Trade associations have gone to court, arguing that the Corn Refiners Association is behind a conspiracy designed to deceive the public

main Gayvoronskaya_yana shutterstock_83019040.jpg

The fight between the Sugar Association and the Corn Refiners Association over what to call High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) seems never to end.

Trade associations representing growers of sugar cane and sugar beets (sucrose -- the white stuff on the table) have gone to court to charge that corporate members of the Corn Refiners Association (HFCS) are behind a "conspiracy" deliberately designed to "deceive the public." Why? Because -- in an equally absurd move -- they want to change the name of HFCS to corn sugar.

The sucrose-growers lawsuit argues Corn Refiners conspired to engage in false advertising as part of a $50 million campaign to promote HFCS by changing its name to "corn sugar," thereby implying that HFCS is equivalent to "real" sugar from cane and beet plants.

Oh please. Sucrose is glucose and fructose linked together. HFCS is glucose and fructose separated. Both are sugars (note: plural). Sucrose is extracted from sugar beets and cane in a series of boiling, extracting, and cleaning steps. HFCS does the same from corn, but uses one more enzyme so is somewhat less "natural," but so what?

Both are sugars and empty calories, and everyone would be better off eating less of both.

What's really at issue here is the encroachment of HFCS into sucrose territory. Americans used to eat much more sucrose than HFCS. Now we consume about 60 pounds of each of them a year -- way too much of either.

My opinion: The name change is frivolous and so is the lawsuit.

Both are a waste of time and distract from the real message: eat less sugar(s).

Image: Gayvoronskaya_yana/Shutterstock.


This post also appears on Food Politics, an Atlantic partner site.