There is an interesting article in Yahoo’s online magazine, Finance, entitled: “AP Exclusive: Officials slam corn syrup rebranding.” In this Sept 15, 2011 article, Thomas Watkins of the Associated Press reports the AP has learned that the FDA has cautioned the corn industry over the ongoing use of the term “corn sugar” to describe high fructose corn syrup, asking them to stop using the proposed new name before it has received regulatory approval.
Mr. Watkins’ article goes on to say that “the Corn Refiners Association wants to use ‘corn sugar’ as an alternative name for the widely used liquid sweetener currently labeled as high fructose corn sweetener on most sodas and packaged foods. They are attempting an image makeover after some scientists linked the product to obesity, diabetes and other problems; some food companies now tout products that don’t contain the ingredient.”
The article also mentions an industry attempt to change the name from high fructose corn syrup to just “corn syrup,” which would be confusing because they already sell a product, dextrose, which is called corn syrup. Regarding this attempted name change, Michael Taylor, the FDA’s deputy commissioner for foods wrote in an internal memo: “It would be affirmatively misleading to change the name of the ingredient after all this time, especially in light of the controversy surrounding it.”
So what kind of people may be avoiding products containing high fructose corn syrup? Probably people like me—people who read labels listing the additives in food products they eat and people who remember media articles reporting deleterious effects associated with these additives. I haven’t knowingly fed my family anything containing high fructose corn syrup for at least a decade.
If you want evidence that proves absolutely that high fructose corn syrup is harmful, you probably won’t find it. Of course, if you look for evidence that proves absolutely that smoking causes cancer, you won’t find that either. Nothing is ever proven absolutely. But if you look at the curve showing increasing obesity in the U.S., and the curve showing the increasing use of this chemical, it’s a near perfect match. The whole obesity epidemic seems to have taken off in the early 1980s, exactly when we ramped up the use of high fructose corn syrup.
At that time I was actually working on a construction project at a large plant that makes this product. The plant was being remodeled to increase its capacity. One day the loudspeakers blasted out the announcement that a major soft drink manufacturer had just agreed to switch from using sugar to using high fructose corn syrup. A cheer rose up from the workers. They all knew that this would mean more overtime and perhaps a secure job for life. But I think we also felt, in our heart of hearts, that this change away from sugar would also improve the American diet. And I suspect that the corn processors and the soft drink makers believed this as well. There was a great deal of concern then about the amount of refined sugar in the American diet, and everyone thought that anything would be better than sugar. But life has a lot of surprises.
The problem with high fructose corn syrup is not just its calorie content. The corn processing industry is now trying to argue that sugar is sugar, regardless of what kind of sugar. But Dr. David Williams, writing in his health newsletter, Alternatives for the Health Conscious Individual, says, “….fructose has a toxicity factor beyond its caloric equivalent.” He writes: “Fructose is absorbed differently from glucose in the intestinal tract. Glucose stimulates the release of insulin from the pancreas. Fructose doesn’t. Instead of insulin, cells use glut-5 transporter to move fructose into cells. Most cells have only very limited amounts of this transporter, so it [fructose] is primarily cleared by the liver, where it’s easily transformed into either fat or components that eventually increase blood lipids like triglycerides.”
He reminds us that that the sugar contained in fresh fruit is fructose, and says that our cells can easily process that small amount, but not the massive overload found in a soda. He says that fructose is “undoubtedly one of the most dangerous items in our food supply” Dr. Williams says that as of 2000, Americans were consuming 63.8 pounds of fructose per person per year. He discusses the link to obesity, and also says that “Fructose has been implicated in numerous inflammatory disease processes including eczema, psoriasis, arthritis, gout, ADHD, Alzheimer’s, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease, and autoimmune disease.” He also writes, “Most people don’t realize that fructose is addictive. Food processors have added fructose to more and more foods knowing it triggers an increase in sales.”
Most of the information which I quoted from Dr. Williams’ newsletter can be obtained from any number of reliable sources. I chose to quote Dr. Williams merely because he states it all very clearly and simply.
In the AP article quoted earlier, Mr. Watkins says that seven U.S. Senators, all from corn growing states, have signed letters to the FDA, urging them to allow the corn industry to use the name “corn syrup,” supposedly to clear up confusion.
