Corn Refiners want to rename "High Fructose Corn Syrup" to "Corn Sugar"

[mookiemookie]

The Corn Refiners Association, which represents firms that make the syrup, has been trying to improve the image of the much maligned sweetener with ad campaigns promoting it as a natural ingredient made from corn. Now, the group has petitioned the United States Food and Drug Administration to start calling the ingredient “corn sugar,” arguing that a name change is the only way to clear up consumer confusion about the product.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/a-new-name-for-high-fructose-corn-syrup/?partner=rss&emc=rss

[The Third Man]

High-fructose corn syrup, which came into widespread use in the 1970s, isn’t particularly high in fructose, but was so named to distinguish it from ordinary, glucose-containing corn syrup, according to a report in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/88/6/1716S)


I think this says it all. Move on, nothing important here.

[mookiemookie]

Says what exactly? That HFCS and corn syrup are two separate things? Uhh...okay. That's not in question.

Many scientific studies are finding links to HFCS and diabetes and obesity. It's good for people to know when big agriculture is trying to hide something.

[The Third Man]

Many scientific studies are finding links to HFCS and diabetes and obesity. It's good for people to know when big agriculture is trying to hide something.

Very well, then don't eat and /or drink anything containing the ingredient but lets not lobby to ban it for everyone. Which is where this is leading. Liberty means allowing people to make their own choices.

[mookiemookie]

I don't disagree. But what you're seeing is the market making it's preference known, and the corn refiners are trying to pull a fast one.

[The Third Man]

I don't disagree. But what you're seeing is the market making it's preference known, and the corn refiners are trying to pull a fast one.

It's called marketing. And every one, including yourself does it.

Big AG, Big Oil, Big Auto, Big Tech, Big Tobacco, Big Military Industrial, is there any industry which you like? Remember Big Gov't isn't an industry.

[mookiemookie]

is there any industry which you like?

No. Look up how the Founding Fathers wanted corporations dealt with. I agree with them.

[SteamWake]

Meh whats in a name. Personally I detest the stuff. They now sell sodas made with 'gasp' sugar. You can really tell the difference.

But hey I thought the 'war' was on salt :salute:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/michelle-obama-obesity-restaurant-menus.html

[The Third Man]

No. Look up how the Founding Fathers wanted corporations dealt with. I agree with them.


Not to ofend, but unless you don't work; you work, or dirive your livelyhood, in an industry. By your previous post it is 'Big' something.

[mookiemookie]

Meh whats in a name. Personally I detest the stuff. They now sell sodas made with 'gasp' sugar. You can really tell the difference.

But hey I thought the 'war' was on salt :salute:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/michelle-obama-obesity-restaurant-menus.html

True. Crap by any other name....

Less sugar in general is a good idea.

[Bubblehead1980]

For once I agree with mookie.HFCS has been linked to diabetes and obesity and problem is, it's in so many things.Big AG is attempting to change the name to pull a fast one.The product should not be banned but name should remain the same and food/drink makers should try to use a less harmful substitute.Big Tobacco tried for years to pull some of the same crap and finally, they lost but then again they still make billions of off hopelessly addicted weak minded cig addicts.The same drink makers like Coke will continue to make money off suckers like me, I love the stuff.HATE Pepsi though:har:

[Takeda Shingen]

For once I agree with mookie.HFCS has been linked to diabetes and obesity and problem is, it's in so many things.Big AG is attempting to change the name to pull a fast one.The product should not be banned but name should remain the same and food/drink makers should try to use a less harmful substitute.Big Tobacco tried for years to pull some of the same crap and finally, they lost but then again they still make billions of off hopelessly addicted weak minded cig addicts.The same drink makers like Coke will continue to make money off suckers like me, I love the stuff.HATE Pepsi though:har:

I'm with you there. The name should remain the same so that the consumer can make the choice as to whether or not he or she use it in the face of the fact that HFSC is really, really bad for you.

[The Third Man]

I'm with you there. The name should remain the same so that the consumer can make the choice as to whether or not he or she use it in the face of the fact that HFSC is really, really bad for you.

I thought that was what the FDA mandated ingedient and nutrition labeling was for. Not enough for the under educated public school educated I guess.

[Safe-Keeper]

It's called marketing. And every one, including yourself does it.

Big AG, Big Oil, Big Auto, Big Tech, Big Tobacco, Big Military Industrial, is there any industry which you like? Remember Big Gov't isn't an industry.What about Big Homeopathy, Big Organic, Big Natural, Big Local and Big Altmed? Oh, wait, those don't count for some reason:-?.

I'm with you there. The name should remain the same so that the consumer can make the choice as to whether or not he or she use it in the face of the fact that HFSC is really, really bad for you.Then I assume you're also in favour of regulations on the marketing label "organic", since there's such a huge variety in practices and consumers should have "freedom of choice".

