Industry Wants High Fructose Corn Syrup Re-Labeled as “Corn Sugar”

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By EMILY FREDRIX AP Marketing Writer

The makers of high fructose corn syrup want to sweeten its image with a new name: corn sugar.

The Corn Refiners Association applied Tuesday to the federal government for permission to use the name on food labels. The group hopes a new name will ease confusion about the sweetener, which is used in soft drinks, bread, cereal and other products.

Americans' consumption of corn syrup has fallen to a 20-year low on consumer concerns that it is more harmful or more likely to cause obesity than ordinary sugar, perceptions for which there is little scientific evidence.

However, some scientists have linked consumption of full-calorie soda — the vast majority of which is sweetened with high fructose corn syrup — to obesity.

The Food and Drug Administration could take two years to decide on the name, but that's not stopping the industry from using the term now in advertising.

There's a new online marketing campaign at www.cornsugar.com and on television. Two new commercials try to alleviate shopper confusion, showing people who say they now understand that "whether it's corn sugar or cane sugar, your body can't tell the difference. Sugar is sugar."

Renaming products has succeeded before. For example, low eurcic acid rapeseed oil became much more popular after becoming "canola oil" in 1988. Prunes tried to shed a stodgy image by becoming "dried plums" in 2000.

The new name would help people understand the sweetener, said Audrae Erickson, president of the Washington-based group.

"It has been highly disparaged and highly misunderstood," she said. She declined to say how much the campaign costs.

Sugar and high fructose corn syrup are nutritionally the same, and there's no evidence that the sweetener is any worse for the body than sugar, said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The bottom line is people should consume less of all sugars, Jacobson said.

"Soda pop sweetened with sugar is every bit as conducive to obesity as soda pop sweetened with high fructose corn syrup," he said.

The American Medical Association says there's not enough evidence yet to restrict the use of high fructose corn syrup, although it wants more research.

Still, Americans increasingly are blaming high fructose corn syrup and avoiding it. First lady Michelle Obama has said she does not want her daughters eating it.

Parents such as Joan Leib scan ingredient labels and will not buy anything with it. The mother of two in Somerville, Mass., has been avoiding the sweetener for about a year to reduce sweeteners in her family's diet.

"I found it in things that you would never think needed it, or should have it," said Leib, 36. "I found it in jars of pickles, in English muffins and bread. Why do we need extra sweeteners?"

Many companies are responding by removing it from their products. Last month, Sara Lee switched to sugar in two of its breads. Gatorade, Snapple and Hunt's Ketchup very publicly switched to sugar in the past two years.

The average American ate 35.7 pounds of high fructose corn syrup last year, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That's down 21 percent from 45.4 pounds 10 years before.

Cane and beet sugar, meanwhile, have hovered around 44 pounds per person per year since the mid-1980s, after falling rapidly in the 1970s, when high fructose corn syrup — a cheaper alternative to sugar — gained favor with soft drink makers.

more...

[Peikko 1,575]

Seems they don't like people being aware that they put this ####### in everything. The main point is sweeteners of all sorts should not be in most foods - that's the bottom line and a message that does seem to be getting through from this piece. Hope the industry doesn't derail that is all I can say.

[ValerieA 350]

By EMILY FREDRIX AP Marketing Writer

The makers of high fructose corn syrup want to sweeten its image with a new name: corn sugar.

The Corn Refiners Association applied Tuesday to the federal government for permission to use the name on food labels. The group hopes a new name will ease confusion about the sweetener, which is used in soft drinks, bread, cereal and other products.

Ease confusion? Corn sugar sounds like a natural substance (similar to cane sugar), which HFCS is not. It is a manufactured product. They are trying to lead consumers down the garden path, here.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Ease confusion? Corn sugar sounds like a natural substance (similar to cane sugar), which HFCS is not. It is a manufactured product. They are trying to lead consumers down the garden path, here.

Their argument is that HFCS now has a bum rap in the minds of most consumers now, in spite of all the industry funded research that says it's identical to sugar. Monsanto tried to make the same argument against allowing dairy farms to label their milk free of growth hormones.

