Yesterday, the FDA concluded its 20-month review of a petition by the Corn Refiners Association to change the name of high fructose corn syrup to “corn sugar,” with a pretty solid “no.” Not surprisingly, the CRA says regulators have done you, the American consumer, a disservice by denying the petition.
In a statement from CRA president Audrae Erickson, Big Corn claims that most of us are living under a cloud of uncertainty about HFCS:
The fact remains–which FDA did not challenge–that the vast majority of American consumers are confused about HFCS. Consumers have the right to know what is in their foods and beverages in simple, clear language that enables them to make well-informed dietary decisions. In light of the FDA’s technical decision, it is important to note that the agency continues to consider HFCS as a form of added sugar, and requires that it be identified to consumers in the category of sugars on the Nutrition Fact Panel on foods and beverages.
While the FDA’s letter did not directly counter CRA’s stance about the level of confusion among U.S. consumers, it did mention that there are a number of people with fructose intolerance or fructose malabsorption issues that would be confused if the name change were permitted, as “corn sugar” is already on the FDA books as an alternative name for dextrose, which these fructose intolerant folks can consume.
Though it predates the proposed name change, it’s probably worth mentioning that a 2007 survey conducted by our cohorts at Consumer Reports found that 87% of Americans were opposed to being able to label products with HFCS as “natural.”
Urvashi Rangan, PhD., the director of the Consumer Safety Group at Consumer Reports, said about last night’s annoucement:
The FDA did the right thing. High fructose corn syrup is not ‘corn sugar.’ If the name had been changed, it would have given consumers the wrong impression that this product is ‘natural.’ This is a corn starch that has to be chemically processed. The term ‘corn sugar’ simply doesn’t reflect the chemical changes that take place in production. Consumers know the term high fructose corn syrup, and they should be able to easily differentiate among products that use it.
More From Consumerist
-
Why Is Big Corn Continuing To Run ‘Corn Sugar’ Ads Even After FDA Denial
-
Walmart And Monsanto Team Up To Sell Genetically Modified Sweet Corn
-
Olive Oil 'For Kids' Is Apparently A Thing
-
Orville Redenbacher Is The Latest Victim Of The Grocery Shrink Ray
-
Somebody Doesn’t Like Sara Lee As The Company Announces Name Change To Hillshire Brands
I’ll bite- if their theory is that HFCS and corn sugar are basically the same thing, why don’t they make sodas with corn sugar?
And what are they suggesting changing the name of corn sugar to?
Hmm I wonder what soda made with dextrose / glucose / corn sugar would taste like. I think dextrose is less sweet than either fructose or sucrose, so they’d probably have to use more to achieve the same taste. But then again, your body processes fructose and glucose differently, so maybe it wouldnt matter.
If they used less sweetener, or a less sweet sweetener, then they’d have to use less sodium. If they used less sodium, we’d get less thirsty. If we got less thirsty, we’d drink less soda. If we drank less soda….they’d make….less…
Wait a second, I see what they are doing~!
Fructose has the highest sweet taste. Glucose is quite low on that scale. Sucrose is more sweet than glucose. Actually, I prefer the taste of maltose over all of these.
High Fructose Corn Syrup is used because it is cheaper than real sugar. It’s purely a profit-driven decision.
And it’s cheaper because it’s HIGHLY subsidized by the federal government.
Big Sugar never had a chance
Cheaper than cane sugar, sure. But is it cheaper than corn sugar?
Probably is, but also keep in mind that (true) corn sugar is a powder (derived from cornstarch), and is not as water soluble as HFCS is. HFCS also serves as a better perseverant than cane or corn sugar, extending the shelf life of soft drinks & other things its used in.
you end up using less of it, so the cost per unit is lower. Fructose is perceptibly sweeter then Glucose, and corn sugar is entirely glucose. so by processing some of that glucose in to fructose you end up using less sugar overall for the same level of sweetness.
I am confused, confused as to why HFCS is in just about everything.
The answer to your question is thus: Archer Daniels Midland Company. That’s why HFCS is in everything. They made 80 billion last year. I am surprised they didn’t just buy the FDA.
You mean $2 billion? Revenue was $80 billion which doesn’t mean much when you have $78 billion in expenses.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=ADM+Income+Statement&annual
Especially Tomato Sauce (or Ketchup to Americans.. yes I am an American, but I grew in South Africa)..