If you want a more rational and nuanced view on "High Fructose" corn syrup than "OMG Corporations r evil!!!", check out this podcast (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157).

[The Third Man]

What about Big Homeopathy, Big Organic, Big Natural, Big Local and Big Altmed? Oh, wait, those don't count for some reason:-?.

Then I assume you're also in favour of regulations on the marketing label "organic", since there's such a huge variety in practices and consumers should have "freedom of choice".

If you want a more rational and nuanced view on "High Fructose" corn syrup than "OMG Corporations r evil!!!", check out this podcast (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157).

Big Green

[Takeda Shingen]

Then I assume you're also in favour of regulations on the marketing label "organic", since there's such a huge variety in practices and consumers should have "freedom of choice".

Absolutely. I've been burned by organic labeled produce in the past. Still, no amount of polemics is going to change the fact that the product in question is bad for you. As a consumer, I am entitled to transparency regarding the product for which I pay.

EDIT: I'm a vegitarian, but also think it is important that consumers are informed where their meat came from, how it lived and what is was fed. People have a basic right to know what they are putting in their bodies.

[tater]

Says what exactly? That HFCS and corn syrup are two separate things? Uhh...okay. That's not in question.

Many scientific studies are finding links to HFCS and diabetes and obesity. It's good for people to know when big agriculture is trying to hide something.

There is nothing magical about corn syrup that is causing diabetes and obesity. Those fatties could be eating regular sugar and they'd still be fat (which contributes to diabetes).

They are fat and diabetic because they drink and eat too many empty calories. Doesn't matter what the sugar is. Look at the AMOUNTS consumed, not just the change from sugar to HFCS.

This is lazy people looking for someone to blame, IMO, and they are not willing to look at their moon-faced reflection in the mirror.

[Takeda Shingen]

There is nothing magical about corn syrup that is causing diabetes and obesity. Those fatties could be eating regular sugar and they'd still be fat (which contributes to diabetes).

They are fat and diabetic because they drink and eat too many empty calories. Doesn't matter what the sugar is. Look at the AMOUNTS consumed, not just the change from sugar to HFCS.

This is lazy people looking for someone to blame, IMO, and they are not willing to look at their moon-faced reflection in the mirror.

I agree with that also, but I still want to know if the product contains HFCS, just as I want to know what preservatives are used, the fat content, and the total calories. Changing the name because it is associated with obesity and Type 2 diabetes is deceptive. The term was fine until it started getting bad press.

[mookiemookie]

There is nothing magical about corn syrup that is causing diabetes and obesity. Those fatties could be eating regular sugar and they'd still be fat (which contributes to diabetes).

They are fat and diabetic because they drink and eat too many empty calories. Doesn't matter what the sugar is. Look at the AMOUNTS consumed, not just the change from sugar to HFCS.

This is lazy people looking for someone to blame, IMO, and they are not willing to look at their moon-faced reflection in the mirror.

The science isn't conclusive either way. Until it is, I'd just as soon avoid it.

[tater]

True, but it's getting bad press. Articles written by writers who don't even know what a sugar is, read by people who don;t know what a sugar is. The same press that continues to present patent nonsense like the (utter non-existent, and in fact fraudulent) claim that mercury was related to autism.

The guys making the stuff of course are perfectly happy with the average person consuming 10s of gallons of soda a year (hundreds?), mind you, but I don't blame them, I blame the people drinking the stuff.

Having the name change on the label is not a problem, because people who know what the different sugars actually are, and how they work, will not have a problem, and the others are not well enough informed for me to care much about them getting "tricked" by a change. Again, if they cannot explain the difference extemporaneously (and saying, "HFCS is bad, m'kay" is not explaining the difference), the label is meaningless anyway.

[tater]

The science isn't conclusive either way. Until it is, I'd just as soon avoid it.

It's not conclusive either way. Right, so you don't use cane sugar, either, right?

Like anything else, it's fine in moderation. Anyone drinking any of that crap to excess, regardless of what is in it, is going to have trouble.

[tater]

HFCS guys "big business" are "bad," so if they want a "misleading" label, that's bad. Meanwhile, hippies want things removed for completely unproven reasons, but are "good."

I hate the double standard.

Proof in properly controlled studies for any claims that something is better. That includes so-called "organic" foods.

[Takeda Shingen]

True, but it's getting bad press. Articles written by writers who don't even know what a sugar is, read by people who don;t know what a sugar is. The same press that continues to present patent nonsense like the (utter non-existent, and in fact fraudulent) claim that mercury was related to autism.

The guys making the stuff of course are perfectly happy with the average person consuming 10s of gallons of soda a year (hundreds?), mind you, but I don't blame them, I blame the people drinking the stuff.

