Corn Sweeteners are "Natural" Sugars

There’s no doubt that corn is one of the world’s most a-maize-ing crops!  It has so many uses that benefit people all around the world.  Over the next few weeks, we will feature a new blog series called, “For the Love of Corn”, where we will look at the six different high-value corn product categories and how they are used.

The first high-value corn product category we will look at is Corn Sweeteners! Corn Sweeteners are one of the most important refined corn products.  Last year, corn sweeteners supplied nearly 50 percent of the U.S. nutritive sweetener market. Corn sweeteners, like sugar and honey, are natural and meet the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) policy for use of the term “natural,” meaning that “nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food.”

Although the FDA has not established a formal definition of the term "natural" for food ingredients, it is accepted that products derived from natural materials are considered natural. The FDA has concluded that "natural" flavors include those products derived from processes such as those used in corn refining. Therefore, corn sweeteners, such as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which is made from corn—a natural grain product—is consistent with the definition of natural.

High fructose corn syrup, like table sugar, is composed of fructose and glucose. HFCS comes in two compositions—HFCS-42 and HFCS-55. A simple comparison of the percentage of glucose and fructose reveals its striking similarities to table sugar. 

• HFCS-42 = 42% fructose + 58% glucose
• HFCS-55 = 55% fructose + 45% glucose
• Table sugar = 50% fructose and 50% glucose

In fact, due to their similar structures, many health professionals agree that whether it’s sugar from corn or sugar from cane, your body can’t tell the difference—your body metabolizes both the same way.

High fructose corn syrup is one corn sweetener that gets a lot of buzz. It’s that sweet addition that makes your soda taste delicious and can be found in many other products in the grocery store. One of the greatest attributes of HFCS, is its ability to improve food quality—and U.S. food manufacturers have recognized this. HFCS has the ability to preserve and increase product quality while adding taste, texture and freshness. Here is a quick overview of some of the benefits it adds to our food:

• Texture - Chewy cookies, snack bars and other baked goods derive their soft and moist texture from HFCS since it retains moisture and resists crystallization after baking.
• Browning - HFCS is a reducing sugar that gives superior browning and flavor to baked goods such as breads, dinner rolls, cakes, cookies and breakfast cereals.
• Stability - HFCS maintains the long-term quality of beverages and condiments by protecting them from variations due to storage temperature fluctuations or low product acidity.
• Consistency - High fructose corn syrup has a lower freezing point, so frozen beverage concentrates can be poured straight from the freezer and are easier for consumers to thaw and mix with water.
• Baking - The sugars in HFCS are quickly and easily fermented resulting in sweeter bread that is more economical to make than with table sugar.

Given all of that, it's not surprising that you see HFCS in a lot of the products you see on the supermarket shelves. And now the next time you see HFCS listed on the ingredient list of your favorite product, you’ll know why. Learn more about how much HFCS is in foods by clicking here.

Sugar is sugar. Not lawsuits.

If sugar is sugar, then what is the fuss about and why are two groups in agriculture against each other?

Recently, an ongoing lawsuit has shown its ugly head coming from eight makers of processed table sugar and two sugar trade associations suing the Corn Refiners Association (CRA), claiming that their public education campaign is "false and misleading." The public education campaign initiated by CRA was to communicate the simple fact that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a form of sugar, widely accepted in the medical and nutrition communities to be nutritionally equivalent to other forms of sugar, including table sugar.

In October 2011, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs (refined sugar industry) failed to present any evidence that they have been injured by CRA’s statements, or that CRA’s speech has influenced any consumer purchasing decisions. The Court also ruled that CRA’s speech was “in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.”

Now, the CRA member companies have also filed a Counterclaim against The Sugar Association based on The Sugar Association’s false and misleading representations that processed sugar is different from HFCS in ways that are beneficial to consumers’ health. The Counterclaim further alleges that The Sugar Association’s statements deceive consumers into believing that they will be healthier if they consume foods and beverages with processed sugar instead of HFCS. The lawsuit is scheduled for a jury trial to begin in November 2015 in federal court in Los Angeles, California.

