From the article: 10 Quick and Healthy Recipes for Busy Families
The Corn Refiners Association has asked the FDA for permission to change the name of their product from high fructose corn syrup to corn sugar. What do you think of the move? Will it change public perception of high fructose corn syrup?
Are you concerned about the health effects of high fructose corn syrup, including associated weight gain? Do you want your kids to eat it?
High Fructose
- Thank you for the heads up. I try very hard not to buy food made with High Fructose. It triggers migraines for me. I would appreciate being kept informed. Thank you!
- —Guest Charity Goetzinger
LIGHT KARO SYRUP?
- I was shopping for Thanksgiving. I found light Karo syrup with no fructose corn syrup! I didn't have a chance to check ingredients. I found this very hard to believe. My husband and I are both diabetic. Truth in the labeling of food products is a very important part of managing our health.
- —Guest cindy warren
More trickery from evil corn producers
- The impact of subsidized corn is very far reaching. Not many people realize that this is the main cause for poor Mexican farmers migrating here illegally because they could not compete with the super low subsidized American corn.
- —Guest Stephen
What Difference Does It Make?
- I'm not sure renaming HFCS will make any difference at all. We all know it's really high fructose corn syrup. Corn sugar doesn't sound much more appealing or "healthy." The notion that using the word sugar somehow makes it healthier is a strange one. I find it odd that sodas, breads and other products boast that their products are made with "cane sugar," as if it makes it any more natural or healthy. Corn syrup and cane sugar are both refined products, and neither is good for us.
- —Guest mamalama1
real science
- I concur with Jen on all points she made with the exception of her apparent conclusion that HFCS is like all other sugars. Her logic is valid, her assumption isn't. One reason research needs to be repeated multiple times is because it takes time and multiple reviewers to find the flaws in early studies and eventually craft a rigorous experiment. And once crafted it needs repitition to confirm the results. I'm reminded of the MSG controversy. MSG occurs naturally in a multitude of foods from tomatoes to anchovies. But for years the so-called "Chinese headache" was blamed on refined MSG added to dishes. 25 years of experimentation has found no such link. However, it took 25 years to figure that out.It will certainly take a few more years to reach a coclusion on HFCS. The Princeton study is only a data point. I couldn't find the original Princeton study and so reserve judgement on its quality. But I would never accept _ANY_ data cited by an industry trade group. The conflict of i
- —Guest Kevin
I think you are wrong
- I read the article in sciencedaily.com that you cite and the rebuttal by the corn refiners association. Neither links to the site with the original paper so I cannot verify the data. Do not believe biased material without checking the original. Also, wine is not simply another term for yeast, sugar and fruit juice. Yeast transforms the fruit juice into a little molecule called ethanol, which is a drug. HFCS is made up of two molecules also found in honey, agave syrup, fruit juice and other sugars. So it is bad to compare the two. The way they make HFCS is by using chemicals that are not especially good for humans or the environment, but they remove these chemicals after use and the end result is a mix of simple sugars which are metabolized like other simple sugars from other foods. The insidiousness of HFCS is that we use so much of it. It is so cheap that we use it as filler. We eat too much sugar in all forms. The more sugar we eat, the fewer nutrients which we get.
- —Guest Jen

