Ban HFCS

Happy 2012! Starting the year off with a non-High Fructose Corn Syrup post.....

2012-01-19T03:16:00.000-08:00

Vote No on PIPA and SOPA!

Sign the petition

Sorry guys, but "Corn sugar" is already claimed....

2011-11-26T05:43:00.000-08:00

In their never ending campaign to deceive the American public, the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) is seeking FDA approval to relabel "High Fructose Corn Syrup" as "Corn Sugar." Here's the entry for "Corn Sugar" from Wikipedia; clearly CRA has been hard at work!

So, what's the problem? Well, given that the CRA even states on their site (appropriately named "cornsugar.com") that "Corn Sugar" is an "FDA-approved alternate label for dextrose, a corn-based sweetener that contains no fructose," one might think they would go back to the drawing board in their never-ending quest for a new name for HFCS?:

Oh, that's really just a pesky little detail. Something so insignificant wouldn't stop King Corn in their mission! And moreover, according to the CRA's website, "Relabeling high fructose corn syrup as “corn sugar” clears up confusion and enables consumers to easily identify added sugars in the diet. Docket FDA-2010-P-0491" Wow. So, relabeling would clear up confusion? Um, that's a very interesting use of the word "confusion"! Or maybe it's the "clears up" that's a little murky.... And again, CRA does actually point out on that same page: "'Corn sugar' is currently a little-used label name for dextrose, which we are seeking to change."

Rather than adopting a label already in use by another altogether different product, wouldn't it be easier either to (a) stick with the existing label, or (b) come up with a new label that doesn't require changing another product's label?

Wait a minute.... I've got it!

It's a label not currently being used by anyone.
No mention of "fructose."
It's got the word "sugar" rather than "syrup."
It's simple and "natural," just like HFCS....
It's an absolutely perfect new label for High Fructose Corn Syrup!

Audrae Erickson, whatever would you do if there weren't people like me to do your job for you?

For more information on this topic, please see: Marion Nestle's article: "Sorry, Corn Refiners: The Name 'Corn Sugar' Is Already Taken"

"Food people"

2011-09-05T05:47:00.000-07:00

I've never been to Cabo Bob's, but if i'm ever in Austin, Texas, it would be my first stop. Cabo Bob's was recently featured in an article on Restaurants Going High Fructose Corn Syrup Free. "Owner Don Brinkman loved Dublin Dr. Pepper, a cane sugar version of the original and decided to bring in Dublin’s other sugar-based sodas, Sun Crest Orange, Triple XXX, NuGrape and Big Red, mostly for the nostalgia factor. Once he had an HFCS-free soda fountain, he says, it just made sense to create an HFCS-free menu, too. He did it by making tortillas, salsa and barbecue sauce—which often contain HFCS—from scratch."

Cabo Bob's site includes a Q&A about their food: "High Fructose Corn Syrup is not allowed in the restaurant, period."

For that article, Pat Herring, R & D Director for Texas-based, Jason’s Deli, was also interviewed. "It’s all about taste he says. They’ve found that HFCS-free and organic foods just taste better. Does Herring think that when a pipe-fitter or welder comes into his restaurant he cares that it’s organic? “[']He may not, but he’ll enjoy the food. We’re not politicians,[']” he says. “[']We’re just food people.[']”

Wouldn't it be nice if more food establishments were run by "food people"?

HFCS: Are you getting enough?

2011-05-07T19:30:00.000-07:00

Cough syrup and HFCS

2011-03-30T05:03:00.000-07:00

So you have a bad cold... you feel like hell and you are just trying to get better. You reach for cough syrup and..... what's that? There's HFCS in Robitussin? There's sorbitol in Mucinex?

Picture source: http://www.homesolutionsstore.com/mas_assets/categoryimages/HSS-MUCINEX.jpg

Yep.

So, apparently, if you want to avoid HFCS or sugar oils (if you have a problem with fructose digestion, things like Sorbitol will further inhibit your ability to metabolize fructose) you better reach for the cough syrup designed for people with diabetes.

so sad....

SNL and HFCS

2011-03-15T04:15:00.000-07:00

Ben and Jerry's: Maybe not "all natural" but HFCS-free!

2010-08-15T17:54:00.000-07:00

Ben and Jerry's ice cream has made headlines again. In a flurry of news releases all linked to findings from the CSPI about the unnatural ingredients found in Ben and Jerry's "all natural" ice cream, the ingredients list of this ever-so-tasty line of ice cream has come under scrutiny. Here's an example of one such news release:

Ben & Jerry’s uses unnatural ingredients, group says

Basically CSPI is stating that there are ingredients (such as alkalized cocoa and corn syrup) in the Ben and Jerry's flavors that are labeled all-natural. Ben and Jerry's contends that they are (1) following FDA guidelines, and (2) responsive to consumer complaints and interests.

Given the issues I have with HFCS, i pretty much knew that Ben and Jerry's ice creams were safe, with one exception: Cherry Garcia. Well, it turns out that about a year ago, Ben and Jerry's changed the formula for Cherry Garcia, removing the HFCS from the cherry mix. Why? consumer interest/demand.

So, two comments on the fact that Ben and Jerry's has made headlines for unnatural ingredients:

(1) at least they're responding to their customer base

(2) in a fundamental way, the FDA and their ludicrous notion of what is "natural" is the source of the problem

HFCS and pancreatic cancer: digging a lil' deeper

2010-08-07T04:15:00.000-07:00

From the moment I saw the first article on a link between HFCS/fructose and pancreatic cancer (Cancer Cells Get Fat From HFCS Too), i was imagining how the Rick Berman/CCFs and Audrae Erickson/CRAs of the world would counter this claim. Based on recent research coming out of UCLA (Fructose Induces Transketolase Flux to Promote Pancreatic Cancer Grow), this latest charge against HFCS/fructose is all the more unsettling due to the scariness of pancreatic cancer. Here's an excerpt from the abstract of this recent UCLA study:

Here, we report that fructose provides an alternative substrate to induce pancreatic cancer cell proliferation. Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different; in comparison with glucose, fructose induces thiamine-dependent transketolase flux and is preferentially metabolized via the nonoxidative pentose phosphate pathway to synthesize nucleic acids and increase uric acid production. These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation. They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth. Cancer Res; 70(15); 6368–76. ©2010 AACR.

So, just how did Rick Berman's CCF react to the UCLA study? In Fudging Fructose Findings, the author presents the usual arguments (paraphrased here): HFCS and sugar have nearly the same amount of fructose; it's all pseudoscience; Americans don't even really consume that much HFCS; and rates of pancreatic cancer in men have gone down so what the heck is all this nonesense about, anyway?

So, let's just look at the CCF's defense of HFCS for a few seconds, exploring a couple points further.

1. The claim, and they quote of course Marion Nestle, is that "HFCS is not particularly high in fructose compared to table sugar. Both are about 50% fructose and are about equal in their effects."

WRONG

Why, seriously, this drives me crazy, WHY is someone like Marion Nestle even regarded as an expert after making claims like this? I've said it before (and so have others), but (happily for CCF and CRA and all the other folks who make money off HFCS) people still seem to be confused:

There are multiple types of HFCS with varying ratios of fructose to glucose; consumers cannot (just by reading labels) know which type of HFCS they are getting. That said, even the most common form of HFCS, the roughly 55% fructose/45%glucose, actually has more fructose than table sugar. Not a lot more, but enough to offset absorption.

The fact that HFCS varieties exist in even higher concentrations, fructose-wise, seems to be ignored by Marion Nestle. CCF and CRA will tell you that they are seldom used. In a previous post, I take issue with just how seldom these other types of HFCS appear (using none other than the words of manufacturers as evidence.)

2. Pancreatic cancer rates have gone down in men. That's terrific. Honestly, that's great news. According to Cancer Facts and Figures 2010: "Incidence rates of pancreatic cancer have been stable in men since 1981, but have been increasing in women by 1.7% per year since 2000."

PER YEAR? That's kind of scary, isn't it?

Why the difference between men and women? Now, i don't think even the authors cited by CCF are brilliant enough to assume that something like pancreatic cancer is caused by just one factor, but even if you look solely at HFCS and consider the information cited above, an interesting disparity emerges.

Not to self-promote, but there's no point being redundant either: In one of my posts from June, HFCS-90, I researched a variety of HFCS that CRA claims is seldom used except in the creation of other varieties of HFCS. I found, by exploring websites from HFCS manufacturers, that HFCS-90 is in fact used in a number of manufactured goods. This is a form of HFCS that is 90.... NINETY....

yes, that's right....

NINETY

percent fructose.

What are the manufactured goods that contain HFCS-90? Oh, let's see.... yogurt, especially low-calorie varieties, frozen desserts, especially low-cal types, and some other diet sweets.

Who, let's just take a stab in the dark, who, in terms of gender, is more prone to purchase and consume: yogurt, low-cal frozen desserts, and other low-cal sweets?

Women? Really? Can it be?

Well, now, let's revisit the percentages above regarding pancreatic cancer, broken down by gender. Interesting, isn't it? Now, I am not trying to say that there's just one cause for this disparity between pancreatic cancer and how it's affecting men and women, but it's certainly interesting that there's an apparent link to fructose and women are the consumers more prone to eat items with HFCS-90.

Oh, and just in case i wasn't clear in my post on HFCS-90....

Labels never say which HFCS you're consuming.... convenient, isn't it?

The Waffle House: Is there HFCS in them there waffles?

2010-08-01T06:35:00.000-07:00

The Waffle House, an American icon and source of sustenance for travelers across the South for decades, is famously mum on the ingredients in their food.

My fascination with the Waffle House began pretty much at the same time that I first entered one and saw that they had their own music on the jukebox (in addition to a smattering of oldies, classics, and current hits.) At least as far as I knew, no other fast food/breakfast joint had their own music. The kitsch value was too high not to be impressed. And the waffles were quite tasty, too. Top that off with the fact that there wasn't a local Waffle House where I lived at the time, and you get a recipe for obsession (yes, i wrote to corporate HQ and asked them to remedy the dearth of Waffle Houses in my area.)

Every chance I could, i dined at the Waffle House. For me it was quite significant to have the opportunity.

When I learned about HFCS and my need to avoid it due to fructose malabsorption, I was pretty certain that the Waffle House, a favorite of mine for decades, would now be on the no-go list.

Well, i researched it and basically found that Waffle House Corporate HQ doesn't divulge information about their recipes. I kept meaning to write to them again, but since there wasn't one where I now live, it was out of sight-out of mind.

On a recent work trip, i passed by Waffle Houses and I once again i wondered: Is there HFCS is those famous waffles?

So, I wrote to them. I am always impressed when a company writes back with a response tailored to my question. So, here's what they said:

Thank you for inquiring about Waffle House nutritional information and ingredients. Upon checking, we’ve found the waffle mix and sugar free syrup do not contain high fructose corn syrup, but the regular syrup does.

So, rejoice! If you avoid HFCS for whatever reason, you can still enjoy Waffle House Waffles, but just make sure to request the sugar free syrup!

Source for the pictures: http://www.wafflehouse.com/welcome/home

The joys of international travel

2010-07-18T06:10:00.000-07:00

While to many people it may seem like an absurd thing to be joyful about, for me one of the joys of traveling to other countries is not having to worry about HFCS. Whereas in the US, i order diet soda because of the presence of High Fructose Corn Syrup in almost all non-diet varieties, in most of countries you can recklessly order regular soda! It's lovely!

The sad thing, though, is that this joy may be fleeting... Due to the wonders of capitalism and globalization, HFCS is making its way into foreign markets, perniciously slinking in like a pestilence. With different names for HFCS depending on the country, scrutinizing labels while on international travel will not only become necessary as this trend continues but will also pose some difficulties. Whether it's called Isoglucose or Glucose Fructose Syrup or some other variety, HFCS is rearing its ugly head in other markets. Just as a sad example, while on the plane back to the US, i checked the label on the jam packet served with the bread during the breakfast "meal." The jam was of French origin (not Kraft or Smuckers or some American crap). No worries then, right? HFCS in French jam? No way.

Yes, way. It was there, listed as Sirop de Fructose-Glucose.

Sugar and HFCS: comparing the manufacturing processes

2010-07-09T18:10:00.000-07:00

Tate & Lyle, a UK-based ingredient manufacturer, includes in its portfolio of manufactured goods a wide-range of sweeteners (apparently some of its sugar brands have recently been acquired by American Sugar Refining.) On the Tate & Lyle website there's a wealth of information about its products, including High Fructose Corn Syrup, cane sugar, as well as what they term "high-intensity sweeteners," such as Splenda. Tate & Lyle's informative descriptions and diagrams of the manufacturing process of their sweeteners are very useful for those of us trying to understand the fundamental differences between HFCS and sugar.

What does Tate & Lyle tell us about HFCS?

Well, first of all, HFCS and cane sugar, while comprised of the same basic compounds, differ fundamentally in how they are processed. Tate & Lyle states:

Although High Fructose Corn Syrup is essentially comprised of the same compounds as sucrose, namely glucose and fructose, unlike sucrose, which is usually refined from sugar cane, the raw material of HFCS (corn), must undergo a great deal of processing to create HFCS.

So, although chemically speaking, the compounds are similar, the "great deal of processing" required to create HFCS differentiates HFCS from cane sugar.

Secondly, "Is High Fructose Corn Syrup Genetically Modified?"

Those concerned with the consumption of GM foods have expressed concern with regards to HFCS, as GM corn is often the source of this product. Whilst it is true that HFCS is produced from genetically modified corn, corn starch extracted from the corn undergoes so much processing, and the products of the processes are so removed from corn that there is no detectable corn DNA present in HFCS. This means that HFCS itself contains no genetically modified material.

So, that means, IF HFCS were not so extremely processed, it would contain Genically Modified material; because it undergoes such an extreme amount of processing that the very DNA of the genetically modified corn that goes into HFCS is no longer detectable. That's supposed to make us feel good about HFCS? It is so damned processed that the initial substance in processed right out of the ultimate product.

That scares me.

Ok, lastly, let's take the diagram of the process involved in cane sugar refining and compare it to the process for wet-milling corn.

What does this comparison show? Well, as complex as both sets of processes are, only the HFCS chart contains a node where "further processing" occurs.

While I have my own conclusions, I welcome insights about how refined cane sugar products differ from refined corn products.

The Corn Refining Process (step-by-step)

2010-07-07T16:42:00.000-07:00

The below page (source) is just too good not to post.

In my view, it doesn't even need much editorializing... nothing artificial about this process.... noooooooooooooo..... it's all natural....... that's au naturel to you....
yep........
mmhmmm......

you betcha'

INSPECTION AND CLEANING
Refinery staff inspect arriving corn shipments and clean them twice to remove cob, dust, chaff and foreign materials before steeping, the first processing step, begins. Corn refining has been the fastest growing market for U.S. agriculture over the past twenty years, and refiners now use around 16% of the $21 billion U.S. corn crop. Since a large amount of the nations' corn production never leaves the farm on which it was produced, corn refining is a vital factor in the cash market for U.S. corn. Each day the production of about 33 thousand acres of corn arrives at corn refining facilities before conversion to food, industrial and feed products.

STEEPING Each stainless steel steep tank holds about 3,000 bushels of corn for 30 to 40 hours of soaking in 50 degree Celsius water. During steeping, the kernels absorb water, increasing their moisture levels from 15 percent to 45 percent and more than doubling in size. The addition of 0.1 percent sulfur dioxide to the water prevents excessive bacterial growth in the warm environment. As the corn swells and softens, the mild acidity of the steepwater begins to loosen the gluten bonds within the corn and release the starch. After steeping, the corn is coarsely ground to break the germ loose from other components. Steepwater is condensed to capture nutrients in the water for use in animal feeds and for a nutrient for later fermentation processes. The ground corn, in a water slurry, flows to the germ separators.

GERM SEPARATION Cyclone separators spin the low density corn germ out of the slurry. The germs, containing about 85% of corn's oil, are pumped onto screens and washed repeatedly to remove any starch left in the mixture. A combination of mechanical and solvent processes extracts the oil from the germ. The oil is then refined and filtered into finished corn oil. The germ residue is saved as another useful component of animal feeds.

FINE GRINDING AND SCREENING The corn and water slurry leaves the germ separator for a second, more thorough, grinding in an impact or attrition-impact mill to release the starch and gluten from the fiber in the kernel. the suspension of starch, gluten and fiber flows over fixed concave screens (illlustrated) which catch fiber but allow starch and gluten to pass through. The fiber is collected, slurried and screened again to reclaim any residual starch or protein, then piped to the feed house as a major ingredient of animal feeds. The starch-gluten suspension, called mill starch, is piped to the starch separators.

STARCH SEPARATION Gluten has a low density compared to starch. By passing mill starch through a centrifuge, the gluten is readily spun out for use in animal feeds. The starch, with just one or two percent protein remaining, is diluted, washed 8 to 14 times, rediluted and washed again in hydroclones to remove the last trace of protein and produce high quality starch, typically more than 99.5 percent pure. Some of the starch is dried and marketed as unmodified corn starch, some is modified into specialty starches, but most is converted into corn syrups and dextrose.

SYRUP CONVERSION Starch, suspended in water, is liquified in the presence of acid and/or enzymes which convert the starch to a low-dextrose solution. Treatment with another enzyme continues the conversion process. Throughout the process, refiners can halt acid or enzyme actions at key points to produce the right mixture of sugars like dextrose and maltose for syrups to meet different needs. In some syrups, the conversion of starch to sugars is halted at an early stage to produce low-to-medium sweetness syrups. In others, the conversion is allowed to proceed until the syrup is nearly all dextrose. The syrup is refined in filters, centrifuges and ion-exchange columns, and excess water is evaporated. Syrups are sold directly, crystallized into pure dextrose, or processed further to create high fructose corn syrup (illustrated).

FERMENTATION Dextrose is one of the most fermentable of all of the sugars. Following conversion of starch to dextrose, many corn refiners pipe dextrose to fermentation facilities where the dextrose is converted to alcohol by traditional yeast fermentation or to amino acids and other bioproducts through either yeast or bacterial fermentation. After fermentation, the resulting broth is distilled to recover alcohol or concentrated through membrane separation to produce other bioproducts. Carbon dioxide from fermentation is recaptured for sale and nutrients remaining after fermentation are used as components of animal feed ingredients.

Return home...

Fresh, Real Food...

2010-07-07T04:36:00.000-07:00

Jason's Deli, a place I never tire of praising, has another video worth seeing. Not as funny as the other video I posted last year, but it's informative/educational!

HFCS: There's something wrong with it

2010-07-05T06:52:00.000-07:00

Celebrating its 125th birthday, Dr Pepper will switch from HFCS to sugar from roughly now until September. Is it just a gimmick? An article from the Associated Press suggests that if this move is successful, it may actually cause headaches for drink manufacturers later...

Dr Pepper orders sugar for 125th anniversary

By EMILY FREDRIX (AP)

There seems to be growing demand for it [switching from HFCS to sugar], as evidenced by Pepsi's success with Throwback, even the second time around, he said.
But drink makers are also wary of sending a message that there's anything wrong with high fructose corn syrup.
"In some ways their worst nightmare is that this thing sells through the roof, because then that's telling them something about how consumers feel about their product," he said.