Why does it need to be sweetened in any way.. freaking mushed up tomatoes and vinegar, that is all it needs to be.. toss maybe a little Tabasco in there and we are good (I like spicy)
My husband is from South Africa and while he uses a lot of different terms for stuff here in the States, I have yet to hear him call ketchup “tomato sauce.”
But I think the entire country loves spicy since his whole family seems to have the motto “the hotter, the better.”
Pure tomato products can have a bitterness that sugar counteracts. Try it sometime in homemade pasta sauce. My mom always added a pinch of sugar.
only if you don’t cook it properly. I make homemade sauce on a weekly basis and I’ve never added sugar, it’s not bitter.
It might depend on tomato variety.
I made fresh sauce yesterday with Roma tomatoes and did not add sugar. It was delicious and sweet on its own; not bitter at all.
It’s cheaper than sugar.
Only because corn is so heavily subsidized by the gov’t.
Good thing the government isn’t in the business of picking winners and losers! Unlike that darn socialist Obama. /s
Yes and no. It is true that the corn industry has been subsidized by the US Government since about 1938, but the prevalent use of HFCS is really due to sugar tariffs that were introduced in the late 70s. Only 4 US states produce cane sugar, and our domestic production does not meet demand. So when tariffs were added, it made the cost of importing sugar significantly higher. HFCS was a solution to the rising cost of sugar, and it became widely used by the mid 80s.
It’s also typically easier to process because it’s in a liquid form. It can be pumped and mixed and dissolved much easier than conveying and mixing and dissolving solid sugar crystals.
It’s a combination of tariffs and subsidies that make HFCS an attractive alternative. It’s also politics- many corn belt states are also swing states, so either party is loathe to end those subsidies. Many farms are large corporate owned, so they have a fairly powerful lobby.
I’ve even found it listed in some DOG foods.
“The fact remains—which FDA did not challenge—that the vast majority of American consumers are confused about HFCS. Consumers have the right to know what is in their foods and beverages in simple, clear language that enables them to make well-informed dietary decisions.”
So changing the name of their product to something that is, frankly, a less accurate description is supposed to LOWER confusion? Using “simple, clear” language that is inaccurate is contrary to any goal of allowing consumers to make well-informed decisions.
They’re trying to foster confusion with this proposed change, not end it.
You’re reading too much into their statement. Each sentence is unrelated. They stated that Americans are confused about HFCS. Nowhere did they mention that they wish to make consumers less confused.
And Big Corn’s mega-million dollar campaign to confuse the subject seems to infer what you imply.
No confusion here… I know HFCS is chemically processed corn starch and that it’s not a natural product.
You’re right. To hell with simple language- let’s use scientifically and chemically correct terminology.
Di-Hydrogen monoxide
Sodium Chloride
Bovine Muscle tissue
Bee barf
“Consumers have the right to know what is in their foods and beverages in simple, clear language”
I don’t see what part of High Fructose Corn Syrup isn’t simple and clear enough. Maybe change “High” to “Concentrated.”
It’s syrup. It’s made from corn. It’s composed on fructose, rather than dextrose or glucose. And it’s highly concentrated with said fructose.
I doubt they really want the language to be any clear, or they might find themselves in worse shape than they are now.
“Corn sugar” does not say what’s in it. It does not inform the consumer. It only tells us the origin, such as “cane sugar” or “beet sugar”.
I might be OK with labeling just the origin provided there is no processing. But HFCS is very processed. So what it is does not resemble the sugar from corn at all.
They should just use the name “Bad sugar”. That will boost their sales through the roof!
I think what they are asking for is a regulation which requires them to put contains HFCS right on the front of the label. That would reduce confusion for the consumer i am sure. Or maybe the FDA should create a section for non natural ingredients suspected of causing complication. That would help the consumer to know what is in their food.
Doubt they will be pushing for any of the actual options for clarifying ingredients.
Just a quick semantics correction to “It’s composed on fructose, rather than dextrose or glucose. And it’s highly concentrated with said fructose”.
It’s actually composed of a mixture of fructose and glucose (the two monosaccharides that make up the disaccharide sucrose in a 50/50 mix), but it has a different proportion than 50/50.
