PhillyTablet Inquirer Daily News
philly.com
email
font size
options
 
Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Sugar is sugar is sugar, right? That's pretty much true - but you might not know it from reading many product labels, or from following the confusing debate over the weirdly named product known as "high-fructose corn syrup."

Today, the Corn Refiners Association petitioned the Food and Drug Administration for permission to relabel "high-fructose corn syrup" as "corn sugar" on ingredient labels.  And it finds itself on almost the same page as the Center for Science in the Public Interest, hardly a natural ally.

For years, nutrition advocates have tussled with the corn industry over high-fructose corn syrup's place in the American diet.   Some have argued that HFCS, whose name suggests that it may have some of the nutritive value of fruit, is especially to blame for the nation's growing obesity rates. The Center for Science in the Public Interest has described that as an urban myth, though it hardly exonerates HFCS. It says the product, widely used in soft drinks and other empty-calorie products, is equally to blame along with other added sugars.

Which brings us to today's FDA petition. A spokesman for the Corn Refiners says "independent research demonstrates that the current labeling is confusing to American consumers. This consumer confusion is leading some companies to reformulate their food and beverage products with sugar, in lieu of high-fructose corn syrup, claiming 'better for you' and 'new and improved' – when they are simply replacing one sugar with another." (You can read its news release here.)

Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, largely agrees:

The term "high-fructose corn syrup" has misled many people into thinking that the sweetener is composed largely of fructose. But it is not. Sugar and high-fructose corn syrup are nutritionally the same. So soft drinks and other products sweetened with sugar are every bit as conducive to weight gain as products sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup. The bottom line is that people should consume less of all added sugars.

I don’t know if “corn sugar” is the best term, but it’s better than “high-fructose corn syrup.”

Jacobson, a microbiologist, has been highly critical of the corn industry in the past, as he was in 2008 when he criticized its ad campaign claim that HFCS “has the same natural sweeteners as table sugar.”  The chemistry is a bit confusing - click here for a more detailed explanation - but Jacobson says the most important thing to remember is that they pose largely equivalent risks from a health standpoint: Consume too much of either, and you'll gain weight.

Ironically, there is some research suggesting that fructose itself "may be more conducive to weight gain than glucose," Jacobson says. But table sugar is simply sucrose, a molecule that breaks down into equal parts glucose and fructose, which makes it roughly equivalent with HFCS, Jacobson says. Despite the "high-fructose" name, he says, HFCS averages about 50 percent fructose. So there is no clear advantage or disadvantage to either as a sweetener.

Jacobson criticizes "the craziness that high-fructose corn syrup is toxic, that it’s going to make you fat overnight, that it’s an evil product of agribusiness."

It's just sugar, with all the empty-calorie risks that added sugar entails.  Which is why he says relabeling it as "corn sugar" may well be a reasonable idea.

 

 

 