When will our pals from the Corn Refiners Association and Center for Consumer Freedom realize that many consumers really don't want their "corn sugar"?

Nothing Artificial, no gimmicks

2010-07-03T15:04:00.000-07:00

Audrae Erickson's Corn Refiners Association (CRA) and Richard Berman's Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) contend that when a company advertises that their product has "no high fructose corn syrup," it's really just a gimmick. CRA/CCF even assert that consumers are being misled into believing that products advertised in this way are healthier for them than products that are not advertised in this manner. Just to give an example, see CCF's "A Not-So-Sweet Marketing Gimmick." Here's an excerpt from that article:

We noted a few months back that some companies (like Starbucks) that market their goods as free of high fructose corn syrup are just jumping on a health-fad bandwagon. New products replacing high fructose corn syrup with table sugar are nutritionally the same as before. Why? Because high fructose corn syrup has the same number of calories as table sugar.

Well, ok fine: maybe the number of calories are the same (whether the item in question has HFCS or sugar.) But maybe, just maybe, consumers want to know that what they're eating involves no genetically modified enzymes (glucose isomerase, one of the key ingredients in HFCS). Maybe folks like me, who have fructose malabsorption, won't get sick from a product as long as it doesn't have HFCS in it (or too much fructose of any variety.) Maybe people want items that have ingredients they understand and ingredients that won't survive a nuclear holocaust. Maybe people just want the freedom to choose what they eat. Wait, isn't this allegedly Non-Profit organization actually called the Center for Consumer Freedom?? What's wrong with this picture??

Anyway, CRA/CCF meet Flippin' Pizza.

What I find interesting about this flier I found in my mailbox is as follows:

(1). This is NOT an example of a company that replaced the sugar in their product with HFCS. In fact, they pride themselves on neither having HFCS NOR added sugars.
(2). A small pizza chain (with a handful of locations in the greater DC metropolitan area, and then a few restaurants in California) advertises their product by alerting consumers that they will get a high-quality, hand-tossed pizza, New York style, with nothing artificial, which means (according to the flier)

No added oil
No added sugar
No high fructose corn syrup

What CCF terms the "health-fad bandwagon" works! People WANT ingredients they understand. They want fresh ingredients rather than a massive list of undecipherable chemically/enzymatically altered multisyllabic terms designating materials that will outlive the average centenarian.

So, if a company like Flippin' Pizza uses their advertising budget in order to let customers know that their pizza was not only voted "best" but also has ingredients pizza should have, then good for them! Why should pizza have added sugar? HFCS? added oil? Why is that needed? It's not. So, Flippin' Pizza can not only win "best" pizza, but also do so without overloading its products with insane amounts of crap.

Disclaimer: Just to be clear-- i have no connection to this or any other food manufacturer or restaurant.

King Corn: How High Fructose Corn Syrup Ruined America

2010-07-02T05:02:00.000-07:00

HFCS from the perspective of fluid management

2010-06-30T03:18:00.000-07:00

is a company that plays a role in HFCS manufacturing. I mention them only because of a company brochure, Food and Dairy, they published that contains a fascinating diagram of HFCS production.

Just makes it all seem so.... natural.... doesn't it?

The Mecurial Nature of High Fructose Corn Syrup

2010-06-27T19:47:00.000-07:00

I came across a segment by Alan Watt on HFCS that raised a number of very interesting points, one of which spurred me to do a little research. I certainly recommend listening to the whole segment: the "video" link is at the bottom of this post.

Ok, so, on to what inspired me to do some digging: Mr Watt mentions that the industry defense against the charges of mercury contamination in HFCS focused on the fact that the information was outdated. Here are a couple examples from our favorite lobbyist group of exactly that argument:

MERCURY STUDY OUTDATED; BASED ON DISCONTINUED TECHNOLOGY

HFCS Mercury Study Flawed

Alan Watt more of less says: ok so HFCS USED to contain mercury? And now it doesn't? Well that's certainly reassuring.

One of the reports that characterizes the intentional mercury "contamination" is Not So Sweet: Missing Mercury and High Fructose Corn Syrup, by David Wallinga, M.D., Janelle Sorensen, Pooja Mottl, Brian Yablon, M.D. (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, Minnesota: January 2009.) This document suggests that the early stages of HFCS production may involve an agent that contains mercury.

HFCS is synthesized in a highly specialized, industrial process using a number of enzymes and other inputs. Either membrane-grade or mercury-grade caustic soda can be used. At the beginning of the process, caustic soda helps separate the corn starch from the corn kernel. Along with hydrochloric acid, it also is used throughout the process to maintain a pH balance.

So, how did Audrae Erickson react to this study, as well as other related reports? Well, she of course denied the charges on the grounds, as stated above and in the title, that the study was overcome by events. (The Corn Refiners Association also paid folks to disprove the studies.) Here's the complete news release:

MERCURY STUDY OUTDATED; BASED ON DISCONTINUED TECHNOLOGY
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 26, 2009
CONTACT: Audrae Erickson, President
(202) 331-1634
WASHINGTON, DC – The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) today challenged the relevance and accuracy of information published by Environmental Health asserting that certain tests found measurable levels of mercury in high fructose corn syrup.
“This study appears to be based on outdated information of dubious significance. Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two re-agents mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years. These mercury-free re-agents perform important functions, including adjusting pH balances,” stated Audrae Erickson, President, Corn Refiners Association. “For more than 150 years, corn wet millers have been perfecting the process of refining corn to make safe ingredients for the American food supply.”
“It is important that Americans are provided accurate, science-based information. They should know that high fructose corn syrup is safe,” continued Erickson. “In 1983, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration formally listed high fructose corn syrup as safe for use in food and reaffirmed that decision in 1996.”
“High fructose corn syrup contains no artificial or synthetic ingredients or color additives and meets FDA’s requirements for the use of the term ‘natural.” Erickson said.

ok, so what's interesting about this rebuttal? First of all: "Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two re-agents mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years." As Alan Watt pointed out: oh, so for several years now the HFCS we have been consuming in everything from sodas to salad dressings is now safe. Great! So, for how many years we were consuming HFCS containing mercury?

And then Ms Erickson continues on about how safe this product is. What's her proof? Well, the FDA, of course and the designation of HFCS as GRAS in 1996. What's wrong with this picture?

What Ms. Erickson is saying is that HFCS, for several years now, has been manufactured using technology advanced enough that they can avoid mercury "contamination." It's safe; well at least now it's safe. And it has been for several years. What does "several" mean to you? Well, just for the sake of objectivity, let's get a definition from a dictionary:

sev·er·al

ADJECTIVE:

Being of a number more than two or three but not many: several miles away.

Now, let's be generous. This news release came out in 2009. Several often means 2 or 3, but let's just say it means 5 here. That means that some time around 2004 (plus or minus a year or two), HFCS began being manufactured using "mercury-free reagents." Well, even with these generous parameters, that means the FDA designated HFCS as GRAS (Generally Regarded as Safe) at a time (1996) when there was probably a 50% or greater chance that the "reagents" used to manufacture it contained mercury.

Ok, so returning to the press release...

“High fructose corn syrup contains no artificial or synthetic ingredients or color additives and meets FDA’s requirements for the use of the term ‘natural.” Erickson said.

HFCS is "natural" because the FDA says so; the FDA, remember, is the same group that designated HFCS that may be "contaminated" with mercury as GRAS. And Ms Erickson states that HFCS contains nothing artificial or synthetic. The genetically modified Glucose Isomerase used in HFCS production is, according to her way of thinking, neither artificial nor synthetic. Why, HFCS doesn't even have color additives.

Just what ingredients are artificial or synthetic by these standards? And anyway, natural does not mean safe! I could start naming toxins that naturally occur, but this post is already long enough...

Alan Watt - Study Finds High-Fructose Corn Syrup Contains Mercury

Corn: It's No Longer King

2010-06-27T06:26:00.000-07:00

Corn: It's No Longer King

by TESS LANDERS Arlington, VA

With corn consumption at an all-time low, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced today that it will put a stop to the majority of subsidy payments to industrial corn farmers. During a press conference on the White House lawn, USDA officials pointed out that even though corn famers project another bumper crop of 12.9 billion bushels this year, it expects corn consumption to be only 1 billion bushels.
"The USDA, in good conscience, can no longer make subsidy payments for a product that the U.S. citizens no longer wish to consume, whether directly, through corn and corn products like high-fructose corn syrup, or indirectly through the meat they eat," said Secretary Tom Vilsack. "Starting in 2010, the USDA will only subsidize enough corn to meet demand. You will no longer see mountains of unused corn across the Midwest."
The USDA has dolled out more than $56.2 billion in corn subsidy payments from 1995 to 2006, the latest year for which data is available.
By drastically reducing the number of subsidy payments for corn, the USDA will be able to provide payments to farmers that produce products that are increasingly in demand, including grass-fed beef and locally grown organic vegetables, officials said.
"We will also provide subsidy payments to corn farmers that wish to transition their farms to other products," Vilsack said.
Corn farmers oppose the USDA's decision, but they will adapt to consumer demand, according to industry groups like the National Corn Growers Association. Other groups applauded the decision, citing the increasing number of food manufacturers, like S.B. Thomas, makers of English muffins and other bread products, that have incorporated "now with no high fructose corn syrup" in their packaging. They also cite a grassroots effort by consumers nationwide to eat corn-free diets.

In the best of all possible worlds...

Too bad there's no way for readers to post comments on the original story.... i would love to see Audrae Erickson's comment on this one...

Subway, Eat Fresh! Would you like some bread with that High Fructose Corn Syrup?

2010-06-22T18:11:00.000-07:00

Would you like some bread with that High Fructose Corn Syrup?

A recent Slashfood article is drawing lots of attention in the blogosphere. It's well deserved attention. Subway, with its "Eat Fresh" logo and its Jared story and all its links to nutrition websites truly earned an article such as this one.

Subway Sandwich: Lettuce, Tomato, High-Fructose Corn Syrup?

by Nichol Nelson, Posted Jun 22nd 201

If you look at their ingredients page, you see some a whole host of products containing HFCS: preservative-laden breads, meats in prepared sauces, condiments, cookies, and then there's the list of varieties of Fruizle Express.

Let's take a closer look at these fat free smoothies:

BERRY LISHUS Water, sugar, high fructose corn sweeteners, pasteurized strawberry puree, citric acid, xanthan gum, Fruizle Strawberry Flavor Mix (contains: malic acid, natural flavors, citric acid, ascorbic acid, freeze-dried strawberry juice concentrate, maltodextrin, freeze-dried raspberry juice concentrate), sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate to preserve freshness, natural flavor, propylene glycol, artificial flavor, artificial color FD&C red #40. Optional ingredient: Banana slices (bananas, ascorbic acid, citric acid).

PEACH PIZAZZ Water, sugar, high fructose corn sweeteners, pasteurized peach puree, pasteurized strawberry puree, natural flavors, citric acid, xanthan gum, Fruizle Kiwi Flavor Mix (contains: malic acid, citric acid, ascorbic acid, natural flavors and artificial flavors, freeze-dried key lime juice concentrate, maltodextrin, silicon dioxide, artificial colors: yellow #5, blue #1), sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate to preserve freshness, propylene glycol, artificial colors FD&C yellow #5 and #6, and red #40.

PINEAPPLE DELIGHT Water, sugar, high fructose corn sweeteners, pasteurized pineapple puree, pasteurized orange juice concentrate, pasteurized pineapple juice concentrate, citric acid, xanthan gum, Fruizle Pineapple flavor mix (contains: malic acid, freeze-dried pineapple juice concentrate, ascorbic acid, citric acid, natural flavor, artificial color: yellow #5) sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate to preserve freshness, propylene glycol, natural flavors, artificial flavor, artificial colors FD&C yellow #5 and #6. Optional ingredient: Banana slices (bananas, ascorbic acid, citric acid).

SUNRISE ENERGIZER Water, sugar, high fructose, corn sweeteners, pasteurized mango puree, pasteurized orange juice concentrate, citric acid, xanthan gum, Fruizle Tangerine flavor mix (contains: malic acid, ascorbic acid, natural flavor, citric acid, freeze-dried lemon juice concentrate, maltodextrin, freeze-dried grapefruit juice concentrate, artificial color: yellow #5) sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate to preserve freshness, natural flavors, propylene glycol, artificial flavors, artificial colors FD&C yellow #5 and #6.

Um ok, so they're fat free. Yay. but just how many kinds of sweeteners and just how much chemical crap is in each one?

Eat Fresh indeed....

HFCS-90

2010-06-21T04:34:00.000-07:00

Proponents of High Fructose Corn Syrup often do not mention the different types of HFCS that exist, differing in terms of the ratio of fructose to glucose. (I have already made a post about the fact that there are different types; in this post i delve into HFCS-90 specifically.)

Consumers of products containing HFCS never know which type HFCS they are consuming. Are they consuming HFCS that has more fructose than cane sugar, or not? When HFCS-proponents address the different ratios, they are quick to point out that most American manufactured goods contain either HFCS-42 or HFCS-55; so even if it's the 55% fructose variety, it's still barely more fructose than is found in cane sugar. Ok, i know there are medical professionals who say that extra 5% matters, but I am not a trained professional in that area, so who am I to judge?

(source for the slide, Dr G. Harvey Anderson, High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) in Beverages: Impact on Appetite & Food Intake Reviewing The Science, Understanding the Controversies, Sponsored by the Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness of the Coca Cola Company)

Just for good measure, here's a quote from the Corn Refiners Association Sweet Surprise website that suggests the same basic break-down (source):

high fructose corn syrup has either 42 % or 55% fructose, with the remaining sugars being primarily glucose.

What about HFCS-90? Why don't they mention that form of HFCS?

Oh, well rest assured, according to Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain't, we have nothing to worry about:

Mention of HFCS with higher fructose content (ie, HFCS-80 or HFCS-90) is occasionally seen in the literature, but these products are highly specialized and are manufactured infrequently and in insignificant amounts.

Here's the full paragraph:

John S. White, Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain't, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 88, No. 6, 1716S-1721S, Dec 2008

So, then why are there so many references to HFCS-90 in pro-HFCS trade literature?

Here are some examples (there are a multitude; these are representative):

High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)—A corn sweetener derived from the wet milling of corn. Cornstarch is converted to a syrup that is nearly all dextrose. Enzymes isomerize the dextrose to produce a 42 percent fructose syrup called HFCS-42. By passing HFCS-42 through an ion-exchange column that retains fructose, corn refiners draw off 90 percent HFCS and blend it with HFCS-42 to make a third syrup, HFCS-55. HFCS is found in numerous foods and beverages on the grocery store shelves. HFCS-90 is used in natural and "light" foods in which very little is needed to provide sweetness. (ERS, USDA). Total fiber is the sum of dietary fiber and functional fiber.

(Source: Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans)

Supersweet HFCS-90 is used in natural and "light" foods where very little is needed to provide sweetness.

(Source: ERS/USDA, High-Fructose Corn Syrup Production and Prices)

How about good ol' ADM?

And then there are some industry studies that reference the use of HFCS-90 in:

Yogurt (J. U. McGregor 1 and C. H. White, Effect of Sweeteners on the Quality and Acceptability of Yogurt)
Frozen desserts (Karen Smith and R. L. Bradley, Jr., Freezing Point of Carbohydrates Commonly Used in Frozen Desserts).

And we also have a reference from Corn Products International, excerpted from "Product Overview"

We also produce HFCS-90, used in specialty and low-calorie foods

So, why doesn't the Corn Refiners Association mention HFCS-90?

Well, actually they do, but you have to look for it:

Supersweet 90-HFCS is valued in natural and "light" foods, where very little is needed to provide sweetness.

(source: Corn Sweeteners, 2008)

Interesting, isn't it, that it's the same wording as the two above quotes from the USDA? It's just simply puzzling...

Oh, what's also interesting is that the FDA explicitly stated that it's 1996 designation of HFCS as GRAS does not apply to HFCS-90.

Because HFCS–90 has not been included in this rulemaking, consideration of the GRAS status of this substance will need to proceed through the petition process in accordance with § 170.35.

Why was HFCS-90 not submitted for GRAS consideration?
In the above-quoted ruling, the FDA voiced concern "because HFCS-90 does not contain approximately equimolar amounts of glucose and fructose." So, are we to conclude that HFCS-90 is truly hardly ever used except for in the case of the production of HFCS-55? (note: i find it unusual that they use it to produce HFCS-55...) If it is truly hardly ever used, then why are there so many references to it being in this and that kind of product?

It just seems odd that we as consumers can't verify which HFCS is contained in manufactured food goods. Since HFCS-90 is clearly being used in some frozen desserts, yogurts, condiments, diet products, and baked goods, why can't we as consumers have more information provided to us with respect to which HFCS we're eating (unless we avoid it altogether...)?

It seems a bit disingenuous that the Corn Refiners and the rest of the King Corn gang are always citing FDA rulings and saying HFCS is safe and GRAS and all that good stuff, with out providing consumers more information about which HFCS variety is in what products. it's almost as though they're trying to cover up the fact that there's not just one HFCS....

Audrae, Audrae, Audrae.... will your tactics never change?

2010-06-20T05:30:00.000-07:00

In a previous post, Audrae Erickson: The Patron Saint of High Fructose Corn Syrup, I mentioned that there are certain PR techniques that strike a note of desperation; using such techniques is either (a) an indication that you regard the intended audience as naive and ignorant, or (b) the person using the techniques is not the most savvy lobbyist, or (c) both!

Just to recap what not to do if you have a topic you feel passionately about and want to be convincing:

Number 1: Post a boiler plate comment on a feed that is not really relevant to your comment
Number 2: Post the same thing nearly every time you submit a comment:
Number 3: Post a boiler plate comment on a feed arguing against the feed when the feed is not really taking the position you're arguing against

Now 57 times is certainly not a record; previous boiler plate comments were posted with much greater abandon (see the blog entry linked in the first sentence). But I really thought she'd shifted tactics? Oh well.

Here's my favorite from this batch:

The Reporter Online (thereporteronline.com), Serving North Penn, PA Life
Ketchup shake-up: Heinz cuts salt in new recipe
Thursday, May 13, 2010
By TERESA F. LINDEMAN
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Heinz fans can be ketchup snobs.

The condiment's Facebook page has more than 390,000 fans, including Rona Doyle, who recently wrote, "Heinz only -- all others are garbage and a perfectly good waste of tomatoes," and Wendy Gottorff, whose father was buried with a bottle of Heinz ketchup. Another Facebook page, called "Heinz Ketchup Is The Only Ketchup," has almost 5,500 fans since being launched in January.

These are the people who threaten to walk out of restaurants if Hunt's is served.

That loyalty could be tested this summer.

Pittsburgh-based H.J. Heinz Co. is messing around with the recipe for its flagship product, reducing the sodium content in a move that the company described as the first "significant" change in the nation's dominant brand of the tomato-based condiment in nearly 40 years.

A little more than a week ago, employees began cooking up the new version. Bottles of reformulated Heinz ketchup are expected to start appearing, quietly, in grocery stores this summer.

Don't expect splashy announcements on the labels or anything. That's not in the plan, a company spokeswoman said.

