Do you think that when a group of individuals who takes underhanded actions to insert their processed corn syrup product into every food that you eat should be let off the hook, while your body declines, all because they are getting a bad name for doing insidious behavior? Would you let your own kid go unpunished or not face the consequences because they put rat poison into the soup pot?
Let's think twice about all this brew-ha-ha. Let's think more than twice about it all. Why do companies change their name? I supposed if they are getting married, uh, that is merging with another company it makes sense they would change their name. Although, Wachovia is having a very hard time switching over to Wells Fargo totally.
You could change your name to move to a better location. What I mean is that some people change their name when they are ill and in need of healing in some cultures. So, perhaps they feel that they are sick. Yeah! They are sick! And they are in need of healing. However, a person and a company must do MUCH more than just change names and change locations to move into wellness. They must own up to their improper lifestyle and behavior and they must change their ways.
Admittedly, they acknowledge that eating too much sugar of any kind is not healthy. Step one. Now, they try to align themselves with the Pure Natural Unrefined "Sugar" product. "Move over," they say, and "let me in." Should we? I say, "NO!"
Are they making any effort to take their nasty product out of every processed food item that you can purchase? That way, the population could reduce their intake of sugar, which they admit is way too high.
They skipped Step Two, are they allowed to go to Step Three? That would take a big chunk out of their profit margin if they had to reduce production and create products that were actually healthy for human and pet consumption. Don't get me started on all the carbonated and beverage drinks that are loaded with that toxic high fructose corn syrup.
This nation is sick, sick, sick and the large manufacturers who are pushing these products into the food stream are barking up the wrong tree. The people won't stand for it any longer. They are getting wise, at least I do hope they start reading some truthful documentation and research studies. Better yet, take a look around your neighborhood. Watch what people put in their mouths. Now put two and two together. Do these folks look over-weight, pale, out of breath, unable to think clearly and function to their highest performance? Don't ask yourself why, because you already know.
Do we have such poor long term memory that we would easily forget the connection between a tragedy or negative event with the name of the perpetrator? BP plans to officially change its name to British Petroleum in a desperate attempt to by-pass the negative connotations of all the media news about "BP."
The oil firm has spent nearly a decade building the BP name. Brand consulting company BrandZ puts the value of the BP brand at $17 billion. Interbanrd put the value of the BP brand at $3.7 billion. The discrepancy is the reasons no one takes the brand valuation business seriously. BP’s market cap is $134 billion down from $194 billion at its 52-week high. It is now likely that BP has a negative brand value, not like the American International Group (NYSE: AIG).
If this is so, then it would behoove not only individuals, but also companies to act morally and ethically, because at the end of the day, your legacy will follow you forever.
- 24/7 Wall St. by Douglas A. McIntyre
Would high-fructose corn syrup, by any other name, have sweeter appeal?
The Corn Refiners Association, which represents firms that make the syrup, has been trying to improve the image of the much maligned sweetener with ad campaigns promoting it as a natural ingredient made from corn. Now, the group has petitioned the United States Food and Drug Administration to start calling the ingredient “corn sugar,” arguing that a name change is the only way to clear up consumer confusion about the product.
“Clearly the name is confusing consumers,” said Audrae Erickson, president of the Washington-based group, in an interview. “Research shows that ‘corn sugar’ better communicates the amount of calories, the level of fructose and the sweetness in this ingredient.”
According to the market research firm NPD Group, about 58 percent of Americans say they are concerned that high-fructose corn syrup poses a health risk.
Some scientists over the years have speculated that high-fructose corn syrup may contribute to obesity by somehow disrupting normal metabolic function, but the research has been inconclusive. As a result, most leading scientists and nutrition experts agree that in terms of health, the effect of high-fructose corn syrup is the same as regular sugar, and that too much of either ingredient is bad for your health.
Marion Nestle, a professor in New York University’s department of nutrition and a longtime food industry critic, says that Americans consume too much of all types of sugar, but that there is no meaningful biochemical difference between table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup.
“I’m not eager to help the corn refiners sell more of their stuff,” Dr. Nestle wrote in an e-mail. “But you have to feel sorry for them. High-fructose corn syrup is the new trans fat. Everyone thinks it’s poison, and food companies are getting rid of it as fast as they can.”
Dr. Nestle says she thinks the plural “corn sugars” is a better description of high-fructose corn syrup, which is actually a mixture of glucose and fructose. But she agrees that the corn refiners “have lots of reasons to want the change.”
“Even I have to admit that it’s not an unreasonable one,” Dr. Nestle said.
Michael Jacobson, executive director of the health advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest, said he thought the term “high-fructose corn syrup” had misled many into thinking the sweetener was composed mainly of fructose, a simple sugar found in honey and fruit.
“Sugar and high-fructose corn syrup are nutritionally the same,’’ said Dr. Jacobson, who has a doctorate in microbiology. “I don’t know if ‘corn sugar’ is the best term, but it’s better than ‘high-fructose corn syrup.’ ”
High-fructose corn syrup, which came into widespread use in the 1970s, isn’t particularly high in fructose, but was so named to distinguish it from ordinary, glucose-containing corn syrup, according to a report in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. High-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (also known as table sugar) contain about the same amount of glucose and fructose. In fact, one commonly used version of the ingredient known as HFCS-42 actually contains less fructose (42 percent) than table sugar, which has 50 percent fructose, according to the report.
