On-Demand Supplier Webinar
Clinical study
Yogurt Formulations with Clarinol® CLA for Weight Management
Stepan Lipid Nutrition
Grassley: HFCS keeps foods affordable
A group of US senators has written to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in support of the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) petition to allow food manufacturers to label high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as ‘corn sugar’.
In a letter to FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg written by senator Charles Grassley (Rep - IA) and co-signed by senators Mike Johanns, Claire McCaskill, Dan Coats, Ben Nelson, Richard Lugar and Roy Blunt, Grassley argues that HFCS is being “significantly mischaracterized in the marketplace largely because of its name”.
HFCS creates US jobs
The version used in many foods (HFCS 42) is the lowest fructose-containing sweetener on the market, he adds, yet surveys consistently show consumers erroneously believe it contains more fructose than sugar.
Consumers were better able to understand the fructose level, calories and sweetness of HFCS when the term ' corn sugar' was used, claims Grassley, who also argues that HFCS “keeps foods affordable for American consumers and creates high-paying jobs here at home”.
HFCS is just sugar made from corn
His letter has been filed with other comments responding to the CRA petition in a public docket along with a request from senator Tom Harkin urging the FDA to consider allowing firms to co-label the sweetener on ingredients lists as ‘High fructose corn syrup (corn sugar)’.
The contents of the docket reveal how polarized opinion has become, with critics claiming the CRA is trying to deceive consumers and supporters claiming an alternate name would in fact boost consumer understanding by tackling misconceptions.
One supporter, New York –based dietician Jessica Fishman Levinson, writes: “People think HFCS is higher in calories and fructose and is sweeter than table sugar… In reality, HFCS and sucrose have the same number of calories, nearly the same amount of fructose and the same level of sweetness.
“It is time for a change to the name so that consumers can see that HFCS is actually just sugar made from corn.”
Marion Nestle: Name change not in public interest
However, several nutritional experts oppose the petition, including Marion Nestle, professor in the department of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University.
She says: “The [CRA] website quotes comments I have made to the effect that HFCS is biochemically equivalent to sucrose. It is. But I do not believe biochemical equivalence is a good reason for the FDA to agree to a name change...
“The name change is not in the public interest. Its only purpose is to further the commercial interests of members of the Corn Refiners, and that is not one the FDA should be concerned about.”
But the CRA was quick to respond: “CRA members have the same interests as the broader food industry and consumers in promoting clear and accurate food labeling and in assuring that all ingredient producers are permitted to compete on a level playing field.”
Mintel survey: 4 percent of shoppers avoid HFCS
An April 2011 online survey of 2,000 consumers conducted by Mintel Research found that just 4 percent were looking to avoid HFCS when asked unprompted questions.
However, many food manufacturers continue to believe there is marketing capital to be made from avoiding it, with Datamonitor recently revealing that one in 50 new products launched in the US in 2010 featured the claim ‘no high fructose corn syrup’ (HFCS).
CRA: 'Compelling evidence' consumers are misled by HFCS name
The CRA’s petition - filed last September - asks the FDA to revise the generally recognized as safe (GRAS) affirmation regulation for HFCS to recognize ‘com sugar’ as an alternate name on the grounds there is “compelling evidence that many consumers are misled by the ingredient name”.
The CRA – which represents the corn refining industry in the US – claims the term ‘corn sugar’ would provide greater clarity for consumers, many of which are laboring under the misapprehension that HFCS is higher in calories, fructose, and sweetness than table sugar (sucrose).
However, the 'corn sugar' name is strongly opposed by sugar refiners and farmers, which recently filed a lawsuit against leading corn refiners in a bid to stop them using the new term in a TV ad campaign ahead of the FDA’s decision on the CRA petition.
Greater clarity for consumers?
HFCS 42, which is used in foods, contains about 42 percent fructose with the balance mostly comprising glucose. HFCS 55, which is used in soft drinks, contains 55 percent fructose with the balance made up mostly by glucose. Table sugar (sucrose) contains 50:50 glucose and fructose).
7 comments (Comments are now closed)
HFCS is bad news
There is no sane way to put a happy face on this stuff. It is a major affront to the health of anyone who consumes it. It is the major cause of obesity and diabetes. All of the degenerative diseases: cancer, diabetes, heart disease, are kick-started, not to mention rapid aging. HFCS really help the mainstream medicine to really rake it in, so some people do benefit from this cheap sweetener.
Report abuse
Posted by Wladmir Shostakovich
18 August 2011 | 01h09
Senator Grassley is right....