Heinz is moving carefully but with confidence that consumers will be OK with the new recipe initially developed at its research center in Marshall, Pa.

"The initial consumer taste tests were conducted in Pittsburgh, before we expanded to six cities across the U.S., to ensure the recipe met our consumers' expectations," said Jessica Jackson, a company spokeswoman.

The food company has long offered different versions around the world, tailored to local tastes.

There's always some risk in tinkering with a well-known -- even beloved -- product. Marketers shudder when they remember the New Coke scenario, in which the Coca-Cola company touted its improved flavor only to have some consumers demand a return of the original.

Heinz may not have had a lot of choice in this case, as the trends in the food industry have been toward less salt. Health experts worry about the effects on the population of consuming too much sodium, which has been implicated in high blood pressure and heart disease.

In late 2007, Heinz was one of a number of companies represented at a meeting to discuss what the United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency was doing to reduce salt use, and in 2008 the Daily Mail in London reported that Heinz ketchup and Kellogg's cornflakes were among a long list of foods under pressure to reduce sodium. In April, the company was on a list of 16 food companies cited by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg as having committed to cutting salt levels in their products.

The new version of Heinz ketchup will have 15 percent less salt, dropping from 190 mg of sodium per serving to 160 mg, said Jackson. Consumers will need to check the Nutrition Facts Panel on the back of the label to notice the change, she said.

The company said the move would make Heinz ketchup the lowest-sodium ketchup available nationally, a necessary distinction since there are several niche ketchup products available. Heinz itself offers organic, reduced-sugar and no-salt-added varieties, and is developing a new version called Simply Heinz that will be made with sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup.

Although Heinz-ketchup fans leave little doubt that they know what they want, Americans in general seem conflicted about the salt issue. In April, the market research firm NPD Group reported that Americans were concerned about the amount of sodium in their diets but that the number who actually are consuming low-sodium and sodium-free foods was down.

Did the Salt lobby post a comment? This article was really about salt-content. No, there's only one comment. One lonely little comment... one sad little boiler-plate comment from our favorite cut-and-paster.....

cornrefiner

A Long Overdue Tribute to Clif Bar

2010-06-18T04:28:00.000-07:00

I cannot even begin to estimate the number of Clif Bars I have eaten. For years now, I have eaten at least one a day, at least five days a week.

Before I even started scrutinizing labels, Clif Bars were my portable food of choice. Once I identified HFCS as the cause for my intestinal distress, I was thrilled that Clif Bars (already a staple of my diet) were still something I could enjoy.

So, I would like to highlight Clif Bars as an excellent, high quality, HFCS-free product.

More on their food philosophy

"Generally Recognized as Safe"

2010-06-16T19:01:00.000-07:00

The Corn Refiners Association's website, Sweet Surprise, cites the designation GRAS from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as proof that high fructose corn syrup should be considered a safe food ingredient.

Yes. In 1983, the FDA listed high fructose corn syrup as “Generally Recognized as Safe” (known as GRAS status) for use in food and reaffirmed that ruling in 1996.

Well, GRAS, which (as stated above) means “Generally Recognized as Safe,” doesn't exactly sound to me like a resounding endorsement. Whatever you may think GRAS means and whatever you read into that designation, there's something else to consider:

A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report suggests that the FDA designation GRAS is not a problem-free designation. The report, "Food Safety: FDA Should Strengthen Its Oversight of Food Ingredients Determined to Be Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) GAO-10-246 February 3, 2010," suggests that the "FDA has not taken certain steps that could help ensure the safety of GRAS determinations." So, in plain English: GRAS may not really mean “Generally Recognized as Safe.” Instead, according to the GAO report, there may be examples of conflicts of interest, examples of procedures not followed, and instances in which the FDA has simply taken a manufacturer's word about whatever it is.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for ensuring the safety of most of the U.S. food supply, does not review many of the substances added to food that manufacturers determine to be generally recognized as safe (GRAS) under the conditions of their intended use. Manufacturers add these substances—hundreds of spices and artificial flavors, emulsifiers and binders, vitamins and minerals, and preservatives—to enhance a food’s taste, texture, nutritional content, or shelf life. GRAS substances can be marketed without FDA’s approval or even its knowledge because such substances are generally recognized among qualified experts as having been shown, through scientific procedures or experience based on common use, to be safe. Some consider GRAS substances to warrant less oversight because they generally pose a relatively low level of threat to public health. However, a few substances previously assumed to be GRAS, such as cyclamate salts, have later been banned; and more recently, consumer groups have raised concerns about the safety of certain other GRAS substances, such as salt and trans fats in partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. (page 1)

so, what did the GAO recommend as a way ahead?

GAO Recommendations

To better ensure FDA’s oversight of the safety of GRAS substances, we recommend that the Commissioner of FDA take the following six actions:
•    develop a strategy to require any company that conducts a GRAS determination to provide FDA with basic information—as defined by the agency to allow for adequate oversight—about this determination, such as the substance’s identity and intended uses, and to incorporate such information into relevant agency databases and its public Web site;
•    develop a strategy to minimize the potential for conflicts of interest in companies’ GRAS determinations, including taking steps such as issuing guidance for companies on conflict of interest and requiring information in GRAS notices regarding expert panelists’ independence;
•    develop a strategy to monitor the appropriateness of companies’ GRAS determinations through random audits or some other means, including issuing guidance on how to document GRAS determinations;
•    develop a strategy to finalize the rule that governs the voluntary notification program, including taking into account the experience of the program to date, incorporating input from a new public comment period, and reporting to Congress and the public the agency’s timeline for making it final;
•    develop a strategy to conduct reconsiderations of the safety of GRAS substances in a more systematic manner, including taking steps such as allocating sufficient resources to respond to citizen petitions in a timely manner, developing criteria for the circumstances under which the agency will reconsider the safety of a GRAS substance, and considering how to collect information from companies on their reconsiderations; and
•    develop a strategy to help ensure the safety of engineered nanomaterials that companies market as GRAS substances without the agency’s knowledge, including taking steps such as issuing guidance recommended by the agency’s nanotechnology taskforce, developing an agency definition of engineered nanomaterials, and requiring companies to inform FDA if their GRAS determinations involve engineered nanomaterials. (pages 34-35)

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? I guess we now understand better how the FDA could judge that HFCS is "natural."

And now for a definition of HFCS from the Corn Refiners Assiciation

2010-06-15T04:58:00.000-07:00

This definition or "classification," provided by Corn Refiners Association on page 6 of their 2006 report, "Nutritive Sweeteners From Corn,"certainly makes HFCS sound appetizing, doesn't it?

High Fructose Corn Syrup is a purified concentrated aqueous solution of nutritive saccharides obtained from edible starch in which a portion of the dextrose has been isomerized to fructose. It contains a minimum 42 percent fructose on a dry basis.

And on pages 19-20, the report contains a description of the manufacturing process of HFCS.

HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUPS
In the manufacture of high fructose corn syrup, dextrose solutions or high DE substrates produced by dual enzyme processes (α-amy- lase plus glucoamylase or α- amylase plus glucoamylase/ pullulanase) are refined by carbon and ion-exchange systems and further treated enzymatically with a purified isomerase. The isomerase reactors use an immobilized enzyme system enabling continuous isomerization and extending the life of the enzymes. Isomerization is usually carried to a point where the substrate contains 42 percent fructose. Following this step the product is refined again through carbon and ion exchange systems and is evaporated to a dry substance of 71 percent.
In the production of syrups with a fructose level above 50 percent, the original 42 percent fructose feedstock is passed through separation (fractionation) columns that retain fructose while allowing dextrose to pass through the column. This is made possible because of the natural affinity of fructose for divalent calcium immobilized on the column. Fructose retained in these columns is flushed from the system with deionized water, while the dextrose is recirculated for further isomerization. Continuous systems relying on a simulated moving bed model are utilized for this separation process. The enriched fructose fraction is generally recovered at an 80 to 95 percent purity. This product is blended with the 42 percent fructose feedstock to produce a commercial product with 55 percent fructose content. After blending, the syrup is refined again with both carbon and ion exchange systems and is evaporated to a dry solids level of 77 percent. The enriched fructose fraction may also be refined and evaporated separately for sale to users who desire a product with very high fructose content.

From my perspective, it's truly interesting to read the above descriptions carefully. The intended audience for this report appears to be the users of HFCS rather than consumers. Words like "feedstock" and expressions such as "enriched fructose fraction" just don't seem to inspire me to want to chow down on HFCS-laden products. Do the consumers know if the HFCS they are eating has a "very high fructose content"? No. HFCS is HFCS. Whether you, as the consumer, are getting HFCS-42 or HFCS-55 of HFCS-90 or whatever, you will simply not be able to discern.

Oh, and then there's the cover image (above). Yummmmmmmm.....

Remember: according to Audrae Erickson, it's all natural. She can prove it too: the FDA says so. HFCS is regarded by the FDA as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS). Maybe I am just being picky, but "generally" doesn't inspire me with confidence... Maybe I need to research this a bit more and do another post on GRAS as a designation....

Just what is HFCS?

2010-06-13T18:49:00.000-07:00

Urban Dictionary's Definitions for High Fructose Corn Syrup

1. High Fructose Corn Syrup

N. A sweetener created by repeatedly processing corn starch into strange molecules. Difficult to digest and burn off. Is widely believed to be a lead contributer to America's obesity epidemic.
Everything at McDonalds except the coffee contains High Fructose Corn Syrup.
by Mr. Aaron Oct 3, 2005

2. High Fructose Corn Syrup

The result of cost-cutting by food companies, soda companies, and fast food joints. This is not real sugar, but actually a sweetener that has been produced from corn.

Real sugar is more expensive than High Fructose Corn Syrup, and so that's why almost all soft drinks contain HFCS instead of real sugar.

And High Fructose Corn Syrup is more unhealthy for you than real sugar, and too much of it is a cause of obesity.

So when you're buying drinks that are supposed to be made out of real fruit juice from the stores, look at the ingredients. If you see High Fructose Corn Syrup, you'd be better off avoiding that product. Same goes for all other food products. You'd be amazed at the number of products with high fructose corn syrup. Look up the ingredients of all the McDonald's food and you'll be shocked by how much of it these people use in their food.
Bill: "Dude, I'm getting addicted to Pepsi. I just love this stuff. I've been drinking it at least once a day."

Suzy: "You're slowly killing yourself, pal. That stuff is just full of High Fructose Corn Syrup. Driking that every day is definitely not a good idea. I had a friend who did that and she got a nasty kidney stone, and was warned she might get diabetes. If you're drinking it every other day or something, and you're doing some exercise, it's not so bad. But every day, plus you always sit on your ass in front of the tube, uhuh, bad idea dude."

Bill: "thanks for the heads-up. I'll try to cut down on the bubbly stuff."
by Adel7 Aug 31, 2007

And the Urban Dictionary entries for HFCS:

1. HFCS

High Fructose Corn Syrup - a sugar substitute often used in soft drinks, candy bars, and other sweetened food products.
One of the ingredients in Dave's cola was HFCS.
by Wiseman Jul 10, 2006

2. HFCS

1. High-Fructose Corn Syrup
HFCS is a refined sweetener made of corn. It causes a nerve ending in your brain to not detect when your stomach is full, which will lead to overeating. It also has a 1/3 chance of containing mercury.

2. "Holy Freaking Cow, Stop!"
HFCS, Dude!!!!
by Trevor York May 7, 2009

I wonder how long it will take for Audrae Erickson to discover these definitions and try to submit a new, corn-friendly, CRA-approved definition?

Misleading consumers...

2010-06-08T04:44:00.000-07:00

Can you imagine how upsetting it would be to be a medical doctor quoted by Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association, if what you said was taken out of context and twisted into a statement supporting the HFCS cause? Statements taken out of context, twisted to suit the purpose of the quoter, are by no means uncommon. The context for a given statement is an important detail often ignored by a whole range of folks: sloppy students, seedy journalists, desperate lobbyists, blood-sucking lawyers, political candidates whose platforms are weak, etc.

The interesting thing about catching someone engaging in this practice (taking quotes out of context to suit their purpose) is that it discredits them and may make you question their integrity (if they had any); what credibility does someone have when they have been caught willfully engaging in this practice? Do you need to check ALL of their footnotes? Does this make their arguments seem even weaker, more baseless, downright desperate?

Why, yes. Yes, it does.

The below example comes from foodconsumer.org

Audrae Erickson on 29/01/2010 13:09:31

High fructose corn syrup is simply a kind of corn sugar. It has the same number of calories as sugar and is handled the same by the body.

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.

Robert H. Lustig, M.D., Professor of Clinical Pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco said, “The difference between high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose, molecule for molecule or ounce for ounce, isn't worth discussing.” (Tucker J, Allday E. January 20, 2010. “Schools switch sugars in chocolate milk.” San Francisco Chronicle. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/19/MNON1BKAK0.DTL#ixzz0dsjUjKj5)
According to the American Dietetic Association, “high fructose corn syrup…is nutritionally equivalent to sucrose. Once absorbed into the blood stream, the two sweeteners are indistinguishable.”

The American Medical Association stated that, “Because the composition of high fructose corn syrup and sucrose are so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that high fructose corn syrup contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose.”

As many dietitians agree, all sugars should be consumed in moderation as part of a balanced lifestyle.

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

Audrae Erickson
President
Corn Refiners Association

Robert Lustig, M.D. on 06/02/2010 16:35:34

Ms. Erickson is being disingenuous in her posting related to my comments, by leaving off the second sentence. Please go to the SFGATE website to see for yourself. The actual quote is "The difference between high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose, molecule for molecule or ounce for ounce, isn't worth discussing. They are both equally dangerous," Lustig said.

(source)

ADM's harvest: nothing new

2010-06-07T04:36:00.000-07:00

Sadly, the reaction we're seeing now resulting from the "souring" U.S. sales of High Fructose Corn Syrup is a repeat performance. As a CATO publication from 1995 shows, the corporate/lobbyist advertising campaigns rife with corny patriotism, the large-scale grain export and development of overseas markets, and government silence due to their complicity in the form of subsidies and tariffs, is truly nothing new. The full report is certainly worth reading; below are some particularly relevant excerpts (along with some recent photos and comments from me.) Please note: all quotes below are from the 1995 CATO report by James Bovard.

Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate Welfare

by James Bovard, Cato Policy Analysis No. 241, September 26, 1995

The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM) has been the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history. ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers. Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30

Yes, that's right, in 1995 dollars, for every $1 of profits earned by ADM's "corn sweetener operation," U.S consumers paid $10.

Although much has been written lately on ADM and its harvest of taxpayer dollars, the full scope of its parasitic relationship with the U.S. taxpayer has rarely been closely examined. This study provides that detailed examination as well as an insight into the political dynamics that encourage corporate leaders to profit, not by pleasing consumers, but by pleasing politicians. The study also examines the three main arenas for ADM's corporate rent seeking: the ethanol program, the sugar program, and subsidized grain exports.

The ethanol program: still ongoing
The sugar program: in other words, HFCS
Subsidized grain exports: in 1995 they were talking about the former Soviet Union; now i guess it would be Mexico-whether they like it or not, and China.

AP photo/Seth Perlman, date: July 2, 2009. ADM rail cars that will transport refined corn products, Decatur, Ill.

Andreas recently told a reporter for Mother Jones, "There isn't one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country."

This past May ADM ran in major newspapers a full-page, full-color ad showing a corn cob decorated with the American flag with a picture of President John F. Kennedy along with Kennedy's most famous slogan, "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country." The advertisement is the ultimate Orwellian agit-prop exercise, the true message being, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for ADM." Such misleading "public service" ad campaigns are the staple of ADM's public relations operation, providing the thin cover necessary to plunder the public till.

This Corn Farmers ad features Kurt and Heather Hora and their daughters.

America's Costs vs. ADM's Profits
Prudential Securities analyst John McMillin estimated that ADM's $746 million in profits in fiscal year 1995 (ending June 30) was derived as follows:
corn sweeteners, 39 percent (or $290,940,000),
total oilseed, 25 percent,
flour milling, 12 percent,
biochemicals, 5 percent,
ethanol, 4 percent (or $29,840,000), and
other, 15 percent.(136)
At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the U.S. government--"at least," because the substantial gain derived by ADM from various domestic crop support programs and export subsidies is virtually impossible to quantify.
ADM's lobbying and campaign contributions may have saved the federal sugar program from being abolished by Congress. Because the current sugar trade barriers and price supports cost consumers roughly $3 billion a year, consumers paid $10 in higher prices for each dollar of profit that ADM reaped from corn sweeteners.

China imports corn as expectations grow of a lower domestic harvest.

Sweet Corn

2010-06-07T03:13:00.000-07:00

Matt McClain - Rocky Mountain News

Olathe Sweet Corn Festival - Eating a total of 19 ears of corn in a seven-minute period, Dan "Tiny" Parker won the men's corn eating contest at the 15th annual Olathe Sweet Corn Festival in Olathe, Colo. "I had lost the last two years (in the corn eating contest) but, they still treat me like a champion", he said.

China: a new major player in the HFCS scene

2010-06-06T05:19:00.000-07:00

www.ChinaPost.com.tw

The sweet taste of danger in eating

Monday, March 1, 2010
By Andy Ho, The Straits Times/Asia News Network
SINGAPORE -- Fructose is now suspected of being a main cause of obesity in ways table sugar cannot be... You don't feel full after consuming food sweetened with fructose in the same way you would if you consumed glucose. This leads you to eat even more.

Sugar prices have risen to a 29-year high in Asia, where demand is skyrocketing. After all, India is the world's largest consumer of sugar with China following immediately behind.

It does seem, however, a tad odd that the United States is not numero uno in this regard. After all, a third of its adult population is obese, according to the National Centre for Health. Also, nine million U.S. children aged above six are obese, according to the Institute of Medicine.

One reason might be that U.S. sugar prices are twice the world's average, because of longstanding sugar quotas. Hence, U.S. food manufacturers have resorted to a substitute called high fructose corn syrup. It helps that the corn used to make this substitute sweetener is heavily subsidized by the federal government.

Because U.S. farm policy has been directed towards the overproduction of commodity crops used primarily in industry and as animal feed, crops like corn and soy beans are priced artificially low. By contrast, fresh produce receives much less government support and is consequently priced relatively higher.

Thus, while U.S. prices of sugar substitutes and vegetable oils have declined in the last two decades, those of fresh fruits and vegetables have risen 40 percent in the same period. These imbalances have obvious impacts on the eating habits - and health - of U.S. residents.

Buoyed by sugar quotas on the one hand and corn subsidies on the other, high fructose corn syrup introduced into the U.S. diet in the 1970s has become a big money spinner. Today, it accounts for more than half of the U.S. 'natural' sweetener market. It is used mainly in soft drinks but also in juices, cereals, pastries, salad dressings, condiments, jams, ice cream and tinned fruit.

According to The World Sugar Market, how to make sweeteners from starch industrially was already known in the 19th century. But production of such sweeteners trebled only from the early 1970s when sugar prices surged. The book, written by economists at the London-based International Sugar Organization, notes that Americans consume 30 percent more fructose now than they did in the early 1970s and triple more than they did a century ago. Coincidentally perhaps, 100 years ago, only 5 percent of Americans were obese.

