Content uploaded by Ryan W Walker
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ryan W Walker on Jul 25, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Basic nutritional investigation
Fructose content in popular beverages made with and without
high-fructose corn syrup
q
Ryan W. Walker Ph.D.
a
, Kelly A. Dumke M.S.
b
, Michael I. Goran Ph.D.
c
,
*
a
The Charles Bronfman Institute for Personalized Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
b
Division of Chronic Disease and Injury Prevention, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Los Angeles, California, USA
c
Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA
article info
Article history:
Received 23 January 2014
Accepted 1 April 2014
Keywords:
Fructose
Obesity
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
Soda
Juice
SSB
HFCS
Sucrose
abstract
Objective: Excess fructose consumption is hypothesized to be associated with risk for metabolic
disease. Actual fructose consumption levels are difficult to estimate because of the unlabeled
quantity of fructose in beverages. The aims of this study were threefold: 1) re-examine the fructose
content in previously tested beverages using two additional assay methods capable of detecting
other sugars, especially maltose, 2) compare data across all methods to determine the actual free
fructose-to-glucose ratio in beverages made either with or without high-fructose corn syrup
(HFCS), and 3) expand the analysis to determine fructose content in commonly consumed juice
products.
Methods: Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and fruit juice drinks that were either made with or
without HFCS were analyzed in separate, independent laboratories via three different methods to
determine sugar profiles.
Results: For SSBs, the three independent laboratory methods showed consistent and reproducible
results. In SSBs made with HFCS, fructose constituted 60.6% 2.7% of sugar content. In juices
sweetened with HFCS, fructose accounted for 52.1% 5.9% of sugar content, although in some
juices made from 100% fruit, fructose concentration reached 65.35 g/L accounting for 67% of sugars.
Conclusion: Our results provide evidence of higher than expected amounts of free fructose in some
beverages. Popular beverages made with HFCS have a fructose-to-glucose ratio of approximately
60:40, and thus contain 50% more fructose than glucose. Some pure fruit juices have twice as much
fructose as glucose. These findings suggest that beverages made with HFCS and some juices have a
sugar profile very different than sucrose, in which amounts of fructose and glucose are equivalent.
Current dietary analyses may underestimate actual fructose consumption.
Ó2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Assessment of fructose content in foods and beverages is an
important public health issue to consider, as Americans consume
more per-capita high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) than any other
nation [1]. Fructose consumption in the U.S. population has
doubled over the past 3 decades [2] and the consumption of
excess fructose, due primarily to the way in which fructose is
specifically metabolized by the liver [3,4], has been linked to
fatty liver disease [5], dyslipidemia [6], type 2 diabetes [1],
obesity [7], and gout [8]. However, others have posted that
fructose is no different than sucrose, without any adverse health
effects [9], and that HFCS-55 is roughly equivalent [10] to or
similar in composition [11] to sucrose. A growing body of clinical
evidence suggests that fructose consumption plays a direct role
in the risk for metabolic disease [12,13] and may have adverse
effects on central appetite regulation compared with glucose
[14]. Despite this evidence, current food-labeling practices do not
provide information on fructose content in foods and beverages
made with HFCS, fruit juice concentrate or crystalline fructose,
q
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Portions of this work were supported by The Ruth L. Kirschstein National
Research Service Award National Institutes of Health (grant no. 2 T32
ES013678-06). All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of
the study; generation, collection, assembly, analysis, and/or interpretation of
data; and drafting or revision of the manuscript. All authors approved the final
version of the manuscript.
*Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 323 442 3027; fax: þ1 323 442 4103.
E-mail address: goran@usc.edu (M. I. Goran).
0899-9007/$ - see front matter Ó2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2014.04.003
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Nutrition
journal homepage: www.nutritionjrnl.com
Nutrition 30 (2014) 928–935
all of which contain fructose and are being used in increasing
amounts as added sugar in the food supply [15]. Because there
are currently no disclosures of fructose content in foods and
beverages [15], and many nutrition databases only rely on
product label information, it is challenging to accurately deter-
mine actual fructose consumption levels in nutrition research.
Previous work has shown that the fructose content of sugar-
sweetened beverages (SSBs) made with HFCS can be as high as
65% of total sugar content, higher than that suggested by the
fructose content of HFCS-55 (55% fructose) [16], potentially
contributing to unexpectedly more fructose in the diet. However,
this initial study was criticized [17] for not measuring other trace
sugars (e.g., maltose) thought to be present in SSBs made with
HFCS. Therefore, the aims of the present study were to: 1) re-
examine the fructose content in previously tested beverages
using two additional assay methods capable of detecting other
sugars, especially maltose; 2) compare data across all methods to
determine the actual free fructose-to-glucose (F:G) ratio in
beverages made either with or without HFCS, and 3) expand the
analysis to determine fructose content in commonly consumed
juice products.
Methods and procedures
Based on product popularity [18], we selected 10 of the 23 beverages, that
were previously tested using liquid chromatography (LC) [16], for follow-up
analysis using two alternative methods to determine sugar content: 1) a
metabolomics-type (MET) approach based on mass spectrometry (MS) with
combined liquid and gas chromatography (GC) and 2) GC. Additionally, we
extended the use of GC to analyze a selection of juice products, as described
here.
