This is a guest article by Mannie Barling and Ashley F. Brooks
The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) is the sugar industries’ bad penny. You know – the one that never goes away. Much like the proverbial bad penny, the CRA just keeps popping up. This time with its incessant barrage of “sugar is sugar†ads in the media. The millions spent on these ads could feed the more than one million of homeless children in America for a month instead of fostering obesity, illness and disease.
The CRA is stubborn, consistent and unrepentant in their message despite a 95% disapproval rating from viewers of their deceptive ads called “sugar is sugarâ€. Since 1947, it has been the voice of the corporate giants of the corn industry.
It is not a local organization based in the fields of corn that populate Iowa, Nebraska and bordering states. It is based smack dab in the middle of Washington, D.C.’s political lobbying district. And, it is not lobbying and advertising on behalf of small family farmers.
CRA companies produced more than 4 billion pounds of high fructose corn syrup in the U.S. in 2009. That’s almost double the amount produced in 1990. Most of this high fructose corn syrup ended up in soft drinks of all kinds. The balance was used in processed foods such as soups, sauces and gravies.
In 2009 the per capita use of high fructose corn syrup reached 63.6 pounds per person. The synthetic fructose in high fructose corn syrup can cause dangerous growths of fat cells around vital organs and is able to trigger the early stages of diabetes and heart disease.
According to a 2009 study published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation, foods and beverages in the U.S. are typically sweetened with 50% glucose and 50% fructose from high-fructose corn syrup. The study suggests that at least 16% of the studied populations were consuming more than 25% of their daily energy requirements from sugar-sweetened beverages rather than from protein. These numbers are the result of advertising campaigns generated by Big Food and the CRA.
The executives of CRA member companies are more comfortable in a three-piece suit than on a tractor. Most attend college reunions at ivy league colleges not farm-belt agriculture schools. They are business majors (many MBAs) and not agronomist or agriculture experts. Their products are designed by chemists, not farmers.
Make no mistake about it, the people who make decisions at the CRA are not farmers or ordinary Americans. They are the best-educated and most privileged. Most, if not all, have spent little or no time working on a farm or in a hospital dealing daily with the repercussions of high fructose corn syrup or “corn sugarâ€. Others are part of the Washington elite.
Who are these companies – the privileged few that formed the CRA and Big Food and make all of the decisions about the food on your table? They are the executives of their member companies, Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Incorporated, Corn Products International, Inc./National Starch, Penford Products Co., Roquette America, Inc. and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas. We could not find a small farmer among them.
While the CRA’s mantra is “sugar is sugarâ€, one need look no farther than the website for one of its members Penford Products Co., a publicly traded (PENX) Washington corporation located in Colorado, with manufacturing facilities in the U.S., Australia and New Zealand.
Their North American Food Ingredients division is a developer and manufacturer of specialty starches and dextrins sold to the food manufacturing and food service industries. Their high fructose corn syrup can be found in products sold in airplanes, school cafeterias and on every asile of your market.
The larger shareholders in Penford include: T. Rowe Price Associates, Dimensional Fund Advisers, Rutabaga Capital Management, Royce & Associates, Voyageur Asset Management, and Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Not exactly a local group of caring, hard-working farmers.
Penford’s self-description found on their website reads: “ Penford Products Co. is a leading supplier of chemically modified specialty starches. Through a commitment to research and development, we develop customized product applications that help our clients realize improved manufacturing efficiencies and advancements in product quality.â€
The operative words in their carefully worded self-description are “chemically modified starchesâ€. Can someone explain to us how a company that boasts of making “chemically modified starches†can make claims in advertisements that “sugar is sugarâ€, and is a natural sugar, when they chemically modify corn to make high fructose corn syrup. Oops, we meant “corn sugarâ€.
Once you get used to calling an ugly old pig, an ugly old pig, it is hard to call it pretty without cosmetic surgery. High fructose corn syrup did not have cosmetic surgery. It is the same old ugly pig that has been scientifically-proven to cause weight gain, obesity and food addiction under an assumed name. Maybe high fructose corn syrup has gone into witness protection under the name of “corn sugar� If not, maybe it should.
Another member’s website, Tate & Lyle Americas (a Florida corporation located in Illinois), states: “We design and manufacture a vast range of customized food stabilizer systems and highly functional ingredient blends for the global food industry. Our approach is to treat each customer project as an opportunity: a question that needs a unique, personalized solution that’s also fast, flexible and reliable. That’s how we help our customers grow – year after year, decade after decade.â€
This does not sound like a company making natural products. Are they customizing sugar to increase the profits of food manufacturers? Would that customized sugar be called high fructose corn syrup? Or, by its alias “corn sugarâ€. It seems like genetically modified corn chemically transformed into high fructose corn syrup is acquiring many alias much like a bunko artist or a criminal on the run. The only other reason for changing your name and identity is to join the government’s witness protection program.
