Posted By Cathryn March 26, 2012
Every now and then, the dedicated bloggers at Corn Commentary run across something so interesting and in-tune with what they want to say that they, with the permission of the original author, choose to share it in its full form. While looking for new insight into the debate surrounding high fructose corn syrup, a blog post from twitter friend @thefarmerslife surfaced. Read on for some interesting insight into how the sugar industry is obscuring the full truth of the similarity between sweeteners through allegations that HFCS is processed. While true, it turns out that sugar undergoes quite a process prior to reaching supermarket shelves too.
High fructose corn syrup is processed food?
Yes it is. Corn needs to go through a process to become HFCS. A whole lot of people think this is a bad thing. I have a question for those people. Where do you think “natural” sugar comes from? I’m assuming when many use the term natural they are referring to nice, white table sugar that comes from sugar cane. But the sugar cane plant doesn’t grow pods on it full of white crystals ready for consumption. Therefore I must ask another question.
Cane sugar isn’t processed food?
I’ve been contemplating this post for a couple of months, but until now I never sat down at the computer to actually write it up. Luckily for me when I started searching for some info on how sugar cane becomes table sugar I found that Sweetscam.com had already done the work for me. They have some great videos that summarize the processes involved in making several types of sweeteners. Since the videos do such a great job of explaining and visualizing the process involved I’ll let them to the talking for me.
Let’s take a look at HFCS to see how it’s made.
Now let’s do cane sugar. (Spoiler alert! It’s a process!)
No they are not the same process, but you can see some similarity. The point I’m making is that both corn and sugar cane must go through some changes to become the products we eat. A process. I don’t have a problem with cane sugar. In fact, I like it quite a lot. I’m just pointing out that what most perceive as natural sugar can’t just be picked off a tree like an apple an eaten on the spot. Rather than saying cane sugar isn’t natural because it is processed, I would argue that sugar from other sources is just as natural as cane sugar. What do you think?
Posted By Cindy March 26, 2012
The right to free speech may be at stake in the legal battle over using the words “corn sugar” to describe the more technical term “high fructose corn syrup” or HFCS.
In a lawsuit brought before a federal judge in Los Angeles this past week, sugar producers accused individual corn refining companies of false advertising in the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) campaign to re-brand HCFS as corn sugar. The group of five corn refiners, including ADM and others, asked the judge to dismiss the claims on the basis that they should not be held liable for statements made by the association even though they are members. An earlier version of these same claims was already dismissed by the court in October 2011.
CRA president, Audrae Erickson, said the processed sugar industry’s attempt to hold the individual companies liable for CRA’s statements is “unprecedented,” adding that the CRA is attempting to inform consumers about an important public health issue and that it is “wrong for the refined sugar industry to try to stifle this truthful speech.”
CRA lawyer Dan Webb contends there is nothing dishonest about their advertising and that they will prove it in court by presenting the results of a nationwide survey suggesting that consumers believe high fructose corn syrup is higher in fructose and calories than table sugar, which is not true.
“USDA data shows that consumption of high fructose corn syrup has actually been in decline, while obesity rates are rising. It is just wrong for the plaintiffs to claim that high fructose corn syrup is uniquely responsible for obesity,” said Webb.
Eight sugar producing companies and two trade groups are seeking triple damages against the corn refiners under U.S. antitrust law and a court order to stop calling HCFS corn sugar. The corn refiners lawyers claim that the lawsuit fails to make the case for “individual and particular allegations” against the trade group’s members, and instead “lump all of the companies together as a single unit.”
The processed sugar industry has also brought claims against the CRA, which are proceeding to the discovery phase, according to Erickson. “We will vigorously defend those claims, which we believe are completely without merit,” Erickson said. That case is also pending in a Los Angeles federal court.
The corn refiners are continuing to pursue approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to use “corn sugar” instead of “high fructose corn syrup” on ingredient labels, on the basis that their product is “natural” and “nutritionally the same as table sugar.”
Posted By Cathryn December 21, 2011
Recently, Market Watch from the Wall Street Journal published a paid press release talking about two new studies that the Sugar Association touts as defending their position that high fructose corn syrup is intrinsically different from the processed cane and beet sweeteners they promote.
Reference to a scientific study which neither mimicked an actual human diet nor compared the metabolic equivalence of HFCS to that of cane and beet sugar aside, the Sugar Association presented some very credible evidence. The confusing messaging they present to consumers about the differences between sweeteners does actually confuse said consumers.
Their argument is simple: Consumers do not want high fructose corn syrup in their foods. Noting the consumers prefer not to eat this as they think it may affect their bodies differently than what they view as sugar, the group advocates disallowing HFCS to be identified as corn sugar. Implying that HFCS is not as “natural” as the refined products their organization touts, the bitter sugar advocates continue to obfuscate the facts by hiding behind consumer preference.
Here is the rub. The campaigns that brought about this supposed preference were run by sugar-backed groups. Without noting supportable data that can be verified, they have flaunted the simple fact that their products name sounds more natural and preyed upon confusion created by their promotion of long-discredited studies.
Congratulations! A campaign designed to confuse consumers worked. Now, sugar seeks to use this self-generated preference largely-based in confusion to maintain an image based in fiction.
Seriously?
Do not let this cycle of deceit continue. Expert after expert after expert has gone on record explaining that both molecularly and metabolically sugar is the same, be it from cane, corn or beet. No one sensible claims that overindulging in any one of these products is necessarily the best basis for a diet. Reasonable, well-informed experts know instead that they are equally good alternatives that can be consumed in moderation.
Do not let sugar schleppers pull a fast one on the American public. Get the facts and show them that U.S. consumers are smarter than falling for tricky tactics and circular logic.
Posted By Cathryn December 5, 2011
Corrections to hyped-up misperceptions can crop up in unlikely places. Many people might assume that they already know what a magazine called The Natural Food Insider would publish regarding high fructose corn syrup. Reading a recent article detailing nutritionist and weight-loss expert Joy Bauer’s advice to an industry-wide convention, it became evident that both Bauer and the publication want the world to understand what corn farmers and scientists already know: high fructose corn syrup is metabolically the same as sugar that, like all sweeteners, is fine to eat in moderation.
Bauer, a widely-respected expert who has been featured on The Today Show, addressed the suppliers’ conference in Vegas speaking authoritatively on the steps that food producers should take to increase the overall health of their products. Those who may have considered jumping on the anti-HFCS bandwagon received quite a shock when Bauer noted that, not only is HFCS the same as sugar, but that she feels okay with marketers changing the name on the ingredient label to corn sugar. She went on to explain that her acceptance of the name change is based in the fact that HFCS is actually not higher in fructose than sugar.
Dashing food marketers’ hopes that simply labeling a product “HFCS free” should connote a better selection for weight or health conscious consumers, Bauer explained that the type of sugar consumed does not matter. Instead, consumers should look at how much sugar a product contains.
Saturday Night Live may mock the information explained through the “Sweet Surprise” educational campaign, but natural food industry publications validate the accuracy of its message. Sugar is sugar whether corn, cane or beet. So enjoy it! Just watch how much you eat.
Posted By Mark November 8, 2011
The longest of journeys begins with a first step and perhaps the national idiocy over the evils of corn sugar (HFCS) may be about to subside. In the “Well Blog” in today’s New York Times they pronounce that soda bans in schools have limited impact.
I know business professionals aren’t
supposed to say “Duh” but this is a blog and sometimes simple is better so “Duh.”
The NY Times blog notes that “State laws that ban soda in schools — but not other sweetened beverages — have virtually no impact on the amount of sugary drinks middle school students buy and consume at school, a new study shows.”
Their study took a look at thousands of public school students across 40 states, found that removing soda from cafeterias and school vending machines only prompted students to buy sports drinks, sweetened fruit drinks and other sugar-laden beverages instead. In states that banned only soda, students bought and consumed sugary drinks just as frequently at school as their peers in states where there were no bans at all.
Did somebody actually pay for this information? In the name of saving some money and urging the discussion along let me go one step further and save you the time and investment in other moments that make you slap your forehead and scream “Eureka.”
Some schools have actually removed all drinks containing sugar in an effort to protect the students from themselves and guess what happens. Teachers I know who work in the trenches elbow to elbow with the children and young adults say an interesting phenomenon occurs; students actually bring their own drink of choice to school…or even more than one.
This easy access to their first choice of drinks/drinks may actually increase their consumption. Most teachers and many school administrators get this but apparently school boards who are making these silly decisions do not.
I have said it here before and will likely say it again; trying to legislate or regulate common sense is a slippery slope. The national obesity problem amongst children and adults in this country is a real issue but it needs to be addressed through intelligent lifestyle choices that include better selections of food and quantity consumed as well as regular exercise. Good role models at home can have far more impact on students than any school board.
