HFCS and YOU

[DainBramaged]

A 'fake' sweetener because it's cheap. Some say (without qualification) it's no different than sugar (cane, beet, etc.) and doesn't react in the body any differently than sugar, Sugar is sugar even when it's "corn sugar" . By the way, sugar is sweet and needs no further processing, (ever chew on a sugar cane?) raw or white. HFCS isn't aweet without further processing (ever chew on a corn stalk?)

Many scientific studies, to the consternation of it's defenders everywhere, show it has harmful effects, and if it DIDN'T have any unwanted effects (unlike sugar) why are so many food manufacturers eliminating HFCS from their foods?


http://www.sugar.org/


The Lawsuit Against the Corn Refiners’ False Advertising
The Sugar Association has expanded its website to provide the public with information about several related, ongoing efforts to obtain rulings that impact public policy as it relates to high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), to broaden public awareness and encourage public participation.

HFCS is a food ingredient that has become widely used as a replacement for natural sugar during the past 40 years—the very period during which obesity, diabetes, and other metabolic diseases have been on the rise.

Whether there is a cause-and-effect relationship is a matter to be settled by science, not by market power, and The Sugar Association leaves it up to informed individuals to decide for themselves which they would rather consume, based on the available facts.

http://www.sugar.org/cra-lawsuit/


Several years ago, Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM), Cargill and other manufacturers of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) acknowledged that “HFCS and sugar differ in many significant respects and cannot be considered ‘like products.’”

A few years after a 2004 publication in which leading researchers suggested that HFCS may be linked to obesity, these same HFCS manufacturers, through their trade group, the Corn Refiners Association (CRA), launched a multi-million dollar advertising campaign claiming that HFCS is "nutritionally the same as table sugar" and that "your body can’t tell the difference."

The lawsuit led by Western Sugar Cooperative—explained in detail elsewhere on this website—charges ADM, Cargill, other CRA members and the CRA itself with false advertising by making these assertions of nutritional and metabolic equivalence.

The reason for the lawsuit is simple: There is an ongoing controversy among scientists about these subjects, which the advertising fails to mention. Some scientists—with no connection to anyone within the sugar industry—have published studies that demonstrate clear differences in how the human body processes sugar and HFCS. Even those researchers who have received funding from the CRA and dispute the existence of meaningful differences between HFCS and sugar have also readily admitted that their effects on the body remain the subject of debate and further analysis.


http://www.sugar.org/cra-lawsuit/science-other-facts/


Thank you

44 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	I do not believe it is the same and try to avoid it
	36 (82%)
	I don't care
	3 (7%)
	Sugar is sugar no matter where it comes from
	4 (9%)
	I have something further to add, pro or con
	1 (2%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll