Big Corn wants to change "High Fructose Corn Syrup" to "Corn Sugars"


The US Corn Refiners Association has petitioned the FDA for permission to change the name "High Fructose Corn Syrup" to the much more innocuous-sounding "Corn Sugars." This comes as 58% of Americans say they are concerned about HFCS's impact on their health. HFCS is a heavily subsidized industrial byproduct of the corn industry, and is ubiquitous in American processed food -- everything from Rice Krispies to "healthy" granola bars.

HFCS isn't particularly high in fructose, as it turns out -- the name is a hang-over from the 1970s, when it first came into popular use. But even though "Corn Sugars" might be more descriptive, the name-change is clearly a move intended to confuse Americans who have slowly but surely come to reject products with HFCS on the ingredients list (when they can find alternatives that aren't laden with HFCS, that is). Maybe the FDA should approve the move, but require a ten year period when the ingredient is written as "Corn Sugars (formerly High Fructose Corn Syrup)."

A New Name for High-Fructose Corn Syrup

83

  1. There is a large body of anecdotal evidence that needs to be mined why people often loose 10-20 pounds after emigrating from the US. It would likely show that the federally subsidized ‘corn sugar’ is the main culprit. Elsewhere cane or beet sugar, sucrose not fructose, is cheap and tastes better. Ask anyone who has had Mexican or US Passover Coke which they prefer and at the same time wonder why Americans are so fat.
    https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Fructose#Health_effects

    1. Most of the info on that Wiki “health effects” link indicate equivellence with sucrose, or that issues are hypothesised or suggested. While Fructose and sucrose are motabolized differently, there’s no substatial evidence that fructose causes weight gain.
      http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157
      The plural of anecdote is not “data”, and correlation is not causation. People in sucrose countroies also tend to serve and ingest less calories than Americans, whis definitely DOES contribute to lower weight.
      In regards to the original post, just because a lot of people suspect fructose says nothing about the facts of fructose, just that the fructose scare meme is working. (See: fallacy of appeal to popularity.)

  2. Seems par for the course, since they’ve also been doing all those ads telling people not to worry about HFCS, since it’s just made out of “natural corn.”

    It’s true, though, that HFCS has a reputation that’s way beyond what ought to be applied to other simple sugars. HFCS is bad, but it’s not necessarily worse than simple table sugars (although tastes many times worse). Nutritional labels should simply be forced to highlight the sugars in much bigger font — that’s much more important than whether one type of simple sugar is worse than another type of simple sugar.

    On a similar note, many people use agave “nectar” as a sweetener substitute. That is an example of great marketing, if there ever was one. It really ought to be called High Fructose Agave Syrup, since the fructose content is even higher than in HFCS, and the method of extracting it and adulterating it is just as unnatural. But “nectar” makes you think of wonderful natural manna from the gods, so it must be good for you.

  3. Do they plan on regulating the amount of Glucose to fructose that is containted in HFCS if they are going to change its name to “Corn Sugar”?

    I have a preschool aged daughter who has fructose malabsorption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose_malabsorption) and I can say that HFCS does not always mean that is has more fructose then glucose, but it does often enough to be true. While normal “corn sugar” that I buy from the health food store is just dextrose and thus safe for my daughter to have. I would rather they just put the version of HFCS in the label rather then changing the name. If it is HFCS 42 or lower, there is a good chance that my daughter can have it with no adverse side effects. And since they are currently guessing that 30-40% of people with western European descent have fructose malabsorption. It might just make many more people happier in the future.

    1. So there already is a product being sold as “corn sugar”? Presumably in granular form?

      Great. That should stop the proposed name change in its tracks. I mean, it’s not like prior use is going to be squashed by the interests of a powerful industry, right?