For one, as a consumer – I believe sugar is sugar. Two - I find it disgusting that the two processed sugar companies are having to attack each other. Agriculture is already small (2% of the population), so why the need to fight amongst ourselves.

As corn farmers, we obviously want to continue to have HFCS as an option because it provides a market for our corn. But all of us are consumers (because we all eat!), and we have choices! We can drink our pop with HFCS or we can choose to eat a refined sugar-filled candy bar. News flash – neither is “healthier”/good or bad for us – but we have a choice to eat what we want. Also, HFCS is not only a sweetener, it also is used to keep foods fresher longer, like breads and frozen foods.

Fear-mongering is what the refined sugar association is building. They are misleading consumers to believe that sugar from beets or sugar cane is “healthier” than corn. All three of these are plants – grown naturally – so this claim is ridiculous. Sugar is sugar and we all have the choice to consume it or not.

There's no Sugarcoating it. Sugar is Sugar.

Recently, there was an article in the Lincoln Journal Star on USDA's research comparing honey, cane sugar and high fructose corn syrup. The findings of the study are very positive, however, the headline of this article was not so sweet.

While the headline read "Honey is just as bad as high-fructose corn sweetener", the story actually reported on USDA research that found honey, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and cane sugar to have essentially the same impact on human metabolism in terms of blood sugar, insulin, body weight, cholesterol and blood pressure. In fact, the researcher is quoted as saying, "A sweetener is a sweetener, no matter the source."  In other words, sugar is sugar is sugar—and the key to sugar consumption, regardless of the source, is moderation.

So, in effect, the headline could have easily been written to say that honey is as bad as cane sugar—or that honey was found to be as good as HFCS.  Unfortunately, the headline—which is what many readers use to form opinions without reading the story itself—reinforced the myth that HFCS is "bad sugar."

There is no question that public interest in food has grown dramatically.  At the same time, so has the level of misinformation and misunderstanding.  It doesn't help when an important story that can actually provide positive research-based information is carelessly mislabeled by a headline that leads the public further astray. So, if you ever have any questions about HFCS, please do not hesitate to reach out to the staff at the Nebraska Corn Board.  Additionally, below are some answers to some FAQ's about sugar.

Here’s the skinny on sugar…

What’s the difference between the sugar in fruit and the sugar in soda?

• There is no difference. The sugars found in fruits and vegetables are the same as those found in sugar cane, sugar beets and high-fructose corn syrup: fructose and glucose. Fruits and vegetables bring the added benefit of fiber, vitamins and other nutrients that are not available in sugars alone.

How does the body metabolize excess sugar?

• Consuming excess glucose or fructose will result in excess body fat, leading to elevated levels of blood sugar. These processes happen in the human body regardless of the sugar source

Does sugar cause diabetes?

• Sugar itself is not a direct cause of diabetes. Diabetes is made worse when a person gains excess body fat through consumption of excess food of any type—starch, protein, fat, carbohydrates, etc.

For more information, visit: sweetsurprise.com

For fairness to farmers, consumers, let's switch to 'corn sugar' on labels

A piece with the title of this post on allowing "high fructose corn syrup" (HCFS) to be called "corn sugar" appeared in the Omaha World Herald yesterday. It was written by Carl Sousek, a farmer from Prague, Neb., and president of the Nebraska Corn Growers Association.

This is the second piece in Nebraska's two main dailies in the last week. If you recall, the Lincoln Journal Star took a stand on the issue on Thanksgiving.

Here are a few lines from Sousek, but you can check out the full piece here.

A petition now before the Food and Drug Administration seeks approval to allow the alternate name "corn sugar" for "high fructose corn syrup" as an option on food ingredient labels. The FDA has yet to rule, and it is by no means a sure thing that the FDA will approve the request.

Why the request for a name change? The truth is that the term "corn sugar" more accurately describes what this ingredient actually is — a sugar made from corn. Ingredient names on food labels should be clear and reflect in no uncertain terms what the ingredient is. And you can't get much clearer than "corn sugar." This alternate name would enable consumers to better identify added sugars in the foods they purchase and clear up lingering consumer confusion.

