When it comes to HFCS, are there varying degrees of "Natural"?

In the previous blog entry, i posted a recent comment from Audrae Erickson, President of the Corn Refiners Association.  This isn't the first time I have posted comments and/or excerpts from Ms. Erickson; it's just the most recent (and served as an example of the FDA cited as an authority in support of HFCS.)  Just to further the discussion, let's take a closer look at Ms Erickson's statements, sentence by sentence. (Comment posted by: Audrae Erickson, Corn Refiners Association On: 1/15/2010)

Title: Natural Sweeteners

High fructose corn syrup is made from corn, a natural grain product.

Yes and yes.  

High fructose corn syrup contains no artificial or synthetic ingredients or color additives and meets the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s requirements for use of the term “natural.” 

Define natural? The key ingredient in HFCS that makes it HFCS is a genetically modified enzyme, Glucose Isomerase.  According to whom? The Sugar lobby?  No, I base this statement on the article "Molecular and Industrial Aspects of Glucose Isomerase,"  by Snehalata Bhosale, Mala Rao, and Vasanti Deshpande, published in The American Society for Microbiology's academic journal, Microbiological Review.   The article describes the production of HFCS and breaks it down into a 3-step process:  "The production of HFCS from starch comprises three major processes: (i) liquefaction of starch by α-amylase, (ii) saccharification of starch by the combined action of amyloglucosidase and a debranching enzyme, and (iii) isomerization of glucose by GI."

Does Natural necessarily mean good? Skimming quickly the entry for "Natural" from the Skeptic's Dictionary is a sobering reminder that those words are not synonymous.

According to the Cambridge International Dictionary (as accessed through Onelook.com), "natural" is an adjective; the first definition listed is:  "as found in nature and not involving anything made or done by people."

Surprisingly, although Onelook.com listed fifty different dictionary entries for "natural" (not factoring in multiple entries in a given dictionary), they did not list the FDA's "requirements for the use of the term 'natural.'"

Consumers are being misled into thinking that there are nutritional differences between high fructose corn syrup and sugar, when in fact they are nutritionally the same.

If "nutritionally" refers back to the extent to which something is nutritional or provides nutrients, then, strictly speaking there is nothing wrong with this statement.  I imagine they would both be regarded as non-essential nutrients.  But is that really the point if we are considering the detrimental effects of sugar compared with HFCS?  If we are talking about fatty liver disease, insulin resistance, lipogenic effects, etc, shouldn't we be comparing fructose content of table sugar versus how much fructose there is in HFCS?  The fact that HFCS comes in a variety of fructose concentrations and the consumer is not cued into which is which means that a given product with HFCS may have about as much fructose as a similar item sweetened with table sugar, OR maybe two, three or even more times the fructose content.  In terms of the healh issues so prominent in the sugar versus HFCS debate, the caloric content or nutritional value is not really relevant, is it?

Whether from cane, beets, or corn, a sugar is a sugar.

Based on General Chemistry Online's relatively broad definition for "sugar," this statement is pretty accurate. Here's the definition: "A carbohydrate with a characteristically sweet taste. Sugars are classified as monosaccharides, disaccharides, or trisaccharides"

They all contain four calories per gram.

See the above comment on "nutritionally."

Switching out a kind of corn sugar for table sugar is not for health and it is not for science.

This statement refers to products, such as Pepsi Throwback.  It may very well be true that Pepsi marketed this product not as a result of politics (broadly defined) but rather in response to the public's interest in reducing intake of HFCS. 

It is unfortunate that consumers are being duped by these marketing gimmicks, which may result in higher food prices at checkout.

Here Ms Erickson assumes that the public has been duped.  To be duped, tricked/swindled whatever, implies a certain naivete and ignorance on the part of the subject.  The tone of this statement may betray a certain degree of arrogance and hubris on the part of Ms Erickson.

High fructose corn syrup is more economical and functionally superior to sugar, it is equally sweet, has the same number of calories and is handled similarly by the body.

Why is it more economical? Here's a little discussion that gives some background information on this issue.

High fructose corn syrup offers numerous benefits, too. It keeps foods fresh. It enhances fruit and spice flavors. It retains moisture in bran cereals and helps keep breakfast bars moist.

Who reaps these benefits?  

Well, just one example....

Yes, it really says $69 billion. (source for the "facts" blurb)

Oh yes, i almost forgot-- the final line of Ms Erickson's statement:

Consumers can read the latest research and learn more about high fructose corn syrup at www.SweetSurprise.com.