As for the concentration, there are actually multiple concentrations used. Typically what’s produced is 42% fructose (so it’s surprisingly less concentrated in fructose), but some of the 42% mix can be refined up to 90% and then diluted back down to the other common mixture of 55% fructose. The 42% kind is used in baked goods and most of the things where you’d say “wait THIS has HFCS in it?”, while the 55% kind is used to sweeten beverages like soda/pop.
I agree that the name is clear enough as-is and that the only effect of changing its name would be to obscure what it really is to the standard Joe Sixpack consumer.
“Big Corn Still Believes We Are All So Very Confused About HFCS”
TRANSLATED: Even though we spent tens if not hundreds of million of dollars trying to brainwash you into believing our bullsh*t, you’re just too clever to fall for it. Now we will have to re-double our bullspin efforts and try to use the government to set up -re-education camps in order to make you a loyal and believing citizen again.
Stalin approves of these methods.
That’s the worst thing about it. I think they truly believe what they’re saying and they are blind to the reasoning why there is something wrong with it. This isn’t a simple case of “Yeah, you caught us trying to pull a fast one.” This is more a case of “What the hell is wrong with you people? This is the way it is? Why can’t you see that?”
“It’s 100% beef. What else do you want us to call it? It’s beef.”
Sound familiar? WHEN will they figure out that a snow-job is not going to work anymore?
“WE ARE THE BORG….DO NOT RESIST…YOU *WILL* BE ASSIMILATED!!!!!!!”
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.
That’s probably what they’re doing. If they repeat bullshit often enough, maybe it will finally sink into our imbecilic minds and we will get with the progrom like good sheep.
They never will…
The RIAA/MPAA will continue to bitch about “piracy”
The HFCS guys will continue to bitch about the HFCS backlash.
The tobacco guys will continue to bitch about the health warning and anti-tabacco reforms.
The anti-drug people will continue to bitch about marijuana legalization efforts..
The politicians will continue to bitch about the other party.
The eco-protesters will continue to insist we stop using all fossil fuels overnight.
The terrorists/religious fanatics will continue to do their thing.
It doesn’t matter about the facts, they are set in their ways and will continue to dismiss any opposition against them no matter what.
They have to say stupid sh*t like “100% beef” to differentiate real beef from the beef flavored substances that the FDA allows some companies to call beef (Taco Bell for example), but is really some percentage of beef with other crap in it. Like the corn subsidies, this is a byproduct of the 1970′s. Before then, beef was beef, corn was corn, turkey was turkey, etc. Now “beef” has some beef, and probably some other semi-foodlike substances in it. It’s the same with practically anything else you buy at the grocery store, especially packaged foods.
I disagree, I think they know exactly what they are doing. They are trying to get away from the stigma around HFCS. They could care less about what it’s called or what it’s made from they just don’t want the bad press and want to change the name. IMO, at this point, they just don’t want to concede on their bluff.
I can’t really believe that CHANGING the name from HFCS, that we all know about, to something else like corn sugar is really to eliminate confusion. Yeah, right! Confusion is exactly what they want. Kudos to the FDA for seeing it clearly.
In actuality, the CRA is confused as to why consumers aren’t confused.
Those are all perfectly salient, reasonable, and well thought out points, Audrae, but if I could offer my humble rebuttal:
I don’t care because your product tastes like metaphorical shit.
Thank you.
Dear Corn Industry,
We’re not confused. Don’t attempt to b.s. us.
Yes CRA, let’s talk about frankenstein foods and how they are viewed in other places in the world.
“The fact remains—which FDA did not challenge—that the vast majority of American consumers are confused about HFCS.”
Because it’s either described as “the greatest thing since unicorns puking magical rainbows” (Big Corn) or “Satan in insulin-strangling syrup form” (not Big Corn).
“Consumers have the right to know what is in their foods and beverages in simple, clear language that enables them to make well-informed dietary decisions.”
Yep. And giving HFCS a completely different name, one that is already in use by a completely different chemical entity, does not help consumers make well-informed dietary decisions.
“In light of the FDA’s technical decision, it is important to note that the agency continues to consider HFCS as a form of added sugar, and requires that it be identified to consumers in the category of sugars on the Nutrition Fact Panel on foods and beverages.â€
As are all added syrups (corn syrup, maple syrup, agave nectar etc.).