      /snark

  4. Corn syrup isn’t, by itself, more the culprit for obesity than sugar, itself.

    Skeptoid has a nice synopsis of the chemistry of HFCS
    http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157

    Basically, corn syrup and table sugar are composed of the same two monosaccharides, fructose and glucose. Corn syrup comes in different blends of those two monosaccharides (and in some cases, HFCS has less fructose than sugar). Table sugar is about 50-50 fructose-glucose. Really sweet HFCS comes in around 55-45. They’re all digested the same. That is, sugar and HFCS are both broken into glucose and fructose and processed accordingly.

    HFCS is linked to obesity, but only because it is SUGAR.

    To quote Brian Dunning’s quote from the AMA:

    Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose are so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose… At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to restrict use of HFCS or other fructose-containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS. The AMA…recommends that consumers limit the amount of added caloric sweeteners in their diet.

    1. I know you’re not being paid by big corn, the big corn person who’s actually shown up on bb identifies herself. I quite respect her for doing so. You are making the same assumptions that a lot of other people have made, including many doctors. But there has never been a head to head study of people on corn syrup vs. sugar of any respectable length. Given that it’s becomming a major component of the diet, it should be done.

      Similar assumptions in the past:
      Trans fats are just fats that can be broken down, since they’re replacing saturated fats (which we KNOW are bad), and trans fats haven’t been shown to be bad, trans fats should be used to replace other fats.

      There is no such thing as “junk food”. This is a myth perpetrated by the health food fanatics. (This belief system was pervasive until the 1980’s)

      The average American gets enough nutrients from their diet.
      (Depends on the nutrient, when we look, some are often missing)

      There is no benefit to whole grains. There is nothing wrong with white bread.

      Sugar substitutes will lead to weight loss.

      Dieting won’t lead to gradual weight gain.

      Reasonable assumptions at the time, but until the science weighs in, we don’t know.

      I have more entirely emotional affection of purely an uscientific nature for honey and maple syrup then I do for corn syrup or cane sugar, but if we were swapping out all sugar and megadosing with maple or honey the way we were with corn, I’d want to see studies.

      1. Thats a nice ad homeniem you got there. discredit an entire article, with citations, simply because of word choice when trying to make the data a little more understandable and less daunting.

        it’s simple… word choice doesn’t change the content of ones argument, so to automatically reject an argument because you don’t agree with the author’s choice of words, shows that you are more interested in cognitive dissonance than being a rational individual above those who want to play “pin the tail on the donkey” with their bad health.

        1. “Thats a nice ad homeniem you got there”

          No.
          The crux of the argument I am making is that it HFCS is unequal to sucrose and that it may be more complicated then he is assuming. He is assuming that sucrose is just glucose plus fructose, so it’s not fundamentally different. Commonly in biochemistry the pathways are taught from a perspective of showing how much ATP can be gleaned and that sucrose = fructose + glucose. But the interplay of metabolism is more complicated.

          It’s represented by a two dimenionsional pathway.
          http://www.uky.edu/~dhild/biochem/9/glycolysis1.gif

          But this is a simplification. Every step in this process may have multiple levels of control and divergent pathways. If you don’t understand that, then you need more biochemistry.

          Anyone who says it’s simple has is denying the complexity of the microscosm of the metabolic mandala. This is the crux of my argument. He may be a fine human being who is right on every other topic, but evidence is he doesn’t understand the intricacies of this one. Just because it can be broken down in a similar way does not mean that the way it will be broken down in humans will be identical for similar compounds with no other metabolic consequences.

      2. “There is no such thing as “junk food”. This is a myth perpetrated by the health food fanatics. (This belief system was pervasive until the 1980’s)”

        Really? Ok. I want you to go “Fast Food Nation” style diet and eat a Big Mac every day, downed with your favorite soda, and have some chips as a snack.

        You can mix it up with Twinkles, ho-ho’s, Domino’s pizza, and any other “snack” food that you can think of.

        I’ll see you on the other side of your heart attack/diabetes and obesity.