This is not a partisan issue. Both of Nebraska's U.S. senators, Ben Nelson and Mike Johanns, have argued that the name change is entirely appropriate, telling the FDA in a June 24 letter that " 'corn sugar' is a better alternate name for high fructose corn syrup. Consumers better understand its fructose level, calories and sweetness when the term 'corn sugar' is substituted for high fructose corn syrup."

Science also supports the change to "corn sugar." Comparing high fructose corn syrup to table sugar, the two ingredients contain almost equal parts of the two simple sugars — fructose and glucose. The American Dietetic Association stated that table sugar and high fructose corn syrup are nutritionally equivalent.

Editorial: Corn sugar is better label

An editorial in the Lincoln Journal Star published on Thanksgiving argues for changing the name of "high fructose corn syrup" to "corn sugar."

The editorial makes some great points about the corn-based sweetener and calls on the Food & Drug Administration to approve the change. Be sure to check it out.

Here are a few lines from the editorial:

Currently some consumers seem to think they can benefit their health by switching from products that contain high-fructose corn syrup to those labeled as containing sugar.

That's not what reliable experts say.

The American Dietetic Association says, "Both sweeteners contain the same number of calories and consist of equal parts of fructose and glucose. Once absorbed into the bloodstream, the two sweeteners are indistinguishable."

Dr. Arthur Frank of George Washington University says, "HFC is the chemical and nutritional equivalent of table sugar. The two substances have the same composition, and are metabolized identically."

Michael Jacobsen of the Center for Science in the Public Interest says, "to pretend that a product sweetened with sugar is healthier than high fructose corn syrup is totally misguided."
....

The name change to corn sugar is accurate, simple and clear. It will help stop consumers from fooling themselves into thinking there is an easier option than avoiding total calories.

The FDA has been receiving public comment for more than a year. There's no reason for the agency to delay longer. It should approve the name change.

Click here to read more at the Journal Star's website.

Soda's 'natural' sugar marketing gimmick falls flat

There is no nutritional difference between corn sugar (high fructose corn syrup, HFCS) and cane or beet sugar – a sugar is a sugar, after all. They contain pretty much the same amounts of fructose and glucose – and even the number of calories are the same.

Yet some companies fall prey to the marketing gimmick by making the switch, claiming cane or beet (table) sugar is "natural" while implying that corn sugar is not. (FDA begs to differ...all are natural, but certainly sugar doesn't just pop out of the ground, does it? Really?)

Sierra Mist and PepsiCo fell for the marketing gimmick and made the switch last year – a move that, on its own, is fine. After all, who cares which sweetener a soft drink company uses? Especially one that's dead last in the lemon-lime category. (Sprite is the leader with about 5 percent of all soda sales, 7UP has 2.5 percent of the market and Sierra Mist, which claims to be the "soda nature would drink," is a distant third with less than 1 percent of the market. Apparently nature isn't holding up its end of the bargain.)

The problem is what Sierra Mist did next: It attempted to boost sales by spending big bucks re-branding the lemon-lime soda as all natural – implying that others sweetened with corn sugar were fake. The result? Sales dropped 11 percent last year, according to an article in the Wall Street Journal (citing Beverage Digest).

The WSJ article said Sierra Mist has started going directly after Coca-Cola Co.'s Sprite this month, drumming up the old "natural" and "fake" lines. While it may get a temporary sales boost from lots of high dollar ads, apparently nature (and soda drinkers) won't fall for the "natural" gimmick.

Sugar is indeed sugar.

Taste test at Husker Harvest Days: HFCS, cane sugar or stevia?

The good folks at the University of Nebraska's Food Processing Center have a great exhibit at Husker Harvest Days this year. They offer three samples of a sweetened drink – each sweetened differently – and ask tasters to pick their favorite.

After someone tries all three and picks, they are told which sweetener was in their drink of choice – high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), cane sugar or stevia (in this case Cargill's Truvia product). If needed, a bit of education was also provided.