Fructose is now suspected of being a main cause of obesity in ways table sugar cannot be. In The Sugar Fix: The High-Fructose Fallout That Is Making You Fat And Sick, Dr Richard Johnson, a professor of medicine at the University of Florida, Gainesville, writes about the mounting evidence for this claim.

Of course, overeating and under-exercising matter a lot, but Dr Johnson stresses that people are consuming too much fructose per se. The problem is not just calories as such. Instead, fructose also confuses the hormonal systems that signal hunger and satiety.

Basically, the simplest sugar called glucose, when digested and absorbed into the bloodstream, dampens the hunger hormone (ghrelin) while also stimulating the satiety hormone (leptin). In this way, glucose in your food makes you feel full.

By contrast, fructose not only has no impact on ghrelin, but also interrupts leptin. So you don't feel full after consuming food sweetened with fructose in the same way you would if you consumed glucose. This then leads you to eat even more.

In addition, the more fructose you consume over time, the more sensitized to it your system becomes. This means that habitual consumption of fructose sees your body over-responding to it, so you feel even less satiated, which leads to even greater overeating and thus obesity.

Dr Johnson's own published studies show that fructose tends to lead to raised blood pressure and elevated blood levels of uric acid, fats and sugar. Habitual consumers are more likely to develop obesity, hypertension and diabetes as well.

Moreover, fructose is metabolized differently from glucose. While glucose, the simplest sugar, can be used by every cell in the body as an energy source, fructose -- a far more complex sugar -- has to be broken down by the liver first.

While the liver processes only 20 percent of all glucose consumed, the organ has to process all fructose ingested. This metabolic process in the liver leads to many waste products - not only uric acid, but also bad cholesterol as well as free fatty acids.

The free fatty acids then become converted into triglycerides, which are stored in the liver as fat. Thus, over-consumption of fructose also predisposes one to fatty liver, which can end up scarred, leading to even liver failure.

U.S. residents should be very concerned, especially about their soft drinks, what with 75 percent of all fructose produced being used in their sodas.

According to The World Sugar Market, fructose dominates only in the U.S. and Japan because of the "favorable pricing policies and attractive tax structures" in these countries. Set-up production costs are so high that fructose is unlikely to replace sugar elsewhere. That is, unless the government steps in, as it has in Taiwan and South Korea.

In China, because Pepsi Cola and Coca-Cola have gone into the market in a huge way, they have set up plants to make fructose for their own use there. Elsewhere in Asia, however, sugar is still largely the sweetener used in soft drinks.

In the European Union (EU), very onerous fructose quotas mean that it has remained a bit player. The EU accounts for just 3 percent of the world's fructose consumption. On health grounds alone, we should emulate the Europeans.

Interesting...

So, I came across this article because I was trying to understand the emergence of China as a major producer of HFCS. Based on this article, it would appear that China's emergence in this market is due (at least in part) to "skyrocketing" sugar prices and the presence of Coke and Pepsi plants. Although I know from other import/export sites that the HFCS manufacturers in China DO export, this article suggests that at least the majority of Chinese HFCS is domestically consumed.

Some interesting facts/statements contained in this article:

75% of the world's HFCS is consumed by the U.S (in large part due to subsidies and tariffs)
3% of the world's HFCS is consumed in the EU (again, apparently at least in part due to quotas.)

Government involvement (i.e. subsidies/tariffs/quotas) seems to determine where HFCS dominates. In the absence of subsidies/tariffs/quotas, it would appear that HFCS doesn't really emerge in any major way, at least in part due to the high costs associated with setting up the manufacturing plants and facilities. So, domestically manufactured products are unlikely to contain HFCS, which leaves only imported goods, which will be affected by quotas and tariffs, etc.

The final sentence of this China Post, a Taiwanese newspaper, article is noteworthy:

On health grounds alone, we should emulate the Europeans.

"Creating a Ubiquitous Sweetener"

2010-06-05T04:27:00.000-07:00

The really cool thing about this graphic is the ultimate source: the Corn Refiners Association. (source)

Seems to me there are a couple interesting issues for further exploration contained in this graphic.

1st: where do Chinese manufacturers come into the process? Do they get the dry kernels and then produce the various concentrations of HFCS?

2nd: Ok, we know there are other formulations for HFCS, including a HFCS-90 and even HFCS-95. How do we know which one we are getting? Often the Audrae Ericksons and Rick Bermans of the world will argue that the HFCS-55 and HFCS-42 are "nutritionally the same" as cane sugar because the rough ratio of fructose to glucose is "the same." Well, do they pretend not to know that there are varieties of HFCS with 90% or more fructose? How do consumers know which they are getting?

3rd: just for fun, let's dissect the opening statement in this graphic:

Corn syrup is found in many food products, including ''all-natural products.''

Why is "all-natural products" in quotes? And this statement then suggests that it's also in all-UN-natural products, as well. What exactly is the difference? When is natural really natural?

Though demonized by many as a leading cause of obesity in the United States, evidence suggests that it may be no different than the refined sugar it often replaces.

The expression "evidence suggests" is interesting. What evidence? If there's also evidence that suggests that opposite, then why even make this statement? And then this phrase strikes me as noteworthy, too: "it MAY be no different than the refined sugar" (emphasis mine) MAY? I thought the whole argument is that they are "nutritionally the same"?? Different in what respect?

Although the components of high-fructose corn syrup occur naturally in foods, it takes a number of mechanical and chemical processes to turn corn into it.

Really? You mean we can't just squeeze HFCS out of an ear of corn? (source for below image)

Chinese HFCS?

2010-06-04T17:19:00.000-07:00

In the flurry of news stories about the poor U.S. corn farmers and how this shift a handful of manufacturers have made away from HFCS has affected them, one has to wonder about America's most prolific crop.... Corn. For a variety of historical and political reasons, much of the cane sugar used in this country is imported. Is it then more patriotic to use HFCS?

Well, wait a second, where exactly does our HFCS come from?

Turns out that's not such an easy question to answer. (source)

On the one hand, we know that Cargill and ADM are heavily invested and involved in HFCS production. U.S. companies, right? Yes of course.

Well, why (and this is not a rhetorical question) does Alibaba.com list 453 "supplier locations" in China for High Fructose Corn Syrup, while only 11 are in the U.S. I would not suggest that this information actually fully answers the question. But it certainly makes one wonder....

Seriously, where is U.S. HFCS produced? If not China, then where?

So, instead of looking at the various global exporter sites (such as Alibaba), how about going to Cargill and ADM directly? Well, here's what I found:

So, what's the situation, then? I do not suggest that all HFCS produced by Cargill and ADM is made at Chinese facilities, but some of it certainly is. And some HFCS is produced in China by Chinese companies (as well as in Syria, India, etc.) How do you know if the HFCS in a given product comes from a plant in China (or Syria or wherever)?

"It also provides the same taste as sucrose but in lower calories which is the reason why it is being used in diet products Also it provides the smooth texture for ice cream and sweets. Also it absorbs the moist and suppresses germs activity which in turn keeps pastries fresh." (source)

WTF?

Back to Chinese HFCS...

China seems to be trending up in terms of the tons (yes tons) of Corn imported from the U.S. See also China corn processors to become 'global players'

Mmm... yummy.... "8,000 M/Ts per month" of HFCS-55.... (source)

(source)

Given all the recalls and concerns about Chinese products, how should we feel about Chinese manufactured HFCS? What are the production standards? How is it stored? There are well known health issues resulting from different storage standards. How do we know what we are eating and what standards were met in the production/storage etc?

Can HFCS even be considered an American product?

(source)

"Gentlemen, Behold! I bring you..."

2010-06-04T15:56:00.000-07:00

GENTLEMEN, BEHOLD!
via Pundit Kitchen: Lol News and Lol Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden and more by Cheezburger Network on 6/4/10

Picture by: dunno source Caption by: Bad_Wolf via Poster Builder

Made in China

2010-06-03T04:48:00.000-07:00

I guess I am biased, but when I see "Made in China" i don't automatically assume high-quality.

No, I am not assuming that all HFCS is made in China, nor am I assuming that all Chinese products are "bad," but the characterizations of the the two varieties of HFCS pictured below are not exactly appetizing...

Source

The Disparagement of High Fructose Corn Syrup

2010-06-02T08:39:00.000-07:00

A recent article by David Mercer, Corn syrup producers deal with sour US sales, summarizes the basic HFCS situation in the U.S. If you follow such news stories, there's not really a lot of new information in the article. Overall use of HFCS by U.S. companies has declined due to popular demand, linked at least in part to widespread publicity concerning the connection between HFCS consumption and national obesity trends (as well as a host of other health concerns.) The author of the article cites views from all sides, but points out that as long as Coke and Pepsi don't shift away from HFCS, the corn refiners of the world will still have a pretty solid market share.

Producers don’t welcome the trend away from corn syrup, but seem positioned to handle it. Companies such as Archer Daniels Midland Co., Cargill Inc. and Corn Products International sell dozens of corn- and grain-derived products, and although U.S. sales are dropping, they’re selling more in some other countries, especially Mexico.

Food industry observers also note the sweetener’s biggest buyers — like Coke and Pepsi — remain huge customers. That’s not likely to change unless sugar prices drop so low they can’t resist.

“As long as they don’t switch, there’ll be a huge market for it,” said Ron Sterk, associate editor of the trade publications Milling & Baking News and Food Business News.

Of course I can't claim to understand all the specifics behind the HFCS dumping the U.S. has engaged in with Mexico (there seems to be an interest in Mexico to use their own sugar rather than the super cheap U.S. HFCS made available to Mexican-based manufacturers at insanely low prices--some say in an attempt to squeeze out the sugar competitor. But Mexican attempts to tax products containing HFCS resulted in legal action as the U.S. brought the WTO in to "mediate." I guess this is--from the Mexican perspective--the down side to NAFTA?) It kind of reminds me of the cigarette companies and how their U.S. sales dipped but they just exported more and more and kept making profits...

Anyway, the article does suggest that the HFCS lobby sees a more insidious side to the shift in the public opinion against HFCS. Why, when HFCS sales go down, sugar sales go up, so it must be....

BIG SUGAR!

“Who benefits from the disparagement of high fructose corn syrup?” asked Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association.

A spokeswoman for the sugar industry trade group, the Sugar Association, declined comment.

Why did the spokeswoman decline comment to this rhetorical question posed by Ms Erickson? Because it's just so freakin' silly! That's why!

See King Corn takes on Big Sugar for more information.

"Americans are essentially walking corn-consumption units."

2010-06-02T04:49:00.000-07:00

I can't take credit for this title. It's a quote from a comment from CA-Oxonian made on an Economist article. Yes, that's right: the struggle against King Corn made the Economist!

High-fructose corn syrup

Sickly sweetener

May 27th 2010 | NEW YORK

From The Economist print edition

Americans are losing their taste for a sugar substitute made from maize
IN A sun-dappled yard, above the cheerful whoops of healthy children, one mother assures another that high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a sweetener made from maize (corn), is, like sugar, “fine in moderation”. Yet fewer and fewer Americans, it seems, are convinced of the claim, made in a series of advertisements by the Corn Refiners’ Association, an industry group. Demand for HFCS declined by 8% between 2007 and 2009. Several fast-food chains and consumer-goods firms have ostentatiously dropped it from their recipes. Michelle Obama, the first lady, has expressed concern. Some Americans feel so strongly that they have posted spoof advertisements online, explaining that lead poisoning, Nazism and genital mutilation are also “fine in moderation”.
HFCS, which became a common ingredient in processed foods in the 1980s thanks in part to an abundance of subsidised maize, is cheaper than sugar. A rise in the price of sugar in recent years has increased the difference, yet big firms such as Pepsi and Kraft have substituted sugar for HFCS in many of their products. ConAgra, another big foodmaker, announced earlier this month that it had removed HFCS from its Hunt’s ketchup brand, and slapped a prominent label to that effect on the bottles. The move, the firm says, reflects consumer demand.
The most common complaint about HFCS is that it has helped to make Americans fat. But that idea is hotly disputed. The American Medical Association and the American Dietetic Association argue that there is no direct link between obesity and consumption of HFCS in America, although both have surged in the past 30 years. Other studies have fingered HFCS, including one released in March by scientists at Princeton, which found that rats gained more weight eating it than table sugar. HFCS’s defenders blame perfidious sugar refiners for their bad press.
Another complaint centres on subsidies for maize, which, the theory runs, have warped America’s entire food chain. Yet high tariffs on imported sugar, to the benefit of America’s beet and cane farmers, have also helped to promote HFCS. Mike McConnell of the Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service estimates that HFCS and sugar would be roughly comparable in price in a free market. In that respect, at least, the two products are as bad as each other.

Corn and market volatility

2010-05-29T05:02:00.000-07:00

Given the complexities of the situation, it is sometimes difficult to determine the exact cause for market volatility. And, in the midst of the crisis, speculation can create fear and inaccurate assumptions. Only looking back on the situation after some time has passed, allows one to gain perspective.

This quote from "Food and Fuel Issues," an article about Ethanol and corn production from the University of Illinois Extension, has relevance today. US corn farmers are blaming the handful of companies who changed the recipe/formula for some of their products, going back to sugar, for the recent market volatility that is hurting their bottom line. Who cares about health matters or what the consumers want, if the farmers of this great nation are feeling a pinch, then we need to act! Right?

Well, again, it is important to remember just how much corn this great nation produces. And it must also be remembered that corn is everywhere, just like Elvis.

The below graphic, also from this article, highlights how US corn is used by segment of the economy. What do you suppose is the smallest category?

Revisiting the subject of corn subsidies

2010-05-29T04:24:00.000-07:00

Given some of the recent headlines, the following graphic from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) seems pretty relevant. Since we're on the subject of corn subsidies and using EWG information, it is important to note two things, (1) EWG does not suggest that farm (or even to be more specific, corn) subsidies should be done away with altogether; however, they do state that the "system is broken" and needs to be revisited.

And (2), according to EWG, corn is not only the most subsidized of all US crops, but as a category, corn subsidies are more than twice as high as even the recipient of second place, wheat. Is it really a surprise then that the US is the world's number one producer of corn? If you were a farmer and given an option of growing any crop, why would you switch from corn?

HFCS and the farmers' perspective

2010-05-26T16:35:00.000-07:00

So many of us have rejoiced when we hear about the removal of HFCS from various product lines. While I knew there were folks who were not pleased (oh, say Audrae Erickson? and there's always Rick Berman, Mr invent-a-Nonprofit, run by a for profit, lobbyist), I hadn't thought much about the impact on farmers. Sure, I knew that if King Corn were suddenly to be dethroned, the Archer Daniels Midland bosses and Mr Berman wouldn't suffer actual losses and would instead pass on the pain to the farmers. But I thought it would take more than a couple companies shifting recipes to make a dent in Corn-related profit.

But Ohio headlines present a sad state of affairs for the Corn farmers of this nation. Here's an example:

Corn Syrup Dispute
By: Emily Baird
Posted: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 - 7:16pm

High fructose corn syrup is an important by-product of the corn crop, but some companies are thinking of replacing that ingredient with a cane sugar substitute in some of its products.
"There's been some research, and it's disputed by some, that high fructose corn syrup has led to some obesity problems here in the country, " says Mark Mechling of the OSU Extension Program.
That switch could prove to be a big deal for farmers, especially in Ohio where it's ranked seventh in the country for corn production
"It makes it less marketable. It basically reduces some demand, not a lot of demand, but some demand. The bottom line for farmers is they probably wouldn't get as much per bushel, " says Mechling.
Mechling says in the long-run that could potentially lead to less corn production. So, he says the Ohio Corn Growers Association is lobbing to keep high fructose corn syrup in these products to prevent a huge blow to farmers.

On the one hand I think: ok, companies are switching back to sugar because that's what the US population apparently wants (setting aside for a moment all the health-related issues and studies whether you believe them or not...) but this Mechling guy wants companies to go back to HFCS because of farmers? Farmers who are PAID by the government to overproduce enormous quantities of corn that everyone knows could never even possibly be used? Who cares what consumers want...

(Picture Source)

Well apparently only 4.1% (according to 2007 information) of Corn grow in the US is used in HFCS. So, blaming the economic woes faced by Corn Farmers on the switch only a handful of companies have made back to sugar is really not a very convincing argument.

Well what else is there that might be having an effect on King Corn's profit margins? Oh, let's see.... Ethanol? Percentage-wise considerably more US corn ends up in Ethanol than in HFCS. And at least today corn futures are up anyway.

So yeah.

(Cartoon Source)

"The United States is the largest corn producer in the world."

(Image Source)

Bad taste...

2010-05-23T06:38:00.001-07:00

but funny! (no pun intended... )

"The Ban of High Fructose Corn Syrup"

2010-05-23T06:03:00.000-07:00

Although I do not participate in the Facebook revolution, a recent New York Times article drew my attention to a Facebook page that certainly has had an impact. With (according to Facebook, "136,815 People Like This") a following of over 120,000 fans, this page has played a role in the recent reversals (with food industry giants removing HFCS from their product lines.)

For Corn Syrup, the Sweet Talk Gets Harder

Such defenses [such as the Corn Refiners Association citing the handful of people who support their attempts to defend HFCS], however, don’t hold much sway with people like Ivan Royster, 27, who runs Ban of HFCS, a Facebook page that has 120,000 fans. Like many people who get a creepy feeling about high-fructose corn syrup, Mr. Royster points out that it is a highly processed ingredient that was invented in the late 1960s and introduced into the food supply in the ’80s.
In March, his Facebook page lit up after a study from Princeton University gave credence to the idea that high-fructose corn syrup might, in fact, be worse than sugar.
“Our bodies have been adapted over the years to metabolize sugar, which is natural,” Mr. Royster says. “But the body doesn’t know what to do with high-fructose corn syrup.”

Mr Royster is also on Twitter and has a blog.

This woman:

probably doesn't like him very much.

Here's hoping Ivan Royster keeps....

"Spreading Awareness And Debunking Myths That Say HFCS Is Good For You"

Frankenfood video

2010-05-23T04:33:00.000-07:00

While i can't say that i agree with every claim made in this video, i certainly concur with the general point and find it amusing. plus she uses the term Frankenfood, which is an incredibly useful (and fun!) expression.

What does the term "100% Natural" refer to?

2010-05-18T18:02:00.000-07:00

Hunt's recently made a big change in their ketchup recipe; the new Hunt's Ketchup is now, to quote Hunt's, "100 % natural." But wait, what does that mean? According the the Hunt's Ketchup FAQ page:

"100% Natural" refers to the use of only natural ingredients, including:
Tomatoes
Sugar
Vinegar
Salt
Garlic and other associated spices
Um, ok, but why would they do this? Why is the Hunt's Ketchup formula changing?

More than ever, consumers are interested in products with simpler ingredient lists, and ingredients they easily recognize. They express a preference for food items that are natural or made with ingredients they may have at home. And we're listening and providing consumers with what they want—an entire line of ketchup that is 100% Natural, with 0% high fructose corn syrup.
Well what's the news media saying about this move?