        1. Motherf…so much info that I shouldn’t read so damn fast on people’s posts.

          You were saying assumptions in the past, not what you currently think.

          (Pulling foot out of mouth now)

        2. S’alright. You also meant “Supersize Me”, not “Fast Food Nation”, but both are worthwhile. I’m afraid you haven’t won any prizes Johnny, but you will take home a copy of our home game.

    2. The “reference” you site also has this gem:

      “The chemistry is actually quite simple.”

      I’m afraid that disqualifies him as a content expert on the subject. Sadly, or wondrously, depending on your mood, the more you know, the more you know the less we all know.

    3. Currently, HFCS and corn syrup are listed as 2 different things, as shown in the Nutri-Grain example. If both are to be listed simply as “corn sugar” (and I don’t know that would would be the case), are you saying that it really doesn’t make much difference in terms of health, nutrition, caloric intake etc.?

  5. Dear FDA,

    We humbly request permission to have dietary material previously designated as “Fat” to now be labeled as “Food Marbling.”

    Sincerly,
    The Meat Industry

  6. As someone who already reads every label, this doesn’t really set me back much (just one more ingredient to look out for). But if those products start advertising “No High-Fructose Corn Syrup!” All over the place, then I’ll be a bit more irritated.

  7. The anti-HFCS scare is mostly hype, with a dash of profiteering by people selling “HFCS-free!” products. It’s roughly on par with the anti-vaccination and homeopathy movements; albeit more accepted by the mainstream and less dangerous to practice.

    (And yes, I believe that corn subsidies and sugar tariffs are bad on their own merits.)

    So I’m all for renaming products to avoid this kind of modern superstition. “High Fructose Corn Syrup” is technically more accurate but it’s a big scary phrase. “Corn Sugars” sounds accurate enough, it has the word “sugar” in it so that’s positive, and there seems to be a lot of leeway in food names anyway. (See: “natural and artificial flavors”)

    I’m also in favor of renaming Nuclear Power Plants. Perhaps… Uranium Recycling Centers? Has a nice ring to it.

  8. While it is true (so far) that HFCS hasn’t been proven to be any more damaging to the body than plain-old sugar, that isn’t really the whole story. HFCS is used as both a sweetener AND as a preservative, and it’s found in basically every packaged food out there.

    It’s pretty obvious that HFCS would be found in candies and soft drinks, but you’ll also find it in bread, tomato sauce, “health” foods, yogurts, and vegetable juices; foods where you wouldn’t necessarily be checking the label in the first place. Taken at face value, that doesn’t seem like a big deal, but considering that the peanut butter, jelly, and bread it takes to make the average PB&J all contain HFCS individually, the calories from sugar can quickly add up.

  9. I don’t care what they call it; I just want the subsidies for corn producers ended as well as the tariffs on imported sugar.

    I also want a pony.

  10. Two incorrect points on this: “HFCS is a heavily subsidized industrial byproduct of the corn industry”

    A by-product is a secondary or incidental product deriving from a manufacturing process. HFCS is a primary product for the manufacturers, mainly ADM, and the feed proteins and other derivatives are secondary. They are in the business of making HFCS, so therefore calling it a by-product is incorrect.

    HFCS is not a heavily subsidized as you might think. The really huge pork belly subsidies are in the conversion of HFCS to ethanol.

    You should investigate the use of Sodium Hydroxide derived from the “mercury process” as part of the conversion of corn starch into HFCS if you really want a scare. Even trace amounts of mercury in our food is abhorrent.

    1. HFCS is not a heavily subsidized as you might think.

      Yeah, bullshit. Bush and John Howard entered into a landmark free trade agreement between Australia and the U.S. a few years back. The one exclusion? Australian cane sugar.

      U.S. citizens pay for that exclusion, significantly, and I understand the U.S. maintains other such exclusions.

      HFCS is heavily subsidised.