On Sunday, October 30, The Des Moines Register featured a guest editorial, “Disparaging Corn and Our Way of Life,” by Jerry Mohr, a director of the Iowa Corn Growers Association. He complained that foes blocking the use of the term “corn sugar” to describe high fructose corn syrup are “disparaging corn and our way of life.”
Well, I’ve lived in Iowa most of my life and many of my friends grow corn. And I suspect if it ever came down to a choice between poisoning the food supply and finding another way of life, they’d do the right thing. Mr. Mohr’s article is a masterpiece of disinformation. He says,
“The truth is the term ‘corn sugar’ more accurately describes what this ingredient actually is—a sugar made from corn. Ingredient names on food labels should be clear and reflect in no uncertain terms what the ingredient is. You can’t get much clearer than ‘corn sugar.’ This alternate name will enable consumers to better identify added sugars in the food they purchase and clear up any lingering confusion.”
Gosh, I’m sure we all want to clear up confusion. But tell me this, Mr. Mohr: If I have concluded that high fructose corn syrup is unhealthy and I don’t want to feed it to my family, just how, by reading labels, can I hope to avoid buying it if you don’t call it high fructose corn syrup anymore? The fact is--I can’t, as you well know. And that’s what this name change gimmick is all about.
If the corn processing industry had wanted to call it “corn sugar” forty years ago, I doubt if anyone would have objected. But they were delighted to use the term “high fructose corn sweetener” instead. It gave them a way to distance their product from sugar. It gave them a way to position their product as something not quite the same as sugar. And people eagerly bought it for just that reason. We all knew of the harmful effects of consuming too much sugar. But now, after forty years, the jury is in. HFCS seems to be worse than sugar in every way, and people are avoiding it.
About ten years ago, when I first decided to try avoiding high fructose corn syrup, this avoidance was nearly impossible. It was not only found in soft drinks, but jams, jellies, catsup, and anything with added sweetening. To buy jam made with sugar, I had to buy the French or Swiss brands, though I would have preferred an American product. And I had to drive ninety miles to a coop that sold organic products to find other things free of HFCS. It all was pretty pricey. Today, nearly every local supermarket has an organic food section that sells processed foods free of HFCS. I notice that Smucker’s brand now has an organic line of jams and jellies sweetened only with sugar, and Sierra Mist Natural lemon-lime soda, (a product sold by PEPSICO) proudly claims to be made only with real sugar. When we have reached the point that Smucker’s can sell jam on the advertised claim that it is sweetened only with sugar, and PEPSICO can market a soft drink on that same claim, then the handwriting is on the wall. A large and increasing percent of consumers want to be free of high fructose corn syrup, and will aggressively seek out products that do not contain it. So it is understandable that The Iowa Corn Growers Association is nearly apoplectic on this issue.
But the important issue here is the way our decisions are being made. Bismarck said that the people are better off not knowing how their sausages or laws are made. But even Bismarck would be embarrassed by the process by which the American food industry and drug industry are regulated. It’s regulation by 800 pound gorilla. Right now, there is a lawsuit in progress challenging the attempt to change the name of HFCS to “corn sugar.” This is being challenged in court, not by a consumer group, but by the sugar industry. It’s a battle between the corn industry and the sugar industry. If we consumers win this one, it will because the sugar industry’s 800 pound legal gorillas beat the corn industry’s gorillas. The consumer’s interest is nowhere in sight. The consumer’s interest is supposed to be represented by the USDA and the FDA. But on the rare occasions that either of these agencies attempts to rule for the consumer, some powerful industry group immediately bullies a few senators into bullying the agency into changing it. Our entire food supply is now saturated with additives of every kind that have been approved over the last several decades. In every case, the final decision to allow or not allow the proposed additive was based, not on the interest of those would be eating this food, but on the competing interests of powerful industry groups interested in either producing it or keeping it off the market.
The result is a disaster. From America, you can travel to any other developed country and find food that tastes better and is less likely to make you sick. Of course, this superior food costs more. America has the cheapest food on the planet—but it’s cheap for a reason. Most additives ever approved were sought because they would lower production or distribution costs, and this cost savings is eventually passed on to the consumer. So we have the cheapest food on the planet—if you’re brave enough to eat it.
No comments:
Post a Comment