Corn Refiners Association Wants to Change the Name of High Fructose Corn Syrup to "Corn Sugar"

[HuckleB]

Source: Cleveland Leader

High fructose corn syrup has gotten a bad rap in recent years, with many consumers eschewing products with HFCS in favor of those with cane sugar. In an attempt to make-over HFCS image, the Corn Refiners Association is planning to rename the syrup to "corn sugar".

As consumption of HFCS has reached a 20-year low amid concerns about health and obesity, the CRA plans to apply Tuesday to the Food and Drug Administration to get "corn sugar" approved as an alternative name for food labels.

Approval could take up to two years, but in the meantime, the industry is planning to use the term now in advertising. They've already launched a new online campaign at cornsugar.com and have launched two new television commercials.

Changing the name of products has succeeded before. For example, low eurcic acid rapeseed oil became more popular when it's name changed to "canola oil" in 1988.

Read more: http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/14671

---

It's off to market we go!

Hmmm.

[cleanhippie]

1. Comparing the name change of canola isn't quite the same, is it?

I mean, canola oil is supposed to actually be better for you than most oils right? So changing the name gave it better marketability.


HFCS is bad, very very bad for you, changing the name is meant to deceive consumers, not quite the same reason as canola, right?

[HuckleB]

2. It's bad for us, because it's so prevalent, and we eat too much of it.

In and of itself, it's not so horrific.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501

I don't think such a marketing change will work, myself. In fact, it might bring more attention, and perhaps some government subsidies will go away.

[yellowcanine]

9. HFCS is corn sugar, which is bad for you if you eat too much. So is cane sugar. So is beet sugar.

So is honey if you eat too much. And canola. All pretty relative, imo.

HFCS in prepared foods has about the same percentages of fructose and glucose in it as sucrose, the stuff people put in their coffee and tea, and what Coca-Cola etc used to put in sodas and will again if HFCS is banned or receives too much bad publicity. The biggest problem with HFCS is that it is so cheap that the sodas are cheaper than plain water and therefore low income people buy and drink a lot of them.

[Demit]

21. The biggest problem w/ HFCS is that it's almost impossible to avoid.

It's not just in soda. It's in bread & ketchup & hundreds of other products because it is used as a preservative as well as a cheap sweetener. Some producers are even adding HFCS to honey to increase yields and lower production costs.

HFCS is metabolized differently from other sugars in your body. It is not just another sugar.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. It's in the same products that have sugar.

bread, ketchup, and hundreds of other products also contain sugar.

And no, it's not metabolized differently.

[IcyPeas]

72. Will you have to change your user name now too ?

:rofl:

[yellowcanine]

57. "HFCS is metabolized differently from other sugars in your body." This is unsettled science.

Fructose is fructose and glucose is glucose. Their exact proportions may influence metabolism but there are a lot of unanswered questions. And even if true, the differences are clearly swamped by volume effects - that is, if sugar is consumed in large quantities it makes little difference what the exact make-up of the sugar is - you are going to store that sugar as fat and you are increasing your risk of type 2 diabetes. OTOH, if sugars are consumed in moderate amounts the exact make-up of the sugars probably doesn't matter either.

[Thor_MN]

86. "HFCS is metabolized differently from other sugars in your body. " Totally and completely wrong

"HFCS is metabolized differently from other sugars in your body. "

The evil HFCS consists of Fructose and Glucose while pure cane sugar consists of... Fructose and Glucose.

While Fructose IS metabolized differently than Glucose, HFCS and Cane Sugar are a mixture consisting of half of each. People who don't like to think too much read that Fructose is worse for you than Glucose and confuse it with HFCS is worse for you than sugar. The facts are that both HFCS and cane sugar are approximately half fructose and half glucose. Too much of either will make you overweight. It doesn't matter if you pig out on HFCS soda or "throwback" sodas with cane sugar, either one will make you fat.

[onehandle]

3. A counter proposal that should come from the FDA: 'Death Sweetener'

High Fructose Corn Syrup doesn't sound so bad now, eh?

