Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

High Fructose Corn Syrup To Get a Makeover

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the same-great-taste dept.

Medicine 646

An anonymous reader writes "With its sweetener linked to obesity, some cancers and diabetes, the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) doesn't want you to think 'fructose' when you see high fructose corn syrup in your soda, ketchup or pickles. Instead, the AP reports, the CRA submitted an application to the FDA, hoping to change the name of their top-selling product to 'corn sugar.'"

cancel ×

646 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What the hell? (3, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594438)

"With its sweetener linked to obesity, some cancers and diabetes, the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) doesn't want you to think 'fructose' when you see high fructose corn syrup in your soda, ketchup or pickles. Instead, the AP reports, the CRA submitted an application to the FDA, hoping to change the name of their top-selling product to 'corn sugar.'"

What's in a name? High-fructose corn syrup by any other name would taste as sweet ... and still make your cancer cells multiply.

And here thought that fraud and false advertising was illegal in this country. If the Feds go for this then they're not doing their jobs.

newspeak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33594492)

newspeak=bad

Re:newspeak (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594758)

I'm pretty sure in Newspeak, it would be referred to as HiCorn.

Re:What the hell? (0, Troll)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594504)

Funny thing is, it's not as if high-fructose corn syrup is actually worse for you than a similar amount of cane sugar. The problem is not HFCS as much as it is "foods loaded with sugar."

Re:What the hell? (5, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594536)

Funny thing is, it's not as if high-fructose corn syrup is actually worse for you than a similar amount of cane sugar. The problem is not HFCS as much as it is "foods loaded with sugar."

That's not necessarily true [reuters.com] .

Re:What the hell? (1, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594618)

If you read the article, you have quotes like this:

Too much sugar of any kind not only adds pounds, but is also a key culprit in diabetes, heart disease and stroke, according to the American Heart Association.

And

Tumor cells thrive on sugar

In other words, while one type of sugar may be slightly worse than the other (I have no reason to doubt the study), it's like arguing whether it's worse to get stabbed or shot. Either one is bad.

Re:What the hell? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594670)

If you read the article, you have quotes like this:

Too much sugar of any kind not only adds pounds, but is also a key culprit in diabetes, heart disease and stroke, according to the American Heart Association.

And

Tumor cells thrive on sugar

In other words, while one type of sugar may be slightly worse than the other (I have no reason to doubt the study), it's like arguing whether it's worse to get stabbed or shot. Either one is bad.

No argument ... but that's why I said "not necessarily." Obviously the jury is still out on which sweetener will shorten your life by the greatest amount, so I simply avoid both of them. Hell, Aspartame isn't exactly free of negative effects either. Basically, we Americans just have to work on removing that sweet tooth.

Re:What the hell? (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594632)

HFCS-55 is 55% fructose. Cane sugar is sucrose, which is one quick reaction (which happens in the stomach before absorption of the sugar into the bloodstream) away from being 50% fructose. If the enemy is fructose, cane sugar is almost as bad as HFCS.

Re:What the hell? (3, Interesting)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594662)

And yet soda with HFCS triggers craving with me that is absent when drinking real sugar soda. So who the hell cares about the specifics of the chemistry?

Re:What the hell? (5, Interesting)

nizo (81281) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594890)

I also noticed that when I stopped eating crap that had HFCS in it, I no longer got drowsy in the afternoon. In fact I can tell right away when I've eaten something with HFCS in it, as I inevitably get drowsy not long afterwards. Needless to say I avoid it like the plague now, and so far have lost 40lbs since I stopped eating it.

Re:What the hell? (0)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594892)

Maybe that's because the corn syrup soda tastes better? Even if it were possible to have cravings for soda, that doesn't mean cancer is growing in you.

Agreed (5, Interesting)

Mr 44 (180750) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594938)

It's pretty amazing. Do the experiment yourself - get some "mexican coke" or Pepsi Throwback (with sugar), and some regular soda.

