Recently the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) filed a petition with the FDA to change the name of High Fructose Corn Syrup. After the New York Times published an article in the Health section followed by an endorsement editorial, Steve felt the need, once again, to write a letter to the editor.
You see, the foundation of the CRA's argument is misinformation. They claim the public is mis-informed and clearly confused about what the sweetener is. Because of this apparent confusion consumers are avoiding the ingredient causing the price to fall to a twenty year low. The reality is that the public knows enough about it to make a decision. Wisely, the public is choosing to avoid this food additive and because of this food producers are avoiding it as well. The bottom line is this is the last ditch effort by the CRA to revive HFCS sales by tricking consumers by using a different name.
The following is the letter Steve sent to the New York Times:
Re: An –Ose is an –Ose
A letter to the editor of the New York Times.
I’m writing to address an editorial published in your paper on September 16, 2010, on page A32 of the New York edition. The editorial titled An –Ose is an –Ose brings awareness to the public that the Corn Refiners Association is petitioning the FDA to change the name of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) to Corn Sugar claiming the inclusion of “High-Fructose” is misleading. I believe publishing an editorial regarding this petition is beneficial in creating dialog of the issue, however the benefit you provide ends there.
The remaining information in this editorial is as misleading as the information and marketing efforts provided by the Corn Refiners Association (CRA). The term “high-fructose” was added when this new substance was formulated in the 1960’s to distinguish the difference between it and regular corn syrup. Corn syrup is 100% glucose derived from corn. By processing corn syrup using enzymes and other methods a new substance is created that has a higher sweetness taste factor than ordinary corn syrup with the same number of calories. This is achieved by converting some of the glucose in corn syrup into fructose, a sweeter but calorically equal type of sugar. This new substance was appropriately named “High-Fructose Corn Syrup” because that is exactly what it is, high fructose content corn syrup. It is accurate to say that it has the same amount of calories as any other sugar just like the commercials point out, however the calories are not the issue. In fact neither is the fructose. The issue is that sucrose, what you see labeled as simply sugar is one glucose molecule and one fructose molecule bound together. HFCS is glucose-fructose syrup comprised of both glucose and fructose molecules that are not bound together. The fact that they are not bound together is the root cause of the very clear, and paramount difference.
The health issue related to HFCS stems from the way the product is composed, not if it comes from corn or fruit, not if it has more calories than sugar, and not if it’s sweeter. The issue is related to how your body processes this product. Once metabolized, HFCS is very similar to sucrose (not the same as the editorial states), but they are not metabolized the same way. There are more processes and systems involved with metabolizing sucrose. These are very important processes and systems that are bypassed when HFCS is consumed. These processes exist because of thousands of years of evolutionary adaptation to food sources. These processes exist in order to keep the body performing optimally and efficiently. Some of these systems regulate insulin production and leptin production. Without these processes we run the risk of hyperglycemia or overeating because our body is no longer producing the signal to tell us to stop. Our body becomes out of balance.
To a food producer turning off the system that tells the body to stop eating is a good thing. Actually it’s a great thing. But to us, the food consumer, it contributes to obesity, the leading cause of diabetes.
The reason the FDA should deny this change is the same reason the CRA is asking for it to begin with. It’s confusing. In our language referring to the food ingredient sugar is a reference to sucrose and only sucrose. In chemistry and biology there are many different types of sugar, but in terms of food labeling, the topic at hand here, the ingredient sugar only means one thing, sucrose. Cane sugar and beet sugar can be labeled specifically or generally as sugar because they are both sucrose. To re-label HFCS as corn sugar is misleading solely because it is not sucrose, even if it is equal parts glucose and fructose. If HFCS was sucrose, a disaccharide of glucose and fructose, it wouldn’t have to be labeled as corn sugar, it would simply be sugar.
All other chemical compositions of sugar are depicted accurately on food labels so they won’t be confused with what we recognize as sugar. These include fructose, lactose, maltose, dextrose, galactose, and many more. It is not common to see sucrose listed as an ingredient, because for generations it has simply been labeled as sugar.
Your endorsement of the proposed name change makes no sense at all. Whether it is called HFCS or corn sugar, consumers know that sugar has been added to their food. Calling it corn sugar is misleading the public into thinking the ingredient is sucrose, something it is not.
The CRA is splitting hairs in an effort to get the FDA to make a ruling that will cause more confusion in food labeling. If HFCS was the sugar instead of a sugar we would call it sugar, but it isn’t, so we don’t. The FDA should recognize this difference between science and language because all sugars are not the same, and every –ose is most certainly NOT the same as every other –ose.
Comments