Long used as a cheap mainstay for processed foods on supermarket shelves, food manufacturers have gone back to using sugar. Or honey. Anything but high-fructose corn syrup. Due to increasing concerns and bad press about high fructose corn syrup, many manufacturers have stopped using it. Losing serious credibility and sales, the Corn Refiners Association are fighting back.
The group launched a bunch of ad spots declaring HFCS isn’t any more harmful than sugar. Of course, any sweetener consumed in excess isn’t good. But evidence is mounting that some of our weight gains in recent decades may be partly due to the increased used of HFCS. In fact, over the past 40 years, HFCS has been used in food and beverage products, Americans’ weight has gone up.
It’s simplistic to say this is the main culprit, when there so many, of course. But many nutritionists are concerned about HFCS and consumers along with them.
Results from the ad campaign have not turned perception around. HFCS continues to lose favor. So a second tactic has been unveiled. The Corn Refiners Association has applied to the FDA this month for permission to retag high fructose corn syrup as “corn sugar.”
According to the press, the CRA is seeking the name change to help “customer confusion” about their product. They’re basically saying, sugar is sugar, right? The association has stated HFCS and sugar both contain roughly the same amount of fructose, but do consumers buy that? The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported a recent 11% drop in consumer demand for HFCS.
This grassroots swell in negative opinion has no doubt prompted manufacturers to switch to other sweeteners. So will rebranding help or hurt?
Here are my questions:
• The idea of changing the name seems a bit disingenuous to me. Will this be perceived as trickery? If so, will the rebrand do more harm than good?
• Will some consumers be fooled into purchasing products made with corn sugar, thinking it a healthier alternative than the old HFCS?
• Will FDA go along with this name change, and if so, what are the ramifications of this action? Will other manufacturers be encouraged to cloak the names of some of their ingredients that seem less desirable to consumers, as well?
What do you think? I’d love to hear from you.
Tags: Branding, Marketing, Strategy and Tactics
Hi Ted,
The CRA can call HFCS anything they like, corn sugar, corn sweetener, Audrae’s ambrosia…..with this one caveat:
The FDA should require that the %fructose be listed, e.g. corn sugar-F90.
The problem with discussing HFCS is that it is really HFCSs.
Go to ADM’s website:
They make three grades of HFCS for direct human consumption:
Cornsweet 42, Cornsweet 55, used for soda; Cornsweet 90, intensely sweet used for low-cal products.
The numbers reflect the % fructose.
42%–90% fructose. That’s a wide range. Sucrose has 50% fructose.
As to your question, will customers be fooled? I think that’s the CRA’s ultimate goal. If the FDA were to
acquiesce to their request and let them call HFCS “corn sugar”, their next move would be to eliminate the word “corn”. After all, when sugar is listed, whether it originates from beets or cane is not identified, just that it is sugar.
Right now the corn refiners and food manufacturers can use any fructose:glucose composition they desire.
Regardless of the % fructose, it will always ring in at 4 cal/g and it won’t affect the nutrional breakdown on
the back of the package. For the consumer HFCS is a black box. Is it HFCS-42, 55, 90, or something in between?
Only your liver knows for sure.
As you know, it is the excess fructose we have been ingesting for the last 40 years that has led to our current health woes.
Trying to get the HFCS-out,
Cynthia Papierniak, M.S.
Cynthia,
Thanks for weighing in here with more information about HFCS. You’ve cited one of my principal concerns about the potential rebranding of this product. I’m afraid many consumers will be duped into thinking that corn sugar is somehow different or healthier than HFCS. Not so. It’s the same product with a new brand name. For that reason, I hope the USDA will turn down this request. I understand manufacturers’ business is at stake here, but so is our health. For the past 40 years, as you state, HFCS has found its way into processed foods in a huge way. Isn’t it funny that the obesity problem has grown alarmingly, also in the past 40 years? We can’t say HFCS is the only culprit here. It clearly isn’t. But it’s also feeding the problem. Let’s hope USDA sees it our way. Great observations and insights, Cynthia. Thanks again for sharing them with us.
