Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by xav0989 856 days ago
I wonder what additives are currently in good that we’ll discover to be harmful in the future.

Also interesting that Heinz’s ketchup (in be the US) is now full of high fructose corn syrup and artificial food dyes, when (from the article) it started as the better/safer/more natural option.

9 comments

> Also interesting that Heinz’s ketchup (in be the US) is now full of high fructose corn syrup and artificial food dyes, when (from the article) it started as the better/safer/more natural option

Amazing the leaps you took to make this statement. 1) There are no food dyes that I am aware of. 2) I don't think the science is conclusive that HFCS is any worse than sugar. 3) They make many varieties, some which use cane sugar instead of HFCS. 4) What does this have anything to to with the US?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649104/ (2013)

> Both controversy and confusion exist concerning fructose, sucrose, and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) with respect to their metabolism and health effects. These concerns have often been fueled by speculation based on limited data or animal studies. In retrospect, recent controversies arose when a scientific commentary was published suggesting a possible unique link between HFCS consumption and obesity. Since then, a broad scientific consensus has emerged that there are no metabolic or endocrine response differences between HFCS and sucrose related to obesity or any other adverse health outcome. This equivalence is not surprising given that both of these sugars contain approximately equal amounts of fructose and glucose, contain the same number of calories, possess the same level of sweetness, and are absorbed identically through the gastrointestinal tract. [...]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9551185/ (2022)

> In conclusion, analysis of data from the literature suggests that HFCS consumption was associated with a higher level of CRP compared to sucrose, whilst no significant changes between the two sweeteners were evident in other anthropometric and metabolic parameters

We could go back and forth all day long posting studies from nih.gov, lets not be silly. I don't think what you have provided disproves my statement. The science is inconclusive, we don't know that HFCS is materially worse than sugar. I think we can say sugar in any form is not great in large quantities but I don't think we know for certain how worse, if any, HFCS is compared to natural sugar.

Profits drive use of HFCS because fructose is sweeter than glucose. A pinch of enzyme converts glucose to fructose and saves a bunch of money.

Fructose interferes with glucose use and regulation. The real comparison to be made is between normal corn syrup (only glucose) and HFCS (about half fructose), not sugar (about half fructose).

When using crude tools to evaluate metabolism like the glycemic index, which only considers blood glucose, it appears that fructose is better. The modern Western diet leads to obesity, diabetes, and fatty liver disease (NAFLD) because fructose metabolism collides with lipid metabolism in the liver.

HFCS has about the same amount of fructose as its usual substitute, sucrose. I don't see very many products around me sweetened with pure glucose
The HFCS scare reminds me of the seed oil scare: people over-eating thousands of calories of highly palatable foods looking for one evil ingredient that is causing their problems instead of questioning their huge calorie intake.

As if replacing canola with butter and HFCS with sucrose in their junk food will cure them of their over eating.

Thats the thing that annoys me about it. It reminds me of how table salt is toxic when eaten in massive quantities. People love to throw up all these studies and fear monge...shoot when your driving your car, all the cars around you have exhaust that you are breathing in. Sure if you are knocking back a liter of coke a day, maybe HFCS is materially worse than cane sugar but I would agrue the greater threat is consuming that much sugar.

Don't get me started on seed oils......

This still does not really convince me that it is materially different at scale. I think what I said still holds true.
> I don't think the science is conclusive that HFCS is any worse than sugar.

The science is rarely conclusive about anything. There is enough evidence to suggest risks from high HFCS consumption to warrant caution.

> 3) They make many varieties, some which use cane sugar instead of HFCS. 4) What does this have anything to to with the US?

The US is associated with high HFCS consumption. I would suspect that these points are related and those non-HFCS varieties are more popular outside the US.

You did not prove it’s materially more harmful. Yes science is rarely conclusive but we have enough studies on both sides and it’s unclear how harmful it is in low quantities. I think we all can generally agree that higher consumption quantities of any type of sweetener is generally not healthy.

The point about the US is the parent pointed it out as a jab when in reality they were wrong on multiple accounts.

> You did not prove it’s materially more harmful. Yes science is rarely conclusive but we have enough studies on both sides and it’s unclear how harmful it is in low quantities. I think we all can generally agree that higher consumption quantities of any type of sweetener is generally not healthy.

All true, and all beside the point. The best available evidence suggests - not proves, but suggests - that HFCS consumption is more harmful than the alternatives.

Going back to my original point. I don't think any of the science suggests that HFCS in moderate amounts has any material difference. But...like I also keep saying, none of the science is really conclusive on any of this but what I think is a generally agreed, sweetners are not healthy in frequent larger quantities.
Is that so? As an Aussie, Heinz is not a new brand for me, but I definitely associate them with beans before ketchup (tomato sauce (dead horse in rhyming slang)). Canned baked beans are not thought of as a natural nor healthy option - is that the perception of Heinz as a company in NA, or is it just the ketchup product that's thought of as better/safer/more natural?
Your comment reminded me of the Mad Men story arc (set in the 60s) which is about Heinz being associated with beans, not ketchup.