Metabolomics-type approach
Popular SSBs were p urchased from retailers in East Lo s Angeles, Calif ornia,
in 2012. Beverages were selected to replicate a previous study [16],inwhich
the selection of beverages was based on consumption frequencies of children
in past studies. Nutrition label information and serving size data were recor-
ded. Immediately after opening bottled/canned beverages, 500
m
Lsamples
were aliquoted and transf erred to Eppendor f cryotubes. All sa mples were held
under refrigeratio n and sequentially flash frozen in liquid nitrogen within 1 h
of the initial transfer. Samples were stored a t 20
C overnight before ship-
ment. Glucose, fructose, sucrose , and maltose standard solutions we re created
from research grade rea gents (Sigma-Ald rich, St. Louis, MO , USA) to serve as
controls. Ten grams of the su crose, fructose, and glucose reagents were added
to 100 mL of Millipore water and brought into solutio n. Two concentrations of
maltose were prepared, 10 g/L and 1 g/L. Finally, a 50:50 solution of fructose
and sucrose was prepared by combining 5 g of each reagent with 100 mL of
water. These sugar standa rd concentratio ns were chosen to repl icate the
approximate sugar-content equivalents found in most sweetened beverages
with the two maltose preparations representing the very small amoun ts of this
sugar that may be found in sweetened beverages. For all standards, 500
m
L
aliquots were taken and prepared as previously described. All s amples were
shipped overnight packed in dry ice to Metabolon (Research Triangle Park,
Durham, NC, USA). Samp les were split into equal parts for analysis on the gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry (G C/MS) and liquid chrom atography/
mass spectrometr y (LC/MS) platforms based on previously published meth-
odology [19]. The GC column was 5% phenyl and the temperature ramp was
from 40
Cto300
C in a 16-min period. Samples were analyzed on a Thermo-
Finnigan Trace DSQ fast-scanning single -quadrupole MS usi ng electron impact
ionization. The LC/MS portion o f the platform was based on a Waters ACQUITY
UPLC and a Thermo-Finnigan LTQ MS, which consisted of an electrospray
ionization source and linear ion-trap mass analyzer. Compou nds were iden-
tified by comparison to library ent ries of purified standards or recurrent un-
known entities. Ide ntification of kn own chemical entities was based on
comparison to metabolomic library entr ies of purified standards. The combi-
nation of chromato graphic properties and mass spect ra gave an indication o f a
match to the specific compound or an isobaric entity. Metabolon was b linded
to the source of all samp les and standards and samples were analyzed ac-
cording to previously de scribed methodologies using a me tabolomics
approach to examine a broad array of simple and complex sugars [19].Datafor
sucrose, glucose , fructose and maltose are presented in this manuscript.
Gas chromatography
The 10 SSBs analyzed in the MET analysis were again selected along with 4
additional randomly selected SSBs and 20 other juice products. Online shopping
databases for Walmart, SuperValu, and Safeway were accessed to select sam-
ples. To control for location and inventory, online store inventories were
selected within a defined zip code region (90033). Twenty juices were randomly
selected by choosing every 10th product in the retailers’databases until 10
products made with HFCS and 10 products made without HFCS, according to
package ingredients labels, were selected. One juice product was omitted from
the analysis due to handling error, resulting in 19 products that proceeded to
assay. All samples were aliquoted to sterile, sealed containers and sample
weights were determined and recorded. Samples were packaged and shipped
overnight on dry ice to Covance Laboratories (Madison, WI, USA) for subsequent
blinded analysis via GC, against internal standards, according to previously
published methods [20–22]. The sugar profile analysis conducted at Covance
was applicable to the determination of fructose, galactose, glucose, sucrose,
lactose, and maltose in as little as 10 g of food products, syrups, and beverages
using GC, as described later. Once received, samples were prepared in accor-
dance with Covance procedures and sugars were extracted from the homoge-
nized sample with water. Aliquots were dried under inert gas and reconstituted
with a hydroxylamine hydrochloride solution in pyridine containing phenyl--
b
-
D
-glucoside as the internal standard. The resulting oximes were converted to
silyl derivatives with hexamethyldisilazane and trifluoroacetic acid treatment
and analyzed by GC [20,21] using a flame ionization detector (Agilent 6890 N).
An additional 10% of each sample analytical run was tested in duplicate and
validated against two internal validated controls. Results underwent quality
control comparison with internal validated controls, linearity expectations, and
historical data. The limit of quantitation for most matrices is 0.1%. The relative
standard deviations, on a cereal matrix, for fructose, glucose, sucrose, and
maltose were 4.9%, 7.4%, 3.2%, and 6.4%, respectively. Specific gravity testing was
conducted [22] on all liquid samples to allow the reporting of sugar content in
appropriate units of measure.
Comparison of laboratory obtained sugar values versus nutritional database
values
The Nutrition Data System for Research (NDSR, University of Minnesota, MN,
USA) was used to assemble sugar content data for some of the products included
in this study. All SSB and juice products listed in the NDSR database were
compared against the GC-determined sugar values. The Nutrition Coordinating
Center Food and Nutrient Database served as the source of food composition
information in NDSR [23]. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Nutrient Data
Laboratory was the primary source of nutrient values and nutrient composition.
These values were supplemented by food manufacturers’information and data
available in the scientific literature [24]. Standardized, published imputation
procedures were applied to minimize missing values [25]. Fructose, sucrose, and
glucose contents for all SSBs and juice products, with an exact product match in
the NDSR database, were assembled for comparison. NDSR product volumes (fl
oz.) varied, thus all product volumes were normalized to 12 floz. and sugar
amounts in grams were calculated based on the NDSR referent volume. These
data were compared against the values obtained through GC, as described pre-
viously. The mean GC-obtained sugar contents across matched products were
compared with the mean NDSR sugar values across matched products, and
percent difference was reported.
