FDA Nixes 'Corn Sugar' Label for Sweetening Syrup.

[elleng]

Source: NYT/AP

High fructose corn syrup won't get a wholesome new name after all.

The Food and Drug Administration has rejected the Corn Refiners Association's bid to rename its sweetening agent "corn sugar." A representative from the association wasn't immediately available for comment.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/05/30/world/ap-us-sugar-fight.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1338418811-/WdS9g+XfZoLnoJL6pSwIA

[Moondog]

1. Good. n/t

[Evasporque]

43. High Fructose Corn Bullshit and Pink Fucking Slime -- DON'T EAT IT!.....nt

[yellowcanine]

49. Don't eat any kind of bullshit or anything that is fucking.

Is my response to that.

[Marrah_G]

2. Glad to hear this

I'm honestly surprised they rejected. Pleasantly surprised.

[Fearless]

3. Now let's push forward and get it out of kids foods and such.

[RC]

7. Get it out of our food, period!

[Fearless]

11. True.

[SoCalNative]

13. Get it out of ALL foods

no need for it anywhere

[Fearless]

14. Fact!

[Major Nikon]

17. Great idea, so long as your for getting other forms of sugar out of kids foods

There is zero causal evidence that HFCS has any detrimental health effects compared to table sugar.

All substituting sucrose for HFCS does is drive up the cost of food and makes certain types of foods even less accessible to the poor while providing zero health benefits. It also puts domestic corn producers out of work in favor of foreign refined sucrose producers. It's a lose-lose situation all the way around.

[sendero]

18. Anyone with Google..

... can easily see that your claim of "no detrimental health effects" is FACTUALLY INCORRECT.
'

[Major Nikon]

19. Your google must have missed this...

General scientific consensus regarding high-fructose corn syrup is that it is likely not significantly more detrimental to health than other types of sugars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_high-fructose_corn_syrup

The early claims of detrimental health effects of HFCS were based on correlative evidence and hypothesis. As any scientist worth the powder it would take to blow them to hell will tell you, correlation does not imply causation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

HFCS has been around for at least 50 years and there are zero studies that produce causal evidence of the detrimental effects of HFCS in humans over other forms of sugar. If your google can find one, then please post it. Good luck with that. I've been searching for years and have yet to find one. I did find this which led the AMA to conclude it's highly unlikely.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20516261

[greiner3]

56. The major concerns of HFCS;

Is that it has many more calories per ounce than does other forms of sugar. The Right's claim that this can't be true is because it's 'sugar after all' is just another attempt to 'muddy the waters' on scientific fact.

HFCS is bad for living things, as is ALL refined sugar. But it is especially bad for being a reason, if not one of the largest, for the national outbreak of obesity in this country.

BTW, excuse the pun in the title line.

[Fearless]

23. I am for everyone eating healthier.

HFCS is an excuse to eat unhealthy. It is killing, literally killing, Americans.

[Major Nikon]

25. It's only an excuse in that it makes it more efficent

If HFCS were to disappear tomorrow, it would quickly be replaced by other forms of sugar which may be more expensive and less practical, but not so much as to curb America's appetite for high calorie, low nutritional value foods.

[Fearless]

26. They would be more expensive.

People would be more inclined away from the cheap alternatives to better foods. I won't say completely, but it will help.

[Major Nikon]

27. It could also hurt a lot more than it helps

If HFCS were to disappear, the question becomes what would replace it if demand remains the same? The same farmlands now used to grow corn aren't going to support sugar cane and sugar beets. So US farms lose jobs while South America gets more rainforests going up in smoke.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Fearless]

28. I'm not worried about a shortage of sugar.

[Major Nikon]

34. There won't be a shortage of sugar

That's the problem. There's plenty of available land in South America to grow sugar cane, it's just currently being used by rain forests.

[Fearless]

38. There is plenty of land in a lot of places to do a lot of things.

You're trying to find a reason to be right.