        1. Of course it is. The U.S. government maintains trade practices that inflate the cost of HFCS, maintaining a strong local market for domestic product at the cost of consumers. Domestic production would likely evaporate without it.

          If that doesn’t fit your definition of subsidy, then you want a silly pedantic debate about semantics, which is totally pointless.

        2. You might find http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Sugar/policy.htm interesting. The US most definitely subsidizes the sugar market (mostly beet sugar, though some cane sugar is produced in southern states) through direct loans to producers, as well as by setting an effective price floor, through the use of high tariffs and import quotas. Surplus sugar is often removed from the market by the government at guaranteed prices. Thus, sugar is kept at artificially high prices, much higher than the rest of the world.

          Corn (and other grain) policies are geared differently (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Corn/policy.htm). The most important are direct subsidies paid per bushel, which encourage massive overproduction.

          The market distortions between these policies are what have left us with corn-based sweeteners in everything.

          US farm policy is a mess… but for a real nightmare, you should look into the EU’s.

  11. “…58% of Americans say they are concerned about HFCS’s impact on their health…”

    Wow! That’s a lot of people! I guess that many people can’t be wrong!

    I should start believing in the invisible magician in the sky too, since ~75% of Americans believe in him!

    Thanks for clearing that up! Super reporting!

    1. Since the article is about whether people can identify whether or not HFCS is in the product, yeah it’s relevant. If nobody cared, it’d be less an issue. If you switched to decaf, you might find you don’t need the ! as much.

  12. So, nobody at the Corn Council would object to intermittently replacing their seasoning with Uranium Tetrafluoride? You know… “salt”

    1. It’s actually kind of tangy, so it could also be listed as “artificial flavoring”. Or natural, depending how it was mined.

  13. Snig, Dunning doesn’t claim to be an expert, which is why he cites his references. And, if you can’t tell, he’s talking in terms of the chemistry of simple sugars. Cleaving disaccharides ISN’T that big a mystery. Hydrolysis of sucrose yields two products, glucose and fructose. What’s the mystery? You dismiss Dunning too son.

    Also, you list some “truisms” that may or may not have born fruit in the past. It doesn’t mean that this is one of them. I don’t see your point.

    I agree that the study ought to be done, but concern over HFCS is a relatively new phenomena, and prior studies have shown that HFCS shouldn’t be metabolized any differently than sucrose. The AMA study I quoted from Skeptoid is just one of those review articles that looked over existing data.

    I’m not saying that over-sweetened foods are not a concern, I’m just saying that people freak out unnecessarily by the “high-fructose” part of HFCS when it really isn’t that different than pure sucrose.

    There’s this all-natural fallacy that comes into play here, suggesting that HFCS is, by default, bad for you because it is “processed” as if natural cane sugar isn’t processed in some way.

    1. This Princeton study noted by Phrosty above is close to the study that I want to see done in humans. Since the results of that were pretty interesting, I would really like to see it done in humans. I would calm down after I see a couple negative studies.

      Yes, there is some anti-science basis in the HFCS fear, that deosn’t mean that pro-HFCS lobby has more science behind it. I think earlier things like banning all chemicals with chlorine is silly season and deserved to be ridiculed. However assuming something is safe and normal in our diet just because we haven’t gotten around to doing the science yet is also goofy. As I said, no one should get a pass.

      There are people who’s life work is salivary amylase. Call one of them up and ask if it’s simple. It’s a truism is science, at least biochemistry, that things are always more complicated than the short form. Water is also a simple subject, but you won’t feel that way after you’ve taken a course in biophysics of water.

    2. Similarly, there’s the studies on sugar substitutes that don’t see the health benefits they’d expect from reducing amounts of sugar in the diet. This may be partly from interactions in the mouth that trigger biochemical reactions in the body to the sweet flavor. Pavlov, quite some time ago, showed that digestion starts happening a good deal before the first bite. We’ve likely altered each other’s sugar levels just by discussing the topic.