Posted by Jeff Gelles @ 2:02 PM  Permalink | 12 comments
Comments   
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:25 PM, 09/14/2010
    Interezting.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:58 PM, 09/14/2010
    Problem is with so many studies funded by the corn industry, the sugar industry, the companies that make apartame and sucralose and rebiana, it's impossible for consumers to identify the good science. What we can tell is things we can see for ourselves, that obesity rates increased dramatically as HFCS replaced cane sugar. We can also see that the US's world leader consumptions of HFCS matches are world leading obesity rates, that countries that still use sugar in things like juices and soda haven't seen the same explosion in obesity. I tend to believe the studies that say that HFCS, while having a similar nutritional value to real sugar, is processed by the body very differently. I think the biggest sign that something is wrong with it is that it is not sold on its own, you don't see bottles of HFCS in the supermarket next to the sugar. (Karo syrup is just corn syrup, while it contains HFCS, it is not bottled HFCS)
    Pelti
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:59 PM, 09/14/2010
    Call it "corn sugar", call it "corn fructose" or call it "corn dogs" for what most people care. Sugar is sugar.
    DonQ
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:13 PM, 09/14/2010
    Pelti - You are looking in the wrong section of the supermarket. Bottles of HFCS are sold in red bottles labeled "ketchup."
    1stTimeCaller
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:16 PM, 09/14/2010
    It appears that none of this matters anyway based on this country's current record obesity rate. Call it whatever you want. It's still not going to make people eat healthy.
    JeetYet
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:17 PM, 09/14/2010
    DonQ said it - sugar is sugar. Specifically, sucrose is sucrose or mono- and di- saccharides have the same effect on the body regardless of what crafty marketing name they come up with. If you want good health understand their effect on the body.
    Murrayman
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:26 PM, 09/14/2010
    My concern with High Fructose Corn Syrup has nothing to do with weight gain. (Everybody knows that sugar is just as fattening!) My concern with HFCS is how and from what it is made. There are a lot of weird chemical mixtures that come together to make the stuff. For gods sake just give me the natural sugar... I hate the fact that everything has to be so PROCESSED! I'll pay the ten cents extra.
    centercityisthebest
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:51 PM, 09/14/2010
    "Some have argued that HFCS, whose name suggests that it may have some of the nutritive value of fruit" Im sorry are there really idiots out there that think this???
    cuso20
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 6:34 AM, 09/15/2010
    The problem with HFCS is that it is in everything. You will see bread with sugar in it plus HFCS. So you get a double dose of sugar. Plus the corn industry of course will have studies done that make their product look like it it the miracle sugar. Remember cigarettes weren't bad for you either or was trans fats! And remember both of thiose industrys had studies done saying their was nothing wrong with their products. Now a few products are coming out without HFCS and the corn industry is in a panic. Hunt's & Simply Heinz ketchup,Nestles Chocolate syrup,most Post cereals,Log Cabin syrup and Sara Lee breads have just switched over. There is plenty more look it up on the internet.
    slade1955
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 8:57 AM, 09/15/2010
    This is urgent that we stop them from changing the name at all. First of all, sugar feeds cancer. I've done enough research over time and all that I have found shows that sugar feeds cancer. But just recently, a new study showed that High Fructose Corn Syrup not only feeds cancer, but causes it to proliferate. I'm a cancer survivor and will not touch the stuff. I want to know what I'm eating and changing the name will prevent me from knowing what it is that I'm putting into my body. I have a right to know where the sugar came from and what all is in the food that I'm eating. To say that "sugar is sugar" is total ignorance. There are differences. Honey is a sugar, but a natural choice. It's also proven to provide many health benefits including possible cancer preventatives, althought further studies need to be done. Bottom line, any companies out there who want to change the name of HFCS to corn sugar or plain sugar........it's all about money for you! You could care less about the health of the American people. It's money! I will not buy any of your products, not will my family as long as you dump HFCS into the product. By the way, there are people being cured of cancer everyday by eliminating processed foods from their diets. Now what does that tell you? If you don't believe me, do the research! I have!!!
    jwenturine
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:00 PM, 09/15/2010
    Every processed food is loaded with sugar and salt. Stop eating junk. A pound of apples costs less than a pound of chips. And what's with sending your kid off to school with a bottle of sugar water and a bag of Cheetoes? When I was growing up, My mom always made sure I had time for toast and coffee.
    JZimmerman
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:26 AM, 09/16/2010
    Here's the thing... anything that needs cane sugar but is made with something else tastes like garbage. BREAD INCLUDED. READ YOUR LABELS. YOU WILL PUKE! I go without when I can't find the item I want with real cane sugar, if sweetener is called for at all in the item. There are exceptions, though, people. A certain amount is needed to invert sugar in stuff that needs to stay moist, like brownies. However, there are substitutes that work, like honey, because it's a small amount, not the actual sweetener. (Here's my really irritated question... why are bottled salad dressing sweet? Why is this necessary, even in the "Italian"? Italians don't use sweet salad dressing, they use oil and vinegar. We're being played, aren't we?) Well, the whole country's gettin bought and sold under our noses while we shuffle along fighting with each other. Why should this be different? We'll wake up eventually. Too late, of course, but eventually.
    stripyvarmint


12 comments
About Jeff Gelles
Jeff Gelles covers consumer topics and writes the Consumer 11.0 column for The Inquirer. He welcomes comments from readers about their consumer-related concerns -- either through this blog or by telephone or e-mail. Contact him at 215-854-2776 or jgelles@phillynews.com.