Why does just about everyone have a low opinion of the FDA?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), under the Department of Health and Human Services, must certainly constitute one of the most consistently criticized of federal agencies. Why do they face such criticism? What are the charges against them?  Why are they being discussed in a blog dedicated to promoting consumer awareness of the prevalence of HFCS and the reasons why some individuals seek to avoid the artificial sweetener.

First of all, what does the FDA do?  According to their website,

FDA is responsible for

• protecting the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, and products that give off radiation
• regulating tobacco products
• advancing the public health by helping to speed product innovations
• helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health

So, initially i planned to catalog the scandals and criticisms that have emerged during the agency's history.  Then i quickly realized there were too many for me to list them all (even given my penchant for wordy posts.) Even limiting the survey to the past couple decades, the FDA has been regarded as both too restrictive, as well as not restrictive enough; grossly mismanaged; named as a major reason for the high costs of prescription medications; biased and corrupt; sloppy in their assessments; underfunded and yet guilty of awarding themselves enormous bonuses; and the list goes on.  Calls for reform and agency overhaul have even come from within the FDA. 

Given all the food recalls, mercury contamination issues, and even pet food recalls, it is perhaps unsurprising that Obama, too, has expressed major concerns about the FDA's efficacy and called for an overhaul of the agency.  (Obama warns of US food 'hazard':  President Barack Obama has said the US food safety system is a "public health hazard" and in need of an overhaul.) 


The Corn Refiners Association, other lobbyist groups, industry associations, as well as other groups who profit from products containing High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) --collectively let's just call them King Corn for convenience-- rely on statements made by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to promote HFCS as both natural and healthy.  Here's an example from Rick Berman's own pro-CRA  group: 

"The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved HFCS as a safe ingredient for use in food and beverages. In fact, the FDA based its decision in part on the substantial similarity between HFCS and sucrose (table sugar)."

And it doesn't end there.  In fact, many of Audrae Erickson's copious comments on blogs and news stories cite the FDA as the key authority in their defense of HFCS.  Here's a recent example posted in response to:   Producers cheer return of sugar-sweetened drinks, enjoy profitable year:  Beverage companies move away from high fructose corn syrup,  by DAVE WILKINS, Capital Press:

Comments made about this article

Posted By: Audrae Erickson, Corn Refiners Association On: 1/15/2010

Title: Natural Sweeteners High fructose corn syrup is made from corn, a natural grain product. High fructose corn syrup contains no artificial or synthetic ingredients or color additives and meets the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s requirements for use of the term “natural.”
Consumers are being misled into thinking that there are nutritional differences between high fructose corn syrup and sugar, when in fact they are nutritionally the same. Whether from cane, beets, or corn, a sugar is a sugar. They all contain four calories per gram. Switching out a kind of corn sugar for table sugar is not for health and it is not for science. It is unfortunate that consumers are being duped by these marketing gimmicks, which may result in higher food prices at checkout.
High fructose corn syrup is more economical and functionally superior to sugar, it is equally sweet, has the same number of calories and is handled similarly by the body. High fructose corn syrup offers numerous benefits, too. It keeps foods fresh. It enhances fruit and spice flavors. It retains moisture in bran cereals and helps keep breakfast bars moist.
Consumers can read the latest research and learn more about high fructose corn syrup at www.SweetSurprise.com.

It is truly sad that the key authority King Corn cites to defend HFCS is the FDA.   But then again, they don't exactly have a large number of widely respected authorities from which to choose...

Product Wishlist: Hold the HFCS please!

There are some very common grocery items that almost always have HFCS in them.  You can go to a range of stores and pick up every brand and variety and there's always HFCS in the list of ingredients.  Some stores won't even have ONE variety available that doesn't have HFCS in it.  And some of these items are not necessarily available in stores like Whole Foods and Trader Joes!  So even if a consumer is willing to buy a more expensive brand or go to a special stores, there's no HFCS-free option.

What products are in this unfortunate category? Here are some examples:

• Graham Crackers
• Vanilla Wafers
• Cool Whip/Whipped topping
• Bread Crumbs
• English Muffins

If you want HFCS-Free Graham Crackers, Whole Foods is your best bet.  In my view the best HFCS-free Vanilla Wafers are at Trader Joes.  For Cool Whip/Whipped Topping (note, Redi-whip and canned varieties are often HFCS free but some recipes call for Cool Whip-like stuff) there's a decent tasting organic version at Giant.  Bread Crumbs?  Well, the best i found was at Trader Joes.  English Muffins: there is a wide range that is HFCS-free but please note that most restaurants use English Muffins with HFCS.  So, if you avoid HFCS: NO Eggs Benedict for you!  Of course, the same goes for the ketchup, prepared salad dressings, syrups, sauces, and condiments served at most restaurants (unless they make their own.)