      The cyclic dieting issue that I referred to is in the same vein. We should get thinner if we eat less, but exposing the body to dieting cyclically alters the process in poorly understood ways that can have adverse effects, most famously obesity. It’s only simple when it’s unstudied.

    1. I’m not saying that HFCS might not be extra evil, but I am saying that all the available studies to date point to the idea that, as you suggest, Big Plate is driving obesity.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17653981

      Evidence from ecological studies linking HFCS consumption with rising BMI rates is unreliable. Evidence from epidemiologic studies and randomized controlled trials is inconclusive. Studies analyzing the differences between HFCS and sucrose consumption and their contributions to weight gain do not exist. HFCS and sucrose have similar monosaccharide compositions and sweetness values. The fructose:glucose (F:G) ratio in the U.S. food supply has not appreciably changed since the introduction of HFCS in the 1960s. It is unclear why HFCS would affect satiety or absorption and metabolism of fructose any differently than would sucrose.

      People are looking for an easy villain, an easy explanation. Not to play the whole reverse Big Whatever game, but there is an industry of people pushing alt diets and alt meds who have will continue to beat the HFCS drum no matter what holes are poked into the idea.

      1. I believe the difference is that sucrose has to be split into it’s components and thus has a different metabolic pathway. HFCS is not put together the same way and splits without effort in the liver causing a rapid introduction to the blood sugar levels and impacting insulin production.

        If you really want to get into the chemistry – but it is in fact different for sugar vs. HFCS

        1. Yes, of course fructose and sucrose are metabolized differently. I’m talking about the fact that HFCS has almost the same ratio fructose to sucrose as table sugar. Yes, some contains slightly more fructose, but it can also contain less. In general, I haven’t seen a study on Pubmed to suggest slightly more fructose is significantly worse.

          The problem with HFCS is that it is added to everything. THAT’s the insidious nature of it.

  14. I’ve probably consumed HFCS-containing products for at least 28 of my 30 years, I’m not worried about it as a health hazard, and I’m not worried about calories either because I’ve been battling uncontrolled weight loss for over a year now.

    All I care about is the taste. Everything tastes better when sugar is substituted for syrup. If you’ve ever bought a glass bottle of Coke in Mexico or some other place that still uses sugar in place of HFCS, you already know what I’m talking about. The difference is night-and-day, and if you drink too many cokes without HFCS it will eventually spoil you for the regular, easily-found syrup formulation.

    Also I ruined a batch of homemade absinthe by following a bad recipe saying it would be okay to substitute karo for sugar cubes…

    lol @ pantograph, well said.

    1. “If you’ve ever bought a glass bottle of Coke in Mexico or some other place that still uses sugar in place of HFCS, you already know what I’m talking about.”

      Agreed, but I’ll also point out that this is almost invariably accompanied by “less than 0.1% sodium benzoate.”

  15. That corn sugar (fructose/glucose) and cane sugar (sucrose) have the similar caloric values, and thus a conclusion that pure over-consumption is the cause of obesity, is overly simplified. The energy pathway of each molecule is different. Google for corn sugar and ‘leptin’ (hunger satiation) and ‘elevated triglycerides’ (fat).

  16. It’s surely a sign of how strange this world has gotten that preferring that one’s food be made out of actual food is now thought of as some sort of strange alternative lifestyle.

    Here’s my primary beef with HFCS: the reason it’s being used in place of sugar is primarily that it increases shelf life. Well, if the microscopic stuff doesn’t like it, I don’t either. I trust a squillion little bugs a whole lot more than I trust Cargill or ADM.

    1. Thought for sure that with the name “Life of Bryan” you were going to bring this up:

      I’m suspicious of HFCS, but sucrose is also a preservative, so that’s not a great argument for it. Though nutrients do degrade over time, so something that’s an especially effective preservative for bugs doesn’t neccesarily preserve nutrients.