Another member is Roquette America, Inc., ( formerly a subsidiary of The H. J. Heinz Company), a member of Big Food and Big Pharma, which is owned by Roquette Frères, a French-based family-owned manufacturer of starch and sugar derivatives. French? Is there a France in Iowa, Nebraska or any other farm-belt state? Nope. No American farmers in this company. Heck, most Americans like us probably can’t even pronounce it right.
Roquette Frères is the fourth largest global company in its sector, with 18 plants worldwide. According to Roquette’s website, it “… produces a comprehensive range of high-quality food ingredients and additives, including sweeteners, polyols, starches, wheat gluten and proteins from corn, wheat, potato and pea. Roquette is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of polyols, including sorbitol, mannitol and maltitol. Our products offer healthy alternatives to sugar while retaining the great taste of your product.â€Â Alternatives to sugar? If “sugar is sugarâ€, why do they say their products are “alternatives to sugarâ€? How can they claim a chemically created substitute is healthy? It defies science!
Roquette’s Iowa plant manufactures starches including the high-fructose corn syrup used by companies including Coca-Cola and Heinz. We had to go through layers of corporate camouflage to find out who the current owners of Roquette America were. Apparently, the French don’t want Americans to know they manufacture high fructose corn syrup and these other chemical food substitutes in America’s heartland.
Another member, Corn Products International, is a publicly traded company (NYSE- CPO) located in Westchester, IL, owned primarily by hedge-funds. We could not find one obvious farmer on the list of primary shareholders.
According to Corn Products International’s website, “For more than a century, Corn Products International has been providing ingredient solutions and innovations to the world.” “Ingredient solutions”? That doesn’t sound like “sugar is sugar” to us. Their solutions to sugar are made up in labs by chemists not farmers in the field.
Archer Daniels Midland Company is a publicly traded company (NYSE: ADM) headquartered in Decatur, IL. It boasts on its website that, “At more than 240 processing plants, we convert corn, oilseeds, wheat and cocoa into products for food, animal feed, chemical and energy uses.â€
The operative word here is “convertâ€. They convert genetically modified corn into high fructose corn syrup. It’s not natural. And, their sugar is not sugar either. It is chemically treated, boiled-in-a-vat sugar with chemicals made much like drug dealers make crystal meth.
Cargill, Incorporated is the largest private corporation in the U.S., employing 131,000 people in 66 countries and operations in about 70 countries outside the U.S. Cargill’s customers include food, beverage, industrial, pharmaceutical and personal care product makers, as well as farmers and foodservice providers.
They also produce high fructose corn syrup for soft drink and packaged goods manufacturers. You can’t walk down the aisle of a market or look in your pantry without finding products containing high fructose corn syrup from Cargill.
The Corn Refiners Association is nothing more than a shill for some of the largest companies in America, and the world. Their only interest is increasing sales, corporate profits and executive bonuses. Their interests are not the same as yours. These corporations couldn’t give a damn about your health.
Their knowledge of the negative effects of the dangers associated with high fructose corn syrup, corn sugar or whatever you want to call their corn-modified Frankenfood cannot be concealed by publishing a few cute ads or TV commercials. You know, we know and they know they are polluting the health of America’s children. Any other statement from the CRA would be an outright lie.
A number of companies have already stopped using high fructose corn syrup in some or all of their products. Among them Sara Lee, ConAgra Foods, Hunt’s ketchup, Snapple drinks, Gatorade and Starbucks’ baked goods. If high fructose corn syrup is the same as sugar, why have these nationally known food manufacturers removed them from their products?
Critics of the extensive use of this highly addictive chemical additive argue that the much-processed substance is more harmful to humans than regular sugar. No surprise, then, that high fructose corn syrup, oops “corn sugarâ€, is a leading contributor to weight gain and obesity. It is a chemically created sugar substitute with no nutritional benefits whatsoever to humans.
The side effects of high fructose corn syrup are numerous compared to what the industry would like you to believe. High fructose corn syrup causes high insulin levels, increased weight gain, damages your liver, pancreas, heart and immune system while increasing your cholesterol and changes to your metabolism.
According to recent statistics, one out of every four Americans (or 57.7 million persons) suffers from an eating disorder. We believe the number to be much higher because – due to the political and advertising clout of the corporations that manufacture and use it – addiction to high fructose corn syrup, allergy, intolerance and inflammation go intentionally unrecognized. The CRA is a big part of the industries efforts to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans.
