by Susanne Posel
June 2, 2012
from OccupyCorporatism Website



Just this week, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a ban on the sale of soda in the city’s restaurants, delis and movie theaters in an attempt to deter obesity in New Yorkers.

Michelle Obama made the statement that the rising obesity rates in America are a “threat to national security.”

The soft drink industry has taken a sizable hit to their profits due to the recent revelations about the flavorings they use.

Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have changed their recipe, removing a known carcinogen 4-methylimidazole (4-MI or 4-MEI) from its soft drinks. The compound is used to make the drink have its caramel coloring.

One of those additives is high fructose corn syrup (HFSC). And the Corn Refiners Association’s (CRA) recent proposal to rename HFSC to “corn sugar” is not bringing more positive light to the situation.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rejected the CRA’s request that HFSC be referred to as corn sugar on nutrition labels. In a letter addressed to Audrae Erickson, president of the CRA, the reason the FDA gave was that their definition of sugar is a solid, dried and crystallized “food” - not syrup.

Erickson retorted that since HFCS is not a sugar, it must be confined to the “added sugar’ portion of the nutritional label and this exposure would make the substance’s presence obvious.

To coincide with their proposal to the FDA, the CRA have launched a propaganda campaign to fool the public into thinking this renaming of the dangerous substance somehow gave it nutritional value.


The CRA would like for consumers to see corn sugar as they perceive granulated sugar.

Michael M. Landa, director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the FDA, recognized that the CRA wanted corn sugar, which has been used to describe dextrose, would now be used instead of HFCS. Landa knows that dextrose has been the name for over 30 years, and that hiding the name HFCS would put the public’s health at great risk.

In 2011, the Sugar Association (SA) filed a lawsuit against the CRA, citing that the marketing ploy was “misleading”.

Dan Callister, lawyer for the SA, remarked that sugar and HFCS are separate products.

“What’s going on here is basically a con game to suggest otherwise. What do con men do? They normally try to change their name. The FDA has thankfully stopped that.”

The CRA maintains that the FDA’s rejection of their proposal was based on a technicality.


They claim that,

“the vast majority of American consumers are confused about HFCS.”

The CRA explains that most forms of HFCS are actually half fructose and half glucose.

Well, that clears it up.

Oh wait, there was that recent study that showed HFCS dramatically affects the brain’s ability to cognitively function; i.e. it makes you stupid. Marion Nestle, nutrition professor at New York University, approves of the FDA’s decision.


Nestle says that,

“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.”

However, Nestle adds:

“The Sugar Association’s behavior is not much better.”

The evidence of how sweeteners affect us bio-chemically and psychologically sparks questions of their viability for serving to ensure public health.

“Sugars, plural, are sugars. Sucrose is glucose and fructose. So is HFCS,” Nestle said . “Everyone would be better off eating a lot less of both.”

The American Medical Association (AMA) has expressed desire to conduct research on HFCS, but retains that there is insufficient data to ban its use completely.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) also supports the AMA; including that there is no evidence that HFCS is not worse for the human body than sugar.


But the CSPI also mentions that Americans still consume an unhealthy level of both.