Posted By Cathryn November 2, 2011
Frequently, CornCommentary serves as a place to correct the many errors, fallacies and misrepresentations that plague media coverage of agriculture. With 98.5 percent of the population totally uninvolved in farming or farm-related activities and deep labor cuts at outlets across the country eliminating staff with any ag knowledge, this problem may seem endemic. Other times, it becomes evident that controversy sells and, should it not appear organically, some journalists happily create it.
Corn farmers have an unlikely ally in correcting the fallacies surrounding high fructose corn syrup though – Michael Pollan. Often viewed as an enemy of modern production agriculture, Pollan has come out clarifying statements he made that, in his own opinion, portray the sweetener unfairly.
This week, his rebuttals once again took center stage with websites highlighting a recent interview in which Pollan told the Cleveland Plain-Dealer, Ohio’s largest newspaper, that his problem with sweetener in the American diet is based upon the amount consumed, not the type.
This statement is completely in line with earlier expressions of his viewpoint, such as that in his popular work Food Rules, an Eater’s Manual. While he does caution readers to cut down on their overall sugar intake, he pointedly notes that this includes sweetener of any kind and not just HFCS.
“Don’t fall for the food industry’s latest scam: products reformulated to contain ‘no HFCS’ or ‘real cane sugar,’” he states. “These claims imply these foods are somehow healthier, but they’re not. Sugar is sugar.”
Yet again, Pollan confirms the idea that a balanced diet leads to good health. It may be simpler to demonize a single ingredient, but the results of doing so will not be as effective. Instead, make healthy eating simple by moderating sugar intake without wasting time worrying about which specific sweetener it is.
Posted By Cathryn August 10, 2011
With all of the products labeled “No HFCS” cluttering store shelves, it seems obvious that consumers are demanding food manufacturers banish what was once an industry staple. Like many assumptions though, this isn’t the case. According to a study released earlier this month by Mintel Research Consultancy, most consumers look to avoid total added sugars and not high fructose corn syrup in particular. So, why are marketers pushing no HFCS as a selling point?
Simply, by stating that a product does not contain an ingredient, marketers can reinforce the baseless stigma that HFCS is somehow “worse” than other sweeteners. Notably, it is a stigma these ad wizards created themselves to differentiate products that are otherwise identical to competitors. It’s Marketing 101. If two products are identical, create the difference.
Here, the bitter bashers imply HFCS is somehow intrinsically worse by creating doubt. If it were just the same as other sweeteners, why would someone advertise their product as HFCS free?
Just like the Sweet Surprise commercials ask, what is really different about HFCS? Whether the answer comes from Martha Stewart, Marion Nestle or scientists themselves, it is the same – nothing. HFCS has the same glucose to fructose composition and is digested the same way also.
Maybe it is time that slick marketers take note. Consumers already know that corn sugar is just like any other sweetener. It is safe, delicious and totally fine to enjoy in moderation. The real people pushing grocery carts are more savvy and well-informed than the average ad man believes. Stop the hype. Not only is it untrue, it doesn’t work.
Posted By Cathryn July 8, 2011
As high school English teachers hand out research paper assignments to eye rolls and sighs, they must know that their students feel nearly certain that the knowledge gained in carefully sourcing their final assignment will never serve them later in life. This attitude remains pervasive into adulthood it seems as many legislators, food elitists and a broad array of anti-ag activists have forgotten one of the keys to a successful assignment: Always base your thesis on information from academically credible sources.
Right now, arguments against corn-based ethanol, corn sugar and production agriculture have gained a significant amount of public attention. What we must do is question the information the nay-sayers build their arguments upon because, as high school also taught, popularity does not equal substance.
But it seems legislators forgot these valuable lessons as the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology’s Subcommittee on Energy and Environment decided to invite chicken lobbyists, environmentalists and Big Oil to testify during a hearing examining the science behind E15. While each of these groups most certainly has an opinion, albeit a self-serving one, on ethanol, none can claim to have conducted the unbiased, scientific research that would lend their arguments credibility.
If the subcommittee had truly intended to take a hard look at the scientific knowledge on E15, there were many groups who could have offered more pertinent, reliable data. Institutions that publish actual research that holds weight in scientific circles, including the Rochester Institute of Technology and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, have conducted extensive research on the matter. Yet, somehow, our elected officials chose to listen to groups with obvious agendas and little expertise in the matter.