Mannie Barling and Ashley F. Brooks, R.N., are the authors of award winning books – Arthritis, Inflammation, Gout, Crohn’s, IBD and IBS – How to Eliminate Pain and Extend your Life (Books and Authors 2010 Best Books in the Health, Diet & Reference Categories) and Mannie’s Diet and Enzyme Formula – A Change of Lifestyle Diet Designed for Everyone (Blogger News Net 2010 Best Health And Nutrition Book Award winner) available at HowToEliminatePain.com, Amazon, Barnes&Noble, and other booksellers around the world.
The authors’ latest book, It’s Not Your Fault – Weight Gain, Obesity and Food Addiction is now available at HowtoEliminatePain.com, Amazon and booksellers everywhere.
Mannie Barling and Ashley F. Brooks are the co-hosts of Surviving the 21st Century with Simon Barrett on Blogger News Network on Saturdays at 10:00 A.M. PST/1:00 PM EST found at http://www.bloggernews.net or Blog Talk Radio.
19 users commented in " Corn Refiners Association: “Sugar is Sugar� High Fructose Corn Syrup and Genetically Engineered Corn Syrup – The Industry’s Big Lie "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI guess you failed to research that Sucrose, “cane sugar”, contains 50% fructose and HFCS contains 55% fructose. Since sucrose is less sweet you have to add more of it into your beverage. I do not believe the CRA is lying, it is science fact. But to call “sugar is sugar” a lie? I think you have am emotional agruement that centers around other facts rather then science of carbohydrates. If you do not like sugar fine but to say sucrose is better then fructose that is simple wrong.
You miss the point. We are against genetically modified corn, cooked up in a vat, and called natural sugar. It is not natural sugar. There is a difference between the natural fructose in cane sugar and the chemically altered sugar derived from genetically modified corn. You know as well as I do there are countless tests, research articles and scientists who disagree with you.
How can you ignore the scores of tests that opine that high fructose corn syrup is the cause of weight gain and obesity among our nation’s youth. I am certain that you have seen King Corn and Food, Inc. Do you disagree with them too? Are the scientists, farmers and authors interviewed in the films advocating an “emotional argument”? The industry commonly uses the smoke screen that an author is “emotional” to defame them. So who do you work for in the high fructose corn syrup industry?
We advocate the use of organic sugar which contains up to 80 nutrients and is healthy. Refining sugar removes all of the nutrients while containing an anti-caking agent ( sodium aluminosilicate, a man-made synthetic chemical) that causes an increase in blood pressure. High fructose corn syrup is dangerous to mankind and our opinion is supported by a legion of medical experts and scientists. Buy our books and then read the more than 3,000 references cited in the books. We can’t all be wrong.
There are many consumer organizations developing to protest the practices of the chemical and GMO pseudo-food companies.
Oh dear. What a lazy article. If your books are as full of scientific inaccuracies, factual errors, strawmen and deliberate misrepresentations as this essay then you should be ashamed of yourself. You clearly don’t understand how HFCS is made, nor do you understand how cane sugar, organic or otherwise is made. You don’t understand how the corn is sourced. You don’t understand the difference between modified starches, polyols and corn syrup or the reasons that one company might make all of these. You don’t understand that too much organic sucrose will make you just as fat and unhealthy as too much corn syrup. Your research is so poor you “had to go through layers of corporate camouflage to find out who the current owners of Roquette America were”…was the name of the company not a big enough clue? I could spend all day ripping this article to bits but you guys in ‘big publishing’ wouldn’t care. People like you who criticise companies for trying make a profit whilst you peddle your books of nonsense for exactly the same reasons make me laugh. And that is no more ridiculous a statement than the one you will make when you accuse me of being a shill for ‘big food’, which you will, because your arguments are nothing if not boringly predictable. For the record, I’m not.
We are not part of “big publishing”. We are two normal people who were given short times to live by our doctors and lived to tell about why we almost died. Along the road to recovery, we read more than 6,000 books and medical reports, met with medical professors and discussed our findings with many researchers and scientists. Several have read our books and have agreed with our contents. Scientists, doctors and farmers have all been guests on our radio show and agree with us.
According to a 2010 survey by the Union of Concerned Scientists, “scientists and inspectors at the FDA and USDA responsible for food safety say they face political and corporate interference with their work.” It included, “situations where corporate interests have forced the withdrawal or significant modification of [an agency] policy or action designed to protect consumers or public health.” Fifty-four percent said the FDA and USDA gave political interests too much weight in their decision-making.
Can you explain how the public is helped by the appointment of Monsanto’s lawyer Michael R. Taylor as the Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the FDA? How about Monsanto using political contributions to get its employees and consultants into the FDA and USDA agencies? A partial list can be read at: http://www.bloggernews.net/125991.