[...] Rebranding High Fructose Corn Syrup: Good or Bad Idea? (mpdailyfix.com) [...]
My only consern is that I am alegric to HFCS and so I read the labels on everything, if they change the name and do not tell anyone, what about those of us that get sick from this not knowing that is that “corn sugar” is really just HFCS
Hi Jen,
I’m really glad you commented on my post because you’re citing a very real problem for many consumers. Food allergies are a big problem for many. I suggest you follow the HFCS story closely so get the upshot of the rebranding process. Check packaging carefully. If a product lists “corn sugar” as an ingredient, you’ll know it’s not for you. If another suspect ingredient pops up, make note of it and research it online before you purchase it. . .just to make sure. This is just one more reason full disclosure and transparency are so important. Thanks, Jen, for raising this issue and all the best as you sort through this.
My grandson is also allergic to HFCS. Symptoms when ingesting it are, vomitting, abdominal cramping, and weight loss. After going hfcs free his symptoms went away, he grew 4 inches and gained weight in just 6 months time. How can the corn industry say “your body can’t tell the difference” ?? My grandsons can. It’s deceiving to say the least!
Hi Sharon,
Thanks for sharing this with us. You know, we are all very different. Some might be highly allergic to a food product that most people don’t have any issue with. That’s why I think it’s important for food companies to clearly label their ingredients. When something like HFCS might be rebranded, it leads to potential problems for consumers who wish to avoid ingesting it altogether, but especially those with allergies. Knowledge is key. You now know HFCS may reappear as “corn sugar” so be forewarned. I appreciate your comments, Sharon, and I’m glad your grandsons are doing better.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck…
Hi Paul,
Well put. Thanks for your input. Question: does this move smack of disingenuousness? And if HFCS does get rebranded and consumers find out it’s the same old thing, what happens then? I suspect the result might be disastrous. If reluctance to purchase products containing this sweetener make consumers angry. . .yikes! What do you say?
It seems those well-informed enough to look at a label and think… ‘oh, geez… this iced tea’s first ingredient is corn syrup’ will notice the first ingredient being ‘corn sugar.’ Or R2D2-21 if they called it that.
The root of the problem isn’t corn syrup or corn sugar – but product manufacturers who insist on making less-than-healthy products filled with gunk and junk.
A Little Debbie Swiss Cake Roll still has Sugar (as the #1 ingredient) and Corn Syrup (as the #2 ingredient). Along with oils, artificial colors, emulsifiers and diglycerides…
Changing ingredient #2 from corn syrup to corn sugar isn’t going to make ye Swiss Cake Roll any better for you.
Long story short – those getting fat eating junk won’t care one way or the other. Those who read labels will spot it tomorrow as they do today.
Hi Paul,
Thanks for weighing in with your insights. It’s appreciated. Love the last paragraph. How true: some people don’t care. Yet, I think if the name change happens, it might confuse some people. At first. Then when they find out, how happy will they be? The problem with HFCS, besides the fact it’s chemically altered, is that it’s super sweet and cheap, so manufacturers have used it for decades now. The only way this is slowing down is consumer push-back. And the push-back is happening as consumers become better educated about food and beverage. Even with that, as you pointed out, some people simply won’t care; no matter what. Public pressure will do more to push for cleaner, more wholesome food than anything.
Hi, Ted. It makes sense that the CRA would make every effort to change the name of HFCS to just about anything else but its current name, with the industry worth gazillions annually. There’s a definite stigma about the product and the name, but, I’ll bet if you ask average consumers, they can’t tell you WHY they are refraining from HFCS – only that they “heard” it’s bad for you
The connection to obesity and the discovery that a large percentage of HFCS products had mercury in them, is enough to warrant sound research. Then, it’s up to consumers and consumer watch dogs to report its safety or questionable use.