Given the gross misunderstanding the general public has on what sugars are… its not surprising that there’s so much confusion.
There’s no confusion. HFCS = Bad. How long have you been working for the CRA?
Derp. thanks for posting a perfect example of said confusion.
Americans do like their black and white.
Fat = bad
Carbs = bad
It doesn’t matter if HFCS is bad or not. The term HFCS is well defined and rather precise.
It is much better than something vague like “corn sugar”.
Butter may be “bad” but I know what it is. The industry is just mad that it is not free to cloud the issue. Of course they are lying through their teeth about it.
Kabuki theater…. biologically HFCS blends with ~50 fructose and ~50 glucose are biologically nearly identical when it comes to most goods ( and that is the most common formulation ). The fact is we are just over-consuming calories under any, and all, names.
yep. Both Honey and Agave syrup have nearly identical sugar contents to HFCS and yet you don’t see people raving about the horrors of them… quite the contrary actually.
Quantity consumed people, that’s the problem here.
Since when has Pepsi, or Coke been made with either honey or agave sugar?
Since when have red herring arguments made for good rebuttals?
The taste of agave syrup triggers the urge to vomit with me.
I don’t know about everyone else, but I rave about the horrors of HFCS because it’s in nearly everything. When food product manufacturers start sneaking honey or agave nectar (or sugar or dextrose etc.) into food like they do HFCS, I’ll start raving against that.
which falls in line with the quantity consumed problem. You’re part of the minority around here then, seems that most just go “OMG! HFCS we’re all gonna get fat & get diabetes!”.
However, when ‘quantity consumed’ is ramped up by jamming HFCS into every processed food possible because it’s a super-cheap filler (supported by agricultural subsidies) then it’s a problem.
When I go to my local farm store and buy their kielbasa, the ingredients are “beef, salt, spices”. When I look at any store brand (regardless of the meat used), the second ingredient is always corn syrup or corn syrup solids. In sausage. The second ingredient.
I say let’s pull all corn subsidies and create a ‘sugar’ tax for all processed foods that contain HFCS (or honey, sugar, agave, maple syrup, etc, etc). Maybe if HFCS is no longer the cheapest way to go, you’ll see manufacturers using it less…
Right, the problem isn’t the sugars them selves but rather that they are added to everything, and constitute empty calories. quantity consumed.
Frankly, any comparisons between HFCS and sugar health effects are irrelevant for these purposes. Who cares if HFCS is worse or they actually have the same effects…. either way the CRA is intentionally trying to foster confusion and deceive consumers.
The health argument is a topic for another day. Today let’s focus on CRA’s shameless attempts to mislead the public.
I’ve had just about enough of big companies and government making assumptions about what “confuses” me. Like we’re a bunch of fucking simpletons who can barely manage to tie our shoes in the morning or park a damn car.
I’d like the CRA to produce any hard evidence that a significant number of people came to them and reported needing clarification on what HFCS is. If they cannot provide this then they need to STFU and stop wasting everyone’s time and money.
Um, you wouldn’t be confused if they changed the name of something else to something you regularly consume in product labeling?
I would be.
“Confusion” is a lobbyists’ term for “People believe x. We think they should believe y, and we think the government should mandate that.”
It’s true that most people can’t give you a biochemical explanation of why HFCS is crap, but that doesn’t mean they’re “confused”. It just means they’ve chosen to remember the key point (“crap”) and leave the mumbo-jumbo to the scientists.
The scientists think that both HFCS and sugar are bad, because, once metabolized, both make approximately the same proportion of fructose and glucose enter your bloodstream. So yes, you are confused.
the biggest confusion is when people say “sugar” they really mean sucrose (common table sugar). As the word sugar describes the whole family, not just one individual out of that family.
Where in my comment did I say that other sugars are any better? Nice try, Mr. Corn Refiners Association Reputation Management guy!
cane sugar is heavily subsidized in the U.S. which is why HFCS is so much cheaper and why soda from Mexico tastes better. The subsidies are win win, for the industry. The sugar Cane farmers and industry gets government money no matter what they do and the corn farmers and HFCS makers such as ADM get to flood the market with their cheaper knock-off. Everyone wins.