  17. I wonder if the risks associated with HFCS come not from HFCS itself being bad, but from it being in so many products, adding lots of empty calories.

    This is espeically true of the less-sweet HFCS 42 (in bread? tomato soup? WTF?), often added along with excess salt to make up for the poor flavor of packaged and processed foods.

    1. Yes! HFCS is cheap and useful. It is added to almost EVERYTHING on the shelf. Things that have no business being sweet are sweetened just enough to get people hooked. People buy more processed foods and sit around more often, they get fatter.

  18. Well if sugar is “cane juice,” then they should call high fructose corn syrup “corn juice.” Imagine that on the ingredient list: “water, corn juice, apples….” The question that should follow naturally is “then why am I drinking it?”

    Still, I know I’m just a crazy hippie who hates carbonated beverages and fruit juice alike, preferring fresh fruit and foods with ingredients I can identify and name offhand.

  19. the only place i dont want HFCS is in my juice.

    also, fuck you, cranberry ‘cocktail’, i know you’re mostly apple juice.

  20. Text of note I sent to Corn Refiners lobby after reading the article. Rather than argue with them over side effects we need to challenge them and other lobbyists/organizations on ethical behavior.

    “I want to object to your petition to change the name of high fructose corn syrup to “corn sugar.” I see it as an unethical practice designed to confuse consumers, esp. those who are concerned about the side effects of high fructose corn syrup. It is esp. disturbing given the high rate of subsidies given to your industry(corn)since you are using tax dollars to confuse consumers. This is not the way lobbyists and manufacturers should act in this country.”

  21. The corn syrup industry has been practicing deception and misdirection for a while. They operate under the guise of a group called ‘the Center for Consumer Freedom,’ providing propaganda that poses as education.
    Read Making Sense of the Sugar Wars
    http://gigabiting.com/?p=640/

  22. How about we call it “Heavily Subsidized Industrial Corn Sugar” instead? Wouldn’t that be more accurate?

  23. There’s been some studies on human glucose/insulin/etc levels in blood after digesting HFCS versus regular sucrose.
    http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/87/5/1194

    Inconclusive so far. I’ve also heard that the Princeton study had procedural errors, but I can’t find an unbiased source for that at the moment. Still, that’s one study against all the other studies done by the FDA, World Health Organization, and others.

    Global warming skeptics can find the odd study to confirm their beliefs too, but that doesn’t make them right.

    Also, if cane sugar makes such a taste difference versus HFCS, why didn’t anybody notice when all the soda manufacturers switched over to HFCS decades ago? I think all the soda conneseuirs out there buying their Mexican Coke and Pepsi Throwback are being influenced by two things:

    1) Small differences in manufacturing, distribution, and formula. If something is made slightly differently, stored in different containers (glass bottles?), and distributed more directly (fresher product), then yes it’s going to be a bit different.

    2) The power of imagination.

    1. Honestly, you can’t tell a huge difference? Soda made with HFCS is noticeably thicker, more, well, syrupy.

    2. Measuring blood levels of leptins et al 24 hours after taking HFCS is insufficient to determine overall effects of HFCS on obesity and weight. There is nothing wrong with the study, it’s a fine study, but extrapolating out more than 24 hours based on looking at a few factors is not possible. That’s the study that was cited last time I talked with the rep from the corn refiners association, I asked for a better one. If that’s what you hang your hat on as HFCS not having an effect on obesity, your hat is on the floor.

      There’s always procedural disagreements, the Princeton study can still not be explained away.

      There are no comparable head to head long term (more than a few days) studies of humans on HFCS vs. sugar. Certainly not as long as the Princeton study did. There’s not a similar rat study that didn’t show this effect. It’s a simple enough study. There are no other comparable studies done by FDA and WHO, it’s just been presumed safe.

      For myself, I think HFCS tastes yummy, and I can drink it in soda by the liter. The bitterness of the caffeine cuts the syrupiness.