For example, I heard the staff on hand explain that yes, cane sugar and HFCS are exactly the same thing, and that both have the same number of calories. They provided other details and information as necessary – what a great teaching moment!

Laurie Keeler, senior manager for product development with the Food Processing Center, gave me the results from day one of the HHD taste test.

Of those who took the test...drum roll please:

• 46 percent preferred HFCS,
• 39 percent preferred cane sugar, and
• 15 percent preferred Truvia.

Many people had a difficult time choosing between HFCS and cane sugar. Keeler said many people liked them equally but picked one when pressed. (This makes sense considering that a sugar is a sugar.)

She also said corn farmers almost always always chose HFCS, which is interesting. Others who usually chose HFCS were young people, while older people tended to drift towards sugar. Those who were diabetic preferred the Truvia.

For more on HFCS and sugar, check out these previous posts:

• Good report on HFCS
• Bogus Times, Grist articles on HFCS add to echo chamber
• Journal clears the air on HFCS
• High fructose corn syrup gets 'bad rap'
• Websites offer facts on high fructose corn syrup
• HFCS: Spreading truth about sweet side of corn

A sugar is a sugar, whether cane, corn or beet

Consumer questions over high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) have risen lately, as well as confusion of what HFCS really is. CBS Nightly News covered this topic and developed a well-balanced piece that defines the similarities of table sugar and HFCS. (Basically that sugar is sugar.)

The news report touches on how the controversy over HFCS and sugar is all hype.

“The food police - the ones who told us Chinese food and theatre popcorn were bad - would also be yelling about high-fructose corn syrup. But instead, they say the controversy is all hype."

"The evilness of high-fructose corn syrup has become an urban myth," said Michael Jacobson with the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

The video that went with the news article is below.



The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) has being doing its job defending HFCS and corn as well. Audrae Erickson, president of CRA, quoted in a recent Wall Street Journal article on sugar, “This is nothing more than a marketing gimmick," referring to packaged-food companies that switch ingredients from HFCS to sugar. “They’ve switched from one sugar to another.”

CRA also has a campaign out to defend corn with great message points that need to be shared with consumers:

HFCS is: 

• A natural sweetener made from corn 
• Handles by the body the same as sugar 
• Has the same number of calories as sugar 
• Is nutritionally the same as sugar 
• Is fine in moderation

For more information about CRA and HFCS, go to SweetSurprise.com.

For more blog posts on HFCS:
You can't have Christmas without corn!
Journal clears the air on high-fructose corn syrup
Websites offer facts on high-fructose corn syrup
High-fructose corn syrup gets bad rap
Podcast: Ag myths abound the popular press and bad TV shows
HFCS: Spreading the truth about the sweet side of corn
Good report on HFCS
Podcast: Some facts about HFCS

Bogus Times, Grist articles on HFCS add to echo chamber

The Times Online (a paper in the U.K.) last week ran an article that claimed there was new research that "proved for the first time that a cheap form of sugar used in thousands of food products and soft drinks can damage human metabolism and is fueling the obesity crisis."

It then went on to cite this UC Davis study (which was released online in April) and claimed that was proof that fructose and, therefore, HFCS, was out to get us all (even though "fructose" ≠ "HFCS").

However, the reporter (Lois Rogers) got the story wrong - ALL WRONG - and that's according to one of the researchers who conducted the study. (More to come on that in a minute.)

While a single newspaper reporter getting it wrong is one thing, the Internet allowed the story to bloom.

Tom Laskawy, a blogger on Grist (which claims it uses a "Clarity-o-Meter to draw out the real meaning behind green stories") essentially regurgitated the "facts," linking to the Times story as proof (and not bothering to look up the original research). That allowed the anti-HFCS crowd to pick up on it and say: "See this proves we're right." And then repeat it from blog to blog to Twitter and Facebook. 

This is the echo chamber taking over -- with everyone citing everyone else and pointing to the original article that got the facts wrong.

Now about those "facts."

It turns out one of the authors of the original research saw the Times article and Grist blog post and decided enough was enough.