Well, except the consumers and taxpayers, of course.
You do realize that HFCS is in no way derived from sugar cane, right?
I think you are a little confused. Corn farmers in the US are the ones receiving the biggest subsidies. Cane sugar is primarily grown in Central/South American and (thanks to the congresscritters from the flyover states protecting the corn growers) is subject to unfair tariffs to keep the price in the US unnaturally high.
Don’t mind this person, they are confused easily and can’t keep the terms subsidy and tariff straight.
I wish they’d go back to using real sugar instead of this HFCS crap. It has such an annoying syrup aftertaste. Real sugar does not. I very much prefer the taste of real sugar, and yes I can tell the difference quite easily. There is no confusion here. HFCS is no substitute for real sugar. Stop putting it in almost everything.
Real sugar? Like glucose, fructose, and sucrose?
Remember, if the name of the compound ends in “ose” its a sugar.
Damn. There sure are a lot of split hairs in here. Someone should sweep up; they’re making a mess.
the term real in this case is giving something a term that it does not deserve.
Glucose is a “real” sugar, Fructose is a “real” sugar, sucrose is a “real” sugar… they are all “Real”. the only time real should be used to differentiate a sugar is when talking about things like Sucralose.
You are quite verbose
verboseness is necessary when people keep using terms to mean things they don’t actually mean.
to quote Inigo Montoya “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
How sweet you are.
Isn’t what this whole argument about? That there is a consensus among the general population that when you say sugar, you are talking about ‘table sugar’ (or cane sugar or beet sugar or the stuff that comes in the 5 pound bag in the baking aisle of my supermarket).
If I ask for some salt for my food, I don’t have to specify ‘table salt’ or NaCl to ensure that I won’t be handed a shaker filled with potassium dichromate. You’re just splitting hairs because everyone is using the most common meaning of ‘sugar’ in this discussion, instead of being painfully specific about the molecular makeup of the sugar in question. CRA is arguing that since it’s ‘technically’ sugar, they should be able to just call it sugar, willfully ignoring what sugar means in common parlance. Causing confusion to the general consumer is the entire point of their multi-million dollar lobbying / legal campaign.
I agree, cane sugar is the best for sodas and drinks. I know people rave amount mexican coke but I never drink sugary drinks. Until last year in Africa. Diet Coke was hard to find so I ended up giving in and ordered a regular coke which I really don’t like but I was craving a soda. I remember being floored at the taste and it was so much better than what I remember. It was made with real sugar. I still don’t drink it here but what a difference in taste.
“Consumers have the right to know what is in their foods and beverages in simple, clear language”
“the agency continues to consider HFCS as a form of added sugar, and requires that it be identified to consumers in the category of sugars”
Sounds like Big Corn guy just made the case against his own petition.
How about we just require labeling the breaks down the content in terms of the names of the types of sugar (e.g. Fructose, Glucose, Sucrose, Maltose, etc). The standard unit should be grams per liter for liquids. Labeling should be on the cups and counter for fountain service.
Stop trying to make sense. Big Corn guy says that confuses consumers.
…maybe because HFCS IS added sugar. HFCS is not a natural product. It’s hilarious that the CRA supports truth-in-labeling yet ignores the fact that if consumers were more educated about HFCS they would actually try to avoid it at all costs.
How do I send an email to these f*ck nuggets? I’m so tired of these douche bag shit sticks telling people they’re ‘confused’ every time their schemes are exposed for what they truly are: lies created for the sole purpose of increasing their bottom line, no matter what the cost.
Too damn much processed food. It gives people a taste for sugar and fat. And people shouldn’t eat gargantuan portions. Seriously; the amount of food you get served when you go out is just nuts.
I can’t eat large amounts anymore due to a hiatal hernia. I have to eat more often with smaller amounts or I pay dearly. If I’m eating out, even in a place that makes food from real ingredients, that’s damn near impossible. My bf took me out for my birthday and you could have swum in the pile of fettuccini Alfredo I was served. No, I did not eat it all. I couldn’t.
http://www.mealsmatter.org/Articles-And-Resources/Healthy-Living-Articles/Portion-Distortion.aspx
HFCS is a mix of monosaccharides, while cane sugar and beet sugar is primarily one disaccharide. Both are in the chemical class of sugars. Both are sweet tasting. But they act very differently in the human metabolism.