    3. Rayonic,

      Several times I’ve done informal blind (admittedly not double blind) taste tests for groups of ten or more people. I’ve used Classic Coke vs Passover Coke, Mexican Coke vs Classic Coke, and Dublin Dr Pepper vs Dr Pepper. Of the roughly 40 people that I’ve done this with over the years everyone has expressed a strong preference for the cane sugar sweetened version of the drink with two exceptions. One person couldn’t distinguish between Dublin Dr Pepper and Dr Pepper and a second person preferred Dr Pepper.

      Claiming that people can’t tell the difference is just silly. People generally don’t have the choice of mainstream softdrinks with either cane sugar or HFCS, so they drink what is available. Oddly you can pick what artificial sweetener you want in your Diet Coke, but not which real sweetener you want in your Coke.

  24. “HFCS isn’t particularly high in fructose, as it turns out — the name is a hang-over from the 1970s, when it first came into popular use.”

    HFCS is generally 42-55% fructose, which is higher than corn syrup would ordinarily be. That’s why it’s high-fructose corn syrup. It’s a descriptor of that variant of corn syrup. It’s not implying that it has super high amounts of fructose. Ah, the wacky world of food ingredient nomenclature.

  25. Interested lecture about HFCS and sugar. The guy has some pretty bad speech mannerisms (…k…) and the video is long but it has a lot of good points to say.

  26. Someone didn’t think this all the way through. “Corny” is a lot easier to say than “HFCS”.
    This is going to make things worse, not better for them.

  27. Sheesh! I didn’t say you couldn’t tell the difference between HFCS and sugar coke. I just attribute it to other factors, which are then enhanced by your expectations. “Hm this tastes a little better” becomes “OMG TASTE SENSATION!”

    Surely you’ve seen this phenomenon with other things. Think audiophiles for example.

  28. Man who makes that decision? “People know our product is bad for them. Let’s change the name.” How does that guy sleep at night? I know – on a big pile of money.

  29. I wish they’d just test fructose itself. If a soda with HFCS is worse for you than one made with sugar, then a glass of apple juice is probably worse for you as well.

  30. manufacture of cane sugar requires that you crush the stalk and then evaporate out the water. white sugar requires some more steps that could be argued are more industrial in nature, but still fairly low tech.
    High fructose corn syrup in a totally industrial process that involves using the grain and some biologically enhanced enzymes and industrial chemicals to produce the sugars in question. The possibilities for contamination of the end product is not something that I feel has been properly addressed.
    Due to the fact that I was living in the wild shortly after I attained the age of majority, I didn’t pay attention to the whole process until I got involved in agriculture and began to receive industry updates on various processes.
    The one on gum additives to improve the texture of food products was very troubling, and has made it impossible to obtain what I consider to be a plain old corn tortilla.
    Allowing industrial processes to enter the food chain supply line has brought us several disasters that I can think of from a food safety standpoint. Can you name any of them? Do you even care?

    1. Allowing industrial processes to enter the food chain supply line has brought us several disasters that I can think of from a food safety standpoint. Can you name any of them? Do you even care?

      I know of a few. I sure as hell care. I also keep up with the food & feeding industries. Would you like to list them for us? Or better yet, spoonfeed a link or two that lists the most fearsome cases?

      I imagine many other bb readers also care, and there’s probably much that I have yet to discover myself.

  31. Orwell had it right 1984. Why don’t we all just stop buying processed foods and let industry sweat it out for a while.

    In the end, bad or not, I don’t want to consume a lot of HCFS, and I cannot avoid it they call it something else or LIE about what is in the food.

    It was my understanding that it widely used because it is much cheaper than sugar.

    Dr. Oz’s preaching against HCFS alone is enough for me to believe. It is not digested well.

    Artificial sweeteners are another evil. Splenda, equal… I consumed way to much. Three days after I quit, all my aches and pains went away, along with a slight inability to focus. Try it some time. I don’t know what has been written about it, I don’t care… I chose what goes in the shopping cart by usually not buing anything with it listed in the ingredients.