[Major Nikon]

46. I'm simply pointing out the logistics of producing sugar

I'm not really sure where you're going with your argument. First you say you're not worried about a shortage of sugar, then you say there's plenty of space to produce it. I'm not contradicting you on this, so it's not a matter of who is wrong or right. I'm simply pointing out that if you replace HFCS with sucrose, you're going to be moving production out of the country. You can't grow sugar beets in Iowa and the chance of returning sugar cane production to Hawaii is extremely remote. South America already produces 8 times more sucrose than the US with the capacity to produce a lot more. It's just a matter of how many rain forests you want to torch. Furthermore it wouldn't really matter if the US did actually have the crop space and the climate to produce sucrose. If it costs 3 times more to produce it here vs South America, where do you think it's going to be produced?

[Fearless]

50. My argument is that sugar excess as well as corn syrup are unhealthy

That is all. We should all do well to limit them in our diets.

I am not willing to prop up an industry that is hurting people. I am not worried about corporate farms and their profits.


There are other places sugar cane is farmed than South America. And sugar cane only makes up for about 1.7 million metric tons of production a year... sugar beets makes up 228 million metric tons a year.






And for sugar beets which are NOT produced in South America in large supply:




Top Ten Sugar Beet Producers - 2009
(million metric tons)
France 35.2
United States 27
Germany 25.9
Russia 24.9
Turkey 17.2
Poland 10.8
Ukraine 10.1
United Kingdom 8.5
China 7.5
Netherlands 5.7
World Total 228.2

You will be creating jobs in America if sugar beets demand goes up. It would. You wouldn't lose jobs at all. Some would move. Big deal.

[Major Nikon]

51. I'm completely in agreement with this

The enemy is sugar itself, not where it comes from. So then the question becomes how best to attack that problem. Attacking HFCS simply makes no sense. The arguments claiming it's worse than sucrose never had much merit in the first place and have been soundly debunked as far as I'm concerned. Without any significant changes to the eating habits of Americans HFCS can and most certainly would be replaced by other sweeteners if it were removed from the market. So the question then becomes what impact would that have. I'm simply suggesting there may very well be a significant adverse impact to the US if this were to happen (and it won't). You may be right in that the domestic supply of HFCS would be replaced by increased domestic supply of sucrose. However, I don't think it's at all correct to say this would happen for certain. Possible does not mean practical.

[Fearless]

52. Possible doesn't mean pratical yes, but impractical doesn't mean unnecessary either.

Capitalism will win out. The "free market" will dictate that just what I said would happen.

[azurnoir]

37. while you have a point about sugar cane I have to disagree about sugar beets

because sugar beets are a common crop in North Dakota and if they can grow there they can grow on most US farmland, that said there may be market price differences that would make them less desirable for farmers

[Major Nikon]

47. Yes, sugar beets can be grown in North Dakota

But I don't think it's correct to say that based on that they can be grown anywhere. They still need specific conditions, and even at that there are many other considerations. Hawaii used to produce huge quantities of sucrose. They don't now because it's simply too expensive. You only have about a 100 day growing season in North Dakota vs year round growing conditions for sugar cane in South America, so even if production were expanded you still have those limitations and competition from other crops for field space. One of the only reasons sucrose production is viable at all in the US is because of very high tariffs on imported sugar. Like any other crop, sucrose is going to be produced where it's economically feasible to do so. There's a good reason why South America produces 8 times more sucrose than the US.

[azurnoir]

55. I looked it up and sugar beets are already grown in 26 states in the US

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/sugarbeet.html

North Dakota is hardiness zone 3 which is why I was pretty sure they could be grown in most US farm land the bulk of which lies between zones 3-7 the lower numbers indicate colder winters shorter summers

eta I think it may be processing costs and market value that are the reasons farmers seem to prefer corn over beets

[crunch60]

31. OK, eat all you want of this dangerous ingredient. I stay away from Monsanto's

GMO poison as much as I can.
The obesity problem in this country is obscene. Eat healthy, cook your own food, eat organic when possible and stay away from fast foods restaurants. Your body will love you for it.