Here is what Dr. Kimber Stanhope had to say:

The information about the UC Davis study came from a Sunday Times article in which almost every sentence in the article contained at least one inaccurate statement. I have copied the sentences that came from this article in quotations below and follow each sentence with the correct information.

You can read her full destruction of the article here.

Among other things, Stanhope points out that the study examined fructose and glucose -- and made it clear that fructose and HFCS are not the same thing. Her response is quite good and worth a read if you happened to see the original Times or Grist garbage article. (I only wish she would have pointed out that HFCS, sugar and honey are essentially the same when it comes to fructose and glucose.)

Anyway, Stanhope's destruction of the original article prompted Laskawy to make a few corrections to his post but, of course, he still had to attempt to argue that the "science" is certainly against HFCS and toss out the expected misinformation and more of his form of "facts." After all, he doesn't want to loose his anti-corn, anti-HFCS, anti-corporate cred.

He also bashed the Times - saying that he'll never cite them again. Hmmm. Perhaps nobody should cite his posts, either.

If you're wondering about Grist, here's a good comment provided by one of the people who commented on the HFCS post:

Grist is full of "experts" posting articles about reports, studies and concepts they know little about. Its really not so much a fact based web site but a site full of speculations fueled by an anti corporate, environmentally correct political set of ideas.

Let's just leave it at that.

Oh, and one more thing to watch. Stanhope noted that she and other researchers are conducting a study comparing the effects of consuming HFCS and fructose at 0, 10, 17.5 and 25 percent of energy requirement in young (18-40 years), normal or overweight (BMI 18-35 kg/m2) adults.

While that may be interesting research, I'm not sure why you'd compare HFCS to straight fructose...they aren't even remotely the same, as Stanhope pointed out. Why not compare HFCS to plain old sugar? Or honey?

In either case, whenever that research is done, don't rely on Grist to get the story right. Grist, a self proclaimed "Beacon in the Smog," just dirties the facts.

Podcast: Ag myths abound the popular press and bad TV shows

In this Podcast, Greg Whitmore, a farmer from Shelby and a member of the Nebraska Corn Growers Association, discusses some of the crazy things farmers have heard over the last few weeks -- from high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and taxes to prime time television shows like CSI:Miami that demonstrate an ignorance of agriculture.


Nebraska Corn Kernel podcasts are also available iTunes! Click here to subscribe.

Good report on HFCS

NBC News last night did a pretty good piece on high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).

The conclusion of those it interviewed was that HFCS is no different than table sugar.

To view the report, click here.

We've blogged on this before - including this study that helped clear the air on HFCS (and prompted a USA Today article) and this post on websites that promote the facts.

The Corn Refiners Association put out a news release on the report. It is here.

In it, Audrae Erickson, president of CRA, concluded, "This NBC Nightly News story sheds the light of day on an important health and nutrition matter for American consumers. There is no nutritional difference between high fructose corn syrup and sugar. A sugar is a sugar. It is the calories that count."

CRA also noted that Dr. David S. Ludwig, associate professor of pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, stated in the NBC report: "High fructose corn syrup is one of the most misunderstood products in the food supply."

Certainly Ludwig's assessment is correct.

There are a lot of myths and misinformation out there, and the way websites/social media work it is very difficult to rid the world of them.

Every good report helps, though.

Podcast: Some facts on HFCS

In this Podcast, Joel High of the Nebraska Corn Growers Association provides a few updated facts on high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). He also expresses some appreciation for a pizza company that agreed to revise some of its advertising due to misleading statements on HFCS.

High is a corn producer from Bertrand.

Pizza Hut to stop ads that mention HFCS

Pizza Hut has agreed - via a faxed letter - to cease its anti-corn advertising campaign that implied high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) was not "natural" or "honest." Its decision comes after corn growers in Nebraska and Iowa contacted the restaurant chain's corporate headquarters in Texas and sent letters to Pizza Hut managers across the two corn states.

For more on the subject, check out this post.

