The Food Product That Is KILLING You

As a society, we are faced with an insurmountable challenge – to reduce the risk for diabetes.

But, there is only one problem: The rampant use of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in food products you may use every day – like soda, processed foods, and even some fruit juices – has simply exploded.

Recently, the producers of HFCS decided they wanted to back away from the negativity and rename it as corn sugar.

And this was met with tremendous resistance.

You see, they were trying to make the comparison that HFCS is no worse for your health than regular table sugar.

But the truth is: they are NOT the same.

HFCS has been shown to negatively impact your health and wellness.

For example, one study showed that HFCS was solely responsible for increasing the amount of new fat surrounding YOUR organs compared to regular sugar use.

Meaning: HFCS increased the amount of disease-causing visceral fat, which could pose a serious health risk for you, your children, and your children’s children.

Now, HFCS has been linked to an increase in not only disease risk, but may be ONE ingredient that increases your risk for diabetes.

HFCS and Diabetes Risk

The introduction of high fructose corn syrup has resulted in massive amounts of people eating this product.

Here are some sad – and significant statistics:

In the US alone – which is the number ONE country in the world for HFCS consumption – the average person eats 55 pounds worth of HFCS per year.

That’s over ONE pound a week!

And, that may be one reason why the US has the highest population of people living with diabetes.

The second leading country – Hungary – consumed 46 pounds.

Other countries where the consumption of HFCS is high: Canada, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Belgium, Argentina, Korea, Japan, and Mexico.

And each of these respective countries may carry with it a high population of diabetics.

According to a new study that was just released, the authors came to some very serious conclusions regarding the high consumption of HFCS and diabetes risk.

Here’s what they found:

They found in the countries with the highest consumption of HFCS, there was a 20 percent greater prevalence for diabetes (more people living with diabetes) than countries that consumed the least HFCS.

And, after making adjustments and correlations for BMI and other factors, the relationship between HFCS and diabetes remained the same or got stronger.

They concluded:

“These results suggest that countries with higher availability of HFCS have a higher prevalence of Type 2-Diabetes independent of obesity.”

Avoid This FOOD at All Costs

As a global society, we have a big problem with the sweetness of food.

If it’s not sweet enough, we look for other ways to sweeten it – and that includes adding HFCS to drinks and processed, boxed food products.

Not only could this have led to a bigger, more overweight society, but it may have also caused an explosion in the rate of diabetes.

Yes, sugar and HFCS together may have both contributed to the increase in diabetes, but the use of HFCS may have taken things to a whole new level.

In one study noted earlier, the use of HFCS, when compared to sugar, resulted in a greater amount of fat accumulating around your organs (visceral fat) which may increase your risk for diseases such as heart disease, and yes, diabetes, amongst others.

And according to this new study, countries that have a high consumption rate of HFCS showed a higher prevalence towards Type 2-Diabetes.

The best advice: look at your food labels.  If the first ingredients are sugar, corn sugar, corn syrup, or HFCS, then you should move on and find a different product.

Your health – and your waistline – may thank you for it later!

By Kevin DiDonato MS, CSCS, CES

WARNING: The Fish Oil You're Taking May Be TOXIC >>


Goran MI, Ulijaszek SJ, Ventura EE.  High fructose corn syrup and diabetes prevalence: a global perspective.  Glob Public Health.  2013;8(1):55-64.  doi: 10.1080/17441692.2012.738257.

Hofmann S, Tschop M., “Dietary sugars: a fat difference,” The Journal of Clinical Investigation 2009; 119(5):1089-1092