The point of the article is the bribery and corruption used by the food industry to influence the FDA, USDA and countries around the world. They are not farmers, they are greedy Robber barons in the tradition of late 1880s that resulted in the antitrust laws.
You cannot deny that the industry donates more than $100 million a year to candidates, often spends more than $1 million a day to influence elections and uses their political pull with the President of the United States (doesn’t matter which party) in their quest to dominate the world. You cannot deny the millions of dollars of fines levied against Monsanto for worldwide corruption.
The Obamas require organic food in the White House and have banned high fructose corn syrup from its kitchen. Michele Obama was told by her family doctor that high fructose corn syrup was making her children overweight and endangering their health.
Many news sources have reported that the Bush family also had an organic kitchen policy. Laura Bush was “adamant” about it, but kept it all quiet. It is remarkable that two presidents who have openly pushed GM foods, including high fructose corn syrup, refuse to use it in their kitchens. What does that say about high fructose corn syrup and GM foods?
Gus, if you doubt what we are saying, I suggest you read our books and articles by Daniel C. Dantini, MD, Jeffrey M. Smith, Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan.
So when challenged to support your facts you change your emphasis and turns out that actually it’s really just the politics you don’t like? I don’t subscribe to the conspiracy theories but as I’m not qualified to comment on the politics of business I will stick to the science to explain why I won’t be buying any of your books. You seem very keen to push another few sales, it still seems to me like you are in this for the money. Or maybe you just really like books… more than 6000 books and medical reports eh? If you were absorbing properly, annotating and taking notes, even at more than 4 a day each I reckon that is about 2 years full time reading, every day, including weekends! No wonder some of the details got a little fuzzy. Or maybe you read the wrong books?
The synthetic fructose in high fructose corn syrup can cause dangerous growths of fat cells around vital organs and is able to trigger the early stages of diabetes and heart disease. What do you mean by “synthetic” fructose? How does the chemical structure differ from “natural” fructose?
The study suggests that at least 16% of the studied populations were consuming more than 25% of their daily energy requirements from sugar-sweetened beverages rather than from protein. So sugar, not HFCS then?
Make no mistake about it, the people who make decisions at the CRA are not farmers or ordinary Americans
We could not find a small farmer among them.
Not exactly a local group of caring, hard-working farmers.
What is it with you and farmers? This is the Corn Refiners Association, not the Corn Farmers Association. This is like saying all butchers are evil because they aren’t farmers.
Can someone explain to us how a company that boasts of making “chemically modified starches” can make claims in advertisements that “sugar is sugar”, and is a natural sugar, when they chemically modify corn to make high fructose corn syrup.
Yes, I can. They take corn, they mill it and separate the starch out. Then they either dry the starch and sell it as corn starch, or they chemically modify the starch and sell it as modified starch, which thickens and stabilises more effectively with less, and stands storage and transportation better. Or they take the starch and they refine it into corn syrup with enzymes. Like your body does when you chew and swallow, as you too are an evil chemical factory. So there you are. They make more than one thing!
High fructose corn syrup did not have cosmetic surgery. It is the same old ugly pig that has been scientifically-proven to cause weight gain, obesity and food addiction under an assumed name.
Sugar, then, is sucrose under an assumed name and also turns you into an unhealthy fatty if you eat too much. Like lovely natural fat. Answer – don’t eat too much of any of them! Easy, isn’t it?
This does not sound like a company making natural products. Are they customizing sugar to increase the profits of food manufacturers? Would that customized sugar be called high fructose corn syrup? Or, by its alias “corn sugar”
Again, you see what you want to see. They say “customized food stabilizer systems and highly functional ingredient blends” which are totally different product ranges and you read ‘corn syrup’.
Roquette is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of polyols, including sorbitol, mannitol and maltitol. Our products offer healthy alternatives to sugar while retaining the great taste of your product.” Alternatives to sugar? If “sugar is sugar”, why do they say their products are “alternatives to sugar”?
Because they are talking about polyols not corn syrup! Read it properly!
How can they claim a chemically created substitute is healthy? It defies science!
One of your more ignorant and poorly thought out comments.
According to Corn Products International’s website, “For more than a century, Corn Products International has been providing ingredient solutions and innovations to the world.” “Ingredient solutions”? That doesn’t sound like “sugar is sugar” to us.
Sigh. See above
And, their sugar is not sugar either. It is chemically treated, boiled-in-a-vat sugar with chemicals made much like drug dealers make crystal meth.
Emotive stuff, but no, not really. It’s much more like the way sugar producers boil their cane syrup in a vat with chemicals.
The Corn Refiners Association is nothing more than a shill for some of the largest companies in America, and the world.