Leadership of the Nebraska Corn Board and Nebraska Corn Growers Association told Pizza Hut managers that HFCS is made from corn that is raised by honest, hard working producers across Nebraska and the nation. It is the very same corn used to feed the beef, pork, poultry and dairy industries that the restaurants rely on to provide safe and wholesome ingredients for its pizzas and other products.

Growers also clarified that HFCS is indeed a natural ingredient - it doesn't contain anything artificial or synthetic, as noted by FDA last year.

Setting the record straight with Pizza Hut

Corn growers from at least two states have sent letters to Pizza Hut corporate folks in Texas in response to the company's latest series of commercials for its "natural" pizza.

In the ads, the company makes a point to say is uses "no high fructose corn syrup" in the sauce for these "natural" pizzas. It claims these are "honest" pizzas, yackety, yack, yack.

Unfortunately, Pizza Hut is not being honest with its customers or with the folks in agriculture who work hard to supply its chain of restaurants. The fact is high fructose corn syrup is a natural ingredient - it doesn't contain anything artificial or synthetic - as noted by FDA last year. It is no different than honey or table sugar.

Obviously the suits at Pizza Hut are attempting to set themselves apart in the marketplace - but they shouldn't do it by continuing one of the myths surrounding a product made from corn. That just leads to more confusion and gives people more courage to bash a useful product.

Did you know that HFCS is added to tomato sauce to help balance acidity levels, inhibit spoilage and prevent browning?

To help get the message across, the Nebraska Corn Growers Association and Nebraska Corn Board sent letters to all Pizza Hut managers in the state - to let them know the truth and to ask them to contact corporate and let them know their customers in the Midwest don't appreciate their tactics.

They told managers that corn syrup is made from corn that is raised by honest, hard working producers across Nebraska and the nation. It is the very same corn used to feed the beef, pork, poultry and dairy industries that the restaurants rely on to provide safe and wholesome ingredients for its pizzas.

Journal clears the air on high fructose corn syrup

The latest edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition includes a supplement that reviews high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). It concludes that there is no scientific support for the hypothesis that HFCS is linked to obesity in the U.S. or globally any more or less than other sweeteners.

It’s a case of mistaken identity, as the Corn Refiners Association noted in a news release. The USA Today did a good piece, too. Find it here.

CRA pointed out that the report was produced following a symposium that brought together scientific leaders on the topic from a number of backgrounds, including former HFCS critics.

According to Victor Fulgoni, symposium chair, in his summary of the presented papers, "Thus, we now have a clearer picture about HFCS; namely, metabolic responses are similar to sucrose as would be expected from the composition of these two sweeteners."

Audrae Erickson, president of CRA, said many have confused pure "fructose" with "high fructose corn syrup." Yet HFCS never contains just fructose – it contains fructose in a combination with glucose – a combination that is similar to ordinary sugar and honey.

Erickson said some studies that have examined pure fructose - often at abnormally high levels - have been "inappropriately applied" to HFCS. Obviously, this has significant consumer confusion. It’s the stuff urban legends are made of, but in this case, the legend hurts a useful corn product.

Here are some of the conclusions from the report:

• High fructose corn syrup contains the same sugars compositionally as other fructose/glucose-based sweeteners like sucrose (or table sugar), honey or fruit juice concentrates.
• Fructose-glucose sweeteners are metabolized through the same pathways regardless of their dietary source.
• There are no known substantial metabolic or nutritional differences between high fructose corn syrup and sucrose. Both have a composition of approximately equal parts fructose and glucose.
• High fructose corn syrup and sucrose offer equivalent sweetness and both contain 4 calories per gram.
• From 1970-2005, caloric intake in the United States increased by 24%. This was not due to a disproportionate increase in added sugars (including HFCS), but rather an overall increase in calories from all food sources including fats and all other nutrient groups.
• Per capita consumption of high fructose corn syrup has declined in the United States in recent years, but obesity rates continue to rise.
• High fructose corn syrup accounts for about one-half of sweetener use in the United States but only 8% worldwide, yet obesity rates are climbing in countries that use little or no high fructose corn syrup. Sugar remains the predominant global sweetener.