High-fructose corn syrup cut from Hunt's recipe
(AP) – 1 day ago
OMAHA, Neb. — ConAgra Foods Inc. has removed high fructose corn syrup from its Hunt's brand ketchup.
Shoppers have been shying away from high-fructose corn syrup due to health concerns, and it was consumer demand that drove the changes, said Hunt's brand manager Ryan Toreson.
Hunt's is the latest brand to make the shift.
PepsiCo Inc. removed all high-fructose corn syrup from sports drink Gatorade and replaced it with cane sugar.
Some nutritionists cite the syrup as part of the country's obesity problem, though industry scientists and many dietitians say it is no more fattening than sugar.
Corn syrup is popular with manufacturers partly because it is cheaper than sugar.
Hunt's Tomato Ketchup has five ingredients: tomatoes, sugar, vinegar, salt and other seasonings, the company said.
The products should be on all store shelves by the middle of this month.
The price has not changed, the company said.
ConAgra Foods, based in Omaha, Neb., makes brands such as Chef Boyardee, Hebrew National and Peter Pan.
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

ConAgra Removes High Fructose Corn Syrup from Ketchup Brand
Source: FLEXNEWS

17 May 2010 - ConAgra Foods has announced that it has removed high fructose corn syrup from its Hunt's ketchup products.
"In direct response to consumer demand, Hunt's is pleased to offer ketchup sweetened with sugar and containing only five simple ingredients," said Ryan Toreson, Hunt's Ketchup brand manager.

The reformulated 'Hunt's 100% Natural Ketchup' is now available nationwide at the same price as the previous recipe.

Now let's step back and think about this.... Hunt's made the switch in response to its customers. In the interest of responding to "consumer demand" they now offer ketchup with only a handful of simple, natural ingredients.

Oh, Audrae Erickson?

Come out, come out, where ever you are!

Where's the copy/paste block of text-response? Why have you forsaken us?

Ok, fine.... let's just do her job for her....

Is high fructose corn syrup a "natural" sweetener?
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 Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) requirements for use of the term “natural.” (10)

The FDA stated, referring to a process commonly used by the corn refining industry, that it “would not object to the use of the term ‘natural’ on a product containing the HFCS produced by [that] manufacturing process....” (Letter to Corn Refiners Association, July 3, 2008)

“All forms of HFCS come from corn starch, and are mixtures of the natural glucose and fructose that exist in the starch itself. No artificial ingredients are used in the manufacturing process. The resulting HFCS product is extremely similar to table sugar (sucrose) and has a similar taste.” (“All About High Fructose Corn Syrup.” Food, Nutrition, & Science from The Lempert Report, April 26, 2010)

Oh, look! a new source cited to promote just how natural HFCS is (never mind the genetically modified enzyme needed to produce this all natural "corn sugar")....

The Lempert Report? Hmm that sounds scientific.... learned even.... (that's pronounced learn-ed). Well, what is this Lempert Report? Who is Lempert? He must be a medically trained expert who understands the chemical composition of HFCS and is biologically savvy enough to make statements about humans' metabolic response to HFCS intake. Right?

In his April 30 post entitled: All About High Fructose Corn Syrup, Lempert stated the following:

All forms of HFCS come from corn starch, and are mixtures of the natural glucose and fructose that exist in the starch itself. No artificial ingredients are used in the manufacturing process. The resulting HFCS product is extremely similar to table sugar (sucrose) and has a similar taste.

You see, Lempert, better known as Phil Lempert, is none other than....

Wait, what was that?

That's right,

Here's an excerpt from his "About Us" page:

PHIL LEMPERT is The Supermarket Guru ®

Television & Radio News Reporter/ Newspaper Columnist/ Author/ Consumerologist/ Food Marketing Expert

Phil Lempert can predict the future —and then help businesses and consumers understand it. For more than 25 years, Lempert, an expert analyst on consumer behavior, marketing trends, new products and the changing retail landscape, has identified and explained impending trends to consumers and some of the most prestigious companies worldwide. Known as The Supermarket Guru ® , Lempert is a distinguished author and speaker who alerts customers and business leaders to impending corporate and consumer trends, and empowers them to make educated purchasing and marketing decisions.

As one of America’s leading consumer trend-watchers and analysts, Phil Lempert is recognized on television, radio and in print. He is the food trends editor and correspondent for NBC News’ Today show, where he reports on consumer trends, food safety and money-saving tips, as well as showcases new products. He makes monthly appearances on ABC’s The View , and has appeared numerous times on The Oprah Winfrey Show, 20/20, CNN, CNBC, Discovery Health and MSNBC, as well as on local television morning and news programs throughout the country.

Phil Lempert was one of the pioneers of the new information media, founding SupermarketGuru.com in 1994. The website is now one of the leading food and health resources on the Internet, visited by more than 9 million people each year. SupermarketGuru.com offers thorough food ratings, analyzes trends in food marketing and retail, and features health advice, unique recipes, nutrition analysis, allergy alerts and many other resources to help consumers understand their food, health, lifestyle and shopping options.

Lempert is contributing editor of Supermarket News, which exclusively runs his columns both in its magazine and on its website; as well as a content partner with SN which includes custom consumer surveys and other projects. He has been profiled and interviewed by USA Today, The New York Times , The Christian Science Monitor, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Newsweek and Ad Age , and is interviewed by hundreds of publications each year.

Phil is the founder and editor of several monthly e-publications targeted to consumers and businesses: “ Xtreme Retail23, ” “ Facts, Figures & the Future ,” “Food Nutrition and Science” and “Coffee Chat News.” He also publishes a weekly e-newsletter from SupermarketGuru.com. To sign up for any newsletters, visit the “Your Path to Consumer Enlightenment” section of SupermarketGuru.com.

For 13 years, Lempert has hosted a weekly, live call-in radio show, Before You Bite ® with Phil Lempert , which most recently aired on Lime Radio (previously part of Sirius) . Podcasts of the program, which features discussions of the latest news in health, sustainability and food trends, are currently available on Lime.com.

Phil is a spokesperson for ConAgra Foods and works with various ConAgra brands and their retail partners to help communicate strategies on saving money, healthier eating and food trend information to America's shoppers.

What was that last part?

The world-renowned "Consumerologist" is a spokeperson for none other than ConAgra?

Wait, didn't we just see that Hunt's Ketchup is a ConAgra product?

So wait, one can then assume that THE Phil Lempert, Supermarket Guru, Consumerologist, counseled Hunt's on whether to heed "consumer demand" with regards to HFCS?

Hunt's must have brazenly, foolishly ignored the predictions of....

It is at their own peril that they ignore...

Or maybe, just maybe, Phil Lempert really can predict the future.....

"Shop Happy"??

2010-05-15T19:48:00.000-07:00

Bloom's tagline is "A different kind of grocery store." But while this may seem like just another slogan, at Bloom it's a promise. A promise to be thoughtful. To be compassionate. To keep evolving. And, most importantly, to allow customers to do something they've never done before at a grocery store: Shop Happy.

I guess I bought into the hype... i have been seeing Bloom ads for over a year. it sounded nice. "Bloom" simply sounds more appealing than Harris Teeter, Kroger, Publix, Safeway, Giant...

Was the parking pleasant? yes. the carts had little store maps built into the handle. the organization of the store was well thought-out. The selection was pretty good. The prices were pretty decent. But i tend to judge a grocery store on the bakery items... and that's where Bloom shriveled.

I have perused many grocery stores' baked goods aisles. What do Harris Teeter, Kroger, Publix, Safeway, and Giant have in common? every one of them has both baked goods with, as well as with out, HFCS.

Not Bloom! I should be more specific: i picked up about a dozen random baked goods items and every one had HFCS listed. The cookies (chocolate chip and peanut butter), fudge, cinnamon rolls, cakes, (caramel something or the other, as well as chocolate), cupcakes, etc. all had HFCS listed prominently (along with a whole host of other unappetizing ingredients.) I could not find even one item in the bakery section that was HFCS-free.

That's just sad.

What happens when you consume too much High Fructose Corn Syrup....

2010-04-05T16:36:00.000-07:00

....You wake up one morning and look like this....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1262992/George-Jolicur-The-43-stone-man-fat-lock-up.html

This man
has consumed
far too much
High Fructose Corn Syrup....

My special thanks to Palemud...

Total Reversal??

2010-04-01T06:20:00.000-07:00

A major finding from the scientific community reveals that HFCS is indeed natural and completely safe to consume, even in excess. Click here for more details:

http://scientificamerican/HFCSiznatural20100401.com

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

2010-01-20T19:31:00.000-08:00

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 G eneral 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?

2010-01-19T17:23:00.000-08:00

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!

2010-01-11T04:04:00.000-08:00

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....

2010-01-07T15:05:00.000-08:00

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....

2010-01-06T16:10:00.000-08:00

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!

2010-01-05T16:43:00.000-08:00

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

Wishing you an HFCS-free Christmas!

2009-12-25T03:52:00.000-08:00

It may not be easy, but you can do holiday baking/cooking and avoid HFCS! Whether it's the graham crackers from Whole Foods (there's also now a variety of graham cracker sticks from Harris Teeter that don't have HFCS) or Vanilla Wafers from Trader Joes, Karo Corn Syrup (now HFCS free!) or bread crumbs from Trader Joes, the basic holiday recipes can be made (with a little extra effort and careful reading of labels) without HFCS!

Have a wonderful holiday season!

Yes, that's right, it's even in dog food....

2009-12-09T19:04:00.000-08:00

I can't see that much text is necessary.....

Source

The PR campaign for HFCS drones on...

2009-12-07T18:31:00.000-08:00

According to a recent PR Newswire News release ("Analysis of High Fructose Corn Syrup-Free Marketing and New Consumer Research Suggests Some Food Companies Adding to Sweetener Confusion"), consumers are being "led astray" by false claims made by companies promoting products that are HFCS-free.

CRA's analysis showed that while nearly half (44%) made simple statements without health judgments in calling out products as "high fructose corn syrup free," a significant number mischaracterized this caloric sweetener in their materials. For example:
33% used negative language to characterize high fructose corn syrup, including nearly 4% that made extreme and blatantly false misrepresentations about the sweetener;
5% touted sugar as "healthier";
18% claimed high fructose corn syrup is not natural; and,
19.5% used qualifiers to imply that products are more healthful without high fructose corn syrup.

So does that mean these companies are misunderestimating the wonders of HFCS in their shameless campaign to promote products that dare to exclude the most glorious of all sweeteners, the lifeblood of America that is High Fructose Corn Syrup?

(Photo Source: Red, White and Blue Corn, photo by Robb Kiser: Holli Alvarado)

Moreover, this PR Newswire report cites "CRA's research findings," which highlight how misled consumers feel.

Nearly half (46.9%) of consumers surveyed feel misled by food companies making high fructose corn syrup-free claims

Let's just turn this statement around for the fun of it. So, according to this statistic, over half of consumers surveyed by the CRA do NOT feel misled by food companies making HFCS-free claims.

Sometimes i wonder if I am misunderestimating just how smart these CRA folks are and how effective their little PR machine is...

Gotta love that headline: "High Fructose Corn Syrup doesn't make exceptional contribution to obesity." So, it definitely contributes to obesity, but not in an exceptional way.

Weak argument much?

Elated about Elevation Burger

2009-11-29T14:49:00.000-08:00

So, that bunless burger i had because I erroneously believed the buns at Elevation Burger contained HFCS just didn't cut it. I went back on Saturday to try the real thing. The Elevation Cheeseburger on the Schmidt's potato bread hamburger bun really is worth writing about. The high quality ingredients make a real difference in the taste.

I'd love to try the "Elevation Sauce," but without knowing the ingredients, i hesitate. (After the issue with In-N-Out's special sauce, i am pretty cautious.)

The fries at Elevation Burger are also worthy of praise. They use fresh cut potatoes (so none of that gluten/wheat potato mix that is so common at burger chains), the cook them in olive oil, and use nothing frozen. I think they even fry them up fresh for each order?

(Photo source)

On a side note, while at the grocery store recently i looked at the package for Schmidt's buns and the ingredient list had indeed been updated and no longer lists HFCS.

Woo hoo!!!!

("About us" source)

Costco and Coca-Cola

2009-11-24T16:58:00.000-08:00

"At present we are not carrying Coke products because we cannot provide the value our customers deserve."

That statement is on signs posted in Costco stores in the section where customers normally find Coke products. Costco is not pulling Coke products from the shelves, but they state that they will not restock until they come to a resolution. Coca-Cola is being portrayed in a rather unpleasant light as being greedy and profit-driven, while Costco can claim it is looking out for customers in hard economic times by trying to offer products at good prices.

Sources:
Costco stops carrying Coke products
Costco nixes Coke products over pricing dispute

Costco stops carrying Coke; Mexican Coca-Cola source, gone!
Costco Won't Restock Coke Due To Pricing Dispute

Photo source: May 28, 2008 file photo (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)

Since Costco was one of the only sources for most Americans to get Mexican Coke (containing sugar as opposed to HFCS, which is the top ingredient in US Coke), there's some sadness in this story for the HFCS-free community. (Source for below photo)

Karo and HFCS

2009-11-24T16:17:00.000-08:00

In November 2008, Karo introduced Lite Light Corn Syrup, a product that differed from the standard Light Corn syrup in that it not only had fewer calories, but also did not contain HFCS. The decision, according to the few press releases I located, was due to the public's growing concern with high fructose corn syrup. (source)

This was good news for people who for whatever reason try to avoid HFCS. I distinctly recall looking sadly at Karo Light Corn Syrup bottles and seeing the HFCS and not knowing if i could use Dark Corn Syrup (which never contained HFCS) and stil get the same result from the recipe.

Well, I have tried to find out when, but all i can say is: Some time since late 2008, Karo has reformulated their standard Light Corn Syrup; it no longer contains HFCS!

Using cached versions of their old site I found the ingredient listing, which I compared with the new listing on their site:

Old:

New:

As far as victories go, this may seem like a small one. But all i can say is: my thanks to Karo for creating HFCS-free options for its customers.

Baking cookies and baked goods this holiday season will be an experience that for me will be just a little sweeter....

At Elevation Burger, "Ingredients Matter" (revised)

2009-11-23T03:36:00.000-08:00

Rather than just edit my previous post and rather than just being satisfied with leaving a comment in reply....

Elevation Burgers, in addition to having high quality beef, top notch quality toppings, terrific fries, etc., also has HFCS-free buns!

Yum.... ok, so now i need to go back and get the bun and have the full experience....

"Ingredients Matter"

2009-11-22T11:04:00.000-08:00

Elevation Burger is a burger chain (mostly in the North East, but also in Florida and soon Texas, too) that prides itself on quality ingredients, emphasizing the organic beef, free of chemicals and antibiotics. They even state that their beef is the "cleanest and safest" available to consumers.

Truly, they are good. Based on our dining experience just now, they would certainly rank among the best on the East Coast. They have a wide range of toppings, use real cheddar cheese, and offer a number of different ways to put the burger together. Interestingly, they offer a lettuce wrap for customers who want to avoid bread intake.

Well, i love bread. I mean, i absolutely adore bread. So why did i choose the lettuce wrap? Well, i guess i should congratulate the wait staff for actually knowing the answer to my pesky little question:

Do the buns contain high fructose corn syrup?

The answer is: Yes, Elevation Burger buns do contain HFCS.

They care about the fries are cooked, the specifics about the beef are taken very seriously. But when it comes to their buns, sadly, Elevation Burgers doesn't rise above the crowd. (sorry, i couldn't resist.)

If they really took their slogan seriously, they wouldn't have used crap quality buns containing HFCS. They imply their high quality ingredients rival all others. But In-N-Out, for example, doesn't use buns with HFCS; there's a fresh baked bun for every burger. Their shakes and special sauce may have HFCS, but the buns are truly top class.

(Slogan/web capture source)

Elevation burger, why do you house your top rate, organic beef in crap quality buns?

"Premium Quality" High Fructose Corn Syrup???

2009-11-16T18:16:00.000-08:00

"Let Progresso inspire your passion for the art of Italian cooking. The rich flavors of our premium quality ingredients add an authentic Italian touch to your favorite recipes."

Um yeah. Why didn't i think to read the ingredients before purchasing this item? momentary lapse of reason? jet lag? (wait... there was no time difference in Bogota...) just because i am sometimes ditzy and really stupid? or could it be that i had no reason to think HFCS would be a primary ingredient in this product?

So yeah... HFCS is one of those "premium quality ingredients" in this fine Progresso product.

Free to the first person who posts a comment and sends enough money to cover postage charges...

Movie Review: King Corn

2009-11-15T17:51:00.000-08:00

King Corn is a documentary film released in 2007 that looks at the role of corn both as North America's primary food staple, as well as North America's most beloved crop. (photo credit; film website). The film centers on Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, two friends who move to a small farming community in Iowa, where they plant an acre of corn and experience the joys of being farmers.In the process of becoming farmers, Cheney and Ellis discover the wonders of government assistance to farmers; the severe cold of Iowa winters; the incredible overproduction that is encouraged thanks to Earl Butz; the findings of Michael Pollan; as well as some lovely facts about "corn-fed" cattle; and how human hair can mirror the composition of one's diet. There are some highly disturbing scenes; some content may seriously make you reconsider the choices you make with respect to your diet. Oh, i almost forgot: Audra Erickson, Patron Saint of HFCS, is also featured prominently in this film. She earnestly and fervently promotes HFCS in interviews conducted with Cheney and Ellis. (sorry, i can't help it.... she seems positively stepford...)

The film is both funny and quirky; it is somewhat languid at times, but that is somehow appropriate. Unlike some of the other documentaries coming out these days, King Corn is less diatribe and more exploratory. It is a thought-provoking and even disturbing look at the centrality of corn in the U.S.

HFCS: World Domination?

2009-11-15T16:59:00.000-08:00

On a recent work trip to Bogota, Colombia, I caught a glimpse of a symbolic representation of corn that would have an eerie significance for my travels. (please note, the above image was actually taken in Atlanta's airport as i awaited my connecting flight to Bogota.)

In perusing grocery store (or is it super market?) aisles in two Bogota chains, i was surprised to find what appeared to be HFCS in several items. Ok, so it wasn't so surprising that Smuckers products contained HFCS ("it's got to be good," right? the ingredient listed was Jarabe de maíz alto en fructosa,) but there were other items, not all imported, with Glucosa de Maiz, etc. Is Glucosa de Maiz HFCS? Not sure, but it's pretty clear that Jarabe de blah blah is. Why was i surprised? With earlier reporting on Mexico and the widespeared rejection of HFCS in Mexican Coca Cola, as well as some comments made by people i met about the fact that Bogota's locals wouldn't abide by unnatural chemical sweetener crap, i just assumed the products would be safe (i.e. not contain HFCS.) With the exception of Isoglucose in the UK, i typically assume that when i am traveling outside the US items are safe unless imported (from the US, of course). Now i see that it's not so simple.

When i was on travel in other countries it was always such a wonderful experience of freedom NOT to have to stare at labels before knowing a given item wouldn't make me sick. Whereas in the US, i have to scrutinize labels and ask at restaurants about ingredients, in other countries, i could eat with abandon! Sadly, that is no longer the case, apparently.

In closing, the Coca Cola in Bogota was HFCS free and also quite tasty (the first ingredient listed below is carbonated water, followed by Azucar... nice, simple, and straight forward sugar!)