Over the course of 15 minutes, drink 2 cans of regular soda. No big deal, right? Later on or the next day, drink sugar-based soda, and after drinking under 12 ounces of it, you will likely feel full, and like you don't want to drink anymore, in a way thats very different from HFCS-soda. I'd be surpised if you can even finish 24oz of sugar soda in 15 min (without forcing yourself).

Re:What the hell? (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594788)

Small intestine, actually [wikipedia.org]

Of course, the thing with enzyme catalyzed reactions is that there's often a feedback loop.

Re:What the hell? (5, Interesting)

Relic of the Future (118669) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594894)

That reaction is not as trivial to the body as you make it out to be; nor is that 10% imbalance. Eating lots of sugar is bad, yes; but eating lots high-fructose sugar is worse, *measurably* worse, in several biologically-significant ways. Additionally, preliminary research suggest that some of the trace byproducts of the "fructinization" process (methylated something or others) could also have quite a disproportionately-negative effect compared to their small concentration.

Re:What the hell? (0, Troll)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594752)

Cane (table) sugar is 50% fructose. So, if fructose is evil, table sugar is only 10% less evil than HFCF 55.

I'm lead to believe that the glycosidic bond is broken down before the sugar hits the bloodstream, so this small difference in the fructose/glucose ratio is genuinely the only practical (metabolic) difference.

I'm neither a Chemist nor a nutritionist, so corrections are welcome!

-Peter

Re:What the hell? (3, Informative)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594542)

Funny thing is, it's not as if high-fructose corn syrup is actually worse for you than a similar amount of cane sugar. The problem is not HFCS as much as it is "foods loaded with sugar."

Maybe, maybe not. While your essential point is sound, from TFA:

When glucose (contained in sugar) enters the bloodstream, it stimulates production of insulin and of a hormone called leptin, which signals to the brain that the body has eaten enough. By contrast, the fructose contained in high fructose corn syrup doesn’t stimulate the production of leptin. Studies also show that fructose is processed into fat more quickly than is glucose.

A friend of mine made a related point, though. These days you see a lot of things like so-called "natural" sodas which claim to be sweetened with "evaporated cane syrup." I defy anybody to give me a scientific explanation why this is not merely sugar with another name. If sugar is too scary for "health" foods, it stands to reason that "high fructose corn syrup" should be too scary a name for junk food. Why should junk food makers be left out? (More to the point, why should the companies who sell their sodas at Whole Foods get away with it?)

Re:What the hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33594756)

I would imagine the difference is how much refinement goes on.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sugar+cane+juice

The results seem to support my assumption. In which case, it's sugar plus other stuff - which shouldn't be called "sugar" but likely isn't significantly healthier.

Re:What the hell? (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594790)

Evaporated cane syrup is not the same as sugar. It's not cooked and doesn't have the molasses spun out. The name is fairly descriptive. It could be argued that evaporated sugarcane syrup might be even clearer, but there doesn't appear to be an intent to deceive.

On the other hand, renaming HFCS which is descriptive and is well known by consumers to some other name seems more deceptive in intent. It's fairly clear the intent is to create confusion so that people consume something they have consciously decided to avoid. If they want to come up with a substantially different product and call that corn sugar, that would be another matter.

Re:What the hell? (1, Troll)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594920)

Makes sense from a consumer standpoint, but food producers have interests too. Understand that there is a specific rule that requires them to state that the syrup is high in fructose. If we can't justify why that should be required, then maybe that requirement should be lifted.

Re:What the hell? (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594854)

These days you see a lot of things like so-called "natural" sodas which claim to be sweetened with "evaporated cane syrup." I defy anybody to give me a scientific explanation why this is not merely sugar with another name.

As opposed to beet sugar. Some people don't want beet sugar, who knows why. But it's to distinguish the product from beet sugar, not an attempt to hide the fact that it's sugar.