Data reporting
Examination of sugar composition in 10 beverages across three different methods
A mean with SD (reflecting the differences between analytical methods) and
coefficient of variation (CV) for intermethod variability were calculated for
fructose, glucose, sucrose, and maltose to assess consistency across the inde-
pendent methods (SPSS v18 [SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA]). Percent of total sugar (%
TS) was calculated for all measured sugars in the SSBs analyzed via the three
methodologies.
SSB and juice GC analysis
Data for individual su gars were reported in the following formats; %TS,
concentration of each sugar in grams per liter (g/L) and grams per serving (g/
s). Free F:G ratios and the concentration of free fructose (F
concentration
)ineach
product were also assessed. The raw F:G (F:G
Raw
) was adjusted (F:G
Adjusted
)to
account for the additional glucose that the disaccharide maltose may
contribute to the overall sugar profile of the produc ts. F:G values were re -
ported using the first number, representing fructose, as the ref erent (e.g., F:G
of 60:40; reported as 60). Formulas used to obtain these values are presented
in Tabl e 1.
R. W. Walker et al. / Nutrition 30 (2014) 928–935 929
Results
Fructose content of SSBs: Methodologic comparison
We first compared the fructose content of the original 10
beverages, as measured by three independent methods/labo-
ratories (LC [16], MET, and GC), which are displayed in Figure 1.
Results were consistent across all three methodologies for
percent fructose and glucose (Fig. 1) as well as sucrose and
maltose (Supplementary Fig. 1). Free fructose content was
consistent across methodologies with SDs remaining below
3.6%, with the exception of Gatorade (SD ¼4.5%). Mean free
fructose content, expressed as a percent of all sugars, for bev-
erages listing HFCS as an ingredient was 60.6% 2.7%. In all
remaining beverages, the mean free fructose content, expressed
as %TS, was 35.5% 15.4%. Mexican Coca-Cola consistently
contained 49.1% 3% of total sugar as free fructose despite
neither HFCS nor fructose being listed on the label. Additionally,
Pepsi Throwback, Gatorade, and Sierra Mist, all which list
neither HFCS nor fructose as added sweeteners, contained
fructose as a %TS in w50%, 40%, and 8%, respectively. Analyses
confirmed that only very small amounts of maltose (not >1.7% of
sugars) were present in the sampled beverages. The CV values
for fructose and glucose were consistently less than 0.12 and
0.1, respectively indicating high reliability between measures.
Mexican Coca Cola had a glucose CV of 0.2 and an artificially
elevated sucrose CV of 0.9 due to the original analysis detecting
no sucrose resulting in a very high SD. Sierra Mist was not
assayed in the original analysis, therefore no CV was reported.
The CV of sucrose in other products was in all cases <0.2. In the
MET and GC analyses, maltose was only detected in 4 and
3 of the 10 beverages, respectively and CV values ranged from
0.1 to 0.3, likely due to the very small amounts detected via the
two methods. Maltose was not measured in the initial study.
Sugar analysis using gas chromatography
SSBs and juices
Beverages listing HFCS as an ingredient had a mean F:G
Ad-
justed
of 59.6 0.5 (Fig. 2). Among products not listing HFCS as a
sweetener, the mean F:G
Adjusted
was 50.7 0.6. F:G
Raw
values
were not altered when adjusted for disaccharides. Mean F
con-
centration
in products listing HFCS as an ingredient were 59.4
8.9 g/L versus 30.8 19.5 g/L for non-HFCS products (Fig. 2,
Table 2). Sprite, Dr. Pepper, and Pepsi had free fructose ac-
counting for 60% or more of total sugar. Several SSBs that did
not list HFCS or fructose as an ingredient on the nutrition label
had F
concentration
substantially greater than zero (Mexican Coca-
Cola, 51 g/L; Pepsi Throwback, 42 g/L; Gatorade, 23 g/L; Sierra
Mist, 7 g/L). Pepsi lists sucrose as an included ingredient,
however, no sucrose was detected in Pepsi using GC method-
ology and its F:G
Adjusted
was 60. Maltose was detected in eight
products and levels did not exceed 2% of total sugar in any of
these beverages. Galactose and lactose were not detected in any
of the products (Table 3).
Minute Maid and Juicy Juice 100% apple juices had
F:G
Adjusted
values of 67.1 and 67.3, respectively, the highest in
the study. Mean F
concentrat ion
for these two products were 65.7
and 64.8 g/L, respectively (Fig. 3,Tab le 4). Five other juices had
F:G
Adjusted
values >55. Hawaiian Punch had the highest
F:G
Adjusted
value (61.5) among the products listing HFCS as an
ingredient. Mean F:G
Adjusted
and F
concentrati on
for HFCS products
were 52.1 5.9 and 45.7 10.6 g/L, respectively. Mean
F:G
Adjusted
and F
concentrat ion
for non-HFCS products were 56.7
6.9 and 45.2 16.6 g/L, respectively. Maltose was detected in
six products but did not exceed 1.9% of total sugar in any of
these beverages. Galactose and lactose were not detected in
any of the products (Table 5).
