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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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/wash...ant-menus.html

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.

True. Crap by any other name....

Less sugar in general is a good idea.

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.

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.

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.

Big Green

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.

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.

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

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.