[valerief]

4. Well, the term "corn" has been already dirtied because it's GMO.

I can't see the FDA saying no to anything as long as their palms are greased (and not with canola oil).

[krabigirl]

5. Thanks for the link..passing it on so people know. I won't touch that stuff.

[Thav]

6. No matter how much you polish a turd...

It's still a turd.

[JackRiddler]

7. They're deluding themselves if they think a simpler, more memorable name is going to help...

This can backfire as a PR move.

It's "corn" that's already picked up the negative connotations, not "fructose."

[Codeine]

8. Corn sugar is precisely what HFCS is.

I'm not seeing the big hullabaloo. It'll be a public change, and everyone who avoids products with the HFCS ingredient listing can just as easily avoid the corn sugar ingredient listing.

[cleanhippie]

10. You don't see this as purposeful misdirection in order to deceive an ignorant public?

[Codeine]

14. I differ from much of DU in that I do not see HFCS

as being an especially evil substance. The problem lies with the ubiquity and prevalence of the stuff, not in the fact it is uniquely destructive.

And the fact of the matter is that it's a sugar made from corn. Corn sugar. :shrug: The public isn't as ignorant as you assume; they'll avoid it or embrace it just as they do with the current label.

[cleanhippie]

30. But it has been proven to be harmful and leads to obesity and other problems

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/index.xml?section=topstories



Sure, it is the consumption of the product that is the real problem, but changing the name to something more benign is, IMO, an attempt to deceive consumers in order to sell more product.

[HuckleB]

33. The point is that we have to change the way we eat.

Simply changing the type of sugar in what we eat isn't going to do anything.

[cleanhippie]

46. Agreed, 100%, but that is not the topic at hand, its the name change and the reasoning for it.

It seems that the name change is being done purely for deception, don't you think? Why would it be changed otherwise?

[HuckleB]

48. Yes.

The name change is a bizarre marketing ploy.

However, the name change isn't what many people are discussing. Instead they're offering the usual comments that HFCS is somehow worse than other sugars.

Anyway, I need to make some coffee.

:hi:

[cleanhippie]

50. Me too, with sugar!

Raw sugar though!

[HuckleB]

53. Now you're going to get my coffee purist dander up.

Enjoy!

:hi:

[aquart]

43. Then I think you should continue to buy and eat it.

And I won't.

[HuckleB]

44. Will you replace it with other sugars, or are you actually changing your diet?

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501

[Codeine]

47. I don't even eat much myself.

I consume mostly fresh veggies and usually make my own bread with a bread machine or buy Francisco brand sourdough -- not because it doesn't have HFCS, but just because it tastes great and isn't a round loaf like most sourdough breads.

It's in the burger buns I buy for my veggie burgers, but not the burgers themselves.

I do drink Coca-Cola, but even then I mostly drink cane sugar Mexican Coke because it tastes a little better than regular Coke.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

HFCS in neither sryup nor sugar..it is a waste by-product of the production of Ethynol.....

that just happened to taste sweet...just like antifreeze does

[Codeine]

17. It's glucose and fructose.

That's exactly what sugar is. The bond is a bit different, but it's still a sugar.

And of course it's a syrup. A syrup is dissolved sugars that don't crystallize.

[Downwinder]

35. An opposing view.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/sugar-may-be-bad-but-this_b_463655.html

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. Did you know Mercola's a well known quack and fraud?

[Codeine]

37. Mercola and HuffPo?

[HuckleB]

39. Obesity Myths.

Myth: High Fructose Corn Syrup Uniquely Contributes to Obesity.
http://www.obesitymyths.com/myth9.1.htm

[cleanhippie]

49. Its not a myth. Here is a peer reviewed scientific finding.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/index.xml?section=topstories



"These rats aren't just getting fat; they're demonstrating characteristics of obesity, including substantial increases in abdominal fat and circulating triglycerides," said Princeton graduate student Miriam Bocarsly. "In humans, these same characteristics are known risk factors for high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, cancer and diabetes." In addition to Hoebel and Bocarsly, the research team included Princeton undergraduate Elyse Powell and visiting research associate Nicole Avena, who was affiliated with Rockefeller University during the study and is now on the faculty at the University of Florida. The Princeton researchers note that they do not know yet why high-fructose corn syrup fed to rats in their study generated more triglycerides, and more body fat that resulted in obesity.