[Major Nikon]

35. Stay away from it all you want

But if you want to call a product in widespread use "dangerous", it might be a good idea to have some type of factual basis to draw that conclusion. As yet, that evidence is severely lacking and recent evidence debunks those claims.

America has serious health issues, but trying to blame those issues on big agra boogeymen with zero evidence really does more harm than good. 'Organic' is a joke. The notion that a 'natural' substance is somehow always better than a man-made substance is fundamentally flawed. An organic label gains nothing in nutrition while greatly increasing the price in most instances, and if you think you're getting away from big agra by buying organic, you might want to check who actually owns the business under that 'organic' sticker. More than likely it's going to be Cargill, Conagra, ADM, or one of the other boogeymen you're trying to escape as they now own most of the organic market share. I don't care to pay significantly more to the same people for something that's no better. YMMV.

Personally my health couldn't be better because I've always exercised regularly and I limit the amount of junk of all types I put in my body through moderation. I make as much as my own food as I can. I even make my own soda, even though I rarely drink it.

[crunch60]

39. You can put in your body whatever you wish. And I do check who owns the Organics I purchase

The Cornucopia Institute is one of the watchdogs of the organic industry. They have a map of who own what, check it out.

An in-depth investigation by The Cornucopia Institute has found a number of gimmicky, unproven and even dangerous synthetic additives in organic food. An unholy alliance between corporate agribusiness and the USDA has corrupted the regulatory system, that Congress created, to protect organic consumers and ethical farmers and business people.

http://livingmaxwell.com/organic-watergate-cornucopia-institute

http://www.cornucopia.org/

[crunch60]

29. HCFS is made from Monsanto's GMO, round up ready corn. Not like the old days.

before Monsanto controlled so much of our food supply.

Fructose has a much stronger effect on the pancreas than sucrose which table sugar is comprised of.


HCFS(high fructose corn syrup) has been getting increased attention in the public eye over recent years, and for good reason. It is banned in a number of countries, but it’s in almost any non-organic processed foods in the US, all of which comes from Monsanto’s genetically engineered “Round-up Ready” Bt corn.



http://www.occupymonsanto360.org/2012/03/19/the-secret-behind-high-fructose-corn-syrup/

[Major Nikon]

33. Sucrose is composed of both fructose and glucose

Just like HFCS, and in virtually the same ratios.

The link you posted also contains quite a bit of gross misinformation and/or outright lies.

HCFS isn’t just your standard sugar, first of all. It is specifically engineered to be sweeter, which is why it is “high fructose”.

HFCS is called "high fructose" because it's further refined from regular corn syrup (which contains low fructose levels). It isn't engineered to be sweeter. It's engineered to be just as sweet as sucrose, because it was engineered to be a sucrose replacement.
23. Schorin MD. High fructose corn syrups, part 1. Composition, consumption, and metaabolism. Nutr Today. 2005;40:248–52.

Fructose has a much stronger effect on the pancreas than sucrose which table sugar is comprised of.

Sucrose is metabolized into fructose and glucose almost immediately upon ingestion and before it enters the blood stream. So while it may be true that fructose has a different effect on the pancreas, the effect is going to be virtually identical for either HFCS or sucrose. Either the author is ignorant of this or they are being quite disengenuous in taking advantage of the general public's ignorance of basic chemistry.

Although the balance of fructose to glucose is a seemingly small amount, 55 to 42% plus 3% of “higher saccharides in HFCS and an equal 50/50 in sucrose, it is further complicated because the fructose in HFCS is totally unbound where as it requires an extra step of metabolism in table sugar because each atom of fructose is connected to a glucose atom.

This "extra step of metabolism" is performed in the small intestines before sugar enters the blood stream, so the author is including information that is irrelevant and misleading. By the time your blood gets access to table sugar, it is already glucose and fructose, just like HFCS.

