On-Demand Supplier Webinar
Clinical study
Yogurt Formulations with Clarinol® CLA for Weight Management
Stepan Lipid Nutrition
A coalition of consumer groups has written to the FDA urging it to “act decisively” and refuse the Corn Refiners Association’s petition to allow ‘corn sugar’ as an alternative name for high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) on ingredient lists.
The organizations joined together last year to submit comments to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) opposing the Corn Refiners’ petition, claiming that allowing ‘corn sugar’ as an alternative name for the sweetener could mislead consumers. Signatories of this latest letter, addressed to FDA commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg, are the National Consumers League, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, and Shape Up America!.
The groups said that nearly 5,000 comments sent to the FDA oppose the name change at a ratio of 100:1. The FDA has yet to make a decision about the use of the term ‘corn sugar’.
Executive director of the National Consumers League Sally Greenberg said: “The FDA has a statutory responsibility to ensure that consumers have the opportunity to exercise free choice in the marketplace without being misled by confusing name changes designed to hide the identity of a controversial ingredient.”
The CRA responded in an emailed statement: “It is a myth that the “corn sugar” petition is designed to conceal the presence of HFCS in foods. In addition to the CRA’s extensive public educational efforts, if FDA grants the petition, there would potentially be a period of co-labeling of the two terms on ingredient labels to further educate consumers.”
The CRA, which represents the interests of the corn refining industry, repeatedly has said that the term ‘high fructose’ is confusing to consumers, because the most commonly used varieties of HFCS are not high in fructose.
“’Corn sugar’ provides more clarity to consumers about the ingredient and would help people watch their overall intake of added sugars, from whatever source,” the CRA said.
However, the consumer groups argue the agency should deny the petition because of the number of comments it has received opposing the alternative name.
“Given the thousands of comments opposing the CRA petition and the continued misleading use of the term ‘corn sugar’ in marketing, FDA should act decisively and deny the CRA petition,” said director of the Food Policy Institute at the Consumer Federation of America Chris Waldrop.
6 comments (Comments are now closed)
Democratic Rulemaking
I think all FDA decisions ought to be made "American Idol" style - we can vote by phone, text etc. After all, the general public has far more knowledge about these matters than those PhD's at FDA.
Report abuse
Posted by J. Schindler
02 May 2012 | 17h10
New name for HFCS
I think the name should be changed to HPCC (highly processed corn crap). That would alert people who are allergic to corn, and the people who want to avoid HFCS, because they believe it's not healthy.
Report abuse
Posted by DJ
23 April 2012 | 18h25
Sugar by Any Other Name....
It is now clear that all combinations of fructose and glucose including sucrose and high fructose corn syrup are chronic toxins. It doesn't matter what you call them because they all lead to the same adverse metabolic effects.
Report abuse
Posted by William L. Wilson, M.D.
19 April 2012 | 16h31
Sugar is sugar
I'd like to know how to sign this petition for not allowing the alternative name, corn sugar, to replace high frutose corn syrup. It's not the same at all. It might be too late, but I'd love to have my opinion known.
Report abuse
Posted by LF
19 April 2012 | 05h13
Sugar is Sugar
Not sure what the comments by Larry W. have in connection to the article. But, if what he is saying about JA is correct, there must be some major reason that farmers are not stampeding to get this into thier fields. I did find the following: 'Although the Jerusalem artichoke is a viable fructose source, the U.S. sugar industry has been hesitant in utilizing it because farmers have been concerned with its potential as a weed problem, and because it requires extra planting and harvesting equipment along with storage difficulties.'
To comment on the article, why should corn sugar not be allowed as a term for sugar derived from corn? It is truthfully telling us its source and is not misleading as the various consumer groups would have us believe.
Currently, we loosely use the term sugar on packages but don't know its source (beet or cane), so why not allow the term corn sugar?
If using this term is such an issue, then using the term 'cane sugar' on packages should also not be allowed.
Fair is fair.
Report abuse
Posted by MB
18 April 2012 | 21h40
Corn Sugar = GMO
All of the "Sugars" in the market place will soon be derived from GMO Crops,including ,"Corn Sugar". GMO Cane Sugar will be introduced at any moment. The only "clean sugars" that will be available in the future in limited volumes will be Organic Cane Sugar and some imported non-GMO fructose from Israel.There is one non-GMO crop that is the "Last Public Crop"* that may be grown in Canada and the USA in volume. Jerusalem Artichoke has the capacity to produce 3X more natural sugars per acre than corn with lower input costs than corn can. USDA Figures are available.Fructose is a Diabetic Friendly Sugar and is 50& sweeter than sucrose.*No company has ownership of the JA accassions that are traditionally grown around the world.
Report abuse
Posted by Larry Whetstone
18 April 2012 | 20h23
Read all comments (6)