For more, check out these links: HFCSfacts.com or SweetSurprise.com.

Check out these previous posts:

• High fructose corn syrup gets 'bad rap'
• Websites offer facts on high fructose corn syrup
• HFCS: Spreading truth about sweet side of corn

High fructose corn syrup gets 'bad rap'

In this article, dietitian Brooke Douglas reports that high fructose corn syrup is simply a sweetener with a bad rap.

Here are a few lines:

Actually, most people don't realize that HFCS is composed of the same sugars found in table sugar and honey -- fructose and glucose -- in virtually the exact same ratios.

What HFCS does not do for us is make us fat! If consumption of HFCS has increased, then so have all other food categories. Obesity is becoming a more global problem each day, yet high-fructose corn syrup is used very little -- or not at all -- in many countries where obesity rates are rising.

For more information on HFCS - click here and here. That second link takes you to a post on the efforts by the Corn Refiners Association - who are working hard to spread the facts about HFCS.

Websites offer facts on high fructose corn syrup

Just a few weeks ago, a post talked about some advertising spots on TV talking about the "Sweet Surprise" of high fructose corn syrup, or HCFS. The surprise part is the truth about HFCS - and that some folks don't know why they have a negative connotation of HFCS in the first place. (Follow the link above to view one of the commercials.)

Today, the Nebraska Corn Board made a few points - and encouraged people to visit a couple of websites: HFCSfacts.com and SweetSurprise.com. Both contain some great, fact-based and consumer-friendly information about high fructose corn syrup.

In a news release, Don Hutchens, executive director, noted that HFCS has been targeted by some groups as a "causative agent for a variety of ills facing society today, yet the simple truth is HFCS is no different than any other sweetener, other than it is made from corn."

For example, HFCS contains four calories per gram, which is no different common table sugar or honey. It also contains similar ratios of fructose and glucose and is metabolized in the same way as table sugar and honey.

People want an easy answer - and an easy solution - for things like obesity and diabetes. Blaming HFCS won't solve anything, and blaming agriculture in generaly certainly won't improve anyone's health. Agriculture - the entire food system - provides nourishment for people in this and many other countries. What we eat and how we eat it is up to us - good or bad.

In June, the American Medical Association noted that "high fructose corn syrup does not appear to contribute to obesity more than other caloric sweeteners." In other words, treat HFCS like any other sweetner. The Food and Drug Administration has affirmed that HFCS is a natural product, not some product of science like some other sweeteners on the market.

"HFCS is a natural ingredient made from corn, and should be treated and consumed like other sweeteners, not made the scapegoat," Hutchens said.

HFCS: Spreading truth about sweet side of corn

You may have seen some advertising spots on TV talking about the "Sweet Surprise" of high fructose corn syrup, or HCFS. The surprise part is the truth about HFCS - and that some folks don't know why they have a negative connotation of HFCS in the first place.

This campaign is led by the Corn Refiners Association and is not unlike the food and fuel campaign that corn growers have been battling for almost a year now. (YES almost a year - the Nebraska Corn Board launched its initial 'Powering' campaign last October.) So it seems corn - and corn growers - have been seeing negative headlines from many directions over the past year. I guess those things come with success.

Anyway, CRA's campaign aims to spread the truth on HFCS through TV, magazine and newspaper ads. As part of the campaign they developed a great website that contains good facts about HFCS, sugar, honey and other sweeteners. Take the quiz and see how much you know.

Here are a few facts:

The American Medical Association recently concluded that “high fructose corn syrup does not appear to contribute to obesity more than other caloric sweeteners.”

High fructose corn syrup has the same number of calories as table sugar and is equal in sweetness. It contains no artificial or synthetic ingredients.

Research confirms that HFCS is safe and no different from other common sweeteners like table sugar and honey. All three sweeteners are nutritionally the same and all qualify as “natural” ingredients according to FDA labeling rules.

Go to the SweetSurprise website and learn more.

Here's a look at one of the ads (click here to see the others):