Discussion
This is the first study to comprehensively determine the
fructose content and sugar profiles of both SSBs and juice
products. The results of the multimethod sugar profile analysis
were strikingly similar in terms of fructose content. Prior work
demonstrated that in popular SSBs, fructose constituted up to
65% of the total sugar with an average of 59% in beverages made
with HFCS [16]. However, this initial analysis may have been
methodologically limited [17] in that maltose, which may
potentially alter the fructose to glucose ratio, was not measured.
In the present study, we used two additional and independent
assays that were capable of detecting the presence of trace
sugars, including maltose, and confirmed prior findings while
also extending the analysis beyond SSBs to also include fruit
juices.
The clearest and most consistent finding in this study was
that the five most popular [18] HFCS-sweetened sodas made by
companies that comprise w90% of the annual beverage market
share [18] (Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, Mountain Dew, and
Sprite) have F:G ratios of w60:40, meaning they contain 50%
more fructose than glucose. This fructose content differs
dramatically from the 50:50 ratio found in sucrose and from the
assumed ratio of 55:42 in HFCS-55. These findings, which were
confirmed by three independent laboratories and methodolo-
gies, were maintained after adjusting for the presence of trace
sugars, and support the initial report [16], providing further
evidence for the elevated F:G ratios in the most popular SSBs
made with HFCS. HFCS can be manufactured to have variable
fructose contents [26] and is also available in higher concen-
trations up to HFCS-90 [27] (90% fructose). One possible
explanation of the higher fructose content may be the blending
of HFCS-90 with HFCS-55 or glucose syrup [26] to create
products with fructose contents higher than HFCS-55. This
strategy is both feasible and allowable under current regula-
tions, as current FDA guidelines for use of HFCS-55 as an
ingredient only require it to be a “minimum”of 55% fructose
[28,29] (with 3% allotted for other, unspecified sugars), and
allow the unrestricted sales and use of HFCS-90 [26].Without
specification of the actual fructose content and possible blend
of HFCS used, it is unclear exactly how much actual added
fructose is contained in food and beverage products sweetened
with HFCS. Given that we observed F:G ratios in excess of the
expected ratio of 55:42 in some HFCS-containing products, it is
not accurate to consider HFCS-55 nutritionally identical to
Table 1
Formulas
1. TS
Actual
/100 g sample ¼SþLþMþGþFþGAL
2. % TS in sample ¼(Xg sugar OTS
Actual
/100 g sample)*100
3. TS
Actual
/serving size ¼TS
Actual
/100 g O(100 / Xg/s)
4. Amount individual sugars per serving ¼Xg/100 g O(100 OXg/s)
5. Grams G from disaccharide ¼gMþ(0.5*g/L)
6. F:G
Raw
¼[F grams O(F grams þG grams)]*100
7. F:G
Adjusted
¼[F grams O(F grams þG grams þgrams G from
disaccharide)]*100
F, fructose; F:G, fructose to glucose ratio; G, glucose; GAL, galactose; L, lactose; M,
maltose; S, sucrose; TS, total sugar
*
Sugar calculations (based on lab results provided in g/100 g sample format).
R. W. Walker et al. / Nutrition 30 (2014) 928–935930
sucrose, which has equal amounts of fructose and glucose [30].
These findings represent a critical public health message.
Higher levels of fructose have been consistently linked to
metabolic abnormalities [31], yet the current information from
HFCS producers suggests that HFCS is only marginally different
than sucrose in terms of the F:G ratio.
Sugars not listed on the nutrition labels were detected in
several of the SSBs analyzed. For example, Mexican Coca Cola
Fig. 1. Mean sugar comparison of sodas across three independent methods. (A) Percent of total sugar shown to be free fructose in soda/sports drink products. Dashed line
represents 55% fructose expected of HFCS-55. (B) Percent of total sugar shown to be free glucose in soda/sports drink products. Dashed line represents 42% glucose expected
of HFCS-55. Bars represent methodology used to determine sugar profiles: GC, gas chromatography; LC, liquid chromatography; MET, metabolomics. *Products with HFCS
listed as an ingredient on the label.
R. W. Walker et al. / Nutrition 30 (2014) 928–935 931
had a high free fructose concentration (51 g/L), despite no
source of free fructose being listed as an ingredient. Similarly,
Pepsi, which lists sugar (sucrose) in addition to HFCS as a
sweetener, contained no sucrose when analyzed by three
methods and had a consistent F:G ratio of 60:40 suggesting
thesolepresenceofHFCS.Someoftheseproductsmaybe
sweetened with hydrolyzed sucrose syrup, or invert sugar,
which could conceivably undergo loss of sucrose content
through hydrolysis to fructose and glucose monosaccharides
in storage, however, it is unlikely that this would fully explain
the high concentration of free fructose and high F:G ratios in
these products.
In the analysis of juices, we found that the mean fructose
concentration among all juices was 45.5 g/L, which is
comparable to that of all sodas (50.4 g/L). Minute Maid and Juicy
Juice 100% apple juices had the highest F:G ratios. These juices
were not sweetened with HFCS, but still had a higher fructose
concentration than most sodas. Many juices not containing HFCS
use fruit juice concentrate as a sweetener, which is the most
commonly listed sweetener in 100% fruit juice products [15].Itis
well documented that some natural juices may have high fruc-
tose contents, in the absence of HFCS, due to natural fruit sugars,
however, juice products often are advertised as a healthy alter-
native to SSBs. In terms of fructose content, our data suggests
that certain juice products may contribute to daily fructose
exposure equivalent to, or greater than, that of sodas. Sunny D
and Ocean Spray 100% cranberry juice also had F:G ratios of w60,
again suggesting 50% more fructose than glucose in these
Fig. 2. Fructose concentration and fructose-to-glucose (F:G) ratio: sodas/sports beverages. Concentration of fructose (g/L) in soda/sports drink products is displayed on the
left y axis (open bars) and the F:G
Adjusted
is shown on the right y axis (solid bars). *Products with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) listed as an ingredient on the label.