Re:What the hell? (4, Informative)

ScottBob (244972) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594898)

When HFCS is produced, enzymes are used to break down starch into glucose and fructose. After the process, the enzymes are removed. Problem is, they don't get out all the enzymes. Therefore, when you suck down that giant sized cola at your local chain franchise joint on hamburger row, not only does the HFCS go straight into your bloodstream without needing to be broken down by your body's natural sucrose enzymes, the leftover enzymes combine with the extra large order of fries you just wolfed down, combining with your own natural enzymes to break the potato starch down quicker, therefore even more glucose and fructose goes into your bloodstream very quickly, causing one hell of a blood sugar spike, to where your pancreas can't put out enough insulin to get rid of the overload of glucose (and your liver is totally occupied with the overload of fructose so it can't process the cholesterol from the burger) and blammo, type II diabetes.

Re:What the hell? (-1, Troll)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594546)

It's not fraud, technically it is sugar. Anyone who actually cares about it (apparently you think it gives you cancer) will realize the change.

In my opinion it is a good thing, because then we can lump all sugars together and say they are all bad, which they are, instead of giving people some kind of false 'feel good' that they get because they drink soda with real sugar. Sugar is bad. Even if there are any health benefits of eating sugar instead of HFCS, they are far outweighed by the problems caused by eating any kind of sugar in the first place. Let's keep things in perspective, here on Slashdot at least.

Re:What the hell? (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594808)

I guess you're not a big fan of fresh fruits then?

Re:What the hell? (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594876)

I say we petition the government to outlaw glucose as well. ;)

Re:What the hell? (3, Informative)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594886)

It's not fraud, technically it is sugar. Anyone who actually cares about it (apparently you think it gives you cancer) will realize the change.

I point-blank did not say that corn syrup causes cancer: nor, I might add, did the article I linked. Guess you didn't bother to read it.

I just said the two aren't the same. Yes, chemically they are all "sugars" but that doesn't mean we can't be specific, nor does it mean that all compounds in that family have the same effect on the human body. Considering that just about everything we eat in this country is over-sweetened with either "real" sugar or corn syrup, it would be nice to have some idea if one is worse than the other, and why.

I avoid all kinds of sugar on general principle (I use unsweetened ketchup, unsweetened fruit juices ... I really try hard to avoid the stuff.) Unsweetened foods are hard to find and often more expensive, but I know what they can do to me. Maybe I'm more aware of the risks than most, because my father died of complications from diabetes. But, if that study is correct and fructose does cause certain cancer cells to divide more rapidly, well that could (for example) be something for cancer patients to be aware of when planning their menu. It wouldn't surprise me to find that increased use of corn syrup in the past few decades has increased the prevalence of certain kinds of cancer, and we may very well find other significant differences between cane sugar and corn syrup: more research is needed.

Re:What the hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33594956)

... unsweetened fruit juices...

You do realize that fructose is fruit sugar, don't you? As in, found in fruit.

Re:What the hell? (5, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594962)

The problem is, regular corn syrup more rightfully deserves the name "corn sugar". However, corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup are completely different animals.

Taking the word "fructose" out suggests that HFCS is somehow a natural sugar obtained from corn, then processed into granular form, much as sugar is formed by filtering out everything but the sucrose from sugar cane syrup and leaving the remaining granular sucrose. Such an implication would be an outright deception. Corn syrup, as it comes out of the plant, does not contain significant amounts of fructose. It is basically glucose syrup. High fructose corn syrup, by contrast, is corn syrup in which much of the glucose has been enzymatically converted into fructose. It resembles corn syrup about as closely as a plastic toy resembles its original form after you soak it in gasoline for a few hours.

Having the word "fructose" in the name of this ingredient is key to explaining how this differs from corn syrup. Eliminating the word "fructose" would have the potential to cause significant confusion, and any such proposal should be soundly rejected. I'd be okay with them calling it "high fructose corn sugar" if they would prefer, or maybe even "fructose-enhanced corn sugar", but if they think they can get away with concealing fructose as an ingredient, they have another thing coming. Either way, you know something is very wrong when an industry attempts to conceal its activities through name changes. That's tantamount to admitting guilt.

Re:What the hell? (3, Funny)

value_added (719364) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594562)

What's in a name?

Well, would you be inclined buy something accurately labelled as "soy juice", or would you buy "soy milk" instead? Personally, I prefer moo cow fuck milk [youtube.com] for both the honesty and the wholesome goodness, with the added benefit of not spending my time reading manufacturer labels.