In the US, today I'd say Heinz is almost overwhelmingly associated with ketchup, so it's interesting that their ad efforts didn't make it to Oz.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDiCW6wlFBc

"Beanz Meanz Heinz" is etched into my memory from my youth in the UK.

Certainly when I think of Heinz I think of beans not ketchup.

Huh - they once ran ads for ketchup that said something like:

"Heinz, there are no other Kinds": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JplL1XzVV4

The Australia market was dominated by Fountain Tomato Sauce, and possibly Master Foods. Heinz Ketchup wasn't easy to find, and it may have been named Tomato Sauce rather than Ketchup here.
These days they may have a better association with "ketchup". My sister affirms that (Heinz) ketchup and tomato sauce are distinct products, but I'm not so sure.
For me, a ketchup is tomato purée / paste + suger + salt + some vinegar + possibly some seasoning (pepper, herbs...). Tomato sauces is a larger category of any kind of tomato based sauce in which we could shoehorn ketchup. A tomato sauce could be purely salted and without any sugar in it, though a pinch of sugar can mitigate the acidic taste.
I've bought Heinz Beans at a grocery store in Austin.

In the import section.

And they weren't bad, but not great either.

As an American, I had to do a terrible impression of an Aussie accent to hear how “sauce” and “horse” could possibly rhyme.

As for Heinz, my impression has always been that it’s the standard, mass-produced supermarket fare that is probably not healthy/natural. Nothing they make that much of that lasts for so long can possibly be so.

The science of long lasting food is well known.

Boiling kills most bacteria. Acid kills the leftover Botulism spores (one of the few diseases that survive boiling). Seal while hot and the food can stay good for a year or longer.

Tomatoes already are near the acid point that kills botulism. Just gotta lower pH a little more with either lemons or vinegar. And bam, success.

A professional would need to measure the pH to be sure as acidity levels differ. But we've been canning tomatoes for nearly two centuries now, the science is well tested and well figured out.

> Nothing they make that much of that lasts for so long can possibly be so.

Refrigeration was invented long after preserved foods. You couldn't match a Roman Legion 500 miles without preservatives.

Salt, olive oil and wheat. It must have sucked to be a Roman Legion but less so than other troops.

It's why 1lb of salt was worth 1lb of gold back then. The secrets of long lasting food (fermentation, salt, and other methods) is millennia old. Canning is relatively new (boiling+sealing simultaneously), a 1800s era discovery. But canning's health effects are well studied.

Do you mean salt was worth as much as gold, literally?
> Do you mean salt was worth as much as gold, literally?

EDIT: Deleted my previous comment.

EDIT: I seem to have gotten the story backwards. It was West-Africa who needed the salt, but they had so many gold-mines that Gold was near worthless. Woops!!

So any European who brought salt past the Sahara Desert could trade 1-lb of salt for 1-lb of gold.

This is 100% BS. It probably comes from the same myth that in ancient times, people were paid in salt, since it was sooooo valueable, and ergo, salary.
That's at best a common myth, but was never literally true.

However salt was more expensive than today. But measured in eg hours of the average person had to work for to afford something, almost everything is cheaper today than almost any time in the past. Especially goods. (Services or land, not so much.)

> As an American, I had to do a terrible impression of an Aussie accent to hear how “sauce” and “horse” could possibly rhyme.

I guess it help to start with a non-rhotic accent.

Going off on a tangent: I was very confused when one Calvin and Hobbes comic rhyme 'macabre' with 'job'; I figured out later that it's because American accents are weird.

Actually I assumed that they were adding in an R to “sauce”, almost like “source”. I don’t know many Australians, but from what I can remember I think they are likely to pronounce the R in “horse”. Now I don’t know.
See also https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/macabre#Pronunciation

(UK) IPA(key): /ˌməˈkɑː.bɹə/, /ˌməˈkɑː.bə(ɹ)/

(US) IPA(key): /məˈkɑb/, /ˌməˈkɑ.bɹə/, /ˌməˈkɑ.bɚ/

They rhyme perfectly in an Australian accent :D

Not rhotic, plus the vowel in "sauce" tends towards "or" rather than "ah". Hope that's a comprehensible explanation of our esoteric pronunciation :)

I feel like its similar to "source" being turned into "sauce".
I'm Australian and I've always pronounced "Source" and "Sauce" such that they sound the same.

I think the rhyming slang part comes from Cockney slang my Dad always used to say "Dogs Eye and Dead Horse" to mean Meat Pie and Tomato Sauce.