Hi Elaine,
Thanks for sharing your observation on my post. It’s appreciated. As I’ve stated before, consumers have varying degrees of concern and knowledge about the food they’re purchasing and ingesting. Just the fact that HFCS has been found in so many processed foods and beverages over the past 40 years and that obesity rates have climbed faster than ever in that time frame, makes it suspect for many. Regardless of the chemistry involved. Chemically altering any natural substance usually creates an end product that the body “doesn’t recognize” and can’t assimilate. Simple. That’s something most people can easily understand. Harmful chemicals present in many food additives is another cause for concern and more informed consumers understand this as well.
While it’s understandable the CRA is trying to protect the business of its members, the move to rebrand smacks of duplicity. I suspect this is going to really anger many consumers if the rebranded name is approved–once they find out about it. This may backfire in a big way. Then what?
Whether or not this move succeeds, it is a bad one.
While it may be true that our bodies process corn sugar in roughly the same way as cane or beet, there are a number of factors at work here. Most that I can think of have already been explored above, but there is a clincher that no one seems to be making explicit.
High fructose corn syrup does not trigger satiety in human beings.
Corn is big agriculture. Big corn growers generally get subsidies out the wazoo. They crowd out other sweeteners on the market, raising the incidence of HFCS-containing foods. They sell wholesale, making it much less feasible for food manufacturers who do not use HFCS to stay competitive.
After the shelves were full, what did manufacturers do?
And now they’re telling America that it’s our fault that a large portion of us are suffering, among other things, gangrene, glaucoma, strokes, and all the opportunistic infections that come with your blood having elevated concentrations of simple carbs.
We evolved as a species that lived first by gathering and hunting and then by agriculture. We are now cocooned in constantly stimulating digital multimedia, stressed daily on a thousand fronts. We have forgotten most of what we knew about food culture after the aggressive marketing efforts of these same corn-producing individuals. Now we’ve been made aware of the dangers of constant, excessive ingestion of this stuff. Even the manufacturers are cutting back on it. And the corn industry’s response is….
‘Everything is fine, or at least it would be if you kept your pie hole shut, fatty. Why don’t you exercise some self-restraint? Sugar is sugar after all.’?
Frankly it’s hard to interpret the new ads as anything but an attack on us at the most fundamental level.
Sorry for double post but I realized that I forgot to delete the line “After the shelves were full, what did manufacturers do?”. If you could edit my post to excise it, and delete/fail to approve this one, I would very much appreciate it.
Hi John,
You said many cogent things here, and I thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. One thing: many nutritionists would argue that corn syrup is not processed as easily in the body as other sugars are. Manufacturers feel increasing public pressure to replace HFCS with other sweeteners. While HFCS is super sweet and inexpensive, it is facing increasing scrutiny. Love this paragraph, John: “We evolved as a species that lived first by gathering and hunting and then by agriculture. We are now cocooned in constantly stimulating digital multimedia, stressed daily on a thousand fronts. We have forgotten most of what we knew about food culture after the aggressive marketing efforts of these same corn-producing individuals. Now we’ve been made aware of the dangers of constant, excessive ingestion of this stuff. Even the manufacturers are cutting back on it. And the corn industry’s response is….” The fact is, we’ve traded healthier eating for time-saving convenience. Prepared foods and over-processed food are devoid of significant nutrition and simply fill us up. I think we all have a responsibility here: manufacturers and consumers. Marketers are doing what they’re paid to do: raise visibility and sell more product. As is the case with everything, the onus is on consumers to educate themselves so they can make more-informed choices. If more people simply don’t buy products loaded with salt, sugar, unhealthy fats; over-processed and convenience foods, things will change more rapidly on the manufacturing front, right? Thanks again, John. You’ve raised so many terrific issues, I know our readers have gained more perspective.