Food elitists have taken the same route as the armchair activists who perpetuate the idea that corn sugar, also known as high fructose corn syrup, somehow adds to the obesity epidemic, predisposes persons toward diabetes or is just generally bad. A majority of the HFCS-bashing public cannot accurately explain why they believe it to be worse beyond knowing that they heard something about some study.
Performing a routine Facebook search for the term yields telling results immediately. The very first result offered is a page advocating a complete ban of HFCS. Put together by a high school graduate with no discernible other credentials, the page explains that corn sugar differs from other sweeteners as the body metabolizes fructose and glucose differently. He even cites scientific evidence.
While this appears credible on the surface, it isn’t. What this vocal activist, who has been written about in publications as lofty as the New York Times, fails to understand is that corn sugar, cane sugar and beet sugar are nearly identical in their ratio of glucose to fructose, approximately 50 percent of each. Dieticians, physicians and reputable voices throughout the industry already know that corn sugar does not differ from other sweeteners. So why are more than 20,000 people fans of this inaccurate, bitter propaganda? The only logical conclusion is that they too decided to lazily accept whatever information they were handfed rather than critically evaluate the source.
It is time that we ask as much of ourselves as was required in high school – that we act as critical thinkers. The assignments today include developing sensible policies that serve the public good and are based in science and not propaganda-driven hysteria. Much more is at stake than an A this time so follow your English teacher’s instructions and make sure that the information you share comes from a source deserving of your trust.
Posted By Cathryn June 7, 2011
Love her or hate her, Martha Stewart holds a special place in American culture as the domestic diva who made masses of women contemplate how they cooked, decorated and entertained. From the chickens she tends for fresh eggs to the pies that she bakes from scratch, Stewart epitomizes the foodie movement that seeks to promote a food-centric culture that embraces of-the-moment ingredients and trendy movements.
Guess what Martha Stewart also embraces? Corn Sugar. In a recent edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Stewart responded to a reader’s question on high fructose corn syrup not with baseless food snobbery but instead with scientifically-based evidence that corn sugar is just that – sugar.
Citing the American Medical Association, Stewart succinctly explained that, “high fructose corn syrup does not appear to contribute more to obesity than other sweeteners.” This statement flies in the case of baseless anti-corn sugar campaigns blaming the obesity epidemic on demon corn sugar instead of overeating and a sedentary lifestyle.
If Martha Stewart can eschew the propaganda, so can all reasonable Americans. Anti-HFCS rhetoric is agenda-driven hype in designer clothes. Don’t buy into the slick smear campaign. Add Martha Stewart to the growing list of foodies who know that sound science never goes out of style.
Posted By Cathryn May 24, 2011
While it may be easier to blame the pounds that have crept around our midsections over the past few winters on a single demon-food, a comprehensive review of research presented by James M. Rippe, MD, at the American Society of Hypertension Annual Meeting shows yet again that the way the human body metabolizes high fructose corn syrup and table sugar is nearly identical.
More importantly, he concluded that there is no evidence that HFCS has a different impact on risk factors for chronic disease. Rippe, the founder and director of the Rippe Lifestyle Institute and professor of biomedical sciences at the University of Central Florida, went so far as to bash popular propaganda in the face by stating consuming HFCS instead of table sugar is no more likely to make someone obese or to make it more difficult for them to lose weight.
So why are we, as a society, becoming so fat? Is it inactivity? A sedentary lifestyle? Mindless snacking? If you ask someone who is actually shocked by Rippe’s results, they might answer that the increased usage of sweetener is to blame. They may even go on to continue pinning the tail on the HFCS piñata by deducing that the supposed sweetener glut foisted upon the American public results directly from the affordability of HFCS.
Again, Dr. Rippe’s research proves the bitter HFCS bashers wrong. Yes, in the past three decades the average American went from consuming 2,200 to 2,700 calories per day – a 22 percent jump. Since just 1999, the average calories from sweetener consumed has dropped 10 percent from 500 to 450.
So what are we eating? Since 1999, average fat consumption has spiked.
Instead of blaming fat though, let’s take a more holistic view of obesity in our country. Let’s admit that it takes a variety of factors to get us on the last loop of our collective belt and realize that only through addressing these issues will we get back into our skinny jeans. It may take restraint, will power and personal responsibility, but only by looking at our lifestyles in a healthy way can we improve our overall health.
It is like mom said. There is no boogie man. What blame throwers don’t want to recognize is the culprits that lie within their heads, not their mouths.