He had other strange slang he'd use too like "Oxford Scholar" to mean "One Dollar" - UK uses pounds though so no idea where that one originated...

What is the American pronunciation of Sauce? If I had to guess maybe they pronounce it so it sounds like "Sores" or "Saws".

I don't know if I've ever heard an American say Sauce. On most American tv shows they talk about 'Ketchup'. Eg Hot Dog and Ketchup, which is a Frankfurt with Tomato sauce on a bun (doesn't really have the same ring...).

Ha, yeah I'd say its pretty close to "saws"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCm4VS9VMSM

That's 100% spot on.

I'm in the northeastern area of the country, it may be different for other areas.

> What is the American pronunciation of Sauce?

Where I come from, it’s more like “sos” or I think “sas” in IPA.

Most often like “saws” (the cutting tools would be “sawz”)

"Saws" except the last consonant is a true "s" sound, not a zed :-)
In the US, Heinz is definitely more associated with ketchup. When Americans think of canned baked beans (which is rarely), Van Camp's is arguably more well-known.

When I think of Heinz these days I think of the politician John Kerry, because he's married to the heir to the Heinz family fortune. But that's mostly because my brain is weird.

Heinz: Tomato Concentrate from Red Ripe Tomatoes, Distilled Vinegar, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Corn Syrup, Salt, Spice, Onion Powder, Natural Flavoring

Heinz Simply: Tomato Concentrate from Red Ripe Tomatoes, Distilled Vinegar, Cane Sugar, Salt, Onion Powder, Spice, Natural Flavoring

Heinz No Sugar Added: Tomato Concentrate from Red Ripe Tomatoes, Distilled White Vinegar, Salt, Natural Flavoring, Stevia Leaf Extract (Not Normally Found in Ketchup), Onion Powder

Heinz No Salt Added: Tomato Concentrate from Red Ripe Tomatoes, Distilled White Vinegar, Sugar, Potassium Chloride (Not in Regular Ketchup), Natural Flavoring, Spice, Onion Powder

Heinz Organic: Organic Tomato Concentrate from Red Ripe Organic Tomatoes, Organic Distilled Vinegar, Organic Sugar, Salt, Organic Onion Powder, Organic Spice, Natural Flavoring

Heinz Jalapeno: Tomato Concentrate from Red Ripe Tomatoes, Distilled Vinegar, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Salt, Dried Jalapeno Peppers, Spice, Onion Powder, Natural Flavors, Bell Pepper Juice Concentrate

There are probably others, those are the ones listed at one store.

Heinz do different kinds of Ketchup, the no added salt one tastes just like regular european heinz ketchup (i.e. not as cloyingly sweet). I remember the ingredients didn't have HFCS listed on the bottle and we put it down to that being the difference.
Heinz US also does a “simply” ketchup with sugar instead of HGCS and no artificial dyes, and when you compare ingredient lists, that same “specialty” ketchup is the one that’s sold as regular ketchup in Canada.
Not adding salt makes it less sweet? Or is there some more differences?
I don't recall exactly but the ingredients lists were pretty different. The no salt one had tomatoes and maybe 2 or 3 other ingredients, the regular one had a few more ingredients although as i recall nothing weird except HFCS was one item.
'sucralose'. Which is a trade name, not a descriptive name.

There's no way that won't be found to be toxic. I recently had a health scare where I was inadvertently consuming a lot of it in a coffee creamer: the label color had changed and I thought nothing of it, but it represented a change in sweetener from monkfruit/stevia to 'sucralose'.

Came damn close to going to the hospital. Gut pain and sweats and pooping lighter and lighter shades as my organs shut down (at least from producing bile).

Figured out the change, dumped all the 'sucralose' and after a week or so returned to normal health, no other changes in diet or behavior at all.

I don't know why it's not banned already, but it must be hella profitable.

Interestingly, I was listening to a podcast once and they were interviewing a researcher with Heinz who said one of their R&D goals is developing tomato varieties that are sweet enough to be used in making ketchup without added sugar. I don't remember what podcast it was and don't know if Heinz is still doing that but at the time they sounded like it was a big focus for them, for financial as well as health reasons.

Gastropod has a good episode on ketchup; it might have been the one I'm thinking of but it might not. It covers many of the same things as this article but in more depth with certain things.

So, the odd thing here is that, while, yes, most preservatives used in the early 20th century were extremely dodgy, sodium benzoate, while controlled, remains legal, and considered safe at reasonable levels. This was as much marketing as anything, in this particular case.
Food coloring would be news to me. I haven’t seen that in any ingredient lists… looking at Heinz’s website now, it does not list any dyes in the ingredients for their standard ketchup.
Gums.

Indigestible. Used in place of flour or corn starch as a thickener or emulsifier. They can be quite irritating to some people.