[HuckleB]

51. That's a single study.

It isn't the be-all, end-all. Scientists who are looking at the full picture of the research don't appear to see the evidence as in agreement with that study.

[cleanhippie]

60. Maybe, but it debunks the "its a myth" myth, right?

[HuckleB]

62. Not really, no.

The majority of the evidence indicates that the issue with how much people eat, not with what sugar they eat.

[cleanhippie]

66. Riiight. We will just agree to disagree then.

Although I do agree a large part IS the AMOUNT of consumption of ALL foods.

[HuckleB]

75. OK. I'm good with that.

Besides, I'm about to have a little "agave syrup," uh, the good kind.

[cleanhippie]

77. You mean tequilla?

Mmmmmmm, tequilla!


Whats agave syrup? Is is like maple, just made from agave? What do you put it on?

[HuckleB]

80. Apparently it goes by agave nectar, more often than agave syrup.

It was (and is) being marketed a "healthy" sweetener. I've never used it. The reality about the "healthy" proved to be a bit different, however.

Increasingly popular agave nectar is no better for you than sugar, nutritionists say
http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_News_Local_W_agave08.240c7da.html

Oh, and, yes, I meant tequila. Mmmm.

:hi:

[bergie321]

65. A myth implies

That the science is settled. The Princeton study shows that the science is far from settled.

[HuckleB]

69. You can tell yourself that.

The Princeton study is extremely preliminary, thus it really doesn't add much to the full picture at the moment.

[HuckleB]

11. Yup.

But I'm still entertained by goofy marketing ploys.

[thereismore]

20. No it isn't. You have to do some chemistry first to get from corn to HFCS. nt

[Codeine]

22. You have to do "chemistry" to make almost any processed food.

Hell, even making sugar from cane involves some chemistry. And the fact that it has to be processed does not make it any less a sugar -- it's fructose and glucose. Cane sugar is also fructose and glucose. As is beet sugar. As is honey.

[thereismore]

24. Not really. To get sugar out of cane or beets, all you need is physics, mechanical processing

filtering and drying. To refine sugar (an unnecessary step) you will need chemistry, but that's not what I mean. You can't get HFCS out of corn with just phycical processing. You need chemistry.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. You have to do chemistry to get from sugar cane to table sugar.

:shrug:

[thereismore]

59. If you mean refined sugar, then yes. Otherwise read #24. nt

[liberal N proud]

12. Have you seen the ad's they are running on TV?

Telling everyone that your body doesn't know the difference? Sugar is sugar is the last line of the ad.

Preying on the ignorant with misinformation should be a crime.

[HuckleB]

18. I don't watch TV, so I haven't seen any ads.

Still, the issue with HFCS is that it's cheap and we eat too much of it. It's not really horrific in and of itself.

High Fructose Corn Syrup: Tasty Toxin or Slandered Sweetener?
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501

[liberal N proud]

42. Like everything, we always go to excess.

[Newsjock]

13. Up is down

War is peace. HFCS is corn sugar.

[Evasporque]

15. Obesetase Diabetecrouse

that is what they should call that garbage.

[herbm]

16. They also changed "sh*t" into poop, too.

By changing Toothfish to Chilean Sea Bass we've marketed them into an endangered status.

[thereismore]

19. Haha, feeling the pressure? nt

[Sander]

23. HFCS IS Sugar, pure and simple

Sucrose, (cane, beet) sugar is made up of two simple sugars, glucose and fructose. As soon as it enters your stomach, it is hydrolyzed by stomach acids and enzymes to glucose and fructose. So your body simply cannot tell the difference one from the other. HCFS is simply a mixture of the glucose and fructose. Your body cannot tell the difference. I have been arguing this point for years. Ask any chemist who has ever taken organic chemistry or biochemistry.