    Remember when labels used to show simple and complex carbs back until the early 90’s.

    Industry did not like the fact that some of us were avoiding simple carbs and loading up on complex ones. They thought it was an unfair advantage that people could decide not to eat thier product based on its qualities. (I lost 60 Lbs then) Just like politics. Big insustry wants this, but the masses don’t, So they package it differently and ram it down their throats anyway. Consumers are the little people, and employees want to work…so the sell it.

    HEY! are you listening out there, we don’t want this stuff in our food.

    Don’t rename it!

    Use real sugar!

    Call it something else and I will avoid food with any corn product in it! A little is OK, but it is in every thing! What has happened to America? It’s called DISHONESTY! Premeditated attempts to decieve and deprive us of our right to choose what we consume.

    First corn kills off the bees in an attempt to halt cross crop pollenation…so we have already been run over by the corn truck. Now they are backing up to finish us off.

    OK, that last part is a little over the top and may or may not be true, but don’t let that detract from whats above it.

  32. For those of you who think fructose is the same as glucose, and that its not bad for you, you should watch this presentation by someone who knows. Watch this and see if you still think fructose is just fine and dandy.

    The major nationally recognized food producers in this country are OWNED by the pharmaceutical companies, as well as the major media sources, if you don’t think so, then why in the last 20 years are there nothing but drug adds on television? Its in the best interests of the drug companies for people to get sick. America, 5% of the world’s population, 85% of the worlds pharmaceuticals. The FDA threatens just about any natural food company that links FDA studies about nutritional benefits with lawsuits and jail time. Only junk foods can claim they have nutritional benefits these days. The FDA exists solely to protect the drug companies. Wake up people and start to figure it out. Obesity in this country is rampant, kids now on high blood pressure and high cholesterol meds, as well as type 1 and 2 diabetics off the chart. The life expectancy dropped for children born the year 2000 to the present. Eat stuff the way it came naturally off the tree, out of the ground, eat animals that have ONLY been fed their natural diet and lived their natural life cycle in their natural habitat. Grass fed beef, ocean caught fish, free range chicken and eggs. Stay away from sugar, and you will most likely live longer.

    http://in.reuters.com/article/idAFN0210830520100802

    1. @anon 79, totally correct. And lets don’t forget that much of the USDA and FDA are staffed by former & current executives of big food and big pharma companies. In one way it makes sense – there’s advantages to having people with the most industry experience regulating the industry. But it’s a failing system, and the conflicts of interest are proving to be much more harmful than the advantages.

      When capitalists in suits on Wall Street who’ve never set foot on a farm are in charge of telling farmers how to produce our food, you’re looking at a nutrition & food safety time bomb that has already exploded many, high-profile times, and the frequency of explosions is only going to continue to increase unless we can bring about some sweeping reforms.

  33. As a registered dietitian who counsels patients and consults with the food and beverage industry including the Corn Refiners Association, I educate consumers on how to identify nutrition misinformation. I believe “corn sugar” will make label reading clear and direct.
    Further, in my practice I do not to focus on any one ingredient, food or beverage when giving practical advice. Consumers need to know how to make wise food choices and balance their daily intake with physical activity, not pick and choose certain ingredients or foods to avoid or eliminate from their diets. In terms of nutrition and metabolism, a sugar is a sugar, whether it’s honey, corn sugar, table sugar, or fruit juices and no one should eat too much of any of these items. I tell my patients that the intake of whole foods such as fruit, vegetables, nuts and whole grains are the cornerstones of a healthy diet. Generally speaking, consumers need to decrease intake of low nutrient-dense foods that are highly sweetened and replace them with vegetables, low or nonfat dairy and whole grain high fiber choices. Bottom-line: education, so all can make these informed choices that are based on sound science.
    Carol Sloan RD

Comments are closed.