Re:What the hell? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594674)

"There's no such thing as soy milk, because there's no soy tittie...is there."

Re:What the hell? (2, Insightful)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594774)

Everyone knows what it is. Would you say that coconut *milk* and peanut *butter* are misnomers as well?

Re:What the hell? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33594960)

Coconut milk and peanut butter at least taste good, even if the former may be bad for you. Neither is in competition with real milk; peanut butter consumption and real milk consumption often go hand in hand.

Soy "milk", on the other hand, is an attempt to replace a great food with a yucky substitute in the name of nutritional "correctness". Apart from use for people who are lactose-intolerant or otherwise unable to drink the real thing, it should just DIE! DIE!! DIE!!!! And if it's not going to do us that favor, its vendors can at least stop calling it milk.

(my opinion)

Re:What the hell? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594912)

What's in a name?

Well, would you be inclined buy something accurately labelled as "soy juice", or would you buy "soy milk" instead? Personally, I prefer moo cow fuck milk [youtube.com] for both the honesty and the wholesome goodness, with the added benefit of not spending my time reading manufacturer labels.

Well, I was trying to point out that there's a lot in a name, which is why I said "... and still make your cancer cells multiply."

And yeah, I watched Lewis Black on Broadway too. Funny stuff.

Re:What the hell? (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594954)

Personally I think they should rename HFCS to diabetiesucrulos instead.

Re:What the hell? (0)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594718)

Personally, I propose the name be changed to "Sweet, Sweet Death Syrup".

That implies how sweet it is and is descriptive of what it will ultimately do to you!

Re:What the hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33594860)

"What's in a name? High-fructose corn syrup by any other name would taste as sweet ... and still make your cancer cells multiply. "

Fructose causes cancer? Citation please.

Re:What the hell? (4, Interesting)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594914)

High fructose corn syrup != fructose.

HFC doesn't exist in nature, fructose does. Just as hydrogenated shortening (transfats) don't exist in nature but butter and lard does. And look it up your self, there is plenty out there with a simple Googling.

Re:What the hell? (1, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594908)

People work at the FDA for the specific purpose of doing the industry favors that will later be repaid as cushy high paying jobs when they retire from government. The FDA will trip over themselves trying to beat each other to signing it first.

That'll help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33594458)

What's this? Our product causes disease and is really, really bad for you?! Let's change the name!

The hell are they smoking?

Um, no. (4, Insightful)

jra (5600) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594474)

When manufacturers start *printing "No HFCS!" on packaging*, your ship has pretty much sailed, folks.

Re:Um, no. (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594944)

They already do. I buy several things labeled that way. Mainly bread, oddly enough.

So.... (5, Insightful)

quantumghost (1052586) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594478)

...can we start calling cigarettes, "All natural inhaled plant extracts"?

Re:So.... (1)

bre_dnd (686663) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594516)

Sure. If they're truly additive free -- as practically none are [citation needed].

Re:So.... (4, Insightful)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594570)

Hand rolled cigars. They are still bad for you.

Re:So.... (4, Funny)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594538)

Nonsense, from now on, cigarettes will have pictures of balloons on the brightly colored packages and they'll be known as FunStix. PCBs will be yum-yums and DDT will be freedom spray. Melamine shall be known as "Baby Formula"...OH Wait!

Re:So.... (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594684)

Nonsense, from now on, cigarettes will have pictures of balloons on the brightly colored packages and they'll be known as FunStix. PCBs will be yum-yums and DDT will be freedom spray. Melamine shall be known as "Baby Formula"...OH Wait!

freedom spray? is it a terrorist repellent? should u cover urself head to toe everyday for the good of the country?

Re:So.... (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594932)

I've never heard of a terrorist attack anywhere where Freedom Spray has been recently applied, so SURE!

Re:So.... (2, Informative)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594622)

Can we start calling cigarettes, "All natural inhaled plant extracts"?

Probably not, since there's a lot of crap in there in addition to the tobacco that's probably not all that natural.