“The name is confusing, and consumers don’t understand that it has the same calories as sugar,” said Ms. Erickson, of the Corn Refiners’ Association. “They also think it’s sweeter tasting. That’s why the alternate name provides clarity for consumers when it comes to the ingredient composition and helps them better understand what’s in their foods.”
Table sugar comes primarily from sugar cane or sugar beets. High-fructose corn syrup is made essentially by soaking corn kernels to extract corn starch, and using enzymes to turn the glucose in the starch into fructose. The ingredient is a favorite of food makers for practical reasons. Compared with sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup doesn’t mask flavors, has a lower freezing point and retains moisture better, which is useful in making foods like chewy granola bars. And because the corn crop in the United States is heavily subsidized, high-fructose corn syrup is also cheap. As a result, it’s now used in so many foods, from crackers to soft drinks, that it has become one of the biggest sources of calories in the American diet.
But the public perception of high-fructose corn syrup as unhealthful has prompted many food companies to stop using it in their products, including Hunt’s Ketchup, Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice and Wheat Thins crackers.
The F.D.A. has six months to respond to the name-change petition. If the agency accepts it, the decision on whether to allow the name “corn sugar” on food labels may take another 12 to 18 months.
Although food label changes aren’t common, the F.D.A. has allowed name changes in the past. The ingredient first called “low erucic acid rapeseed oil” was changed to “canola oil” in the 1980s. More recently, the F.D.A. allowed prunes to be called “dried plums.”
“It’s rare that food ingredient labels are changed, and when they are it’s always been to provide clarity to consumers,” Ms. Erickson said. “This is a classic case for consumers to better understand an ingredient.”
FROM HUNDREDS OF COMMENTS ON THIS New York Times Article, here are a few that express the feeling of the general public. DRUM ROLL PLEASE....
Well, I could refer to this kind of corporate doublespeak as “bovine excrement”… but that still wouldn’t change the fact that it’s bull….
stop pouring liquid sugar down your throat and get healthier. it’s really that simple.
and tax this poison while we’re at it.
Crap by another name is still crap. “High fructose corn syrup is the new trans fat.” Boo-hoo. Neither are good for you.
— Alec Eiffel
This would be another tragedy of false claims and adversting. High Fructose corn syrup is a manufactured derived chemically engineered product. It is not naturally made, and contains different metabolic structures of fructrose, dextrose, sucrose.
Our bodies systems metabalize these very differently, in blood, or in livers.
We as a nation are FAT enough.
Now, after years of word of mouth efforts, HIGH FRUCTOSE corn syrup is being VOTED OUT by consumers. Sorry producers
It is not laughable, but treasonous, in fact that Producers who decry government oversight and regulation and want less, now want the government to take away the publics right to know and decide in the free market by hiding behind a government name-change, allowing FALSE advertising
This, must not be allowed to happen
— George Jackson
No, the purpose is not to help the consumer. The purpose is to help food manufacturers make more money by using a govt subsidized ingredient which has been shown to be unhealthy for people. Now that the public has finally learned to avoid it, they must change the name. The purpose is to further confuse the consumer. It is the oldest trick in the book.
— Betty Page
Every idiotic food manufacturer when it wants to deceive the customer dumps a few barrels of High Fructose Corn Syrup into the concoction it foists upon the general public—just like deceiving children with candy. Thus everything we consume sickeningly, unnaturally, and chemically sweet. Now changing the name to deceive the public better? This is an idea to increase the sales of this essentially unhealthy (it contributes NOTHING of nutritional value to the consumer’s health) but hidden ingredient Why don’t they call it essence of Brussels sprouts and broccoli, it would help!
— A. Guler
Dumbing down a name isn’t clarification, its obscuring the fact, or in other words its tantamount to lying. Glad to see High Fructose Corn Syrup is on the run. Sorry to hear that the FDA is considering abetting this attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the public. Guess the ad campaign by the High Fructose Corn Syrup that tried to play up on the ignorance of people back-fired. One thing I liked about this article, I now know I wish to avoid things with Canola Oil too.
Once again the FDA is on the side of the manufacturers: if something has a bad reputation, then conceal its presence from consumers. HFCS may be the same as table sugar “in terms of health” (as the article says, research is inconclusive) but to many of us it certainly doesn’t taste as good, and in baked goods it generates a fake chewiness with which preservative-laden products of a certain age can attempt to imitate freshness. The use of HFCS also promotes the trend in which US agriculture produces a few varieties of corn and soybeans to the exclusion of everything else, increasing the danger that a single pathogen could wipe out a large fraction of the industry. So it’s not irrational to elect to avoid HFCS. If the FDA makes it harder for consumers to make that choice, that’s another piece of evidence (along with its behavior in the controversies involving BPA, Vioxx, salmonella-infected eggs, and so on) that it’s time to abolish the agency and start over with a new regulator.
FROM TPP — To clarify, it’s just a petition. The FDA hasn’t ruled yet, nor will they for quite a while.
Why High Fructose Corn Syrup Causes Insulin Resistance
Sugar goes by many names in product ingredient lists. You can see it listed as honey, dextrose, fructose, corn syrup, high-fructose corn syrup, agave nectar, sorbitol, fruit juice concentrate, galactose, lactose, polydextrose, mannitol, sorbitol, xylitol, maltodextrin and turbinado sugar.