And now for a little levity: Jason's Deli

2009-11-03T04:45:00.000-08:00

This YouTube clip might have escaped my notice if i hadn't seen it on a blog; so my thanks to John Biggs, who not only posted this clip, but also broke the unbelievable news about the astonishing link between HFCS and anal cancer (it's true and he needs no scientific studies to prove it! but he wrote in all caps so it's gotta be true).

On a side note, Jason's Deli is such an awesome place.

On the Subject of Subsidies

2009-10-25T19:22:00.000-07:00

By the 1990s, King Corn reigned supreme as the most predominant sweetener in U.S. processed foods. We've already talked about the benefits of HFCS for producers of processed foods. But why is HFCS cheaper than sugar?

In surveying the on-line literature, i find that many sources ultimately come back to either Michael Pollan's works or the Tufts' study: Alicia Harvie and Timothy A. Wise, "Sweetening the Pot: Implicit Subsidies to Corn Sweeteners and the U.S. Obesity Epidemic," Global Development and Environment Institute Tufts University, GDAE Policy Brief No. 09 - 01 February 2009

The Tufts' study does a good job demonstrating how HFCS became cheaper as a result of the fact that corn prices are kept low by U.S. farm policies. "We find that U.S. farm policy effectively lowered corn prices and HFCS production costs, offering HFCS producers an implicit subsidy of $243 million a year, a savings of $2.2 billion over the nine-year period, and over $4 billion since 1986. For soda bottlers, the main consumers of HFCS and among those most heavily implicated in public health concerns, the savings amounted to nearly $100 million per year, $873 million over the nine-year period, and nearly $1.7 billion since the wholesale adoption of HFCS by the soda industry in the mid-eighties." The costs are in part kept low as a result of overproduction; and of course inflated sugar prices (resulting from the efforts of the South Florida Sugar giants--among others?-- ) plays a role.

Yes, that is Nikita Khrushchev, who was apparently most impressed by U.S. corn....
(Photo source)

"About 2.7 million bushels of corn is piled 60 feet high on the ground beside full elevators at an agricultural cooperative in Ralston, Iowa."
Photo Source: Alexai Barrionuevo, "Mountains of Corn and a Sea of Farm Subsidies" The New York Times, November 9, 2005

Some additional sources of information:
http://artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/articles/09harvest.html
http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=04000&progcode=corn

The sordid history of food politics: Meet King Corn

2009-10-25T18:30:00.000-07:00

Source: State Fair of Texas 2008, at Fair Park, Dallas, Texas, Exhibition of corn by-products, Photo: Andreas Praefcke (Attribution required (Multi-license with GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY 3.0)

Corn byproducts...

Synthetically produced (i.e. in a lab) ethanol was first produced in the early 1800s. In the 1840s, an ethanol fuel was used as a source of energy for lamps. In the mid-19th century corn starch came onto the scene. Model T Fords could be fueled by ethanol as early as 1908. Throughout prohibition, moonshiners made the most of corn-derived alcohol. By 1921, we had corn syrup. Over the course of the 1960s and 1970s, the process for Glucose Isomerization was developed, which enabled the creation of High Fructose Corn Syrup (see the post on Glucose Isomerase.)

By the mid-1980s, HFCS was in a large number of products widely available in the U.S. By the mid-1990s, HFCS had almost completely displaced sugar as the sweetener used in processed foods. (Source) Are we now seeing the slow reversal? First came Jason's Deli (the first chain to remove HFCS from its menu completely.) Now Star Bucks' food offerings are HFCS free. We also have Pepsi Throwback, Jones Soda, etc etc. And there's some evidence that consumers find this move to cane sugar appealing

Well, that shift away from HFCS won't happen if the Corn Refiners Association has a say! According to the www.corn.org website, CRA and its predecessors have been representing the U.S. corn refining industry since 1913 (this is the year listed on their website). Predecessors?

Well one group that has a long history and works side by side with CRA is the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), which was formed in 1919. In the decades following its creation, AFBF worked tirelessly for good loans, irrigation projects, and benefits for those citizens it represented. The AFBF supported the creation of U.S. Grain Growers, a group that lasted only two years. Interestingly, the AFBF website relates the frustration farm leaders felt by the inability of the grain farmers to organize. Via the Farm Bureau, AFBF and other linked groups, became a powerful force that would affect American politics indelibly. AFBF, celebrating its 75th anniversary this year, has unceasingly worked to influence American agricultural policies across presidencies and throughout the decades.

Nixon's Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz is a key figure in the emergence of corn as King. This blog cannot exhaust the long and windy history of American agripolitics, but the bottom line is that Mr. Butz apparently didn't see a problem with over-production. One of the best sources for a concise overview is permalinked here: "Is corn making us fat? Michael Pollan argues that U.S. farm policy promoting overproduction of corn has made America overweight—and made big food companies very happy," New York Times Ufront, Dec 8 2003

During his presidency, Clinton had some highly publicized struggles with the argri-lobbies. The Corn (Ethanol) Lobby's emphasis on biofuels has resulted in ethanol somewhat politically overshadowing other corn byproducts at times. Obama, too, seems to be "bent over a corn cob" when it comes to ethanol.

Ethanol and biofuels of course have a sticky sort of residue they leave behind in any debate: is Ethanol environmentally viable? Is Ethanol really a worthwhile alternative fuel? Well, many political leaders have found it difficult to come out against Ethanol as a result, at least in part, of groups like AFGF.

I don't pretend to know the answer to the ethanol debate, so in the interest of objectivity, i will cite from a source very upfront about its politics: Mother Jones, Betting the Farm (Nov/Dec 2009 issue): "Don't ever, ever get crosswise with the ag lobby. They will sink you." This article also put the "Farm Bureau" in a slightly dfferent context than what i found on the AFBF site. "'Farm Bureau' may sound rural and heartlandish, but in reality it's a multibillion-dollar trade association cum insurance company with branches in all 50 states and close ties to agribusiness giants like Archer Daniels Midland and Novartis, not to mention a few dozen farm-state senators."

Again we come back to the Corn Refiners Association, a group whose techniques and mission are discussed in some detail in earlier blogs on this site. CRA represents corn refiners' interests writ large, including both HFCS and ethanol.

Some of the big conglomerates, prominently featured on CRA's site as member organizations, responsible for widespread dissemination of corn-derived products include:

Cargill, Incorporated: grain/agricultural commodities; producing livestock feed, pharmaceuticals, and processed foods.
Archer Daniels Midland Company: grain-derived processed products, especially beverages, processed foods, livestock feed, cooking oils, and industrial products

Both ADM and Cargill have gained quite a reputation both for their profit margins, as well as their business practices.

We come now full circle to the Corn Refiners Association campaign to promote HFCS:

Is it just me or are processed foods pretty much across the board, by their very composition, not nutritious? Maybe it depends on how you define nutritious.... The family pictured above certainly looks happy and healthy--no obese, diabetic children there. and i bet their pantry is just full of HFCS-laden products.... See? HFCS makes good things even better... (well for the conglomerates like Archer Daniels Midland anyway...)

There's simply no better way to end this entry than with a photograph of a water tower in Rochester, Minnesota, painted to look like an ear of corn. (Photo source) Ah, corn is certainly king in this great land of ours.

Additional sources:
http://www.kingcorn.net/

The sordid history of food politics: First came Big Sugar

2009-10-25T08:55:00.000-07:00

Sugar tariffs? Corn subsidies? When and why did it become so political and contentious? And what does Cuba have to do with it? How abut NAFTA? Why is King Corn so defensive?

The late 1880s and 1890s were a tumultuous time in U.S. Courts as sugar refineries scored a number of key victories, enabling them to become bigger and more powerful as trusts, and demonstrating the extent to which the sugar industry could maintain prices that would generate profits for those refineries.

The New York Times archives contains relevant reporting about the "Sugar Trust's" victories. Kind of funny that Big Business was (a) up to the same tricks then as now, and (b) the lovely politicians of our great nation could be bought back then just as they can be now.

From the first page of The New York Times, August 19, 1894:

http://query.nytimes.co/gst/abstract.html?res=9B00EFDC1730E033A2575AC1A96E9C94659ED7CF
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F07E1D7123BE533A2575BC1A9609C94619ED7CF
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A03E3DE1330E633A25756C1A9679D94699FD7CF
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A06E6DF1638E733A25757C1A9649C94669ED7CF

By the turn of the nineteenth century, the increasingly powerful "Sugar Trust" purchased large quantities of Cuban sugar and had an interest in influencing tariffs in order to maximize profits.

Source: newspapers.rawson.lib.mi.us/chronicle/tcc1902b%20(E)/issues/10-17-1902_5.pdf

If Rick Berman were a vampire or otherwise somehow had the ability to have been alive and kicking in 1902, i would think he would probably be running the American Literary Bureau, which was no doubt a "non-profit"!

More sources on the Sugar Trust empire (this one mentions the Cuba connection):
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E03E6D6103DEE32A25750C0A9639C946397D6CF

Indeed the folks involved in sugar refining were investing in Cuban sugar and wanted to maintain control over the refining process and expand their business empire. Even Milton S. Hershey got involved, building a sugar refinery town in Cuba he named Central Hershey, which supplied some of the sugar needed for his chocolate factory. http://www.cubaheadlines.com/2009/07/12/17962/hershey_foundation_helps_you_get_cuba.html

The Other Hershey

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/456969552.html?dids=456969552:456969552&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Feb+10%2C+1932&author=&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=U.+S.+OPENS+FIGHT+TO+BEAT+SUGAR+TRUST%27S+POWER&pqatl=google

It took decades for the U.S. Government to trim down the "Sugar Trust" in terms of size and power.

Just as one example of the power that Big Sugar continued to wield: Sugar even played a role in the U.S. embargo on Cuban goods. The incidents leading up to the U.S. embargo on Cuban goods involved sugar at many of the twists and turns. Here are some examples:

The events leading up to the embargo

The U.S. Sugar industry, although it may not have been quite the monolith it was in the late 19th century, still exercised quite a bit of power politically.

Of course, there are still some powerful players in the US sugar world (especially in South Florida!), but as an entity, Big Sugar as a monolith would never quite hold the same powerful position again. In large part due to trust busting, but also in part, because more players emerged onto the scene.

The myriad charges against HFCS

2009-10-20T18:46:00.000-07:00

Several of the "charges" levied against HFCS have been referenced in previous posts on this blog; one of the troubling issues for me is that there seems to be little consensus. It is clear that some "scientists" and scientific/medical organizations have countered existing studies without saying much more than "more research needs to be done." The studies that have been done have often been done under extreme conditions (i.e. involving unrealistic levels of fructose, etc.) Of course, it is not unusual for such studies to be conducted under these circumstances. The problem this set of circumstances poses for consumers interested in gaining clarity on HFCS is that there's so much politics involved. There are few definitive, objective, politically independent, scientific studies about HFCS and the effects it has on digestion, as well as other health-related side-effects of HFCS consumption.

Unfortunately all I can do is talk about this deficit; sadly my background and training doesn't make me qualified to judge reports i read from scientific/medical journals. I can research it until i am blue in the face but i can't do more than be a critical reader, checking footnotes and noting sources.

So, what are the charges levied against HFCS? In the interest of objectivity, i will word these "charges" in such a way as to suggest that we do not have definitive answers. The litany of charges includes:

HFCS may be a contributing factor to the increasing numbers of obese Americans

due to the fact that it is so widely used (it is present in items one would never suspect of containing sugar and even in some items that prior to the invention of HFCS would not have contained sugar)
due to the fact that it may not stimulate feelings of fullness (because it may actually cause leptin resistance), thus leading to a lack of satiation

HFCS may be linked to an increase in diabetes cases and may cause insulin resistance
HFCS may contain trace amounts of mercury
HFCS may cause memory impairment
HFCS, when heated, may be a factor leading to bee colony collapse (due to the formation of Hydroxymethylfurfural)
HFCS, due to it being metabolized in the liver, may cause a rapid increase of high triglycerides
HFCS, again due to how it is metabolized, may be linked to fatty liver disease
HFCS consumption may cause a significant increase in the concentration of uric acid
HFCS may have some negative impact on collagen in the skin
HFCS seems to have some impact on the way the body stores and absorbs minerals
HFCS will cause scales to form on the palms of your hands and your fingernails may fall out as a result.

Ok, that last one was a joke.

If you know of some "charges" i left out or if you have inputs on anything related to these issues, please post!

King Corn takes on Big Sugar

2009-10-12T06:49:00.000-07:00

Those groups so vigorously and valiantly defending High Fructose Corn Syrup with multi-million dollar advertisements are facing a treacherous and unforgiving foe:

BIG SUGAR

A "newswire" press release from Richard Berman's Center for Consumer Freedom entitled "New Ad Campaign Pushes Back Against Big Sugar's Bogus Attacks on High Fructose Corn Syrup" describes the role played by Big Sugar in this public relations war. According to Richard Berman, Big Sugar has "propagated" "blatant inaccuracies" about High Fructose Corn Syrup; they have "spoon-fed misinformation" to the public about HFCS.

Berman contends that Big Sugar is responsible for a "disingenuous and baseless attack within the food industry" unlike any he has seen in his 30 years in the business. He explains that "The sugar industry is relying on urban myths and marketing gimmicks to perpetuate this misinformation about high fructose corn syrup." What misinformation? Well, although Big Sugar doesn't want the public to believe it, "leading nutrition experts are in universal agreement that the two products are nutritionally equivalent."

Wow! Experts in universal agreement???? That's a first! Prior to reading this "news story" I would never have believed it to be possible that leading experts were in universal agreement about anything! I'd say that's something to celebrate. Like world peace or something.

Ok, so (big surprise, i know) i researched Big Sugar. The first thing I found was some pretty damning articles from Time Magazine; after perusing a few and not recognizing the names, i realized the articles were all over 50 years old. Then i found a pretty ridiculous advertisement from the early 1970s promoting sugar consumption on the grounds that it is just a source of energy. I found some more recent articles about tariffs and international trade agreements. (Basically, domestically made sugar prices are inflated as a result of huge tariffs placed on imports of sugar from other countries; there are also apparently some domestic sugar companies who engage in unsavory practices to keep the prices high.) And I found references to the dark history of foreign sugar cartels. But the closest thing I found to a lobbying group that would mirror the Corn Refiners Association, Center for Consumer Freedom, or American Beverage Insititute, was the Sugar Association.

Ok, so let's return to the ring, where the bloody fight is being waged between Big Sugar and King Corn.

What has the Sugar Association actually said about High Fructose Corn Syrup? It's frankly sad that they resort to such name-calling, mud-slinging and unprofessional behavior.

What about the Sugar Association's multimillion dollar television- and full-page newspaper- ad campaign attacking poor High Fructose Corn Syrup?

Um, well actually there are no commercials.

Why is the Corn Refiners Association and Center for Corn Freedom (oops.... CONSUMER not corn!) spending tens of millions of dollars to counter one press release?

Who is actually most actively promoting sugar at the expense of High Fructose Corn Syrup?

ME!

just kidding. but seriously, the majority of the efforts the Corn Refiners Association and Center for Consumer Freedom are fighting are actually led by consumers, consumers who don't work for any lobbing group or otherwise stand to gain monetarily from their efforts. Consumers who are willing to pay more for foods with shorter ingredient lists. Consumers who, for whatever reason, prefer "table sugar" to "corn sugar," which is glucose enzymatically isomerized to fructose.

---------

In the interest of impartiality, below is a link to Berman's latest newswire release in which he describes Big Sugar's "disingenuous and baseless" attack against poor High Fructose Corn Syrup:

"New Ad Campaign Pushes Back Against Big Sugar's Bogus Attacks on High Fructose Corn Syrup"

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-ad-campaign-pushes-back-against-big-sugars-bogus-attacks-on-high-fructose-corn-syrup-62926007.html

Glucose Isomerase

2009-10-11T17:45:00.000-07:00

Just a spoon full of.....

High Fructose Corn Syrup

makes the medicine go down?

Hmm, just doesn't have the same ring to it... and the melody doesn't really work.

Now if we believe the repeated assertions from the Corn Refiner's Association or the Center for Consumer Freedom that High Fructose Corn Syrup is "simply a kind of corn sugar" then what does it matter? It's just a name.

But what IS HFCS? How is it made? Is it really just "corn sugar," nutritionally no different than any other form of sugar?

Boiled down (no pun intended), High Fructose Corn Syrup is glucose that has been enzymatically isomerized into fructose.

HUH?

Ok, so during my free time over the past few months i literally scoured professional journals, medical reports, etc until i found authoritative sounding descriptions of both what HFCS is, as well as how it is made. Over the course of this research, I found patent records, EU regulations, professional journal articles, medical studies, etc. According to the the reports and articles i read, the central component in HFCS production is the enzyme used in the isomerization process, Glucose Isomerase. For the record, none of the sources I found suggested some other process or otherwise contradicted the fact that Glucose Isomerase plays a key role in the production of High Fructose Corn Syrup.

The most detailed description I found of Glucose Isomerase (GI), how it is formed, and its role in HFCS production, was contained in The American Society for Microbiology's academic journal, Microbiological Review. In the article "Molecular and Industrial Aspects of Glucose Isomerase," Snehalata Bhosale, Mala Rao, and Vasanti Deshpande describe the production of HFCS and break it down into a 3-step prcess:

"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."

This article does not delve into the politics of the debate; it's as rigidly objective as any academic report could possibly be. There is no discussion of digestion or subejctive statement about how great it is that there is such widespread use of HFCS. They describe the enzymatic isomerization processes in excruciatingly minute detail. They also detail the reason behind the genetic modification of Glucose Isomerase.

So why, if I am so opposed to HFCS, do I reference this study? Because it is informative. It describes in more detail than I have seen anywhere else what HFCS is. It doesn't take sides. The authors are not from a lobbyist group; they are scientists who work in a laboratory.

And in conclusion, i cannot help but contend that anyone who says HFCS is "natural" and just a "corn sugar" stands to benefit monetarily from these utterly ridiculous assertions....

"The horror! The horror!"

2009-10-11T05:01:00.000-07:00

The above image, an Anti-obesity advertisement from the New York Health Department, depicts what appears to be a soft drink being poured into a glass of human fat.

It should come as no surprise that the top opponent in this gruesome fight is.... yes, that's right: Rick Berman's Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF)!!!! The CCF's PR campaign focuses on the central question: "When did the Big Apple become Big Brother?" As i have said before, in my view, any time Rick Berman is involved there is a sleazy residue. Even though I see both sides of the argument and don't come down firmly on one side, Berman's involvement makes me want to support a soda tax. CCF of course assaults the soda tax as another example of "Nanny Culture;" taxes should not be used, CCF contends, to socially engineer change. CCF suggests that there should be no soda tax but rather exercise/fitness should be promoted. So let's tax all people who don't exercise! wait... oops nanny culture rears its ugly head. what about making health insurance relative to the individual's BMI? Wait, even airlines can't manage to get the public to accept extra charges for morbidly obese passengers who, yes, cost more due to extra fuel consumed and may render the seat next to them uninhabitable.

To be fair, it's not just CCF that is in opposition. The public, perhaps nearly evenly divided, is being quite vocal. One article on the tax has stirred up a reaction that is a good example of the public's very strong views and people's desire to express them. So far, this New York Times Sunday Magazine story has 53 replies. It was originally posted on September 23, 2009, under the title "Following Up on a Sugary Tax That’s Hard to Swallow," by Randy Cohen.