Re:So.... (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594836)

American Spirit claimed that their cigarettes were made from "100% Additive-Free Tobacco*"

*no additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.

warning label (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33594480)

at the same time have the FDA have them put a warning on the label

"corn sugar" is known to the State of CA as a cancer causing agent known as "high fructose corn syrup".

Cool story bro (1)

blai (1380673) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594486)

I'm selling something called sprite. It's actually a glass of diethylmercury, but of course I wouldn't want you to know about that, so I renamed it.

Re:Cool story bro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33594528)

May a thousand men fart(hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and methane combine with hydrogen sulfide and ammonia) in your general direction, bro.

Re:Cool story bro (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594694)

So you're not looking for repeat business, eh?

I've submitted (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594488)

I've submitted several other names for the FDA's consideration. Healing Corn Make Sweeter, Corn Taste Better, and Yummy definitely not unhealthy Corn product.

With apologies to The Bard (5, Insightful)

peacefinder (469349) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594490)

What's in a name? that which we call an industrial chemical
By any other name would taste as sweet;
So HFCS would, were it not HFCS call'd,
Retain that cloying mouthfeel which it owes
Without that title. HFCS, doff thy name;
And for that name, which is no part of thee,
Take all my pancreas.

Evil stuff (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594506)

Why can't these guys do the right thing and stop making this evil stuff? Playing a shell game with the facts does not change reality.

Re:Evil stuff (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33594554)

Corn lobbyists.

Re:Evil stuff (5, Informative)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594620)

No, its sugar lobbyists as much, if not more, than corn lobbyists. The US has import tariffs on foreign cane sugar to prop up the price of the domestic stuff, which makes it too expensive to use in wide-scale production here. That's why foreign versions of Coke and Pepsi products are made with real sugar, where as we get the cheap corn shit.

I was a lobbyist myself for a non-profit social organization in a past career. I was at a luncheon fundraiser in DC for a congressman from a midwestern, corn-raising state and was seated across from a sugar lobbyist, and in between a guy from Raytheon and a guy from Microsoft. The sugar lobbyist was the biggest asshole of the three, too.

Re:Evil stuff (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33594896)

Money. Our money which go to farmers (and not small, noble, independent farmers, of course) in the form of subsidies, which are spent on lobbyists and making more corn syrup, for more money and more subsidies.

Corn syrup doesn't just (maybe) cause cancer in our individual bodies, it is the by=product of a cancer of our political body.

Re:Evil stuff (-1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594572)

Why can't these guys do the right thing and stop making this evil stuff?

AFAIK, high fructose corn syrup is a by-product of various industrial uses of corn (processing corn for ethanol, for animal food, whatever). Corn processors get it for free as runoff, which means it's essentially pure profit when they sell it back to the food industry.

Re:Evil stuff (4, Interesting)

Relic of the Future (118669) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594734)

AFAIK, high fructose corn syrup is a by-product of various industrial uses of corn

You are wrong. Very wrong. "AFAIK" is an insufficient fig leaf for your level of wrongness, which seems nearly malicious in its degree.

Re:Evil stuff (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594762)

so drinking soda is good for the environment? as its full of by-products? take that stupid vegans even tofu takes up good land that could be used to feed children in africa

Re:Evil stuff (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594822)

Probably not ethanol. I suspect, without looking it up, that corn sugars are what are converted into ethanol.

Re:Evil stuff (2, Insightful)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594592)

Massive subsidies for corn farming (also in the form of biofuel kickbacks) combined with tariffs on imported sugar to protect certain agricultural sectors make corn syrup an incredibly inexpensive and profitable sweetening agent.

This is the big reason why most sodas in the US use corn syrup whereas foreign recipes usually rely on ordinary sugar.

In short, no politician wants to risk losing support in the midwest or the southeast. Advocating reform on either of these policies is political suicide in those regions.

Re:Evil stuff (2, Funny)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594594)

You want the "Corn Refiners" to stop refining corn?

