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.

Even though Idaho and other Pacific Northwest states combined currently make up less than 2% of the nation’s total corn production, scientists with USDA’s Agricultural Research Service are studying soil moisture levels and other field dynamics to help farmers in that area maximize production of the relatively new regional crop.

To do so, they conducted a two-year study at the ARS Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research Laboratory in Kimberly, Idaho to see if farmers who use conventional tillage and fertilizer application methods could increase corn yields by banding fertilizer with strip tillage instead.

The scientists found that using strip tillage and placing fertilizers 6 to 8 inches directly below the seed increased corn grain yields on the higher elevations–where severely eroded soils were largely devoid of crop nutrients–by 12 percent the first year and 26 percent the second year. This translated into yield increases between 11 and 26 bushels per acre.

Could this be the start of a new Corn Belt? Probably not, but it could mean increasing production in an area of the country better known for potatoes than corn.

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.

Addressing fallacies about food prices, water use and greenhouse gas emissions, Forrest Jehlik shows clearly how the many misconceptions that plague ethanol have no scientific basis.  Backed by Argonne’s laudable reputation for scientific excellence, his statements provide the direct, clear facts.

Noting that the 900,000 barrels of ethanol the U.S. produces per day is equal to our Nigerian oil imports and “within striking distance of the amount we import from Venezuela or Saudi Arabia,” Jehlik gives strong reasons to reexamine our view of ethanol itself and of the policies and regulations aimed at this amazing industry.

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.

Department of Energy data shows U.S. gasoline use averaged 138 billion gallons per year from 2000 to 2010, meaning annual savings due to ethanol during the decade averaged $34.5 billion.

In the study, professors Dermott Hays and Xiaodong Du find that “the use of ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average if $0.89 per gallon in 2010.”  The Renewable Fuels Association extrapolates that, in 2010 alone, ethanol reduced the average American’s household gasoline bill by $800.  While the facts go on and on, the bottom line stays the same – Ethanol keeps money in consumer pockets.

*Gas prices could almost double to “historic proportions” if ethanol production immediately halted

*Drivers saved an average of $0.25 per gallon from 2000-2010

*Annual savings from 2000-2010 averaged $34 billion dollars

In 2011, gas prices have reached an average of roughly $3.90 per gallon.  Consumers still reeling from the recession cannot afford to lose ethanol, one of the few mechanisms for lowering ever-rising fuel prices.  Instead, consumers deserve a choice.  Allowing customers to select scientifically-proven E15 at the pump provides an option that will both lower consumer fuel costs and decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

Smut fungi are agents of disease responsible for significant crop losses worldwide, especially in corn, where the airborne fungus is found most frequently on ears, tassels and nodes. According to the National Corn Growers Association, corn smut accounts for approximately $1 billion in crop losses annually. Sweet corn is more susceptible to smut than field corn with annual losses often as high as 20%.

Researchers with at the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center have been working on a project to develop a smut-resistant variety of corn, specifically corn smut caused by the fungus, Ustilago maydis.

Dr. Thomas Smith and Dr. Dilip Shah explored an approach using a naturally found killer protein, KP4, made by a virus that lives in one specific strain of corn smut. “This is the only symbiosis I know of in the virus world,” said Smith. “Viruses like the common cold and the flu infect the host cell and destroy it after they have reproduced. In contrast, these corn smut viruses cannot leave the cell and the viruses ‘know’ that the host has to live if they hope to survive. To make sure its captive host lives, this virus, UMV4, makes a protein that is exported from the host cell and will kill off the other strains of corn smut trying to infect the same ear of corn. It’s an infection of an infection; the corn smut infects the corn, the virus infects the smut, and virus produces the KP4 protein to kill competing fungi, and thus insuring the host will outcompete other corn smut strains. With our genetically modified corn, the plants are producing so much KP4 protein, that the corn smut strains commonly found in the field are killed by the plant before they get a chance to establish an infection.”

Toxicity studies have shown that the KP4 proteins are safe for humans and animals to consume. Smith and Shah will continue to explore KP4 and other antifungal proteins ability to control other pathogenic fungi.

This is critical information because consumers should know what their addiction to imported petroleum is really costing them and Big Oil has never been shy about bashing incentives for the domestic ethanol industry, the only real competition they face in the marketplace. They try to be-little the contributions of family farmers and the American ethanol industry that now produce as much ethanol as what we currently import from Saudi Arabia.