As an aside, one of the 53 replies is indeed from our beloved Audrae Erickson, patron saint of HFCS. And to my great amusement, one of the 53 replies is also TO the charming Ms Erickson. My thanks go out to "healthy in michigan because I avoid HFCS." I applaud you.

September 30, 2009 8:44 pm Link

To Audrae Erickson,
Do you really believe what you are saying? I would put you in the same category as those who still claim that global warming is not caused by human activity. Sure, HFCS is not the only cause for our obesity, but it surely is one of the main ones. You can pay your scientists to conclude whatever is convenient for you, but remember, the first step to recovery is admitting that you have a problem. And according to the vast majority or research and testing, you are part of the problem.

— healthy in michigan because I avoid HFCS

Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8281203.stm
http://www.examiner.com/x-7150-Extreme-Weight-Loss-Examiner~y2009m10d8-New-York-attacks-fat-and-soft-drinks
http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/following-up-on-a-sugary-tax-thats-hard-to-swallow/
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/08/31/2009-08-31_controversial_new_subway_billboards_show_human_fat_being_poured_out_of_soft_drin.html

Fructose High

2009-10-10T05:30:00.000-07:00

Card source: http://www.someecards.com/card/lets-get-high-on

http://www.someecards.com/ is such a terrific place for funny ecards....

Bringin' out the big guns

2009-10-05T16:55:00.000-07:00

Richard Berman, "Dr. Evil," the food industry's "hired gun"

What does it mean when a company or lobbying group hires Richard Berman?

USAToday: "Companies hire Richard Berman to be their public face as they take on what are sure to be unpopular battles."

CBS, 60 Minutes, Meet Rick Berman, A.K.A. "Dr. Evil": "Berman’s the booze and food industry’s 6'4", 64-year-old weapon of mass destruction. They hire him to front for them in the 'food wars.'"
He's a "a hired gun."

No matter what you think about this successful PR man, Berman has a habit of achieving his goal, which is "getting people to think twice." (source: Meet Rick Berman)

>>How does he do it?
He owns/runs through the for-profit Berman & Company, which is the umbrella company housing over a dozen companies, some non-profit, through which he channels his messages. Among them: Center for Consumer Freedom, American Beverage Institute, Center for Union Facts. See the Wikipedia article on Berman for more specifics on each. Another source for information, however scathing it may be: Berman Exposed.) These companies take donations from various industry giants, whose interests they support with various press releases, advertisements, etc. If you take the Center for Consumer Freedom as an example: In addition to "anonymous donations," they take in large sums of money annually from everyone from Coca-Cola, to Tyson's Chicken, to Wendy's fast food chain, and many many more. And as mentioned in a previous blog, this particular non-profit started with S600,000 in seed money from tobacco giant Philip Morris.

>>Something seems fishy here.

But since this man was trained in law and certainly no novice in PR campaigns, it can be assumed that he runs a tight ship (from the perspective of legal codes): but, ok bear with the simple-minded American with no legal training for a sec: how can a non-profit first of all take in millions through donations, and secondly be run by a corporate for-profit umbrella company (whose sole owner, R. Berman, is a very wealthy man indeed)? Legal loop holes, i guess.

The status non-profit is justified by CCF on their 990 tax form with the following as the company's stated purpose:

>>What are some efforts in which he played a role?
Berman's companies have been engaged in efforts to combat groups such as MADD, PETA, major labor unions, and a variety of environmentalist and medical/nutrition-oriented groups; they have fought both raising minimum wage and the Americans with Disabilities Act (on the grounds that both are just too expensive for employers), supported Uniroyal's Alar; supported companies like PayDayLoans; engaged in a campaign to suggest that the Environmental Protection Agency's "safe levels" of mercury contained in fish is too low; worked to combat smoking bans in bars and protect the rights of smokers (and of course protecting the bottom line of Big Tobacco in the process), and they have also fought the lowering of the legal blood alcohol limits; the list goes on.

>>And Berman's latest:

See also the television ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQi6bdUdPTw

"Bizarrely maligned by what amounts to an urban myth"... only a real pro could come up with a statement like that!

>>Now back to the original question:

What does it mean when a company or lobbying group hires Richard Berman?

It means that they realize the sophomoric efforts in which they have engaged to defend their interests have not worked; they need to pull out the big gun: Richard Berman.

Is it just me or is the Corn Refiners Association starting to look ever more like Big Tobacco?

Additional sources used for background research:
http://www.citizensforethics.org/files/Berman%20background.pdf
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Berman
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2005/260/006/2005-260006579-02ba11cf-9.pdf (source used for the 990 information)
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/about.cfm
http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/01/center-for-consumer-freedom-exposed/ (kind of funny that Marion Nestle is no fan of CCF because they cite HER as the primary authority in support of HFCS.)

Center for Consumer Freedom acquits HFCS

2009-10-02T19:45:00.000-07:00

OH MY GOD all this time i was wrong.

HFCS doesn't make me sick. It's my fault my body can't digest high-content fructose products, such as those containing HFCS. After all, as the CRA has told us, a sugar is a sugar. The body can't tell them apart. No idea why the one "corn sugar" makes me sick when none of the others do.... could it be... the fructose content??? OH MY GOD THAT IS ALL A LIE! I AM MALIGNING HFCS! How dare i!

Never mind the fact that i can eat gobs of desserts (just ask anyone who knows me) and not get sick as long as there's no HFCS in it, but if i get more than a tiny amount of HFCS, i am gasping for breath and unable to breathe, with a painful and distended abdomen... that's my fault. i am aberrant or something.

What i find interesting is who is behind the ads (you may have seen them on MSNBC, CNN, Fox News or CNBC, or the full-pager featured above in major newspapers): The Center for Consumer Freedom.

Soooo, what's the big deal about that? Center for Consumer Freedom: don't we want consumers to be free? Sounds like a good thing. and plus it's a nonprofit. that gives it an air of credibility, right? sure, but do keep in mind that they were founded with money supplied originally by the Philip Morris tobacco company. And since their creation in 1995, they have backed tobacco companies, fast food chains, and processed food companies. Not sure what "nonprofit" even means given how much their top execs make (think, 8 digit "fees" for management of CCF). Did i mention the numerous and often sizable donations they get from a wide range of fast food chains, to major processed food companies, etc.

More related posts will follow shortly...

A Letter to In-N-Out

2009-09-19T16:41:00.000-07:00

This letter (below) was written by an ardent fan of In-N-Out who also happens to be the source of inspiration that prompted me to start this blog and also inspired some of the entries. It made me very happy that he, someone who can eat HFCS-laced products all day long without suffering from intestinal distress, was motivated to contact his favorite restaurant and ask that they take their dedication to old fashioned ways and high quality products even more seriously, "perfect the perfection," by removing HFCS from their product line.

Date: September 19, 2009

In-N-Out Burgers Corporate Office
4199 Campus Drive, 9th Floor
Irvine, CA 92612

To Whom It May Concern:

My intent in writing this letter is to make a suggestion to one of my favorite places to eat – In-N-Out Burger. Far be it for me to make suggest anything that would improve on an already perfect product, but recently I discovered information that somehow tarnishes my view of what could be argued as the greatest hamburger joint on the planet.

As a Southern California native, I believe I took for granted having an In-N-Out restaurant within minutes of driving distance. Because now, after having living on the East Coast for the past 13 years, I am well aware of the fact that there is not other place like In-N-Out. Like many fans living on the opposite side of the country, whenever I have an opportunity to travel to California or Arizona, one of the first places (if not the first) I go after leaving the airport is the closest In-N-Out. I have successfully introduced In-N-Out to friends and colleagues who have never experienced the greatness that is the food. I belong to the In-N-Out fan group on Facebook and own a number of In-N-Out products. My appreciation for In-N-Out furthered after reading the glowing blurb in Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation and Perman’s In-N-Out Burger. Both books further my discoveries of In-N-Out’s commitment and dedication to the quality of their service and products. This knowledge not only allowed me to proclaim that In-N-Out is one of the best restaurants ever, but there was now proof to back it up.

A month ago, while visiting Southern California on vacation, I became aware of In-N-Out’s use of High Fructose Corn Syrup. While this product had never been a concern of mine before, my focus had changed when entering a relationship with a beautiful woman who has a condition known as Fructose Malabsorption. Put simply, my girlfriend cannot digest fructose the same way as someone without this condition. Because of this, she must vigilantly avoid any product with High Fructose Corn Syrup. During our vacation, I had the opportunity to introduce her In-N-Out burgers and fries that she had always heard me praise before. Before our visit, I had assumed that because of In-N-Out dedication for the freshest quality ingredients there would no use of HFCS. However, in order to make absolutely sure we began to research whether In-N-Out used HFCS in any of their products. I placed a phone call to the In-N-Out Customer Service and was thoroughly amazed and impressed that not only did a human being answer after the first ring, but also the woman I spoke with was helpful and exceptionally nice.

I was informed that HFCS is used in three products: the secret sauce for the hamburgers, the milkshakes, and the pink lemonade (the lemonade, as is the case with fountain drinks in general, is not technically an In-N-Out product and thus does not reflect In-N-Out quality standards in the same way as In-N-Out menu items). I was very surprised. Everything I had heard or read up until that point had always led me to believe that In-N-Out uses the freshest quality ingredients. According to the website, “At In-N-Out Burger, quality is everything. That’s why in a world where food is often over-processed, prepackaged and frozen, In-N-Out makes everything the old fashioned way.” From my unique perspective of being a tremendous fan of the restaurant and having a close relationship with someone who must avoid HFCS, I was more than disappointed by this discovery. To me, it seemed illogical for a company to continually proclaim the quality of their products and their commitment not use ingredients or methods that similar restaurants use.

I do not wish to further the debate of whether HFCS is to be consider a ‘natural’ ingredient or not and I am fully aware of the reasons why companies continue to use this product. But I do feel that In-N-Out could do better. If In-N-Out were to announce plans to stop using High Fructose Corn Syrup, this would only go further to prove their commitment to the quality of their food and demonstrate to their customers the importance the company lays upon this dedication. Other companies, as large as Starbucks and as others such as Jason’s Deli, have made the choice to abandon their use of HFCS in an effort to provide quality products. This is my suggestion: I believe In-N-Out can perfect perfection by stop using HFCS in the secret sauce and the milkshakes.

I have been and always will be an ardent fan and supporter of In-N-Out. It is only through my passion for the company and it’s food that I write this letter. I have always believed that In-N-Out has continued to demonstrate how to run a company dedicated to service and quality while providing customers with low prices and good food.

Sincerely,

In-N-Out Fan

I knew the author was understanding of my dietary restrictions due to having Fructose Malabsorption. He scans nutrition labels almost to the extent I do and watches out for HFCS in whatever food we eat together. This dietary issue of mine has been easier to cope with as a result of having such a wonderful and supportive man in my life.

Audrae Erickson: The Patron Saint of High Fructose Corn Syrup

2009-09-14T04:26:00.000-07:00

The concept of news or web feeds, RSS syndication, whatever you want to call it, is incredibly cool, isn't it? Web syndication technology has made it possible for someone to keep up to date with the enormous body of ever-changing news media now available 24/7. Not only are just about all local, national, international forms of news media readily available, but also via the blogosphere, the rants and raves of individuals from all sorts of backgrounds. Without RSS, how would we keep up to date on our favorite topics?

Well, there is one slight complication: if you're not careful, you will get feeds for your topic that are not really relevant. For example you're really interested in bulldogs and you set up an RSS feed and now you get all news stories about every team with bulldogs as mascots rather than only feeds about the actual dog breed. If you wanted to post comments on each feed about how much you like bulldogs, it might be wise to, oh i don't know, read the article before you post your comment? And if you plan to post widely and want to remain a credible authority (as opposed to a poorly informed but well-paid DC lobbyist for bulldogs) it might be wise not to have boiler plate comments you post on every single feed.

Here are a few examples (excerpted) of what not to do if you have a topic you feel passionately about (or are well-paid to represent):

Number 1:
Post a boiler plate comment on a feed that is not really relevant to your comment

The Sugar Shack in Sugar Pine
Story and photos by Thomas Atkins
This entry was posted on Monday, November 24th, 2008 at 8:21 pm

Responses to “Alicia’s Sugar Shack”

1. Audrae Erickson says: High fructose corn syrup may have a complicated-sounding name, but it’s actually a simple sweetener, made from corn, that is nutritionally the same as sugar. [....]

Number 2:
Post the same thing nearly every time you submit a comment:

The Diet & Weight Loss Blog
New From Starbucks
POSTED BY: DANA LILIENTHAL | JULY 10, 2009 | 6:10 AM

Posted by: Audrae Erickson | Jul 10, 2009 4:50:28 PM

High fructose corn syrup may have a complicated-sounding name, but it’s simply a kind of corn sugar that is nutritionally the same as table sugar. [....]

Number 3:
Post a boiler plate comment on a feed arguing against the feed when the feed is not really taking the position you're arguing against
The Daily Texan
The right to junk food

By Colin Harris
Daily Texan Guest Columnist
Published: Thursday, April 9, 2009
Updated: Thursday, April 9, 2009

Audrae Erickson
Fri Apr 10 2009 13:50

High fructose corn syrup, sugar, and several fruit juices are all nutritionally the same. [....]

But maybe i should cut her some slack…. Audrae Erickson Hughes is a hard working American making a living defending a great American product….

Um yeah.... The first screenshot really reads 778 results for the quote: "High fructose corn syrup, sugar, and several fruit juices are all nutritionally the same."; the second shows that the statement "High fructose corn syrup may have a complicated-sounding name, but it’s simply a kind of corn sugar that is nutritionally the same as table sugar." has appeared in 1,120 entries.

Why so defensive?

2009-09-08T04:56:00.000-07:00

In the "Talkback" section of their website, Restaurants and Institutions recently mentioned that consumers who took part in their survey favored three particular sandwich chains. In this survey, Restaurants and Institutions' Consumers' Choice in Chains survey, consumers were asked to rank food establishments according to a list of attributes (including: food quality, cleanliness, value, service, menu variety, convenience, reputation, atmosphere.) The tops sandwich chains, according to consumers who took part in the survey, included: Panera, Jason's Deli, and Einsteins.
Consumers' Favorite Sandwich Spots --Restaurants and Institutions,09/01/2009

Although the write up on sandwich chains only mentioned High Fructose Corn Syrup once, the Corn Refiners Association quickly posted a lengthy and detailed defense of "corn sugar."

Submitted by: Audrae Erickson
9/3/2009 2:23:57 PM PT
Location: Washington, DC
Occupation: President, Corn Refiners Association

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 offers numerous benefits. For example, it retains moisture in bran cereals, helps keep breakfast and energy bars moist, maintains consistent flavors in beverages and keeps ingredients evenly dispersed in condiments. High fructose corn syrup enhances spice and fruit flavors in yogurts and marinades. In addition to its excellent browning characteristics for breads and baked goods, it is a highly fermentable nutritive sweetener and prolongs product freshness.

The American Medical Association in June 2008 helped put to rest misunderstandings about this sweetener and obesity, stating that “high fructose syrup does not appear to contribute to obesity more than other caloric sweeteners.”

According to the American Dietetic Association, “high fructose corn syrup…is nutritionally equivalent to sucrose. Once absorbed into the blood stream, the two sweeteners are indistinguishable.”

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

Audrae Erickson
President
Corn Refiners Association

Let's examine Audrae's comment:

Ok, the key point of the first paragraph is that HFCS (um "corn sugar") is "nutritionally the same" as table sugar. "Whether from cane, beets, or corn, a sugar is a sugar. They all contain four calories per gram." Ok, sure. Nutritionally speaking, they all have the same amount of calories per gram. But only one of these "sugars" mentioned in this paragraph uses genetically altered enzymes in the chemical process required to create it. But that caveat does not fall under "nutrition." And let's not forget: "a sugar is a sugar" after all.

Paragraph number two focuses on the many benefits of HFCS, among them: "retains moisture," "maintains consistent flavors," "enhances spice and fruit flavors," has "excellent browning characteristics," and is "highly fermentable." These benefits help the manufacturers, not the consumers (unless you argue that the savings in terms of their costs are passed down to the consumers. But then we'd need to factor in the tariffs and price subsidies in order to assess the actual costs.) And as to HFCS being "highly fermentable," yes it is. In your intestines! Yay for bloating! Don't we all love the symptoms of Irritable Bowel Syndrome?

The final two paragraphs quote the American Medical Association (“high fructose syrup does not appear to contribute to obesity more than other caloric sweeteners”) and the American Dietetic Association (“high fructose corn syrup…is nutritionally equivalent to sucrose. Once absorbed into the blood stream, the two sweeteners are indistinguishable.”) Neither of these statements are ringing endorsements of HFCS. The latter statement seems highly questionable given that it says "Once absorbed into the blood stream." What happens along the way to the absorption into the blood stream? How does that process (the digesting and absorption) differ if you compare the different sugars?

And one last question for you, Audrae: Why so defensive?

Corn Glut

2009-09-04T11:49:00.000-07:00

Uh oh, not only is there a shortage of sugar due to weather conditions and other factors, but there's also an overabundance of corn. In fact, a record harvest of corn is projected for this year. Thus, the difference in the prices of sugar versus HFCS will likely become even more dramatic. That fact combined with the economic downturn and desirability of cheap food products with long shelf-lives means we are likely to see an increase in the number of products containing High Fructose Corn Syrup.

Corn (C, CBOT) Daily

Source: Tale of Two Grains: Too Much Corn

I assume those of us who can't or won't or prefer not to eat food laced with HFCS will simply have to pay even more and scan ingredient lists more diligently than ever.

What's the Buzzzzzzz?

2009-09-01T00:37:00.000-07:00

Heat forms toxic substance in corn syrups
(UPI.com, August 31 2009)

Heat Forms Potentially Harmful Substance In High-fructose Corn Syrup, Bee Study Finds (Science Daily, August 26, 2009)

Many articles are reporting that "colony collapse" is occurring and it is directly related to a toxic substance that is found in HFCS when it is exposed to high temperatures. According to both the above linked news story, as well as a host of others, at least 1/3rd of the U.S. honeybee population has died as a result of this issue.

Some of the articles ask readers to consider how, if it can kill honey bees, HFCS may be having a negative health impact on us. Another concern I have is more of a long term evolutionary development... if our honeybee population is vastly reduced, how will the role they play in all sorts of natural processes be carried out?

HoneyBee Decline (2007 Science Daily article on Colony Collapse Disorder and the potential outcome)

And maybe this is a stupid question, but if people bake and cook with products containing HFCS with great regularity, is that toxic substance also an issue? Baking and cooking regularly involves temperatures in excess of 120 degrees Fahrenheit....

Where's the Lemon?

2009-08-31T23:34:00.000-07:00

Very nice....

At In-N-Out Burger, quality is everything.

2009-08-23T16:50:00.000-07:00

Quality is everything

Recently i had the opportunity to experience In-N-Out http://www.in-n-out.com/default.asp twice in a span of two days. Since I know they emphasize food quality and pride themselves on following old-fashioned ways and sticking to high standards, i was fairly certain i wouldn't have to worry about HFCS.