In a study by Princeton University, rats fed a solution with 50% of the strength of HFCS compared to cola all 100% gained weight quickly, especially abdominal fat and raised triglyceride levels associated with obesity. The rats fed normal sugar at the same levels gained no weight and had no other issues either.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the rat study, which was also found to be significantly flawed in drawing conclusions for humans which have significantly different systems for metabolizing sugar.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3044477/

Also of note is that HFCS also turns off the body’s “fullness” response, increasing appetite by causing you to think that you’ve not had enough to eat even though the food and beverages you’re consuming are quite packed with calories.

Conjecture which doesn't appear to be based on anything remotely factual.

And then there comes the issue of mercury and other toxins that can be found in it due to the industrial methods of processing HFCS.

Mercury isn't used in the production of HFCS in the US. The author further misrepresents the WebMD study (which didn't even prove that HFCS contained any mercury) in that the type and amount of mercury was never specified, which makes any claims of adverse health effects dubious at best.

[Evasporque]

42. How do we know that the conversion of sucrose to glucose and fructose by the body

is the same as consuming fructose...and glucose together...you just said it is different....!?!

The body EXPECTS to break things down and as a result the enzymes and whatever that break the sucrose down to simple sugars more than likely triggers specific responses in the brain that have evolved over millions of years....chemical balances....dumping HFCS into the body results in steps being skipped and as a result some kind of backlog or confusion occurs...all the sudden there is all this sweet shit in the body and the actors that normally are envolved were not triggered into action....

So what about studying that!

Rather than simply say "Oh its the same, keep eating it." Fuck that! I am sick of eating corporate garbage...pink fucking slime, high fructose corn bullshit, inert fillers and empty air in the form of more "satisfying crunch".

The food industry is in for a very rude awakening in the coming years as people stop EATING THIS SHIT!

On edit the following:

As for conjecture not based on factual evidence....it doesn't matter there was no evidence initially that allowed this crap to be put in food in the first place. Pink slime and HFCS are a PROFIT generating mechanism...by reducing cost of production your profit more on production. Any study put forth 50 years ago that said HFCS and pink slime was okay was certainly not motivated by flavor...it was fucking COST! So if people decide they want to stop eating SHIT then we can make that choice. Not the consumers problem that they finally caught on to the BULLSHIT in our food.

Another addition on edit:

corn syrup was long a simple and cheap replacement for simple syrup a baking ingredient made form real sugar. People could afford corn syrup and as you stated....it is lower in fructose...so some engineer way back when said...if we can refine it and make the fructose content higher we can use as a sugar substitue and SAVE BIG BUCKS! A few skewed studies and greased palms in the FDA later and BOOM....we are all eating a CHEAP SUBSTITUTE and paying just as much if not more.

HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP SUCKS AS MUCH AS PINK SLIME!

DON'T EAT IT!

[Major Nikon]

44. Humans haven't been eating refined sugars for millions of years

So any evolutionary argument along those lines you want to make about HFCS could also be made for sucrose. The human body didn't evolve eating refined sugars, yet now the average American eats 100 lbs of it per year compared to about 5 lbs per year 200 years ago.

Sucrose has always been relatively expensive compared to other sweeteners, which is why US consumers have been using "cheap substitutes" for as long as the US has been in existence. Advances in food technology means the average American pays a lower food bill, so yes these savings do get passed on to the consumer. The average American pays a far lower portion of their income to food than they did 200 years ago, despite eating more calories. The reason is advances in food technology and distribution.