We need to teach the public that not all sugars are the same. The monosaccharides like galactose, glucose, fructose, ribose, and xylose are the bad sugars to be avoided. The disaccharides like lactose, maltose, and sucrose, are the better sugars that can be used in greater quantity (though there are still limits).
While I am normally opposed to the government banning things like super sized sugary drinks, to the extent that this forces companies to provide better drinks that they have not been providing (so we have a choice), then I’m all for it. I’d prefer the law require the choice of a non-sugary, or low-sugar, supersized drink of a like flavor. Restaurants could do this with machines that dispense controlled sugar syrup levels. Since the industry has not figured this out on their own, it seems the government is the only way to get it done.
“The fact remains…that consumers are confused about HFCS”
Please cite your source for this “fact.” Or go the fuck away.
“Dear Consumer…We know what’s best for you…Do not resist any longer or we will flood the airwaves with commercials telling you corn sugar is good for you and if you still think otherwise, you are a terrorist and hate America!”
Sincerely,
Your friendly Corn Industry people
My favorite line from the Corn Sugar propaganda ads by the CRA is “Sugar is Sugar. You’re body doesn’t know the difference.”
Fine print missing from the ad:
HFCS is not actually sugar. It is chemically processed corn starch. Corn does not naturally produce sugar. Scientific studies prove your body DOES know the difference between real sugar and HFCS, and your body does not like HFCS. Good luck trying to find products that don’t use HFCS. [evil laugh]
um… Sugar, you might want to look up what it describes. And although the common usage means sucrose, the term actually describes a whole family of carbohydrates, two of which are glucose and fructose (what HFCS is)
so saying that HFCS is not sugar is misunderstanding what sugars are.
Anyone view the FDA’s conclusion as a direct result of Obama being elected? I’m betting the FDA would have rubber-stamped the petition had he lost in 2008.
Easy solution: eat less sugar, no matter whether it’s from sugar cane or corn or beets or any other source.
High Fructose Corn Syrup is NOT sugar, and it’s NOT a natural product. Numerous scientific studies exist that show HFCS is worse for your body than real, natural sugar, and it is not processed the same. The Food and Beverage industry uses HFCS in virtually everything — sodas, juices, breads, ketchup, other sauces, etc — because it’s cheaper. They do not care about the health of their customers.
people claiming that HFCS is not a sugar is one of the reasons there is so much confusion around HFCS.
We’ve inundated our selves with using the word sugar to only mean table sugar (sucrose) and lost that the term describes a whole family of carbohydrates, rather then one compound.
So the corn industry is correct, HFCS is made of sugar. Our culture has just hijacked the term to only mean one thing, when it clearly describes many things.
It’s only in the sugars category on nutrition labels because there’s no “poison” category.
So all these folks ended up doing is showing the public that they actually do have something to hide…whoever came up with the renaming strategy needs to be fired…the first rule of PR should be – as in medicine – “do no harm.”
Dear corn growers. Put your money where your mouth is. Offer taste tests of raw sugar vs raw HFCS… whats that? Nothing? I thought so.
Penn Jillette on HFCS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyZ5hzEWj4w
………priceless
They do it with tobacco too.
Corn Sugar already exists. It’s a powder, often used in home brewing.
Otherwise known as Glucose! (its often labeled dextrose, but that’s just another name for glucose)
The real irony is that the corn lobby originally pushed it to be called HFCS because many people thought fructose = fruit sugar, so it must be healthier than sugar.
Obviously BIg Corn just needs a Willard win in November.
I hope this also spell the end of those awfully smug commercials by the CRA promoting the use of their term ‘corn sugar’.
Why the fu*k hasn’t this gone away and died?
HFCS and cane sugar metabolize differently in the body. HFCS is worse for you. End of story.
Alright there’s one thing the corn people haven’t explained yet.
Why are you mixing two simple sugars that remain separate in an aqueous solution then pretending ITS JUST LIKE A DISACHHARIDE?
Not about the glucose content, it’s about the complexity of the molecules.
Nice Corn Industry Folks: “Why do you people keep making it sound so complicated? It’s Corn Sugar (R). See? Simple! MMMM MMM YUM! Now stop hating on America and everything it stands for!”