Wikipedia says “A shill or plant is a person who helps another person or organization to sell goods or services without disclosing that he or she has a close relationship with the seller.” So the corn refiners association with its very public membership is cleverly hiding the fact that they have a relationship with the corn refiners? Really?
If high fructose corn syrup is the same as sugar, why have these nationally known food manufacturers removed them from their products?
Because they are run by the same sort of corporate suit that you hate so much and they are willing to defy all reasonable scientific logic to pander to misinformed public opinion if they think it will make them an extra buck. Even presidents wives aren’t immune from the latest diet fads and media hysteria and those suits will take full advantage. You are the real shills promoting the “healthy food” industry and you don’t even know it!
Gus, calm down. You sound so angry. Is it because the company your work for will lose sales if people foods without high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)? This is not a conspiracy theory. The dangers of HFCS are fact supported by countless researchers and scientists.
For the record, we have spent 14 long years reading and studying chemically altered foods, including reading the industries’ propaganda. I wish we could have read all of the books in two years.
For example, Professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction at Princeton in a study supported by the U.S. Public Health Service, said, “Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn’t true.” He is saying that your response is not true. Have you written him to say that his study is wrong?
According to Lois Rogers in her article, Child Diabetes Blamed on Food Sweetener, “Scientists have 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. Experts believe that high fructose corn syrup is a factor in the emergence of diabetes among children.” Have your written her too?
So, how many books have you read? Have you learned anything besides what you corporate master has taught you as part of your training program?
Tell our readers who you work for and what your economic interest is in writing more than 1,000 words challenging this article. I doubt that you wrote this out of the goodness of your heart. Or did you even write it yourself. Did it take a bevy of PR consultants to ghost this response for you?
In order for our readers to evaluate the credibility of your comments, they deserve to know the basis of any economic bias on your part. Are you sincere or just another critic paid by the industry?
Your statement, “You are the real shills promoting the “healthy food” industry and you don’t even know it!” speaks volumes about your economic interest. So you think Americans should eat foods with more than 100 ingredients, most of them chemical and addicting, instead of the natural food grown by mankind for since time immemorial. I presume that you also deny that MSG is addicting.
We are talking about genetically modified Monsanto Bt corn ( Bacillus thurengenesis toxin), spayed with multiple applications of Roundup, grown using polluted waters, with fertilizer from factory farm Manure Lagoons being turned into high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Not exactly the corn your grandfathers grew back when farming was about the soil and food and not profits. The use of Bt toxin alone makes it unnatural.
In a study by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, researchers sent 55 popular branded foods and drinks to a commercial laboratory for testing. The result was that nearly one third of them contained trace amounts of mercury. According to a peer-reviewed report published in 2009, HFCS has been found to be commonly tainted with mercury. Traces of mercury have been found in name-brand foods from makers such as Quaker, Hunt’s, Manwich, Hershey’s, Smucker’s, Kraft, Nutri-Grain, and Yoplait.
So how does the mercury get into the corn syrup? The processing of HFCS includes the use of caustic soda, hydrochloric acid, alpha-amylase, gluco-amylase, isomerase, powdered carbon, calcium chloride, and magnesium sulfate. Caustic soda and hydrochloric acid can contain traces of mercury. Chemicals are used to break down the kernels to release the corn starch that goes to make the syrup. I guess you forgot to mention that in your response or do you consider this natural?
If you don’t really believe that high fructose corn syrup is harmful, we suggest you read the smattering of articles listed below instead of writing another industry-funded response.
By the way, we welcome industry-funded responses as long as the writer has the courage to identify his or herself and the company they are representing. Posting responses under assumed names and/or phantom websites claiming to be something you are not is the type of deception that makes us critical of the industry. Dishonesty and deception have become the mantra for many American corporations. If you wont read our books, try some of these articles. You might learn something about high fructose corn syrup.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
http://www.ajcn.org/content/79/4/537.short
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091101132543.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090209125821.htm
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2009/10/20/2009-10-20_high_fructose_corn_syrup_fuels_our_latest_addiction_epidemic.html
http://ezinearticles.com/?High-Fructose-Corn-Syrup—Is-it-Safe?&id=4346789
http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Regulation/HFCS-is-not-natural-says-FDA
The only thing I’m angry about, Mannie, is your insistence that I am contributing to this debate because I have “something to gain” I am qualified to degree and postgraduate level in food science and technology (which involved reading quite a few real academic text books, by the way)hence my passing knowledge of the and I now work for a very small company you have never heard of in a totally unrelated industry. I won’t name them because a) it’s irrelevant, they neither make nor use and of the products under discussion and b)these views are mine and not theirs – I doubt they have a view on this subject at all – and I have no wish to associate them with my private opions on a public forum. I have no corporate masters. No economic interest. No payment from the industry. No PR consultants or ghost writers (though I’m flattered that you think my writing is of a professional standard!)Just me, on a pointless crusade to correct all the mistakes on the internet in my spare time. If you look at the times of my posts and then take into account I am in a country 5 hours ahead of your time zone you will see that I work late into the night on this stuff, not in working hours. I guess I do it because I have a strong sense of right and wrong and an argumentative nature. So you are the only one in this discussion making money out of it, and I guess that gives me back the moral high ground. Now you can believe all of that, or you can carry on accusing me of shillery, but you to be honest it does your own credibility no good at all. When you argue your case as poorly as you have in this article, it is a little arrogant to believe that criticism can only come from a team of professionals working on behalf of a corporate behemoth. Stamping your feet and crying foul when you are criticised instead of addressing the criticisms directly just weakens your argument further.