F:G
Adjusted
, the F:G ratio adjusted for other detected disaccharides.
Table 2
Sugar concentrations of sodas
Soda/sports drinks Serving size FRU GAL GLU LAC MAL SUC TS
g/L g/s g/L g/s g/L g/s g/L g/s g/L g/s g/L g/s g/L g/s
Mountain Dew 591 mL 72.31 42.74 0.00 0.00 48.21 28.49 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.62 0.00 0.00 121.57 71.85
Mug Root Beer 335 mL 66.94 22.43 0.00 0.00 46.02 15.42 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.35 0.00 0.00 114.01 38.19
Pepsi 591 mL 65.71 38.83 0.00 0.00 43.81 25.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 109.52 64.72
Sprite 591 mL 62.52 36.95 0.00 0.00 40.64 24.02 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.62 0.00 0.00 104.20 61.58
Coca-Cola 591 mL 62.52 36.95 0.00 0.00 41.68 24.63 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.62 0.00 0.00 105.24 62.20
Dr. Pepper 591 mL 61.42 36.30 0.00 0.00 39.56 23.38 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.62 0.00 0.00 102.02 60.29
Arizona Iced Tea With Lemon Flavor 240 mL 59.28 14.23 0.00 0.00 39.52 9.48 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.25 0.00 0.00 99.84 23.96
Super Chill Cola (SuperValu brand) 240 mL 53.24 12.78 0.00 0.00 59.51 14.28 0.00 0.00 2.09 0.50 0.00 0.00 114.84 27.56
Coca-Cola (Mexican)*335 mL 51.01 17.09 0.00 0.00 47.89 16.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.49 4.18 111.39 37.31
7-Up 591 mL 45.80 27.07 0.00 0.00 53.09 31.38 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.62 0.00 0.00 99.94 59.06
Ginger Ale (caffeine-free) (Walmart Brand) 240 mL 44.63 10.71 0.00 0.00 50.86 12.21 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.25 0.00 0.00 96.53 23.17
Pepsi Throwback*591 mL 41.84 24.73 0.00 0.00 39.75 23.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.33 17.93 111.92 66.15
Gatorade Lemon-Lime*355 mL 23.19 8.23 0.00 0.00 24.58 8.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.70 3.09 55.08 19.55
Sierra Mist Natural*591 mL 7.28 4.30 0.00 0.00 6.24 3.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87.36 51.63 100.88 59.62
FRU, fructose; GAL, galactose; GLU, glucose; LAC, lactose; MAL, maltose; SUC, sucrose; TS, total sugar; g/L, grams per liter; g/s, grams per serving
Sugar concentrations by per serving size and per liter values
*
Products not listing high-fructose corn syrup as an ingredient.
R. W. Walker et al. / Nutrition 30 (2014) 928–935932
products. Although these products likely contain natural fruit
sugars (fructose), the overall sugar profiles are strikingly similar
to those of SSBs sweetened with HFCS. When total fructose
exposure is considered (free fructose plus fructose fromsucrose),
juices contained a mean concentration of fructose almost
equivalent to that of sodas (51.4 versus 55.7 g/L, respectively).
Although sodas are the most consumed source of SSBs in adults
and children, juice consumption has increased in adolescent and
minority populations in recent years [32]. Considering larger
serving sizes, higher daily consumption rates of juices, and the
more common use of fruit juice concentrate or HFCS in these
products, there is likely a higher than expected daily fructose
consumption in the population from juice products that supports
the need for further research on the metabolic consequences of
high-fructose-containing juice intake.
Taken together, our chemical analyses of sugar content, which
are fundamentally different from current database estimates,
indicate that in many cases, SSB and juice products can contain
upward of 5% to 15% more free fructose than would be expected
based on the assumed ratio in HFCS-55. Additionally, when
laboratory-determined sugar values were compared with
nutrient data from matched products in the NDSR database, we
show that NDSR values underestimate mean fructose content for
SSBs and juices by 22% and 14%, respectively (Supplementary
Tables 1 and 2). Many nutritional product databases rely on
product nutrition labels for nutrient data. Given the ambiguity
surrounding the exact sugar composition of sodas and juices,
food producers may not know the exact amount of fructose
contained in the HFCS used. Our findings illustrate the high de-
gree of variability between actual sugar content versus product
label values and nutritional database values for some SSBs and
juices. These data challenge existing estimates of fructose con-
tent and suggest that prior population-based studies reporting
fructose or HFCS consumption [33–35] likely underestimate
actual fructose consumption.
Based on National Health and Nutrition Examination Sur-
vey (NHANES) data from 1988 to 1994, mean intake of fruc-
tose among children and adults was 54.7 g/d, however,
adolescentsages12–18 y co nsu m e d 72 . 8 g/d [36] of fructose.
