Written by Heidi Stevenson   

It's bad enough that the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) is trying to fool the public by changing the name of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) to "corn sugar". But when The New York Times produces an editorial supporting the change, parrots the industry's mendacious claims, and implies that it's beneficial to consumers, then we have a new definition of what it means to be a pimp.

In the cutely titled editorial, "An -Ose Is an -Ose", the Times makes a dangerously false statement. They claim that "when metabolized, high-fructose corn syrup is no different than sucrose." This is frighteningly wrong. While it's true that sugar is harmful, it doesn't hold a candle to the damage done by HFCS.

HFCS has been strongly linked to the current obesity crisis. The body doesn't metabolize it the same way as sugar. It doesn't produce the signal that quells hunger. It's strongly linked to kidney disease and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), (1,2) a chronic condition that leads to cirrhosis, hepatitis, and can end in death. It's also related to the onset of type 2 diabetes. (If that doesn't have you reading labels in the grocery store, then nothing will!)

In the face of this information - readily available from reliable sources on the internet - the Times claims that there's no difference between the metabolism of sugar and HFCS!

Because the health damage produced by HFCS is becoming fairly well known and is having a significantly negative impact on sales, the Corn Refiners Association has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow a name change to "corn sugar". It's obvious that the goal is to mislead the public into believing there's no difference between sugar and HFCS.

The Times spins this by stating, "Calling high-fructose corn syrup 'corn sugar' makes it easier for consumers to tell that sugar has been added - and easier to choose another product with no added sweeteners."


Any suggestion that high fructose corn syrup was given that name by accident is, at best, naive. It isn't the same thing as corn syrup. It was named and marketed for that difference - and that difference is significant.

HFCS is made from corn syrup by processing it with enzymes. The process converts sucrose, which is real sugar, into fructose, which is significantly sweeter. It's then combined with real corn syrup and sold as HFCS.

Another pimp for HFCS, the American Medical Association, acknowledges differences between sucrose and fructose. They point out that the processed food industry prefers HFCS because it provides "better flavor enhancement, stability, freshness, texture, color, pourability, and consistency in foods in comparison to sucrose."(3)

They then go on to say that "insufficient evidence exists to specifically restrict use of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) or other fructose-containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS."
The name, high fructose corn syrup was clearly selected for its saleability to processed food manufacturers. Now that it's proving to be detrimental to sales, the industry wants to change the name. Any suggestion that the purpose is to keep the public from being confused is ludicrous on its face.

The editors at The Times may be willfully ignorant of the facts - but as editors of one of the most significant newspapers in the United States, willful ignorance is complete abdication of their responsibility.

The only possible explanation for an editorial implying that the CRA's request to rename high fructose corn syrup with something that sounds more benign is that The Times is pimping for the industry - and they believe that the public is stupid.

-- The Times' editors believe that people have been refusing to buy products with HFCS because they don't know it's a sweetener.

-- The Times' editors really believe they can convince people that there's no difference between fructose and sucrose.

-- The Times' editors believe that people are fools who can be easily convinced that there's no difference between sugar and fructose.

-- The Times' editors think they can convince people that the only reason for changing the name from HFCS to corn sugar is to make it easier to avoid sugar.

The Times' editors are pimps for the Corn Refiners Association. They spout the CRA's lies to a public they believe is tame and gullible. I think they're wrong.

Original can be read here: http://bit.ly/aufuZY