Having the name change on the label is not a problem, because people who know what the different sugars actually are, and how they work, will not have a problem, and the others are not well enough informed for me to care much about them getting "tricked" by a change. Again, if they cannot explain the difference extemporaneously (and saying, "HFCS is bad, m'kay" is not explaining the difference), the label is meaningless anyway.

Fair enough. And it is certainly true that I would be staying away from it with the name change. It is also true that others will not regardless of the change. I also agree with your point that one's health really boils down to lifestyle.

[gimpy117]

If the studies are true, then the product has dangers; and them trying to change the term is an unscrupulous attempt to pull one over on consumers. :down:

[mookiemookie]

It's not conclusive either way. Right, so you don't use cane sugar, either, right?

Like anything else, it's fine in moderation. Anyone drinking any of that crap to excess, regardless of what is in it, is going to have trouble.

You're twisting my words around. I said that the science is inconclusive either way that HFCS is worse for you in terms of causing negative health effects to a greater degree than other sweeteners, such as beet sugar or cane sugar. So I will err on the side of caution and avoid it in favor of other sweeteners. Yes, I use and prefer cane or beet sugar. No, I'm not a hippie that wants to see it banned. No, I don't blame the HFCS if someone gets fat drinking a six pack of soda a day. I choose to avoid it and I believe that the push for renaming it is deceptive. Have I spelled everything out clear enough so that I've headed off any other strawmans?

[The Third Man]

The science isn't conclusive either way.

That is the montra of the left and makes it easier to hold one position today and another tomorrow. LOL.

Some would call it being a hypocrit. Not me mind you.

[mookiemookie]

That is the montra of the left and makes it easier to hold one position today and another tomorrow. LOL.

Some would call it being a hypocrit. Not me mind you.

Ok.

[tater]

You're twisting my words around. I said that the science is inconclusive either way that HFCS is worse for you in terms of causing negative health effects to a greater degree than other sweeteners, such as beet sugar or cane sugar. So I will err on the side of caution and avoid it in favor of other sweeteners. Yes, I use and prefer cane or beet sugar. No, I'm not a hippie that wants to see it banned. No, I don't blame the HFCS if someone gets fat drinking a six pack of soda a day. I choose to avoid it and I believe that the push for renaming it is deceptive. Have I spelled everything out clear enough so that I've headed off any other strawmans?

How can you make a decision one way or another with inconclusive proof?

A might be worse than B, but B might be worse than A. Decision: Only drink B. Might s well pick randomly, or drink both. I think either or both in moderation is fine.

The hippie comment was generalized, it wasn't pointed at you.

I don;t think renaming it is the least deceptive. Seems like the name is already arbitrary.

It's funny, actually, HFCS is used in the US because it is cheap. It;s cheap because of idiotic subsidy. So the government pays money to make HFCS cheap, then might very well spend a fortune trying to gt people not to use HFCS by scaring them.

Step one, eliminate all farm subsidy, lol.

[Sailor Steve]

No. Look up how the Founding Fathers wanted corporations dealt with. I agree with them.
Come again? Jefferson hated merchants, but he also hated the government. Franklin started the nation's first franchise. Madison saw the need for both. Hamilton was a big-government man.

Which Founders are you quoting on this? With quotes, please.

[nikimcbee]

On a side note, the dairy industry is upset with the soy industry for the use of the term "milk". Calling soy-milk "milk", when it's not really milk.

(everybody knows it's called printer ink:har:)

[tater]

If they have to call that orange plastic stuff "cheese food" I see no reason why that soy crap cannot be forced to be called something else. "soy drink" perhaps?

[mookiemookie]

Come again? Jefferson hated merchants, but he also hated the government. Franklin started the nation's first franchise. Madison saw the need for both. Hamilton was a big-government man.

Which Founders are you quoting on this? With quotes, please.

I'm referring to the state laws of the time (forgive me if I can't remember where I read it.) that limited the lifespan of corporate charters and severely limited their rights, as in contracts and ownership of assets.

Will have to Google for concrete evidence of it.

"I hope we shall take warning from the example of England and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our Government to trial, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Jefferson

"There is an evil, which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by … corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses." - Madison

On Europe: "economic power became concentrated in a few hands, then political power flowed to those possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny." - Adams

EDIT: Corrected quote attribution

[Sailor Steve]

I'm referring to the state laws of the time (forgive me if I can't remember where I read it.) that limited the lifespan of corporate charters and severely limited their rights, as in contracts and ownership of assets.

Will have to Google for concrete evidence of it.
Don't worry too much about it. I'm certain there were such, even if I haven't seen them. There were state laws on just about everything else under the sun. I thought you were referring to some writings of the 'majors' I had missed. It's cool.