More recently, 1999–2004 NHANES data showed that young
males (15–18 y) in the 95th percentile of fructose consump-
tio n, consume 121 g/d of f ructo se [36].Thisvalueistwiceas
high than when assessed in 1978 [34] and 10 times higher
than the 6 g/d per-capita value used to determine the safety of
Table 3
Sugar profile of sodas
Soda %
Fructose
%
Glucose
%
Sucrose
%
Maltose
%
Galactose
%
Lactose
Dr. Pepper 60.20 38.78 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.00
Pepsi 60.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sprite 60.00 39.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Mountain Dew 59.48 39.66 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00
Coca-Cola 59.41 39.60 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00
Arizona Iced Tea 59.38 39.58 0.00 1.04 0.00 0.00
Mug Root Beer 58.72 40.37 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00
Super Chill Cola 46.36 51.82 0.00 1.82 0.00 0.00
Walmart Ginger
Ale
46.24 52.69 0.00 1.08 0.00 0.00
7-Up 45.83 53.13 0.00 1.04 0.00 0.00
Coca-Cola
(Mexican)*
45.79 42.99 11.21 0.00 0.00 0.00
Gatorade
Lemon-Lime*
42.11 42.11 15.79 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pepsi Throwback*37.38 35.51 27.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sierra Mist
Natural*
7.22 6.19 86.60 0.00 0.00 0.00
Values for each sugar represent percentage of total sugar in product
*
Products not listing high-fructose corn syrup as an ingredient.
Fig. 3. Fructose concentration and fructose-to-glucose (F:G) ratio: juices. Concentration of fructose (g/L) in juices is displayed on the left y axis (open bars) and the F:G
Adjusted
is shown on the right y axis (solid bars). * Products with high-fructose corn syrup listed as an ingredient on the label. F:G
Adjusted
, the F:G ratio adjusted for other detected
disaccharides.
R. W. Walker et al. / Nutrition 30 (2014) 928–935 933
consumption in 1976 [37]. Fructose can induce metabolic
syndrome in both animal models and humans [38] and fruc-
tose exposure at the levels described here has been shown to
be metabolically deleterious in humans [39–41]. It is plausible
that additional, unlabeled amounts of fructose contained in
SSBs and juices can add up and, in combination with other
commonly consumed high-fructose-containing foods, can
lead to fructose intake >100 g/d. Thus, the differentiation
between specific types of sugars (especially fructose) in
popular beverages, and the accurate quantification of their
presence, are crucial to informing responsible consumption of
these products [42] and represent a critical opportunity to
affect public health.
In conclusion, this study supports and strengthens previous
findings regarding the fructose content of SSBs and provides new
information on the sugar composition and overall fructose
content of commonly consumed SSB and juice products. The
results support the initial findings [16], suggesting that the most
popular sodas made with HFCS as the sole added sweetener have
an F:G ratio of 60:40, indicating 50% more fructose than glucose
and a meaningful difference from the equivalent F:G ratio
observed in table sugar (sucrose). The sugars galactose and
lactose were not present and maltose was only detected in very
small amounts in these products. As expected, certain fruit juices
contained fructose, however, some contained more total fructose
than sodas, often with 50% more fructose than glucose. Although
SSBs are a major source of fructose in the diet of Americans, our
results demonstrate that juice products may contribute sub-
stantially to total daily fructose consumption as well. Based on
these findings, current population estimates of fructose con-
sumption determined via existing food nutrient data are likely
underestimated.
Table 4
Sugar concentrations of juices
Juice Serving size FRU GAL GLU LAC MAL SUC TS
g/L g/s g/L g/s g/L g/s g/L g/s g/L g/s g/L g/s g/L g/s
Minute Maid 100% Apple Juice*450 mL 65.77 29.60 0.00 0.00 28.19 12.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.66 7.05 109.62 49.33
Juicy Juice 100% Apple Juice*200 mL 64.85 12.97 0.00 0.00 27.20 5.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.74 3.35 108.78 21.76
Kern’s Nectar Strawberry Banana 340 mL 56.97 19.37 0.00 0.00 63.30 21.52 0.00 0.00 1.06 0.36 9.50 3.23 130.82 44.48
Kern’s Nectar Peach 340 mL 56.48 19.20 0.00 0.00 59.62 20.27 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.36 6.28 2.13 123.43 41.97
Ocean Spray 100%*Cranberry Juice 240 mL 55.44 13.31 0.00 0.00 38.70 9.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.23 1.26 99.37 23.85
Minute Maid Premium Fruit Punch 240 mL 54.80 13.15 0.00 0.00 36.19 8.69 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.25 0.00 0.00 92.03 22.09
Ocean Spray Blueberry Juice Cocktail*240 mL 53.30 12.79 0.00 0.00 48.07 11.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.63 3.51 116.00 27.84
Great Value Cranberry*240 mL 52.50 12.60 0.00 0.00 56.70 13.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.45 2.27 118.65 28.48
Kool-Aid Jammers 177 mL 49.02 8.68 0.00 0.00 55.28 9.78 0.00 0.00 2.09 0.37 0.00 0.00 106.39 18.83
Welch’s Passion Fruit 240 mL 47.70 11.45 0.00 0.00 45.58 10.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.82 11.96 143.10 34.34
Capri Sun 177 mL 45.50 8.05 0.00 0.00 45.50 8.05 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.18 0.00 0.00 92.03 16.29
Capri SunPacific Cooler 177 mL 44.51 7.88 0.00 0.00 45.54 8.06 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.18 0.00 0.00 91.08 16.12
V8 Splash Berry Blend 240 mL 41.00 9.84 0.00 0.00 26.65 6.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.03 0.25 68.68 16.48
Hawaiian Punch 240 mL 40.96 9.83 0.00 0.00 25.60 6.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.56 15.97
Sunny D*473 mL 32.77 15.50 0.00 0.00 21.50 10.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.48 55.30 26.16
Great Value Ruby Red Grapefruit*240 mL 32.36 7.77 0.00 0.00 30.28 7.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.02 11.53 110.66 26.56
Tropicana 100% Juice*240 mL 28.27 6.78 0.00 0.00 24.08 5.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.12 11.31 99.47 23.87
Ocean Spray Light Cranberry Juice*240 mL 21.44 5.15 0.00 0.00 18.38 4.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.82 9.56
Clamato 240 mL 20.50 4.92 0.00 0.00 21.53 5.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.03 10.09
FRU, fructose; GAL, galactose; GLU, glucose; LAC, lactose; MAL, maltose; SUC, sucrose; TS, total sugar; g/L, grams per liter; g/s, grams per serving
Sugar concentrations by per serving size and per liter values
*
Products not listing high-fructose corn syrup as an ingredient.