Lifting great chunks of your responses from the websites you reference doesn’t do you any favours either. Cutting and pasting from selected bits of the web that agree with your argument is not journalism, anyone with a mouse can do it. Look, I’ll show you. My argument, put simply, is that fat people are fat because they consume too many calories and don’t do enough exercise, but instead of taking a little bit of personal responsibility they look for someone else to blame. And what do I find in your 4th link?
“But what’s most important is the amount of sugar, not the type, Shoham said. “I don?t think there is anything demonic about high fructose corn syrup per se,” Shoham said. “People are consuming too much sugar.”
See, it’s easy! Perhaps I should write a book too!
Of course, the rest of the quote is
“The problem with high fructose corn syrup is that it contributes to over consumption. It’s cheap, it has a long shelf life and it allows you to buy a case of soda for less than $10.”
Yeah, that’s a problem. Consumers are crying out for more expensive products that go bad more quickly…aren’t they?
I won’t bother critiquing the rest of your latest response because going on past form you will just gloss over my comments and fall back on the old “it’s not fair, the big boys are bullying me” defence. The American Medical Association has already done the job, anyway. Have you written to them to tell them they are wrong? Or…yawn…are they part of the conspiracy too?
So I need to get back to my discussions with the homeopaths. Apparently I’m in the pay of Big Pharma as well as Big Food. As soon as I find out exactly where all the cash I’m supposed to be getting has got too, I might be able to retire and do this full time.
LOL. Thank you for a rollicking good time. You are a better writer than you are a scientist or researcher. I wish you well and hope you do find that cash and happiness on the Internet. I also appreciate and respect the fact that you are personally motivated instead of economically motivated. I will give mor ethought to your responses, even though I disagree.
I wonder if you could offer us your opinion on MSG. I would enjoy reading it. I hope you continue to read our blogs and hopefully will find time to be objective and read our books.
By the way, we wrote these books to help people such as us who have survived cancer, diagosed with Crohns, IBD or IBS, kidney and liver failure, have been diagnosed as allergic to high fructose corn syrup (a subject not covered in this article), diabetes and survived inspite of the medical profession.
As to profits, if you read our bios you would know I made my money as a lawyer representing some of the largest corporations in America. When I speak of corporate America, I speak from 35 years experience in that arena as a former Beverly Hills trial lawyer. You are not the only well-educated writer in these posts.
Well well, a lawyer! That does explain the style of your rhetoric. I’ve never been in a courtroom but I have read a few John Grisham books…I wonder if that qualifies me to start a blog to expose the evils of the legal profession?
It also explains the rapid changes of direction when the case isn’t going your way. I am curious as to why you ask me about MSG. Perhaps you are researching another book and want me to help with your research for free, or are you testing me to see if I am just a one trick pony with opinons only on HFCS, in which case I MUST be a CRA shill! Either way I shouldn’t really take the bait, but as you asked so nicely and as I really am an argumentative kinda guy, I’ll bite.
(Im not sure if you are still trying to link this back to the starch industry, as MSG used to be a byproduct of the wheat processors. Did you know that you can make a fructose-glucose syrup identical to HFCS from wheat as well as corn? More common in Europe. I wonder if you would prefer that to to the corn sourced version?)
Anyway, I don’t really have much to say about MSG. From memory it’s a naturally ocurring amino acid that is found in many foods but also added to others as a flavour enhancer. was extracted from wheat gluten but is now commercially fermented. Glutamates in general are the main source of the fifth “taste”, umami, along with sweet, sour bitter and salty. And that’s about all I know, other than despite being GRAS and approved for use all over Europe, America and Asia, it has been demonised by some people as the source of all the world’s ills. Some people are intolerent, of course, but some people are intolerant to milk, eggs, bread, nuts, peas, wheat and many other things, and as the general population enjoy and benefit from these foodstuffs there is no reason for a wholesale ban.