The high-paying jobs are those of the doctors who treat us for the ills caused by an excess of HFCS consumption.
Report abuse
Posted by Derek Bryant
12 August 2011 | 18h09
I guess I'm the only one...
Whether or not HFCS is bad for everyone, I don't know. I am not a lab technician or anything. But I do know my body. If I consume corn syrup or high fructose corn syrup, my digestive organs go on strike. I will not be consuming sugar made from corn. I am not allergic to corn, but for some reason, modified corn goes crazy in my body. Sugar isn't just sugar. Some people can't eat it, no matter how it appears on the labe.
Report abuse
Posted by Emily
11 August 2011 | 22h35
HFCS...Highly processed and GE
From the "experts" (often scientists who work for the Corn Refiners and other profiting corn companies) to independent, non-stake holding scientists, everyone seems to leave out that one, HFCS is HIGHLY processed and DOES NOT occur in nature what so ever. Second, HFCS is (a) GE/GMO (genetically engineered/genetically modified organism). The mounting problems being discovered from GMOs is often downplayed. Don't just believe the whitepapers and countless studies reassuring HFCS is equivalent to pure cane sugar—most of these studies are conducted by the CRA, Monsanto, and the government (FDA, USDA) itself. Corn is highly subsidized. These companies will say anything to protect their profits; consumer safety and health is a very very small part of the picture.
Report abuse
Posted by Philip
11 August 2011 | 22h15
There is a difference
Sugar made from corn and processed with bacteria is not the same as real sugar and does not deserve the name of sugar. In vitro it does not act like real sugar and goes straight to the liver for processing and stresses that organ considerably. In addition it is a polyol which does not qualify it as a real sugar.
The ol at the end gives you the clue that it is a what--an alcoholic form of a syrup. Our lawmakers are worried about their Corn Refiners Association paybacks.
Report abuse
Posted by Barbara Talbert
11 August 2011 | 21h46
research
Sucrose, of course, is a molecule not a mix, therefore comparing ratios is inaccurate.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
Fructose study: new Fed guidelines too high, need to be re-evaluated
Posted on July 28, 2011 by Stone Hearth News
A recent study accepted for publication in The Endocrine Society’s Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (JCEM) found that adults who consumed high fructose corn syrup for two weeks as 25 percent of their daily calorie requirement had increased blood levels of cholesterol and triglycerides, which have been shown to be indicators of increased risk for heart disease.
The American Heart Association recommends that people consume only five percent of calories as added sugar. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010 suggest an upper limit of 25 percent or less of daily calories consumed as added sugar. To address this discrepancy in recommended consumption levels, researchers examined what happened when young overweight and normal weight adults consumed fructose, high fructose corn syrup or glucose at the 25 percent upper limit.
“While there is evidence that people who consume sugar are more likely to have heart disease or diabetes, it is controversial as to whether high sugar diets may actually promote these diseases, and dietary guidelines are conflicting,” said the study’s senior author, Kimber Stanhope, PhD, of the University of California, Davis. “Our findings demonstrate that several factors associated with an elevated risk for cardiovascular disease were increased in individuals consuming 25 percent of their calories as fructose or high fructose corn syrup, but consumption of glucose did not have this effect.”
In this study, researchers examined 48 adults between the ages of 18 and 40 years and compared the effects of consuming 25 percent of one’s daily calorie requirement as glucose, fructose or high fructose corn syrup on risk factors for cardiovascular disease. They found that within two weeks, study participants consuming fructose or high fructose corn syrup, but not glucose, exhibited increased concentrations of LDL cholesterol, triglycerides and apolipoprotein-B (a protein which can lead to plaques that cause vascular disease).
“These results suggest that consumption of sugar may promote heart disease,” said Stanhope. “Additionally our findings provide evidence that the upper limit of 25 percent of daily calories consumed as added sugar as suggested by The Dietary Guidelines for American 2010 may need to be re-evaluated.”
###
Report abuse
Posted by Jim Larsen
11 August 2011 | 19h46
Pointless Waste of Money
The negative story around HFCS, whether it's a mischaracterization or not, is already engrained in the majority of consumers' minds. Paying politicians to change the name to "corn sugar" is not going to solve the problem.
I'd suggest building a multi-million dollar consumer facing marketing campaign that works to correct the "mischaracterization" if it's really affecting revenues that much. I'm a consumer, and I already know HFCS is sugar....just a thought.
Report abuse
Posted by Matt
11 August 2011 | 19h23
Read all comments (7)