> http://no-hfcs.tripod.com/


Has some interesting links at the bottom of the page.

Both web pages show that it is not the consumer that has made the decision
to shift, but the manufacturer. If you look at what happened in the tobbacco
world, it does not take a stretch to see, if the sudies on HFCS to fat are
held up, that the TV lawers will have a field day with those companies who
do not make the shift back to sucrose.

I realize that we are going far afield from beekeeping, but HFCS is a bee
feed for some, especially commercial operations, so it is interesting how
humans handle HFCS and if there is a similar problem with bees. One comes to
mind directly. Sucrose is broken down by enzyme activity to glucose and
fructose by the bees. Part of that activity is the conversion of glucose to
glucose oxidase. Nectar comes in very diluted, so the enzymes have an
opportunity to act over a long period, which determines the levels of both
glucose and GO. GO figures prominantly in keeping honey from spoiling and is
added to pollen, so you could have (could being the operative word here) a
decrease in enzyme activity with HFCS so a less "healhy" food for the bees.

HFCS was not as good as sucrose (cane sugar) for overwintering (honey being
the worst) from the Bailey studies.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

*******************************************************
* Search the BEE-L archives at:                       *
* http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l *
*******************************************************