Let´s Call It What It Is: High Fructose Corn Syrup!
James J. Gormley
October 27, 2011
As Linda Bonvie noted in a recent post from the Citizens for Health (http://tinyurl.com/citizens-for-health) Food Identity Theft project, many of us have seen those TV ads about high fructose corn syrup, no surprise considering that the companies behind the ads have spent over $50 million in an effort to convince American consumers that high frucose corn syrup (HFCS) is a different product, one called "corn sugar."
However, HFCS is not sugar. Sugar comes from sugarcane or sugar beets.
High frutose corn syrup is a manufactured sweetener found in hundreds of grocery store items. Much chaper for food producers than sugar, companies have been using it for decades.
Corn is made up of starches that do not naturally possess enough saccharides to allow it to be used as a sweetener, so the fructose derived from corn starch has to be tinkered with in a lab and spiked with fructose in order for it to be sweet.
Nevertheless, the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asking for approval to officially change the name of high fructose corn syrup to "corn sugar."
As the National Consumers League noted in their submission to the FDA opposing the corn refiners´ petition, consumption of HFCS is declining. The reasons for this decline, include: increasing use of sugar alcohols and other non-caloric sweeteners; a narrowing price differential between HFCS and sugar due to the higher price of corn; and the popularity of bottled water, diet soft drinks, and other beverages as compared to regular soda. Some of the decline is due to growing public concern about the possible health effects of HFCS.
So, in order to boost sagging sales of products with high fructose corn syrup, there is an all-out campaign afoot to hoodwink the American public into thinking HFCS is corn sugar when it is not.
There are several reasons why the FDA should deny the refiners´ petition, including:
1. The ingredient disclosure mandate of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (FDCA) is based on the principle that consumers have the right to know what is in their food. The proposal to re-brand HFCS as "corn sugar" would violate this basic principle by disguising the ingredient from consumers, retailers and schools.
2. The name "high fructose corn syrup" correctly identifies a product that is spiked with higher levels of fructose than those which are found in corn syrup.
3. It would be completely inappropriate to transfer the established name of corn sugar to HFCS. High fructose corn syrup and corn sugar are completely different substances. HFCS is a manufactured syrup mixture mainly made up of fructose and glucose; corn sugar is a solid, granular, natural sugar that is almost pure glucose.
4. The re-branding of HFCS as "corn sugar" would mislead consumers by suggesting to them that HFCS is the same as authentic corn sugar that is already defined by FDA regulation.
5. The proposed re-branding would severely compromise the integrity of the FDA´s well-established naming system for sugars and other sweeteners.
6. If the FDA were to grant the refiners´ petition, it would set a dangerous precedent for manufacturers and manufacturers´ associations to pursue new names for foods or ingredients that are becoming less popular in order to mask the true identity of these declining products.
7. Granting the corn refiners´ petition would seriously damage consumer confidence in the integrity of food labeling and in the FDA itself.
8. The refiners´ petition does not only propose bad policy; it calls for an unlawful agency action. Section 403(a) of the FDCA explicitly prohibits labeling that is false or misleading in any point. Changing the name of HFCS would mislead consumers into thinking that a different ingredient is present in the food. In addition, rebranding HFCS as "corn sugar" would mislead consumers into believing that HFCS is the product traditionally marketed as "corn sugar."
9. Industry and consumers have long understood and accepted "high fructose corn syrup" as the name for HFCS. As noted above, the corn refiners´ petition even describes results from a survey in which more respondents selected "high fructose corn syrup" as the best name for HFCS than any other proposed name!
10. The consumption of HFCS poses a life-threatening risk to consumers with HFI, a disorder affecting an estimated one in 20,000 Americans. HFI patients must remove all sources of fructose (including sucrose) from their diets. In addition to consumers who suffer from HFI, up to 30 percent of Americans suffer from fructose malabsorption, a digestive disorder in which absorption of fructose is impaired by deficient fructose carriers in the small intestine's enterocytes. Consumers with these conditions must review food labels for the presence of fructose-containing ingredients. Labeling fructose-spiked syrup as "corn sugar" would endanger the health of these Americans.
According to Britain´s Food Standards Agency (FSA), "Falsely describing, advertising or presenting food is an offence, and there are a number of laws that help protect consumers against dishonest labeling and misdescription."
The U.K. FSA also says: "Food authenticity is all about whether a food matches its description. If food is misdescribed, not only is the consumer being deceived, but it can also create unfair competition with the honest manufacturer or trader." This U.K. agency actually has a surveillance program devoted to food authenticity in which the agency carries out spot checks on foods to uncover and weed out adulteration and "misdescription."
I don´t find the term "food authenticity" anywhere on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration´s (FDA´s) labyrinthian website. I really do like the FSA´s active, and meaningful, use of this concept and of this term for regulatory review and enforcement, and I think our FDA should consider adopting this term.