I am taking a wild guess that you would disagree with my relaxed attitude to MSG – more cover-ups from Big Food probably. I might have a scoot around the net to get a feel for the debate and see if I can find any information good enough to change my mind. I am certainly objective and open minded enough to do that and I’m sure you will have a slew of links for me, but I do tend to reject out of hand any poorly constructed studies, anecdotal evidence, anything written by someone who is also trying to sell me snake oil and most importantly, any document containing the word “sheeple” or reminding me that the earth is controlled by lizard people from another planet.
I should end by saying that I decided this morning to back out of this debate,as I didn’t feel we were getting anywhere. But I read your latest response this evening and it ocurred to me that we have managed to remain reasonably civilised (you more than me, if I’m honest)and even if we disagree you haven’t yet issued any badly punctuated death threats, which the hoemopaths and the religious extremists are particularly keen on. So I might have a look at your other blogs and contribute every now and then. You never know, we might end up agreeing about something. Wouldn’t that be weird!
What a brilliant (and civilized) debate. Excellent points and while I do believe that HFCS is a by-product that should never be fed to any living thing–I do enjoy reading a good conversation. Thank you!
The simplest point is that its easy to say people should not over-eat and that they should control themselves. What is not easy to explain is the fact that comparing those people to the people of 50 years ago, we find such an extreme increase in obesity and obesity related illness that something has to have changed. Many, many studies have proven that HFCS hurts animals. Just because we’ve put that HFCS into food does not make it something else–its still going to do the same damage.
I fail to understand how anyone can accept a product that contains a toxic ingredient? One that is proven to cause obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc, etc. Yet, we do it–over and over again.
For example: vaccines, medications, building materials, pesticides, fertilizers, etc, etc.
So, if only one ingredient is proven toxic–its okay, because all the others are alright? I don’t understand. Have we become so trusting, so blind or so diminished in our capacity to understand that just because something is mixed in–it has not gone away.
“I fail to understand how anyone can accept a product that contains a toxic ingredient? One that is proven to cause obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc, etc”
Kathe, can we assume from the above that you refuse to consume sugar in any form, be it sucrose, glucose, fruit…?
“All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.”
Paracelsus figured this out in the 16th Century and it is still true today. Eat too much of anything and it will harm you!
Many things have indeed changed in the last 50 years. People live more sedentary lifestyles with less manual labour required at work and at home due to the march of technology, and food is cheaper in real terms and more easily available than ever before. Fine, you can blame the food manufacturers for selling their products aggressively and tempting their consumers to overeat, but why not also blame Ford and Chrysler for making cheap cars so people don’t have to walk so much?
Sorry I accidentally deleted this post but I got it back – Jan Barrett – BNN Editor
Gary said,
in April 19th, 2011 at 7:06 pm
If sugar is sugar, why did high frutose corn syrup cause me to be a diabetic? I read Mannie’s Diet and Enzyme Formula and experimented with the diet because my doctor told me that I was a type 2 diabetic and would be on medication the rest of my life. I was shocked and terrified.
I gave up fructose corn syrup and foods with MSG and tried not to eat fast foods and packaged foods including frozen dinners. After 8 months doing the best I could, I lost 30 pounds and the doctors told me I was no longer a type 2 diabetic. After charting my blood sugar every day for my doctor, it was clear to me that my increased blood sugar was caused by the high fructose corn syrup and not other products.
I am now down from 8 medications a day to 2. So please don’t tell me that high fructose syrup is the same as natural sugar.
Gary, you are aware that your type 2 diabetes was caused by a high calorie diet and not enough excercise. You started eating more healthily, limiting calories, lost some weight and went into remission. I don’t see how you can pin the blame on a single ingredient. Are you saying that if you had cut out corn syrup and only corn syrup, but maintained the same calorie intake, the results would have been the same?
Gus, I thought you were tired of this debate. I can understand you attacking the authors, but why are you attacking readers who provide their anecdotal experiences. As hard as I try to cut you some slack and accept that you are not part of the industry, you continue your rant now to include innocent readers. Here we have a person who wants to share his life experiences and help others and you attack him? Wow!
You claim that “I have no wish to associate them with my private opinions on a public forum. I have no corporate masters. No economic interest. No payment from the industry” and “Just me, on a pointless crusade to correct all the mistakes on the internet in my spare time.” Are you saying you spend your nights and free time attacking common people who write about their experiences to help others?
The reality is that you have focused on our blogs because you are part of the industry advancing their agenda. Your comments otherwise do you a disservice and undermine your credibility. How many other authors, books and blogs have you attacked on behalf of the industry? How many more attackers like you are out there?