At the end of the day you have to question why a century old industry like oil, whose major players consistently rank in the Fortune 100 companies, conservatively receive 10 times the incentives received by ethanol. As Neeley says, “Using the most liberal definition of public financial support, including tax breaks on equipment depreciation and foreign investments, oil’s total benefit from the public treasury can be as much as 10 times that of ethanol.”

DTN’s tally for state and federal tax incentives for oil comes to $17.9 billion annually. All told the tax deductions, credits and other public benefits the oil industry receives, U.S. taxpayers support oil to the tune of between $133.2 billion and $280.8 billion annually. “The comparable figure exclusively for ethanol is $7.1 billion. This does not include tax credits and other incentives that both industries share, such as the blenders’ credit or VEETC”…or the roughly $7 billion to $28 billion in military costs to protect oil supplies. Let’s not forget the White Elephant of lives lost either.

Interestingly, oil interests say they need the taxpayer largesse to do research and explore for more petroleum to continue our legacy of dependence. Makes you wonder what the impact would be if they invested the $200 billion oil says they spend on research in making ethanol more efficiently and from even more sources.

And as for oil exploration, I would rather invest my money in ethanol. . We know where farmers live and what their productive capabilities are when they are challenged to meet market demand. Eight record crops in the last eight years prove it.

Armed with pitchforks and torches, the usual suspects who fear the monsters are storming the Hill. Food & Water Watch, the Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth are among those who are raising the alarm to save the women and children from harmful allergens if the monster gets in the food supply, or certain death for wild salmon if the monster gets loose.

The frankenfish in question is a salmon developed by AquaBounty Technologies that contains a growth hormone gene from the Chinook salmon and a genetic switch from the ocean pout that turns on a gene that allows the salmon to make the growth hormone in colder weather. AquaBounty’s mission is to bring together “biological sciences and molecular technology to enable an aquaculture industry capable of large-scale, efficient, and environmentally sustainable production of high quality seafood.” In other words, produce high quality protein faster and more efficiently to feed a growing human population. What a monstrous thought!

Even if FDA approves the sale of the fish this week, it will still be a couple of years before we see it on the market, but it could pave the way for other genetically-engineered animals to enter the food supply. In fact, FDA has already determined that the fish is safe to eat, but not yet decided that it’s okay to commercially produce and sell it. The company has been trying to obtain FDA approval for more than a decade, but the concerns being raised are that there is not enough data. AquaBounty is putting all of its fish eggs in this one basket, reporting a $4.8 million loss last year with no revenues. They are certainly not stinting on the research end and have been patiently jumping through the hoops being raised by the government for approval.

If you read some of the comments posted on stories about this and you will find that many, if not most, of those who are opposed to genetic engineering of food are opposed to humans in general. The real answer to feeding our growing population, according to them, is not to create ways to make more food more efficiently, it is to create less people – or get rid of some of the ones we have. They are in favor of birth control, sterilization, and abortion to cut down on the human population, yet consistently oppose any and all technologies and means to create more food with less resources. In fact, many would be happy to see us produce LESS food, LESS efficiently by instituting locally produced, organic foods with no animal protein. To me, that is a whole lot more frightening.

Tami Dennis, health and science editor of the Los Angeles Times wrote the article about the recent UCLA study linking HFCS to the spread of pancreatic cancer contending that it could be an “overstatement.”

But the best line from the piece is a cutline under a lab photo accompanying her blog which said: “The road between a lab experiment and public policy is long. Or it should be.”

 Wow! Words to live by. The UCLA hype is just the latest effort to take a free-standing nugget of information and attempt to pawn it off as scientific gospel akin to Galileo’s observation that gravity works.

Dennis cites the blog Respectful Insolence in her argument.   “I hate science press releases that hype a study beyond its importance. I hate it even more when the investigators who published the study make statements not justified by the study and use the study as a jumping off point to speculate wildly.”

She is right on in her assessment. However,  the problem is the UCLA news release got huge national exposure, fructose got another undeserved whack, and a small percentage of people who read the original news story will ever see the much lower profile condemnations of this shoddy approach to research.

Gilbert Ross, M.D., Executive Director and Medical Director of the American Council on Science and Health had a similar reaction to the UCLA gambit saying, “Both the authors and the press need to retract these alarmist and unsupported claims — especially the authors, since such gross over-interpretation of a lab study is inexcusable among academic scientists. They seem to be grasping for headlines and promoting some anti-fructose political agenda.”

For more background on this issue you might want to check out a much more thoughtful piece here.