tip: Don't look at industrial food processes if you dislike details like that. Sulfuric acid was used in sugar refinement long before HFCS (I already mentioned it), far stranger things are done to other foods. Mostly as intermediaries, gone before the product is finished. Unless people do enough homework (I mean beyond just bothering to check Wiki's sources) to see such factoids in perspective, they're apt to alternate between complacency and hysteria. Like condemning "chemicals" in ingredients lists, without bothering to consider their own vast ingredients list. (What exactly do such people think plants and animals are made of??)

                                                http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006...

                                                1. I looked at a bottle of HP Sauce from Holland. One ingredient was 'glucose-fructose syrup (from wheat)'

                                                  2 Replies
                                                  1. re: paulj

                                                    Interesting- my understanding is that the European "glucose syrup" is usually derived from wheat..I hadn't heard of glucose-fructose syrup before, wonder what the fructose portion is derived from. I've also seen 'glucose syrup' derived from wheat begun to be used in American goods..the HFCS and glucose syrup are cheaper than ordinary sugar of course. I have Celiac thus avoid wheat so I watch this stuff (wahhh Cadbury's eggs began using glucose syrup from wheat these last two years). There's also the GMO thing with corn, but that's another subject. The mercury content has to do with how it's processed and is not hard to fix but most HFCS in this country contains mercury. This is all interesting stuff-

                                                    1. re: selkie65

                                                      My guess is that the fructose part is derived from the glucose syrup, using the same sort of process as with corn syrup. I don't think there is anything special about corn syrup that makes it a better starting point.

                                                      I think the starch to glucose process was first discovered, or commercialized, using potato starch (in Russia).

                                                      You can also get a glucose-fructose mix from sugar, but that's a different process - just splitting sucrose.

                                                      Glucose and fructose have the same chemical formula. The difference is in the arrangement of the atoms. One has a 6 carbon ring, the other a 5.

                                                  2. I don't know if I believe that HFCS is benign. But I do know that it is in everything imaginable. Stuff that you would not believe needed to be sweet, is often sweetened with it. But whiy does everything have to be sweet? Or so sweet? There are so many tastes in the world to experience! But if you buy processed food, you'll mainly get sweet. Here's to insulin.

                                                    1. FYI...for everyone within a reasonable drive of a Publix supermarket. As you may know, Publix has a British Foods section in their stores. I just received word they will soon be carrying the genuine UK-made Lea & Perrins, which contains NO high fructose corn syrup. Incidentally, the real UK recipe is different than the US-version, and I think it tastes much better. I understand you should be watching for it in a couple of months, perhaps late spring or early summer. A great big THANK YOU to Publix.

                                                      10 Replies
                                                      1. re: Mr. Haney

                                                        Does the Publix version contain any sugar and if so, why the enthusiasm?

                                                        I've seen both creep into foods for several decades and after looking into this subject in some depth, I find little real-world argument against HFCS that can't also be made against sugar. It seems in a nutshell that various countries use, for this purpose, whatever sugar variant is cheaper. OTOH, it's possible to find almost mystical fear of HFCS among some people who have not examined it very critically. (Adroit tho they may be at at googling for arguments to defend their preconceptions.)

                                                        I have scientific training but not on this subject; I discuss with friends who are true experts. One, an independent observer and organic-chemistry professor, figuratively rolled his eyes, citing unconscious absurdities. If you eat sucrose (sugar), enzymes first convert it to a fructose-glucose mix (internal HFCS) because the body can't use sucrose directly. Consequently, sugar becomes HFCS anyway, by the time it's in your blood and available for use. The sugar hydrolysis starts with salivary enzymes so that under certain circumstances, the sugar may even have been converted to HFCS while still in your mouth. Most ripe fruits and many vegetables, our ancestral diet, contain fructose-glucose mix (often around 1:1) , with or without sucrose -- i.e., common natural sweeteners are essentially HFCS. Objections to possible processing residues in commercial HFCS obscure similar concerns with refined sugar. A while ago, alarmist pundits were pulling metabolic and eating-disorder results for HFCS, or fructose, out of context, though sober independent literature review tries to point out that those are results from extreme-diet studies irrelevant to practical diets (serious disorders result from other extreme diets too, unrelated to HFCS). If you aren't aware of these points, a good question might be why not?

                                                        To say nothing of quantitative perspective. You almost certainly ingest more (natural) HFCS from eating a grape or a bite of apple than from an entire bottle of US Worcestershire sauce. That people even worry about HFCS in something like Worcestershire sauce is revealing.

                                                        1. re: eatzalot

                                                          Thank you for the sensible post, eatzalot!

                                                        2. re: Mr. Haney

                                                          Thanks, Mr. Haney!

                                                          As for eatzalot, the debate for this was sometime ago.
                                                          If you choose to believe the corn growers and monsanto that
                                                          HFCS is safe, then have at it!

                                                          I chose to believe independent studies that link it
                                                          to type 2 diabetes, obesity and pancreatic cancer.

                                                          1. re: FoodChic

                                                            A fuller discussion of the pancreatic cancer link
                                                            http://www.boingboing.net/2010/08/08/...
                                                            A recent study showed that pancreatic cancer cells grew better with fructose than glucose - in the lab. But most dietary sugars provide both simple sugars in similar proportions (sucrose, HFCS, honey, etc).