The problem is not HFCS itself. It is the fact that we, as a nation, eat too much sugar. Period. Whether the sugar comes from beets, corn, cane, honey, whatever.

A second problem exits, however. It is the lack of scientific education in our schools today. Many have come to believe and snake-oil purveyor and so-called self-styled "nutritional experts" who are just trying to sell their own brands of hokum. So gin up some phony scare tactics about HFCS and people will believe it.

The issue of Canola oil is a bit more interesting though. The name, "rapeseed oil" is a turn-off, even if it did not contain the toxin Eurasia acid. So after they developed a low-eurucic acid rapeseed, simply calling "low-eurucic acid rapeseed oil" was not going to make it any more saleable. So I can understand changing the name to Canola oil.

Other name changes are done for saleability as well. Look at Patagonian Tooth Fish. Not too many would think to buy this at their local fish market or restaurant. But change the name to "Chilean Sea Bass" and you now have a new gourmet item.

[Codeine]

29. DU does not like to hear that, dude.

Prepare for the dogpile. We've chosen our demon and he is Corn Syrup.

[cleanhippie]

31. Not exactly.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/index.xml?section=topstories

[Cronus Protagonist]

34. Fructose is converted to gl;ucose in the liver

The problem is our liver wasn't constructed to handle as munch fructose as there is in a boatload of corn syrup on one meal. It can handle an apple or three, but the amount of HFCS we eat in a single meal is too much for our bodies to handle.

[Sander]

38. But HFCS contains just as much fructose as does sucrose

Your liver can't tell if the fructose it is converting came form HFCS or from cane/beet sugar. The problem is, TOO MUCH SUGAR!

[w4rma]

41. Is the ratio of fructose to glucose the same as in cane sugar? beet sugar? (nt)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. It's slightly different.

It's the same ratio as found in honey. And many fruit.

[yellowcanine]

61. The liver wasn't constructed to handle as much refined sugar as there often is in one meal.

I do believe this is more important than glucose/fructose ratios or sources.

[bc3000]

26. It's always been called corn sugar

and we've always been at war with Eastasia

[hunter]

27. While we are at it we can rename type 2 diabetes "corn diabetes."

Along with "corn sugar" labels could also have a big scary warning much like the warnings they put on alcoholic beverages or cigarettes.

WARNING: Contains Corn Sugar. Excessive use of products containing corn sugar is hazardous to your health.

[Codeine]

32. Excessive use of ANY sugar will fuck you up.

we swill too much sweetener, period. If HFCS went away our incidence of diabetes and obesity would remain unchanged, because the sweeteners we would replace the corn syrup with would do exactly the same stuff to our bodies when consumed in enormous quantities.

The 44 oz soda in the cup holder is the problem, not the subsidized sweetener it is made with.

[TroglodyteScholar]

74. +1 n/t

[Thor_MN]

87. Pure Corn sugar is Glucose aka "Blood Sugar"

It should actually be better for you as it does not have the Fructose that Cane Sugar has.

HFCS adds Fructose to make it essentially the same as cane sugar. So saying "Corn Sugar" is bad for you is ridiculous. Too much sugar is the problem, but the conspiracy theory crowd loves them some villians to rail against.

[w4rma]

40. I have no problem with this. It won't help them in any way. And it makes nutrition simpler. (nt)

[slackmaster]

52. Everyone who makes home-brewed beer is familiar with corn sugar

We should not be ashamed to call by its proper name that which God was not ashamed to create.

[cosmicone]

54. Very deceiving and now they are running misleading ads ...

I saw a commercial saying "the body cannot tell the difference .. sugar is sugar"

That line is patently false.

Different sugars have different glycemic indices.

HFCS's glycemic index is what leads to obesity and diabetes in its consumers. Sugar is NOT sugar.