There is a message here for U.S. regulators in encouraging the FDA to expedite its decision to deny the petition from the corn refiners to mislabel the ingredient high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as "corn sugar."
However, HFCS is not sugar. Sugar comes from sugarcane or sugar beets.
High frutose corn syrup is a manufactured sweetener found in hundreds of grocery store items. Much chaper for food producers than sugar, companies have been using it for decades.
Corn is made up of starches that do not naturally possess enough saccharides to allow it to be used as a sweetener, so the fructose derived from corn starch has to be tinkered with in a lab and spiked with fructose in order for it to be sweet.
Nevertheless, the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asking for approval to officially change the name of high fructose corn syrup to "corn sugar."
As the National Consumers League noted in their submission to the FDA opposing the corn refiners´ petition, consumption of HFCS is declining. The reasons for this decline, include: increasing use of sugar alcohols and other non-caloric sweeteners; a narrowing price differential between HFCS and sugar due to the higher price of corn; and the popularity of bottled water, diet soft drinks, and other beverages as compared to regular soda. Some of the decline is due to growing public concern about the possible health effects of HFCS.
So, in order to boost sagging sales of products with high fructose corn syrup, there is an all-out campaign afoot to hoodwink the American public into thinking HFCS is corn sugar when it is not.
There are several reasons why the FDA should deny the refiners´ petition, including:
1. The ingredient disclosure mandate of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (FDCA) is based on the principle that consumers have the right to know what is in their food. The proposal to re-brand HFCS as "corn sugar" would violate this basic principle by disguising the ingredient from consumers, retailers and schools.
2. The name "high fructose corn syrup" correctly identifies a product that is spiked with higher levels of fructose than those which are found in corn syrup.
3. It would be completely inappropriate to transfer the established name of corn sugar to HFCS. High fructose corn syrup and corn sugar are completely different substances. HFCS is a manufactured syrup mixture mainly made up of fructose and glucose; corn sugar is a solid, granular, natural sugar that is almost pure glucose.
4. The re-branding of HFCS as "corn sugar" would mislead consumers by suggesting to them that HFCS is the same as authentic corn sugar that is already defined by FDA regulation.
5. The proposed re-branding would severely compromise the integrity of the FDA´s well-established naming system for sugars and other sweeteners.
6. If the FDA were to grant the refiners´ petition, it would set a dangerous precedent for manufacturers and manufacturers´ associations to pursue new names for foods or ingredients that are becoming less popular in order to mask the true identity of these declining products.
7. Granting the corn refiners´ petition would seriously damage consumer confidence in the integrity of food labeling and in the FDA itself.
8. The refiners´ petition does not only propose bad policy; it calls for an unlawful agency action. Section 403(a) of the FDCA explicitly prohibits labeling that is false or misleading in any point. Changing the name of HFCS would mislead consumers into thinking that a different ingredient is present in the food. In addition, rebranding HFCS as "corn sugar" would mislead consumers into believing that HFCS is the product traditionally marketed as "corn sugar."
9. Industry and consumers have long understood and accepted "high fructose corn syrup" as the name for HFCS. As noted above, the corn refiners´ petition even describes results from a survey in which more respondents selected "high fructose corn syrup" as the best name for HFCS than any other proposed name!
10. The consumption of HFCS poses a life-threatening risk to consumers with HFI, a disorder affecting an estimated one in 20,000 Americans. HFI patients must remove all sources of fructose (including sucrose) from their diets. In addition to consumers who suffer from HFI, up to 30 percent of Americans suffer from fructose malabsorption, a digestive disorder in which absorption of fructose is impaired by deficient fructose carriers in the small intestine's enterocytes. Consumers with these conditions must review food labels for the presence of fructose-containing ingredients. Labeling fructose-spiked syrup as "corn sugar" would endanger the health of these Americans.
According to Britain´s Food Standards Agency (FSA), "Falsely describing, advertising or presenting food is an offence, and there are a number of laws that help protect consumers against dishonest labeling and misdescription."
The U.K. FSA also says: "Food authenticity is all about whether a food matches its description. If food is misdescribed, not only is the consumer being deceived, but it can also create unfair competition with the honest manufacturer or trader." This U.K. agency actually has a surveillance program devoted to food authenticity in which the agency carries out spot checks on foods to uncover and weed out adulteration and "misdescription."
I don´t find the term "food authenticity" anywhere on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration´s (FDA´s) labyrinthian website. I really do like the FSA´s active, and meaningful, use of this concept and of this term for regulatory review and enforcement, and I think our FDA should consider adopting this term.
There is a message here for U.S. regulators in encouraging the FDA to expedite its decision to deny the petition from the corn refiners to mislabel the ingredient high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as "corn sugar."
Print
Email