                                                            1. re: paulj

                                                              Pop culture has a very different approach to issues like this than real science does. As I said, some people buy emotionally into this anxiety cult. One indication is unwillingness to critically examine even gross inconsistencies in what they "choose to believe" (good phrase), like the large natural HFCS intake in their diets, and that their bodies diligently convert sugar to HFCS anyway. These are not matters of opinion or "choice." To examine assumptions can take work, and willingness to let go of them.

                                                              I get the impression that many people's introduction to the whole subjects of fructose and glucose was HFCS, therefore that they may associate those sugars with HFCS somewhat. Even though those are the main sugars in an all-natural diet (a point known long before commercial HFCS appeared). Even if anxieties provoked by extreme fructose-diet experiments had basis, there would be far more urgent priorities of concern than specialty condiments: apples, bananas, any berries, pears, peppers, onions ... (all run around 5-15% fructose-glucose mix, higher in some cases than the concentrations present in HFCS-sweetened soft drinks). So whether they realize it or or not, anti-HFCS cultists unavoidably imply, preposterously, that synthetic soft drinks with refined sugar are better for you than any of those natural fruits and vegetables.

                                                              1. re: eatzalot

                                                                Nice post of assumptions,

                                                            2. re: FoodChic

                                                              Links/citations, please.
                                                              Read your studies a little closer (or don't just rely on summaries and fluff pieces from non-scientific news media). I suspect the studies you are alluding to were testing fructose. Not HFCS, which is usually 55% fructose (sucrose is 50%). I apologize in advance if your studies address this, but I'm pretty sure they don't.

                                                              I have not seen any credible studies make a strong case that HFCS is significantly worse for you than sugar. I don't like or trust monsanto either, but bringing them up in this case is beside the point; it's ad hominem.

                                                              More likely the problems with HFCS are:
                                                              A) people eat too much of it. And...
                                                              B) It tends to be in foods that are unhealthy in the first place

                                                              Simply exchanging sugar for HFCS in a product should make essentially no difference to the nutritional value of that product based on current evidence.

                                                              1. re: FoodChic

                                                                You're welcome, FoodChic.

                                                                In the final analysis, if we don't want HFCS-based products, we don't have to cite reasons that may or may not meet someone else's approval. The fact that I don't want something is valid and requires no scientific explanation. That someone wants to examine the basis for my choice is nonsense and irrelevant.

                                                                As for the genuine UK-produced Lea & Perrins Worcestershire Sauce; not only does it contain real cane sugar, it's a different recipe than the U.S. version and has a different flavor profile. Many users consider it a much more versatile sauce, as do I.

                                                                1. re: Mr. Haney

                                                                  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/en...
                                                                  Original recipe (from accountant's notes )

                                                                  Sauce ingredients
                                                                  water - 20 1/2 lbs
                                                                  cloves - 2 lbs
                                                                  salt - 10 lbs
                                                                  sugar - 34 lbs
                                                                  soy - 8 gallons
                                                                  fish - 24 lbs
                                                                  vinegar - 18 gallons
                                                                  acetic acid - 2 gallons
                                                                  essence of lemons - 8 oz
                                                                  peppers - 5 lbs
                                                                  tamoraide - 14 lbs
                                                                  pickles - 40 lbs

                                                                  1. re: paulj

                                                                    Thanks again, paulj, for some real information. No fan of HFCS myself, at all. I just question people's distinguishing it from sugar on purportedly rational grounds, when both end up HFCS in the body. In that sense, none of us actually has any choice whatever about whether to consume HFCS. It's also widespread in fresh produce. That's all basic biochemistry, I summarized it above, anyone can readily verify it to their satisfaction, and a little thought will show that these factors render other HFCS health considerations irrelevant. If people are not understanding that point then they may not have read my words carefully or thought about them. (Or maybe they don't like the inescapable implications, so they deny reality.)

                                                                    I asked Mr Haney, seriously and rationally, why the enthusiasm, if both products contain sugars converting to (as Mr Haney can verify) the same fructose-glucose mix in the body. No reply yet. Obviously, people can and should make their own decisions on what to eat. That's actually unrelated to my comments, which concern hard biochemical realities unaffected by opinions or denial. I question people cultivating and spreading misconceptions that they could easily check and reject: misconceptions are false friends. But ultimately that issue is theirs, because reality will out.

                                                            3. I choose not to participate in the HFCS fear bandwagon just as I chose not to play the MSG fear game. I have more important things to worry about.

                                                              1 Reply
                                                              1. re: LorenM

                                                                In fact, LorenM, there are many more such bandwagons too. I've learned their features over a good quarter century of public consumer technical discussions on the Internet, often food-related. (I mentioned another example upthread in 2009, re absinthe.)

                                                                Each case starts with a reasonable issue, then develops some fixed beliefs or dogma about it. But the beliefs carry logical implications beyond the believers' control and usually (at first) awareness. These implications undermine or contradict the dogma. The implications are inflexible, but human perception is not (even if that flex is instinctive and unconscious) and a true believer's perception of the implications can flex considerably, to preserve the dogma. The resulting contradictions may stand out sharply to observers outside the faith (just as for instance when folks happily stay on a hotel's 13th floor ONLY if labeled 14th.)

                                                                These situations validate Robert Heinlein (1948): "Man is not a rational animal, but a rationalizing one."