[yellowcanine]

48. HFCS has been around a lot longer than RR corn.

RR corn became commercially available in 1998. By 2006 it was about 40% of the U.S corn crop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)#Genetically_modified_crops

HFCS was introduced into foods on a large scale between 1975 and 1985.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup

There really is not a link between HFCS and RR corn other than that corn is the source of HFCS and in the U.S. and most of the corn is RR. But it is incorrect to suggest that RR corn led to HFCS. If anything it was the other way around. The demand for HFCS increased the demand for corn and RR corn provided a cost effective way to meet that demand. But even without RR corn, manufacturers would be putting HFCS in foods, as they did before RR corn was available. That is because HFCS is much cheaper than regular sugar.

[Auggie]

4. I wouldn't be surprised if they get their way eventually ...

say, the next repuke administration.

[Nihil]

36. Oh there's a fair amount of Democratic support for them too ...

... (see upthread for examples) ... but there is nothing special about
politicians with a "D" after their name that affects how they see the "$"
in front of them ...

[freshwest]

5. Good.

[LadyHawkAZ]

6. Good.

Now let's stop putting it in food.

[4dsc]

8. Sweet.

Lets keep it natural folks.

[Odin2005]

10. Duzy!

[crunch60]

30. I use Stevia. Natural safe sweetner. nt

[Poll_Blind]

9. Good!

PB

[CaliforniaPeggy]

12. Most excellent!

[obamanut2012]

15. GOOD!

Now, get it out of our food. All of it.

[cstanleytech]

16. Good, I find it deceptive of them to have even tried this. nt

[Psephos]

20. They were inspired by the successful re-labeling of freedom suppression as "The Patriot Act." n/t

[cstanleytech]

21. I was thinking they were inspired by the successful rebranding the Republicans had

into the "Tea Party" after the Republican brand name was worth as much as a bucket of mud after Bush got done with it.

[Psephos]

22. Good call. n/t

[DesertDiamond]

24. Though the FDA often seems to be hopelessly corrupt, there are times when they do us right.

[BlueIris]

32. That FDA does something useful for once. nt

[Evasporque]

40. consumers are winning....we don't want to eat that shit...

If a product says no HFCS...I buy over others. HFCS makes you fat and crave more. AND it is WAAAYYYY cheaper than natural cane or beet sugars....The ChemoFrankenFood industry has long profited by replacing "food" with cheap industrial ingredients and fillers...

we ate the marketing and ate their shit for 50 years and as a result we are fat and sick.

[crunch60]

41. Cornucopia Institute has lot of news regarding our food supply/labeling

Cornucopia News
Battle Brewing Over Labeling of Genetically Modified Food

The Organic Watergate: Advocates Condemn Corruption and USDA’s Cozy Relationship with Corporate Agribusinesses in Organics

Angry Consumers Deluge Kashi with Concerns over GMO Subterfuge
The Cornucopia Institute is Hiring!

Petition to Obama Red-Flags “Agent Orange” GMO Corn Approval
Farmers Determined to Defend Right to Grow Food


http://livingmaxwell.com/organic-watergate-cornucopia-institute

http://www.cornucopia.org/

[yellowcanine]

45. In other news the FDA tells Crispy Creme they can't substitute "lipids" for "fat" on the label.

[unkachuck]

53. when the obesity....

....epidemic is over and we're all slim and trim under republican rule, then may I drink a glass of corporate "corn sugar"?

[elleng]

54. You may drink a glass of corporate 'corn sugar' at any time,

call it what you will.

[sendero]

57. The "best science money can buy"

... has cast doubt on climate change, on various other environmental sciences, and now on this.

We're supposed to believe that this crap is just good food regardless of any evidence.

We're told we can't have labeling for GMO foods because we are not smart enough to know that they are just ok also.

I avoid HFCS. I don't care WHAT some junk-science industry-funded bullshit study says about the shit, I don't want to eat it, it is as simple as that. All you really need to know about it is the ridiculous process required to create it. It not food, it is a chemical.

[Wabbajack_]

58. Who cares?

Same thing as other sugar. I heard cane sugar tastes better in Coke though. Personally I like the sound of "High fructose corn syrup" and don't like name changes.

And I suppose no one here has ever had a soda. LOL.