Big Corn, Big Sugar in bitter US row on sweetener

by Rob Lever

Big Corn and Big Sugar are locked in a legal and public relations fight in the US over a plan to change the name of a corn-based sweetener that has gotten a bad name.

The fight began last year when Corn Refiners Association, a trade association, proposed changing the name of to merely "corn ."

The group said the new name "more accurately describes this sweetener and helps clarify food products labeling for manufacturers and consumers alike."

But the sugar industry argued this change would be a bitter pill for US consumers and would only add to the confusion about a sweetener that has drawn criticism by some health advocates.

Sugar producers have filed suit alleging the corn industry has spent $50 million in "a mass media rebranding campaign that misleads the consuming public by asserting falsely that HFCS is natural and is indistinguishable from the sugar extracted from sugar cane and ."

The lawsuit, which seeks an end to the ads using the term "corn sugar," states that use of the increased over 1,000 percent between 1970 and 1990 and that this rise "bears a strong temporal relationship to the growth in American obesity."

Sugar makers say the corn industry is making a desperate effort to salvage the product which consumers are increasingly avoiding.

Sugar Association lawyer Adam Fox told AFP the group is seeking to stop the ads because "it is absolutely false for them to characterize this as a natural product."

In its response, the corn industry says the sugar industry is trying "to stifle free speech" and seeking to vilify its corn products.

"The sugar industry is wrongfully alleging that high fructose corn syrup (a sugar made from corn) causes health issues that do not arise from consuming cane and beet sugar," said Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association.

"We believe that the sugar industry's views are misleading . The CRA will continue its work to educate consumers about high fructose corn syrup and will vigorously oppose the sugar industry's attempt to stifle public discussion of this important health issue."

The corn industry last year petitioned the Food and Drug Administration for permission to use the term "corn sugar" instead of high fructose corn syrup. But in the meantime it has launched television and print ads hoping to gain public support.

The campaign cites experts saying there is no difference between various sugars in terms of metabolism, calories or other nutritional values.

"Whether it's corn sugar or cane sugar, your body can't tell the difference. Sugar is sugar," one ad says.

Among the studies cited is a 2008 report by the American Medical Association which concludes "it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose."

But a 2011 study cited by the sugar industry from the journal Metabolism concludes the fructose corn syrup leads to "significantly different acute metabolic effects" than plain sugar.

Some have linked the obesity epidemic to consumption of processed foods and soft drinks which use corn syrup in place of costlier cane or beet sugar.

Alternative medicine guru and author Andrew Weill writes that the corn product "is a marker for low-quality food and has no place in a healthy diet."

"The most widely used kind of HFCS may have disruptive effects on metabolism, as the body doesn't utilize fructose well. In fact, regular consumption of HFCS may contribute to obesity."

The National Consumers League has sent a letter urging the FDA to reject the renaming petition and noted that the corn in question "has received much negative publicity over the last several years."

"Questions have been raised concerning potential links to obesity and a variety of obesity-related health conditions including diabetes and heart disease," the letter said.

"Some consumers are concerned about emerging science regarding nutrition and health effects of HFCS, while others simply want to avoid highly processed sweeteners in favor of more natural substances."

Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University, said both sides are missing the point, which is that Americans consume too much sugar.

"Changing the name of HFCS to is about marketing, not public health," she said.

"If the FDA decides to approve the change, it will not alter the fact that about 60 pounds each of HFCS and table sugar are available per capita per year, and that Americans would be a lot healthier consuming a lot less of either one."

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Scientists say consumers confused about sugars

Jun 08, 2009

Three top researchers corrected inaccuracies and misunderstandings concerning high fructose corn syrup's impact on the American diet. They also examined how the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) considers this ...

Recommended for you

Autonomy and relationships among 'good life' goals

3 hours ago

Young adults with Down syndrome have a strong desire to be self-sufficient by living independently and having a job, according to a study into the meaning of wellbeing among young people affected by the disorder.

Obama: 8 million signed up for health care (Update)

18 hours ago

President Barack Obama said Thursday 8 million Americans have signed up for health care through new insurance exchanges, besting expectations and offering new hope to Democrats who are defending the law ahead ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

deatopmg
not rated yet Dec 17, 2011
Corn sugar is really glucose from hydrolyzed corn starch, NOT HFCS!
HFCS is chemically modified corn glucose where a variable portion, usually about 50%, of the glucose is converted to fructose, producing an extra sweet solution that, metabolically, is similar to sucrose, table sugar, honey, or other sucrose sources, e.g. agave.

The problem is the toxicity of fructose from the drastically increased usage of sugar, whether from sucrose, HFCS, or other, over the past generation or 2. This is the major contributor to our overweight society.

search; "Sugar, the Bitter Truth" on youtube

"The dose makes the poison" - Paracelsus
Squirrel
3 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2011
Plague on both your houses. Cut the US debt and waistline with a glucose tax.
Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2011
The problem is the toxicity of fructose
physiologically equivalent to sucrose.

No wonder you want us to believe that DEA shoutcanned you to Pete Marwic Group.
mbrmark
5 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2011
Fructose is dealt with differently than fructose and seems to present a greater danger metabolically from sucrose (disaccharide composed of 2 glucose subunits). However, the points of about too much 'sugar' of whichever types are of course valid. Too much of any food is seriously bad.
When fruits and vegetables are so expensive such that processed garbage is cheaper to feed your family on, there is a problem. The grotesque inequity at the heart of the US system must be dealt with in order to cure the mutiple sicknesses that beset America.
Note to Squirrel - a glucose tax would not result in fructose being taxed since it is different molecule. You would want a tax on simple chemically definable carbohydrates, inclusive of glucose and fructose that are added to food. This being necessary to define or else it will increase the price of fruit and vegetables which naturally have varying amounts of sugars of various types.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2011
Let the customer decide. People are willing to pay over $1.00 for a bottle of Coke made with sucrose from Mexico.
Note some products now promote they do NOT use HFCS.
JRi
not rated yet Dec 18, 2011
Sucrose is disaccharide containing 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Glucose is found to to be much better compared to fructose when it comes to metabolic and insulin problems. Unfortunately, it has much less 'sweet' taste than fructose.

Since most HFCS grades have similar fructose to glucose ratio as sucrose, I see no problem calling it corn sugar. On the other hand, It might be better not to convert glucose to fructose first place, but instead to use high _glucose_ corn syrup as a sweetener without chemical modification.