Table 5
Sugar profile of juices
Juice % Fructose % Glucose % Sucrose % Maltose % Galactose % Lactose
Hawaiian Punch 61.54 38.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Minute Maid 100% Apple*60.00 25.71 14.29 0.00 0.00 0.00
V8 Splash Berry Blend 59.70 38.81 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00
Juicy Juice 100% Apple*59.62 25.00 15.38 0.00 0.00 0.00
Minute Maid Premium Fruit Punch 59.55 39.33 0.00 1.12 0.00 0.00
Sunny D 59.26 38.89 1.85 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ocean Spray 100% Cranberry*55.79 38.95 5.26 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ocean Spray Light Cranberry*53.85 46.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Capri Sun 49.44 49.44 0.00 1.12 0.00 0.00
Capri SunPacific Cooler 48.86 50.00 0.00 1.14 0.00 0.00
Clamato 48.78 51.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Kool-Aid Jammers 46.08 51.96 0.00 1.96 0.00 0.00
Ocean Spray Blueberry*45.95 41.44 12.61 0.00 0.00 0.00
Kern’s Peach 45.76 48.31 5.08 0.85 0.00 0.00
Great Value Cranberry*44.25 47.79 7.96 0.00 0.00 0.00
Kern’s Strawberry Banana 43.55 48.39 7.26 0.81 0.00 0.00
Welch’s Passion Fruit 33.33 31.85 34.81 0.00 0.00 0.00
Great Value Ruby Red Grapefruit*29.25 27.36 43.40 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tropicana 100% Orange*28.42 24.21 47.37 0.00 0.00 0.00
Values for each sugar represent percentage of total sugar in product
*
Products not listing high-fructose corn syrup as an ingredient.
R. W. Walker et al. / Nutrition 30 (2014) 928–935934
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge Emily Ventura, Ph.D. for her assis-
tance with data collection and analysis and Lauren Gyllen-
hammer for her assistance with the NDSR comparison.
Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2014.04.003.
References
[1] Goran MI, Ulijaszek SJ, Ventura EE. High fructose corn syrup and diabetes
prevalence: a global perspective. Glob Public Health 2013;8:55–64.
[2] Sugar and Sweeteners Team, Market and Trade Economics, Economic
Research Service, US Department of Agriculture. US per capita caloric
sweeteners estimated deliveries for domestic food and beverage use, by
calendar year. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/Sugar/data/
table50.xls. Accessed May 8, 2013.
[3] Johnson RJ, Nakagawa T, Sanchez-Lozada LG, Shaflu M, Sundaram S, Le M,
et al. Sugar, uric acid, and the etiology of diabetes and obesity. Diabetes
2013;62:3307–15.
[4] Lyssiotis CA, Cantley LC. Metabolic syndrome: F stands for fructose and fat.
Nature 2013;502:181–2.
[5] Vos MB, Lavine JE. Dietary fructose in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
Hepatology 2013;57:2525–31.
[6] Stanhope KL. Role of fructose-containing sugars in the epidemics of obesity
and metabolic syndrome. Annu Rev Med 2012;63:329–43.
[7] Basu S, Yoffe P, Hills N, Lustig RH. The relationship of sugar to population-
level diabetes prevalence: An econometric analysis of repeated cross-
sectional data. PLoS One 2013;8:e57873.
[8] Choi HK, Willett W, Curhan G. Fructose-rich beverages and risk of gout in
women. JAMA 2010;304:2270–8.
[9] US Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services. Report of
the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for
Americans, 2010. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dgas2010-dgacreport.htm.
Accessed May 22, 2014.
[10] High Fructose Corn Syrup Facts. Key Points About High Fructose Corn
Syrup. http://www.corn.org/products/sweeteners/high-fructose-corn-syrup/
Accessed May 16, 2014.
[11] Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Use of Nutritive and
Nonnutritive Sweeteners. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012;112:739-58.
[12] Stanhope KL, Schwarz JM, Havel PJ. Adverse metabolic effects of dietary
fructose: Results from the recent epidemiological, clinical, and mechanistic
studies. Curr Opin Lipidol 2013;24:198–206.
[13] InterAct consortium. Consumption of sweet beverages and type 2 diabetes
incidence in European adults: results from EPIC-InterAct. Diabetologia
2013;56:1520–30.