Re:Evil stuff (4, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594608)

Why can't these guys do the right thing and stop making this evil stuff? Playing a shell game with the facts does not change reality.

Yes, well, you can thank a company called UOP for pioneering the process of making this stuff on an industrial scale (that was actually back in the sixties.) And you can also thank Congress for so fucking over the countries that used to grow cane sugar and sell it to us, which is why we even needed a substitute in the first place. Now, of course, those growers have switched to cocaine, cannabis, and other much more profitable crops.

Re:Evil stuff (2, Informative)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594628)

Why can't these guys do the right thing and stop making this evil stuff? Playing a shell game with the facts does not change reality.

Because Iowa hold their caucuses early in the presidential election cycle and a lot of candidates like to use that as a chance to get their campaign's momentum going. Many areas of public policy, particularly anything affecting corn farming, are dictated by the feelings of the corn farmers of Iowa.

Re:Evil stuff (4, Insightful)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594826)

Well, the candidates could do what politicians do best: lie through their teeth. Then eliminate the tariffs as would be appropriate for a country seeking to participate in the GLOBAL ECONOMY .

Re:Evil stuff (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594658)

Playing a shell game with the facts does not change reality.

You've never worked on Wall Street, have you? I know of many millionaires who have had their realities changed by "playing a shell game with the facts". Now very few of them happen to be "customers", but as they say, "The brokerage firm makes money, the broker makes money, and two out of three ain't bad."

Re:Evil stuff (2, Insightful)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594910)

Can you explain your assertion that HFCS is "evil"?

As I've stated elsewhere [slashdot.org] in this story, HFCS is only 10% more "evil" than table sugar, and that's if we presuppose that fructose is evil. (You know, fructose, the principal form of sugar found in those well-known health-wreckers, apples.)

I'm not saying that you're wrong, by any means. But, while I hear that HFCS is bad all the time, I've never heard any sort of convincing explanation how it's worse than sucrose.

Corn subsidies, on the other hand . . .

-Peter

Real sugar soda (4, Funny)

w00tsauce (1482311) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594522)

Kinda off topic, but is anyone else enjoying the "real-sugar" sodas that are in supermarkets? Man so delicious, I stocked up on it. I wish this was sold all the time.

Re:Real sugar soda (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594614)

I have only found Pepsi Throwbacks... Coke seems absent from that lineup. :( I have heard about specialty foods having "Kosher Coke" made with sugar but have not been able to find one.

Re:Real sugar soda (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33594828)

If you can find a Kroger that sells Mexican Coca-Cola, it's made with cane sugar and very tasty.

Re:Real sugar soda (4, Informative)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594638)

Kinda off topic, but is anyone else enjoying the "real-sugar" sodas that are in supermarkets? Man so delicious, I stocked up on it. I wish this was sold all the time.

Very much on-topic. I grew up on Coca Cola as a kid long before the switch to corn syrup, and I don't care what anyone says, high-fructose corn syrup is not the same as cane sugar. There was nothing quite like a tall glass bottle of Coke, ice-cold, on a hot summer's day. So yes, I have tried the "real-sugar" sodas (just for old time's sake) and yeah, it was good. Sad to say, thanks to the switch to corn-based sweetener, Coca Cola hasn't been "it" for some time now.

Re:Real sugar soda (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594964)

I buy real Coca-Cola (not Coke Classic) in 16 ounce returnable bottles from the local Mexican bakery.

Smaller, non-returnable 12 ounce bottles have been for sale forever next to the refried beans and tortillas at grocery stores (local and national) since forever, also imported from Mexico.

Go have a look around, and I'm sure you'll find some proper Coca-Cola, made with proper cane sugar, and not sold in a particularly seasonal or promotional fashion.

Re:Real sugar soda (1)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594846)

As I understand it, the Dr Pepper real-sugar 125th anniversary are a limited trial to determine if there is a market for real-sugar sodas.

My wife and I like the Dublin (TX) Dr Peppers because that is one of only 2 Dr Pepper plants (both in TX) that still use only real-sugar..... The problem is they're very expensive if we buy them locally, and a day trip to get from the source.