[Jenn! 918]

You know what I hate? How now they add a "No HFCS" label to the food and jack up the price. If the public demanded no HFCS then the stuff without it wouldn't be more expensive.

[Eveline 9]

There's a lot of lying and confusion going on. The best defense is to inform yourself, read labels, if in doubt don't buy the stuff, bake, make and cook yourself from scratch and stick with sugar. Yes sugar is not healthy itself but I rather know what spikes my kids' blood sugar than giving them some ####### food with artificial syrup. I usually buy unrefined organic cane sugar, turbinado sugar, brown rice syrup, molasses, stevia, honey etc. yes it's all - except the stevia - some kind of sugar but still better than HFCS if you control how much you eat (or give your kids).

[Amby 490]

I have no friggin clue where I got this, but I thought they started using HFCS because Louisiana was the major sugar cane producer and they didn't want imports of sugar bringing the price of sugar cane down. The US needed more sugar and there's lots of corn in the US?

[ValerieA 350]

You know what I hate? How now they add a "No HFCS" label to the food and jack up the price. If the public demanded no HFCS then the stuff without it wouldn't be more expensive.

Sugar does cost more, so if you made the 'same' product, one bottle with sugar, one with HFCS - the one with sugar should cost more. So, if we banned HFCS, the cost of a lot of food would increase.

[Amby 490]

You know what I hate? How now they add a "No HFCS" label to the food and jack up the price. If the public demanded no HFCS then the stuff without it wouldn't be more expensive.

if you buy a bag of sugar at the store, beet sugar is slightly cheaper than cane sugar.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Amby

[ValerieA 350]

I have no friggin clue where I got this, but I thought they started using HFCS because Louisiana was the major sugar cane producer and they didn't want imports of sugar bringing the price of sugar cane down. The US needed more sugar and there's lots of corn in the US?

I believe it had to do with sugar quotas being implemented in the 70's, and the cost of sugar rising significantly.

[Marilyn. 340]

I mentioned in another thread that Hunts now makes ketchup without HFCS and it is still around the same price as the ketchup with HFCS..

[Amby 490]

I believe it had to do with sugar quotas being implemented in the 70's, and the cost of sugar rising significantly.

like I said, I had no clue where I got it from. I could have made it up for all I know

[ValerieA 350]

like I said, I had no clue where I got it from. I could have made it up for all I know

Yeah, I am looking for backup for my belief. I worked for a company that made fondants, fillings, icings, etc. and we had switched quite a few recipes (I would guess about 50%) to HFCS by the time I left - the switch was done over the course of many years. It was the Purchasing Manager that told me this, but I have no real evidence...

On a side note, I have always wondered about the timing aspect - people have pointed out that the rising obesity and diabetes levels coincide with greater use of HFCS, but I speculate that during that same time frame, people have simply increased their consumption of packaged/sweetened goods regardless of the sweetener used - so, if HFCS had never been invented, we would still see the same result, and it would be attributable to sugar. And the lack of exercise common these days.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You know what I hate? How now they add a "No HFCS" label to the food and jack up the price. If the public demanded no HFCS then the stuff without it wouldn't be more expensive.

I haven't noticed a real price difference where I shop. I just bought a bottle of organic tomato ketchup (store brand) because it was the only one without HFCS for about $2.50, which was comparable to a similar sized bottle of Heinz.

I mentioned in another thread that Hunts now makes ketchup without HFCS and it is still around the same price as the ketchup with HFCS..

That's encouraging.

[Eveline 9]

Also HEB sells ketchup without HFCS for the same price as a bottle of Heinz Ketchup.

I think the problem with obesity in the US is that people don't know how to regulate. They say "chocolate is good for whatever" and people go and buy and eventually eat chocolate. They say "red wine is good for the heart" and people go and drink plenty of red wine, way too much. They say..."a glass of orange juice erases the '#######' from eating a hamburger' (heard that on the radio the other day) so I bet some people go and get Sunny D (which should be called ObesiD) with HFCS and color #2 yello #5blue etc. and drink that en masse while enjoying a hamburger.