[14] Page KA, Chan O, Arora J, Belfort-Deaguiar R, Dzuira J, Roehmoldt B, et al.
Effects of fructose vs glucose on regional cerebral blood flow in brain re-
gions involved with appetite and reward pathways. JAMA 2013;309:63–70.
[15] Ng SW, Slining MM, Popkin BM. Use of caloric and noncaloric sweeteners in
US consumer packaged foods, 2005 to 2009. J Acad Nutr Diet
2012;112:1828–34.
[16] Ventura EE, Davis JN, Goran MI. Sugar content of popular sweetened bev-
erages based on objective laboratory analysis: Focus on fructose content.
Obesity (Silver Spring) 2011;19:868–74.
[17] Hobbs L, Kreuger D. Response to “Sugar Content of Popular Sweetened
Beverages Based on Objective Laboratory Analysis: Focus on Fructose
Content.”Obesity (Silver Spring) 2011;19:687.
[18] Sicher J, editor & publisher. Top-10 CSD results for 2010. Beverage Digest
2010;59:1–2.
[19] Milburn MV, Lawton KA. Application of metabolomics to diagnosis of in-
sulin resistance. Annu Rev Med 2013;64:291–305.
[20] Mason BS, Slover HT. A gas chromatographic method for the determination
of sugars in foods. J Agric Food Chem 1971;19:551–4.
[21] Brosbt K. Gas liquid chromatography of trimethylsilyl derivations. Methods
in carbohydrate chemistry. New York: Academic Press; 1972.
[22] United States Pharmacopeia. Twenty-Sixth Revision, <841>. Rockville,
Maryland: United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc; 2003.
[23] Sievert Y, Schakel S, Buzzard I. Maintenance of a nutrient database for
clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:416–25.
[24] Schakel S, Sievert Y, Buzzard M. Sources of data for developing and
maintaining a nutrient database. J Am Diet Assoc 1988;88:1268–71.
[25] Schakel S, Buzzard I, Gebhardt S. Procedures for estimating nutrient values
for food composition databases. J Food Comp Anal 1997;10:102–14.
[26] Parker K, Salas M, Nwosu VC. High fructose corn syrup: production, uses
and public health concerns. Biotech Mol Biol Rev 2010;5:71–8.
[27] ADM. CornsweetÒ90. Product database. Available at: http://www.adm.
com. Accessed May 8, 2013.
[28] Food chemical codex. 4th ed. Washington DC: National Academy Press;
1996:191–2.
[29] U.S. Corn Refiners Association. Letter to Division of Dockets and Manage-
ment (HFS-305), Food and Drug Administration. Re: Docket No. FDA-2012–
P0904. Washington DC; 2013. Letter.
[30] Food and Drug Administration. High fructose corn syrup: questions and
answers. Food additives and ingredients. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/.
Accessed April 12, 2013.
[31] Tappy L, Mittendorfer B. Fructose toxicity: is the science ready for public
health actions? Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2012;15:357–61.
[32] Han E, Powell LM. Consumption patterns of sugar-sweetened beverages in
the United States. J Acad Nutr Diet 2013;113:43–53.
[33] Marriott BP, Cole N, Lee E. National estimates of dietary fructose intake
increased from 1977 to 2004 in the United States. J Nutr 2009;139:1228.S–
35.S.
[34] Park YK, Yetley EA. Intakes and food sources of fructose in the United
States. Am J Clin Nutr 1993;58(Suppl):737.S–47.S.
[35] Bray GA, Nielsen SJ, Popkin BM. Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup
in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity. Am J Clin Nutr
2004;79:537–43.
[36] Vos MB, Kimmons JE, Gillespie C, Welsh J, Blanck HM. Dietary fructose
consumption among US children and adults: the Third National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey. Medscape J Med 2008;10:160.
[37] United States Department of Health and Human Services. Direct food
substances affirmed as generally recognized as safe; high fructose corn
syrup [docket no. 85 N-0548, 21 CFR parts 182 and 184]. Federal Register
Vol. 61, No. 165. Available at: www.gpo.gov. Accessed February 12, 2013.
[38] Aydin S, Aksoy A, Aydin S, Kalayci M, Yilmaz M, Kuloglu T, et al. Today’s and
yesterday’s of pathophysiology: biochemistry of metabolic syndrome and
animal models. Nutrition 2014;30:1–9.
[39] Livesey G, Taylor R. Fructose consumption and consequences for glyca-
tion, plasma triacylglycerol, and body weight: meta-analyses and meta-
regression models of intervention studies. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;88:
1419–37.
[40] Teff KL, Grudziak J, Townsend RR, Dunn TN, Grant RW, Adams SH, et al.
Endocrine and metabolic effects of consuming fructose- and glucose-
sweetened beverages with meals in obese men and women: Influence of
insulin resistance on plasma triglyceride responses. J Clin Endocrinol
Metab 2009;94:1562–9.
[41] Hudgins LC, Parker TS, Levine DM, Hellerstein MK. A dual sugar challenge
test for lipogenic sensitivity to dietary fructose. J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2011;96:861–8.
[42] Food and Drug Administration. Code of Federal Regulations Title 21. Direct
Food substances Affirmed as Generally Recognized as Safe. Database of
Select Committee on GRAS Substances (SCOGS) Reviews. Report no.
50, 1979.
R. W. Walker et al. / Nutrition 30 (2014) 928–935 935