We've been buying extra 12 packs of the real-sugar editions hoping to boost the sales numbers and convince the decision makers that the real-sugar sales are worth keeping.

Re:Real sugar soda (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594864)

The 365 Orange Creme Sodas from Whole Foods are out of this world. Like a liquid Dreamsicle.

Deja-vu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33594534)

So, rather than educate the public about HFCS, and how the body utilizes it in all those products they buy, they do what every other Corporation in history has done. Launch a marketing campaign.

These Corporations really don't get what the Internet has done for the dissemenation of information. Like with the HDCP master key yesterday, the 'cat is out of the bag', and it can't be put back in.

No real surprise here people... All YOU need to do is avoid anything with HFCS in it. Yes, it's possible. I do it every day.

Not the first time (5, Informative)

jothar hillpeople (1789504) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594548)

...and won't be the last. "Confectioners' glaze" (common candy coating) sounds so much better than "lac bug secretion". "Gelatin" sounds so much better than "pig skin extract". "Carmine" (used for red coloring) sounds better than "cochineal insect secretion".

Re:Not the first time (1, Troll)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594634)

"veal" sounds better than tortured baby cow...

Re:Not the first time (4, Funny)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594738)

...and won't be the last. "Confectioners' glaze" (common candy coating) sounds so much better than "lac bug secretion"

Shellac, what can't it do? It really IS a floor wax and a dessert topping.

"Gelatin" sounds so much better than "pig skin extract"

Well, gelatin can have many sources, not just pig and not just skin.

Re:Not the first time (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33594922)

Mostly bovine and mostly osseous... yumm-O!

Interestingly... (0, Troll)

feepness (543479) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594588)

Cane sugar has more fructose than high-fructose corn syrup.

Corn sugar is actually a more accurate name, though high glucose sugar would be even more accurate.

Re:Interestingly... (2, Informative)

jmcharry (608079) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594858)

One problem is that corn sugar is a synonym for dextrose, which is used as an adjunct in brewing. I don't think fructose is as fermentable, which would result in a very different product.

Re:Interestingly... (2, Informative)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594862)

It's an accurate name. It's called high-fructose corn syrup because it has a lot more fructose than regular corn syrup, which is what HFCS is made from.

To be fair, "corn sugar" is slightly deceptive, in that it's renaming an existing product to make it sound similar to a different, more-desired product, but it's entirely accurate. Glucose, fructose, and sucrose, along with many others, are all sugars.

In other news (1)

He who knows (1376995) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594610)

Sugar companys have vowed to protest this change to prevent their name being draged to the ground.

Re:In other news (3, Insightful)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594868)

Sucrose is not good for you, the reason HFCS gets all the attention because fructose is noticeably worse. Sugar refiners deserve to have their names dragged through the mud almost as much as corn refiners have been.

Frankly, I think the CRA should be sued for attempting to defraud the American public by selling a product known to be harmful under a new name for the sole purpose of deceiving said public into buying a product they do not wish to buy.

A rose by any other name (3, Insightful)

Dracos (107777) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594626)

Still makes us all fat.

Re:A rose by any other name (1)

Geccoman (18319) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594848)

True story: I stopped eating/drinking anything with sugar in it, other than things like fruit, where it is still in it's original form. I lost 40 lbs in less than 6 months. I even increased the amount of food I was eating, to include MUCH more fat than before.

I was not willing to chew on a piece of sugar cane, so I guess you could say I had to limit my choices somewhat.

"Corn sugar" already taken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33594648)

I hate to say it, but the corn sugar moniker is already taken. Corn sugar is dextrose, not fructose.

I 100% Agree with them. (1)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594654)

I don't see what the problem is. They should be able to change the name...

High Fructose Corn Sugar.

Now if they want to drop the "High Fructose" part, then that's going to be a problem.

Re:I 100% Agree with them. (2, Informative)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594800)

It's actually "High Fructose Corn Syrup" currently. This is because it is a liquid sugar (sugar + water).