You make accusations about this reader’s diet without even knowing him. How do you know he wasn’t eating healthy food all his life? And what is your definition of healthy food – factory farmed meat fed with Monsanto Bt genetically modified corn, stuffed with growth hormones and fed antibiotics daily served with genetically modified vegetables and other foods stuffed with as many as 100 synthetic chemical substances?
You are certainly not qualified to pass judgment on any of reader’s anecdotal stories. And neither are we. So we don’t. Even if you were a medical doctor, any comment or opinion would require a review of the reader’s medical records and an in person patient interview. Somehow you are able to do this five hours away in the dark of night while you conduct a crusade against people who oppose the deceptive use of highly-toxic high fructose corn syrup in food.
Ashley F. Brooks, my co-author, laughed at your specious attempt to render medical advice without knowing his medical history. The legion of scientists and researchers who disagree with you would fill an auditorium. Even Dr. Oz has done shows on the dangers of high fructose corn syrup focusing on sodas. Is he wrong too?
You can challenge every antidotal comment made by every reader, but each comment further exposes you to the light of day and your single-minded agenda to protect the high fructose corn syrup corn industry be defaming and attacking anyone who disagrees with them.
Gus, I decided to read my blog and see how it is noted. Then I read your blog against the author of the book and attacking me. When I was reading your blogs, I thought you to be an extremly intelligent person until I read all of your blogs and then the one attacking me. I changed my oppinion of you considerably and realize you do have an agenda of sorts against anyone who might believe in the truth. I’m sure you will attack me again, why not show your real colors. I’m sure we’re real interested in that agenda of yours. I have no agenda but to live better and longer, but not with all the crap being injected and added to the our foods. I do know there are a few countries that will not purchase foods from our country. This is your country, isn’t it. You do care about the people in this country don’t you. It sounds to me like you don’t care what people eat and what is really in our foods.
Unlike you, and Ashley, I rendered no medical advice. The poster went to the doctor with type 2 diabetes, which is caused by obesity, lost some weight, and went into remission. The only assumption I made is that the doctor advised him to lose weight, and I would put big money on that being the case. I asked a straight question – “Are you saying that if you had cut out corn syrup and only corn syrup, but maintained the same calorie intake, the results would have been the same?” to which you have no answer, and so the ad hom attacks start again.
I pass no judgement on anecdotal evidence, but neither do I use it to inform my lifestyle choices. Nobody should. I expect no-one to change their diet based on my posts, I merely hope that it will make them question the rhetoric.
I did stop by your blog, by the way, and the emotive language you use and the deep, deep misunderstandings (deliberate or not?) you have of the science you claim such expertise in is disturbing. I can see how people are attracted to it, because science is boring and difficult and your tabloid National Enquirer approach is more accessible. So I urge the readers of this blog with health problems not to listen to you, or me, but to seek out a real human doctor with real medical training and no books to sell, and listen to them. Poster Gary did that, and he is in remission.
I had hoped, after a shaky start, that we would be able to continue this debate sensibly. You are clearly a smart guy, and in my vast experience of arguing with complete strangers on the internet that does make a refreshing change. Sadly, because you can provide no real counter arguments and resorted once again to the boring “you have an agenda” argument, we are back to the beginning. These are playground tactics, and do you no credit, but it seems they are all you have to fall back on. I will repeat, I have no connections to the HFCS industry. I make no money by making these posts. You, on the other hand, have built a careeer on the books and the radio shows and are the only one in this debate with a potential financial gain. As you claim this is what renders my argument, however factual, invalid, then I guess we can leave it to the readers to decide where to go from here. Whether they choose to question your viewpoint and look beyond the hysteria, or take the easy route and swallow all the conspiracy theories, I hope they reach the outcome they deserve. And I hope that you reflect on your tactics and one day open your mind and choose to engage in the debate rather than hide behind your paranoia.
After reading the latest book from Brooks and Barling I started to read nutrition facts and ingredients on food labels much closer. I was shocked to see the number of food products containing high fructose corn syrup and corn solids. I don’t understand why so many foods I cook at home with just a few ingredients have as many as 100 ingredients in the packaged versions. Just look at the ingredients in a frozen dinner. I don’t understand why corn is treated with chemicals to make corn sugar when there are other better safer choices.
Gus makes it sound like its okay to eat chemical junk in our food. It’s not. As a parent, I want my children to eat healthy. How can they eat healthy when all of the choices in the market are full of these chemicals? Every medical article I have read on the internet says that high frutose corn syrup is bad and dangerous to out health and weight. How can the food industry be right and everyone else wrong? I don’t trust large corporations anymore. I see food recalls, E. coli contaminations, drug recalls, Salmonella problems. I see companies like Toyota lying to us about safety. How can we trust the makers of high fructose corn syrup to do the right thing for us and our children. We can’t.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157
Leave A Reply