The only question i had concerned the "special sauce." And maybe the milk shakes.

So, after I got home i decided to google to see if In-N-Out products contained HFCS. A while ago I researched their hamburger buns and found that they are baked fresh daily and no cause for concern. But I just couldn't find specifics about the "special sauce." So I wrote to them via their "contact us" link.

The reply came within a few hours but only included a phone number; HOWEVER, upon dialing, they answered after one ring and it...... was a real human who answered (no joke). Not a recording or machine with options or third party in Pakistan. AND they quickly listed their menu items containing HFCS: yes, the special sauce; and yes, the milkshakes; and also the lemonaid. But that's it!

So, bottom line: In-N-Out has a smaller ratio of menu items with HFCS than any other chain other than Jason's!

"Death by Doughnut"

2009-08-19T03:56:00.000-07:00

What exactly is the appeal of alliteration?

Alliterative headlines are catchy, memorable, rhythmic. Germanic languages may be more prone to employ alliteration than other language families. Would be interesting to survey headlines and taglines in non-Germanic languages to ascertain whether there were stylistic devices employed in the same manner based on some feature of the structure of the words. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliteration

The recent editorial published in the Bangor Daily News drew my attention due to its use of alliteration: "Death by Doughnut" http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/116619.html

But then there was also: "Sticky Scaremongering vs. Sweet Science" http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3967

The author of "Sticky Scaremongering," whose primary purpose in writing this piece is to defend HFCS, cites the FDA's labeling of HFCS as "natural" and Marion Nestle's view that it's no different than table sugar. And while there may be mercury in HFCS, it's a tiny little amount. The author ends the write up with the following statement:

In the end: sugar is sugar. Whether it’s table sugar, corn sugar, brown sugar or honey, it can be part of a healthy diet.

Not that you asked, but my view is that all sides should be presented and consumers should be able to decide for themselves what they eat. Entitling the blog "Ban HFCS" may be misleading. It's true: I don't like HFCS; from what I've researched I see no positive value in HFCS from the consumer perspective. But in the best of all possible worlds, people wishing NOT to ingest HFCS (whether they suffer from Fructose Malabsorption and HFCS makes them ill OR whether it's from a political/nutritional standpoint) should be able to go to a restaurant and have some sense of what they can order and have some menu options available. And people should be able to express concerns about HFCS without being labeled "Scaremongerers." And while Dr. Jason Newsom, who worked at the Bay County Health Department in Panama City, FL, may have gone a bit far in his assault on fattening foods, should he have been fired for his play on the slogan “America Runs on Dunkin”: “America Dies on Dunkin”? [Please note that I am well aware that his being fired may have had greater complexity than was depicted in the "Death by Doughnut" editorial.]

In closing, the editorial "Death by Doughnut" pointed out some interesting points for comparison that i found thought-provoking:

We Americans are content to be lectured about how illegal drugs can kill us or ruin our lives (“Just say no!”), we accept scolding about our alcohol intake (“Drink responsibly”), agree solemnly with physicians who inform us that tobacco kills more each year than car crashes and even allow educators and other professionals to give us guidelines on how we enjoy sexual relations (“Practice safe sex”).

But spoil someone’s enjoyment of that morning dose of fried dough and sugar? You’re treading on some dangerous ground, pal.

Just semantics?

2009-08-15T03:44:00.000-07:00

Myth 3: High-fructose corn syrup causes weight gain.

Facts: Not so, say several studies. High-fructose corn syrup is not sweeter than sugar, and it doesn't trick you into eating more calorie-rich foods. Last year the AMA said, "There is no proof that high-fructose corn syrup causes obesity."

We should limit our sugar intake to 32 grams or about 7 teaspoons per day for all sugary rich foods and beverages, including high-fructose corn syrup, granulated sugar and brown sugar.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/aug/15/4u-busting-food-myths/life/

According to this Tampa Tribune article, it is simply a myth that HFCS causes obesity. As you may note, they cite the American Medical Association as the authority backing this statement. According to the AMA: "There is no proof that high-fructose corn syrup causes obesity." What i find interesting about that statement is the specific wording. The word "cause" in this sense implies that HFCS exists, it is consumed and if obesity results it is not the fault of HFCS. The agency may be an issue? Or is the subtext that HFCS, while it may be a contributing factor, is not the sole cause of obesity. This statement from the AMA, cited also with great alacrity by the CRA (http://www.sweetsurprise.com; gotta love that website name...) is not exactly a ringing endorsement of HFCS.

If you actually check the AMA's site for the source of this quote, you will find it contained in the "Report 3 of the Council on Science and Public Health (A-08) The Health Effects of High Fructose Syrup" http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/18641.shtm

Here's what they actually said:

Conclusions. Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose are so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose.

Again, that's not really a ringing endorsement. They are saying that a diet high in sucrose is probably just as likely as a diet high in HFCS to lead to obesity. That's like saying: Because Dunkin Donuts and Krispy Kreme are so similar in composition, it appears unlikely that Dunkin Donuts contributes more to obesity or other conditions than Krispy Kreme.

Moreover, they hit on a major issue where more research needs to be done: the adverse health effects of sweetners containing fructose "are not well established." Um why not? Fructose is not new. And a large percentage of the population (both in this country and Europe, perhaps elsewhere too) has trouble digesting it. And sucrose is not the same as fructose, neither in composition nor in the way the body digests it. And depending on which HFCS you're talking about, the content of fructose varies tremendously.

However, the adverse health effects of HFCS, beyond those of other caloric sweeteners, most of which contain fructose, are not well established. Consumption of added caloric sweeteners in general has increased over the last 30 years, as has total calories.

Recommendations

The following statements, recommended by the Council on Science and Public Health, were adopted by the AMA House of Delegates as AMA directives at the 2008 AMA Annual Meeting:

lThe AMA recognizes that at the present time, insufficient evidence exists to specifically restrict use of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) or other fructose-containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS. (Directive)
The AMA encourages independent research (including epidemiological studies) on the health effects of HFCS and other sweeteners, and evaluation of the mechanism of action and relationship between fructose dose and response. (Directive)
The AMA, in concert with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, recommends that consumers limit the amount of added caloric sweeteners in their diet. (Directive)

Just one more simple question: why does almost all processed food contain HFCS? Even things that aren't particularly sweet, such as bread and salad dressings and steak sauce. Many of them contain a higher quantity of HFCS than they ever contained of sugar (in the days prior to HFCS being ubiquitous). That means an increase in calories. And an increase in the average person's intake of fructose...

Sugar Shortage??? NOOOOOOOOO!

2009-08-14T04:19:00.000-07:00

Sugar prices on the rise? WHY?

Rainfall shortages -or excess!, weak dollar, and high demand.... oh and don't forget the price supports and tariffs in place as a result of the efforts of lobbying groups.

One solution is to use high fructose corn syrup (HFCS); as the price of sugar rises, the compound becomes comparatively cheaper and thus more attractive to food manufacturers. However, as more customers become aware of the health dangers associated with HFCS, many food companies are shying away from it. In fact, even the soft drink industry -- long a bastion of HFCS -- has begun experimenting with new sugar-sweetened sodas.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/08/13/sugar-shock-will-the-domino-effect-drive-up-food-prices/ (source for the above quote)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a9oiDjyadqng
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/08/10/why-are-sugar-prices-shooting-higher/?icid=sphere_blogsmith_inpage_dailyfinance

If there is a shortage, and the government won't lower tariffs, I would expect to see even more widespread use of high fructose corn syrup if sugar prices stay high. Corn prices have not increased nearly as dramatically as sugar over the past few years. Here's a chart of corn futures from tradingeconomics.com.

http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/08/not_so_sweet_sugars_price_is_skyrocketing.php (source for the second quote)

So, what does the future hold? Even more HFCS?

Some people believe it all comes back to lobbyists and bipartisan politics...

No one in the position to change the tariffs and price supports that contribute to the high price of sugar (and thereby make HFCS even more attractive to the food industry) is concerned with health issues.... it appears to be all about maintaining the support of powerful lobbyists...

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8381
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cdp_20081023_6773.php

Deleterious effects of fructose?

2009-08-12T04:53:00.000-07:00

I am seeing some reports that HFCS, while not great or truly "natural," may partly be a problem due to the fructose; according to some sources, even naturally occurring fructose has deleterious effects due to the way the body digests it (whether one has Fructose Malabsorption or not.)

See, for example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/6012619/Two-soft-drinks-a-day-may-lead-to-long-term-liver-damage.html

The ingredient in fizzy drinks causing the damage is fructose, which is highly absorbable in the liver. It does not affect insulin production and goes straight to the liver where it is converted to fat.

More related stories:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=101026&sectionid=3510210

A high fructose diet impairs spatial memory in male rats.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19500683
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=forget-the-fructose
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716113247.htm

Fructose and weight gain has gotten a lot of press:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724064824.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212201311.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081209221742.htm
http://news.ufl.edu/2008/10/16/fructose-leptin/

So, wait, an apple a day (pretty high in fructose...) might not actually keep the doctor away?

hahaha there may even be a link between borborygmi and fructose!
http://www.healthandage.com/borborygmi-and-apple-juice

Now HFCS Free!

2009-08-11T16:24:00.000-07:00

The following post is not an exhaustive list of products that are HFCS free. This post addresses products and restaurants that weren't always, but have now BECOME HFCS-free

Products:

Log Cabin Syrups
http://www.logcabinsyrups.com/products.html

Snapple and Pepsi (some varieties)
http://www.qcspurchasing.com/uploads/Snapple_Pepsi.pdf

Jones Soda
http://www.jonessoda.com
http://forums.tannerworld.com/showthread.php?t=7699

Restaurants:

Jason's Deli
http://www.jasonsdeli.com/news/orlando-sentinel-article
http://www.carbwire.com/2008/10/28/jasons_deli_becomes_the_first_hfcsfree_restaurant_chain_in_america

Restaurants with explicitly
HFCS-free menu items:

Pizza Hut, "The Natural"
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-07-2009/0004950461&EDATE=

Starbucks, their baked goods
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE55175Y20090602?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

What motivates me to read labels?

2009-08-09T10:11:00.000-07:00

HFCS has been in the news off and on for at least the last few years. Some studies suggest a link between HFCS and the increase in obesity; other studies state that it's a factor in the large numbers of diabetes cases; some authors suggest that HFCS may contain a dangerously high concentration of mercury. The list goes on. And the Corn Refiners Association (CRA), a DC lobbying group, http://www.corn.org/, has been fighting every one of those claims. Just as an example, in June 2008, CRA launched a PR campaign that reportedly will cost $20 to $30 million over the next 18 months. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Corn_Refiners_Association

Well, here's a claim i'd love to see CRA try to fight:

HFCS makes people who suffer from Fructose Malabsorption experience intestinal distress.

Well good lord, who ever heard of that? Fructose Mala-what? According to medical literature on this condition, about 36 percent of Western Europeans have this condition; half of that 36 percent experience symptoms. Other reports likewise link it to the Western and Central European gene pool and say that Americans whose families come from that area of the continent have a greater chance to have this condition. So, while exact numbers are not known, it is certainly not a very rare food "allergy" (technically, malabsorption just refers to the fact that you cannot properly digest something and it causes issues in your intestines. So it's not really an allergy.)

Here's how one medical journal describes the symptoms of Fructose Malabsorption:

Bloating, abdominal discomfort, and sometimes osmotic diarrhea are induced by the degradation products produced by the colonic bacteria.

http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/reprint/47/4/745
Decreased Serum Zinc in Fructose Malabsorbers, Maximilian Ledochowski,1* Bernhard Widner,2 Christian Murr,2 and Dietmar Fuchs2 (1 Department of Clinical Nutrition and 2 Institute of Medical Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Innsbruck, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria; Clinical Chemistry 47, No. 4, 2001

In my case, the first symptom is that my saliva seems to thicken and taste almost metallic. Then i notice abdominal bloating and i begin to have some trouble breathing; i also may experience this painful gasping/muscle spasm from somewhere in my upper abdomen. The saliva production seems to have gone into hyperdrive by this stage and it's almost as though i can't keep it down. My entire abdomen is by this point bloated and quite painful. The constipation/diarrhea (sources say both may occur depending on the patient) is not so much an issue for me (i just don't really experience that symptom as much as some people do apparently.) The duration of the discomfort would go on for at least 4 to 8 hours typically, with lingering effects for the next day or so.

Before i knew what i was experiencing, i tried just about everything. I thought it might be heartburn so i tried pepcid, pepto bismal, etc. I tried those chalky little white tablets (what are those called?) , i tried drinking tons of water because maybe it was dehydration; i even tried drinking tons of fruit juice because what could be healthier than that?

I also saw doctors. "Sounds like you have a food allergy," they would say. "Come in next time you have an episode." Well, they usually happened outside of office hours...

Years later (i would say I first experienced these symptoms in the mid 1980s, with episodes at least four or five times a month or so, sometimes with lingering effects into the next day), someone was talking to me about HFCS. So, i thought "Corn syrup? what could be wrong with that?" I started to read up on this allegedly evil substance. I came across a description of Fructose Malabsorption and it was like a big bell started ringing. Oh my God, i finally knew what was causing me such discomfort!

The next process was somewhat lengthy: what foods do i now avoid? I talked to my doctor and we talked about how this would effect my diet. Basically, i did four things:

Cut down on naturally-occurring fructose
Tried to eliminate HFCS from my diet
Tried to figure out what I could eat when I am going to a restaurant and don't know the ingredients
Tried to watch my intake of sorbitol and cut out xylitol (they apparently play a role in how the body digests fructose and make it even more difficult)

So, there have been some tweaks as i refine my diet and learn what i can eat, but....

..... I have not been ill in quite a while! I went from being ill anywhere from 4 to 10 times a month to an incredible once or twice a year! (when, for example, i happen to eat at a restaurant and have some HFCS in something with out knowing it.)

If HFCS is in everything, how does one eliminate it from one's diet? Reading labels is a big first step. You start to know which product lines use HFCS. Shop the perimeter and avoid food with a long shelf life. Shop at places like Trader Joe's (i think i've only found one product there with HFCS--some kind of Beef Jerky.) Try to eat at restaurants where they focus on fresh ingredients. Avoid salad dressing and condiments and syrup if you're not sure what brand it is. Drink diet sodas (or none at all. Now there's even Pepsi Throwback with natural can sugar.) Since most processed breads have HFCS, avoid sandwiches when eating out unless they bake their own bread. The net effect is actually a good thing. You end up eating foods that have fewer chemicals in them and ingredients you can make sense of. You become a lot more conscious of what you're eating. Overall i would say i feel much better and healthier now.

Edit: It may be the fructose that's the major culprit even for people who don't suffer from Fructose Malabsorption:
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37385/version/4

Picture source: http://www.examiner.com/ExaminerSlideshow.html?entryid=154440&slide=1

Note:
According to one source, 40 percent of Americans have Fructose Malabsorption, half of whom experience symptoms.
http://www.examiner.com/x-15778-Jacksonville-FructoseFree-Food-Examiner~y2009m7d21-Fructose-free-101-What-is-fructose-intolerance#comments

Found an incredibly informative report called "Clinical Ramifications of Malabsorption of Fructose and Other Short-chain Carbohydrates." Very informative about how fructose affects people with "FM" and other IBS issues.
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/digestive-health/nutrition/BarrettArticle.pdf

The ability of the human small intestine to absorb
fructose is limited, especially when compared with the
rapidity and completeness of glucose absorption.
Thus, when 50 g fructose is ingested without other
food, up to 80% of people will incompletely absorb the
fructose, as demonstrated by breath hydrogen testing
(9–12). Absorption is enhanced by co-ingestion with
glucose, since glucose uptake stimulates additional
transport pathways for fructose absorption in the small
intestinal epithelial cell. Because of this, the fructose
released from the hydrolysis of sucrose is generally
completely absorbed.

Submitted by:	Audrae Erickson 9/3/2009 2:23:57 PM PT
Location:	Washington, DC
Occupation:	President, Corn Refiners Association

Ban HFCS

Happy 2012! Starting the year off with a non-High Fructose Corn Syrup post.....

Sorry guys, but "Corn sugar" is already claimed....

"Food people"

HFCS: Are you getting enough?

Cough syrup and HFCS

SNL and HFCS

Ben and Jerry's: Maybe not "all natural" but HFCS-free!

HFCS and pancreatic cancer: digging a lil' deeper

The Waffle House: Is there HFCS in them there waffles?

The joys of international travel

Sugar and HFCS: comparing the manufacturing processes

The Corn Refining Process (step-by-step)

Fresh, Real Food...

HFCS: There's something wrong with it

Nothing Artificial, no gimmicks

King Corn: How High Fructose Corn Syrup Ruined America

HFCS from the perspective of fluid management

The Mecurial Nature of High Fructose Corn Syrup

MERCURY STUDY OUTDATED; BASED ON DISCONTINUED TECHNOLOGY

MERCURY STUDY OUTDATED; BASED ON DISCONTINUED TECHNOLOGY

Corn: It's No Longer King

Corn: It's No Longer King

by TESS LANDERS Arlington, VA

Subway, Eat Fresh! Would you like some bread with that High Fructose Corn Syrup?

HFCS-90

Audrae, Audrae, Audrae.... will your tactics never change?

Ketchup shake-up: Heinz cuts salt in new recipe

A Long Overdue Tribute to Clif Bar

"Generally Recognized as Safe"

And now for a definition of HFCS from the Corn Refiners Assiciation

Just what is HFCS?

Misleading consumers...

ADM's harvest: nothing new

Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate Welfare

Sweet Corn

China: a new major player in the HFCS scene

Monday, March 1, 2010By Andy Ho, The Straits Times/Asia News Network

"Creating a Ubiquitous Sweetener"

Chinese HFCS?

"Gentlemen, Behold! I bring you..."

Made in China

The Disparagement of High Fructose Corn Syrup

"Americans are essentially walking corn-consumption units."

Corn and market volatility

Revisiting the subject of corn subsidies

HFCS and the farmers' perspective

Bad taste...

"The Ban of High Fructose Corn Syrup"

Frankenfood video

What does the term "100% Natural" refer to?

"Shop Happy"??

What happens when you consume too much High Fructose Corn Syrup....

Total Reversal??

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

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

Product Wishlist: Hold the HFCS please!

Perceptions matter....

Watch out for Girl Scout Cookies....

Happy New HFCS-Free Year!

Wishing you an HFCS-free Christmas!

Yes, that's right, it's even in dog food....

The PR campaign for HFCS drones on...

Elated about Elevation Burger

Costco and Coca-Cola

Karo and HFCS

At Elevation Burger, "Ingredients Matter" (revised)

"Ingredients Matter"

"Premium Quality" High Fructose Corn Syrup???

Movie Review: King Corn

HFCS: World Domination?

And now for a little levity: Jason's Deli

On the Subject of Subsidies

The sordid history of food politics: Meet King Corn

The sordid history of food politics: First came Big Sugar

The myriad charges against HFCS

King Corn takes on Big Sugar

Glucose Isomerase

"The horror! The horror!"

Fructose High

Monday, March 1, 2010
By Andy Ho, The Straits Times/Asia News Network