Working To Rebrand

Would high-fructose corn syrup by any other name taste as sweet — or cause as much of a stir as it currently does? We may soon find out.

Unless you have been living in a cave, you’ve heard the extensive attacks on high-fructose corn syrup and the eventual black cloud of shame that follows just the mention of the product. Leading the charge is Michael Pollan, guru of all things edible (or, in his terms, inedible) and master of knowing what’s best for consumers. High-fructose corn syrup is in everything that’s even remotely edible; its overuse is the success of the masterful corn lobby; and it is responsible for all human ills. Okay, that’s an oversimplification of Pollan’s message. Hey, it works for activists, so I thought I’d try it out.

There is no question that Americans eat too much sugar (as well as salt and fat, and well, just about everything). Travel to most other countries and you’ll find “sweets” that aren’t all that sweet, which I find refreshingly satisfying.

We can debate which came first — Americans’ palate for the super sweet or the “programming” that high-fructose corn syrup has done to us. Given that I see food selection as a personal choice, and the overall lack of commitment Americans have to things that are good for us — like exercise — I’m going with the first option.

The development and expansion of high-fructose corn syrup has made it cheaper to add to foodstuffs, thereby helping keep costs down. It is, in fact, a natural byproduct of corn — meeting the Food and Drug Administration’s criteria for the term “natural.” Yes, we produce a lot of corn (something activists want U.S. agriculture to apologize for) which fills a variety of needs globally from feeding people, to livestock, to running our cars, to much more. In our growing reuse-recycle, minimize-your-footprint culture, agriculture should actually be applauded for literally squeezing the most out of each kernel.

In the past year or so, some television ads have tried to challenge the en masse thinking that high-fructose corn syrup is somehow worse than any other sweetener. In the ads, people in various settings challenge another to explain what he/she means when that person says: “Well, you know what they say about high-fructose corn syrup?” “What, that it’s no different from sugar?”

I think it’s good to challenge people to explain what they mean when they make such blanket statements. Most of the time they don’t really know or they stop and hear how absurd their answer sounds.

In fact, high-fructose corn syrup and sugar both have 4 calories per gram. Sugar is made up of 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose. High-fructose corn syrup comes in two versions — 42 percent or 55 percent fructose, with glucose making up the rest.

The Corn Refiners Association is now taking it a step further. It’s venturing into a two-year process to seek an official name change of high-fructose corn syrup to corn sugar. That could be a tough fight, even though lined up side by side, high-fructose corn syrup and sugar are more alike than different.

Of course, changing people’s perceptions is always a long, hard climb. Meanwhile, I’ll admit that I’d like to see food processors, chefs and cooks of all stripes back off on sweeteners in general. But that’s a personal preference, and I choose to buy and eat products that meet my demands.

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Working-To-Rebrand/2010-09-28/Article.aspx?oid=1248762&fid=M_Miller_2