I am sure I left some products off this list.  Please feel free to post a comment if there are some things that you have trouble finding in a HFCS-free variety.

Perceptions matter....

I don't usually post something without an extensive commentary, but no commentary is needed here.

Corn groups hit as drinks makers return to sugar
By Agrimoney.com - Published 07/01/2010
The impact of poor health perceptions over corn-based sweeteners has prompted cuts of up to 20% in prices, and left producers facing "some pretty  aggressive scrambling for contracts", Credit Suisse has warned.

The alert came as the investment bank cut its rating on shares in UK sweeteners group Tate & Lyle from "outperform" to "neutral", prompting a 7% slump in the stock.

While corn processors had been expecting flat prices for high fructose corn syrup heading into 2010 - and some analysts had high hopes for the sweetener given rocketing cane sugar prices - the late-year dash for deals had undermined prices.

"The latest we have heard is down 3-4 cents a pound (15-20% down)," Credit Suisse said, forecasting an overall drop of 15% in 2010.

'Poor health image'

The shortage of contracts follows claims, which the corn processing industry vigorously denies, that corn syrup is a bigger threat to health than cane sugar.

Soft drinks groups, the product's core consumers, are "preferring to switch to sugar given the poor health image of high fructose corn syrup," the Credit Suisse report said.

Snapple, Ocean Spray and Capri Sun had switched some months ago, with Gatorade in November saying it would replace corn syrup with sugar.

Given that corn syrup was selling for about half the price of spot sugar, "these are decisions are made despite the financial hit".

Shares slide

Tate & Lyle, which produces sweeteners from corn as well as its historic sugar business, would suffer a hit of up to \$80m from the weaker HFCS market, the report said, cutting forecasts for both 2009-10 and 2010-11 results.

Credit Suisse cut its rating on Tate shares to "neutral" from "outperform", reversing an upgrade made in October over optimism about the group's new chief executive, Javed Ahmed.

And it urged "caution" ahead of Tate's trading update, due on January 28, also flagging statements from US-based Corn Products on January 26 and Archer Daniels Midland on February 2.

Tate & Lyle shares stood 6.4% lower at 419p in late morning trade in London, after hitting 415p earlier.

© Agrimoney 2009

Watch out for Girl Scout Cookies....

This blog title could indicate that you should keep an eye out for Girl Scout Cookies (this is indeed the time of year when they start to hock their wares....).  Or it could mean that you should beware of Girl Scout Cookies.  You decide. 

I always want Samoas.  Other cookies, too, but oh Samoas are so goooood. But then i looked up the  ingredients of these cookies.  

Argh some have HFCS and some don't (it seems to depend on which commercial bakery baked your cookies).

 Under the FAQ section of the Girl Scout Cookie website, you can read about these two commercioal bakeries:

Q: Who bakes Girl Scout Cookies?
A: Two commercial bakers are licensed by the national Girl Scout organization, Girl Scouts of the USA, to produce Girl Scout Cookies: ABC/Interbake Foods and Little Brownie Bakers.

Turns out these two commercial bakeries not only have different recipes/formulas (with different ingredient lists) but also different names for their cookies. (for the full list with both sets of names, see this link.)

Based on information from their website, Little Brownie Bakers has only one variety of GS cookie that has HFCS (and it's the Dulce de Leche cookie.) 

ABC/Interbake, on the other hand has only a couple that do not have HFCS.  In fact, even their reduced fat Daisy Go Rounds have HFCS in them. 

But wow, regardless of the bakery, even the ones that don't have HFCS certainly have a lot of gross crap in them.

Thanks a lot, Girl Scouts.

(also contains HFCS, btw...)

Happy New HFCS-Free Year!

What better way to start off the new year than by celebrating Pepsi Throwback?  The first limited release of the product took place in April 2009.  It's now been brought back, but apparently sadly still only for a limited time.

There's also Heritage Dr Pepper (available some time in early 2010)

And Mountain Dew Throwback, too

Sources:

Slashfood: Pepsi Unveils New Throwback
BevReview: Review Pepsi Throwback
BevReview: Coming Soon: Heritage Dr Pepper (source for the Heritage Dr Pepper picture)
http://www.pepsithrowbackhub.com/ (source for the above Pepsi Throwback and Mountain Dew Throwback pictures)
Pitch: Welcoming sugar back to soda