[HuckleB]

58. Maybe, but then again...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9131843&mesg_id=9131843

[LanternWaste]

55. And percAnd perception forces Madison Avenue to undergo another re-branding...

And public perception forces Madison Avenue to undergo another re-branding.

The two steely-eyed, yet wholly unrepentant poker players wonders who will blink first. Madison, it's your call...

[musette_sf]

56. K&R because people need to know

[activa8tr]

63. Well, of course they do! They're Republicans!

They like those lies!

[JoeyT]

64. From looking at the MY bottle sitting next to me:

32g of sugars. 120 calories worth in a single serving. And the bottle contains 3 servings for a total of 94 grams of sugar and 350 calories. It doesn't take a whole lot of those to make you gain weight no matter what kind of sugar it is and no matter what they call that sugar. Even if they rename it "Magic Elixir of Eternal Health" it's still going to have a fifth to a sixth of the calories you can have for a day in a single bottle. Far more effective and rational to try to convince people to limit their intake to a few servings a day than to attack a specific sweetener.

By the way, the ones that have gone back to pure sugar have the exact same number of calories. They just don't taste as sweet, so people think they're healthier. (At least that's the case for the Mountain Dew Throwback vs regular Mountain Dew.)

[HuckleB]

68. Exactly. -eom-

[Jax]

67. Different name same poison shit.

I don't care what right wing corporate lying and bullshit the idiotic monsanto mouthpieces try to peddle.

[IcyPeas]

70. I agree. It's in EVERYTHING.....

I was horrified to see it's even in English Muffins!!

http://www.zeer.com/Food-Products/Thomas-Original-English-Muffins/000045391

I wonder too, if it's just being overused. I agree too that it is a GMO therefore I'd rather not use it.

It's cheap.

[HuckleB]

71. You hit the mark with your last sentence, which leads to overuse.

The more I dig into the GMO stuff, the less concerned I am about it in regard to health. My bigger concerns relate to corporate control over too much of our food supply.

[TroglodyteScholar]

73. self-delete

[Odin2005]

76. Fructose does not trigger the body's hormonal satiation response.

Other sugars do, so it causes people to overeat. It's not the substance itself that is bad, it's just that it doesn't make you feel full, so you eat too much of it.

[Scout]

83. whenever i try drinking diet pop, it just makes me want MORE pop!

regular pop satisfies the sweet the craving with a single serving, no cravings afterward.

[Odin2005]

84. O don't like diet pop for exactly that reason.

That is why if I get a soft-drink I get something like some kinds of bottled green tea that have real sugar, one organic brand I ran into has only 80 calories per 2-serving bottle, a fourth of the calories in a regular pop and half the sugar in Lipton's green tea.

[felix_numinous]

78. Here is a link to glycemic indexes of various sweeteners

http://www.veganbaking.net/vegan-baking-articles/articles-and-guides/sugar-and-glycemic-index.html

Regular fructose glycemic index=22
HFCS glycemic index=87

The corn industry has been able to inject their products into everything, from fish, pig, cow, and chicken feed (none of which naturally eat corn) to the products that contain the meat from these animals. So we get fed animals who essentially have been fed sweet corn their whole lives, and eat them with massive doses of corn products with HFCS added to them. It is no wonder type 2 diabetes and obesity is epidemic.

But don't believe your lying eyes...it's only corn sugar...go back to sleep...nothing to see here....:P

[Scout]

82. interesting no one has commented on the glycemic index info you posted....

Regular fructose glycemic index=22
HFCS glycemic index=87

how can this be???? HFCS is just sugar!

[NashVegas]

79. Oh How I Love Corporate, Strategized Science For Capital Gains Apologists

You're all so funny. When the study that comes out showing just how bad the shit is, just like it did when HRT was finally confirmed as cancerous, you'll slink back into your holes on this topic and look for your next chances to be Wall Street stooges.

[derby378]

81. The CRA must think we're stupid...

:silly:

[KoKo]

85. K&R!