Re:I 100% Agree with them. (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594880)

It has the same amount of fructose, roughly, as digested sucrose. It's just called high-fructose corn syrup because it has a lot more fructose than regular corn syrup, which is (almost?) entirely glucose.

"Corn Sugar" & "Sea Kittens" -- stupid rebran (3, Interesting)

rootrot (103518) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594688)

In response to [successful] bad press, the HFCS crowd is pushing for the rebranding the horrid syrup as "corn sugar". A waste of time and money, I wager, in the end. Ignoring the fact that it is reasonably well established that HFCS is not good for you, it tastes like crap. Compare yellow-capped Coke (yellow=kosher) with the "regular" sold in the US...there is no comparison (inexplicably, Coke only inflicts HFCS on the US market).

PETA recently attempted the same campaign to rebrand FISH as SEA KITTENS [peta.org] ...apparently they felt that people wouldn't be so willing to eat something with a cuddly persona. Completely backfired with me...I had never thought of it before, but have you tried Kitten & Chips??? A new personal favorite. Kitten, the other, other white meat.

Who knows, maybe kitten tastes better in a nice HFCS glaze...

Sarah Palin! (-1, Troll)

nickdwaters (1452675) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594710)

Even if you put lipstick on it, it's still a pig.

Ask a doctor... (1, Interesting)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594802)

Ask a doctor about corn syrup some time.

Every time I mention it, I get a response along the lines of..."Interesting.", or "I hadn't heard that.". The reason I bring it up is because it makes me sick, literally.

For many years I had severe heartburn. The doctors prescribed everything, none of it worked. In short, I received no relief by going to a doctor. Later, after deciding to experiment myself, I altered my diet. The first thing I focused on was the ingredient that was most pervasive--corn syrup.

I now avoid it like the plague. Within a month of removing it from my diet (as much as possible, the shit is in everything), the heartburn stopped entirely.

Since then, I have brought it up with every single doctor I have seen and they all react with the same indifferent, ambiguous reply. They all seem to know nothing about it, nor do they appear interested in the results I've experienced. And every time I see that response I have to ask myself why they aren't more interested--why? I've literally spent thousands of dollars trying to find a solution to a medical problem and they refuse to discuss a possible cause, casually dismissing my findings? Why?

The only logical conclusion I can come to, considering the stuff (corn syrup) has been in HEAVY use for decades now, is that the medical "industry" knows, but cannot monetize the solution--removing corn syrup from ones diet. Telling people to stop eating it would actually cut into their business. Corn syrup makes them money in the form of direct medical symptoms that need to be treated and the inherent medical problems associated with obesity. LOTS of money.

Try it next time you're at the doctors. Just say something like "Hey, a friend told me that corn syrup causes heartburn." and see what sort of response you get. Do a Google search. Notice how the vast majority of the sites that mention it are "alternative" medicine sources and bloggers? Where is the industry standpoint on the issue?

This entire experience has been enlightening for me, in a sad way. I now see doctors as humans with the same fallible nature as the rest of us--some are just greedy fucks that have not a care in the world for my actual health.

Name already taken? (4, Informative)

Qubit (100461) | more than 3 years ago | (#33594840)

Per Amazon [amazon.com] :

Corn Sugar is the common name for dextrose.

and per Wise Geek [wisegeek.com]

Corn sugar is a natural sweetener that is made utilizing starch that is extracted from kernels of corn. The extracted cornstarch is then refined to create a solid sugar or to make another popular sweetening agent known as corn syrup...

The process for making corn sugar begins with the removal of starchy elements from the corn. The extracted elements are actually glucose, although the refining process will transform them into another form of sugar known as dextrose. With the production of syrup, the corn sugar becomes a high fructose corn syrup...

It sounds like "corn sugar" is already used to refer to a separate product. If they don't want to continue using "HFCS," then come up with another word, the same way they did with "Tilapia."

But I think they're shooting themselves in the foot. I mean, are they trying to give ammunition to the healthier foods? First, the other projects can continue to claim that they don't contain HFCS, and they can also make fun of the other brands for trying to hide what's in their foods.

I mean, it's going to be like a fucking field day for the health foods.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>