Yesterday I caught wind that the Corn Refiner's Association had petitioned the FDA to change the name of high-fructose corn syrup to "corn sugar." After I stopped laughing, I wrote a rant about it on BlogHer.
From the post:
It seems the Corn Refiners Association has petitioned the U.S. FDA to rename high-fructose corn syrup to "corn sugar." Or, as Change.org calls it, "the artist formerly known as high-fructose corn syrup."
Which calls to mind this clip from Caddyshack -- I'm just a harmless little bunny, not a plastic explosive or anything. But please, don't listen to me. Let the experts tell you.
Don't get me wrong: I love me some corn. I've written here about my feelings on farmers and their misunderstood part of the food industry. But despite my affection for corn and the good people who grow it, come on. High-fructose corn syrup isn't good for you, and calling it corn sugar isn't going to change that.
What I didn't say -- but have been thinking about ever since -- is the court of public opinion.
The Corn Refiner's Association is no different from Mel Gibson in that court. Well, maybe a little different -- since Mel Gibson is a racist, sexist wife abuser and the Corn Refiner's Association is trying to find more uses for corn -- but image-wise, same problems. Something ugly was exposed in the media that no amount of dancing around can cover up. For Mel, it's Mel. For HFCS, it's truth about what happens when you refine sugars. HFCS causes more aggressive weight gain than sugar. And it often contains mercury. (Although let's be clear -- no sugar in excess is good for you. And we do know that, right?)
Wouldn't it be nice -- once people found out your flaws -- if you could just ... disappear?
I think the name change is funny in the way I think a three-year-old hiding with her entire body sticking out from behind the couch is funny. But I understand the temptation to JUST CHANGE THE NAME. Because honestly? The majority of American consumers are so busy schlepping between jobs and home and paying bills and watching Dancing With the Stars that they won't realize -- if they read the labels at all -- that "corn sugar" and "high fructose corn syrup" are the same thing.
It will probably work just fine.
Those who are hyperaware of food politics will know what's up, but they would know anyway. And they are not eating the stuff in the first place.
But there's something deeper here that my BlogHer rant didn't cover and has been bothering me ever since. And I'm not just saying this because I descend from corn farmers, because honestly? If the public didn't demand so much corn, they would just grow something else. What's bothering me is the reason for high-fructose corn syrup in the first place.
High Fructose Corn Syrup {HFCS) is extremely soluble and mixes well in many foods.. It is cheap to produce, sweet, and easy to store. Its used in everything from bread to pasta sauces to bacon to beer. Its even used in "health products" like protein/energy bars and "natural" sodas. You sort of get the idea that you are eating something good for you.
HFCS is great for the manufacturers. It retains moisture, resists drying out, controls crystallization, prevents microbiological growth and blends easily with sweeteners, acids, and flavorings. Best of all for manufacturers, it makes sugar drinks taste better and is cheaper than sugar.
From the point of view of soda makers, HFCS is a revolutionary advance in food science.
They use it because it works. Because people want their granola bars to stick together without crumbling. Because we want our food to be able to sit in the pantry for three months until we decide to eat it. The whole situation irks me the way everything on God's green Earth being made in China irks me. We can't complain about this stuff unless we're willing to pay $8 for a pair of tube socks produced in Ohio instead of 99 cents at Wal-Mart. And we can't complain about HFCS unless we're willing to deal with the impact not using it will make to our food. It might cost more. It might not have the same consistency. It might not taste the same.
I'm not calling for a boycott, because honestly, I don't do boycotts. I think boycotts end up hurting the people working for the company -- the little guys who don't get their bonus or a raise for the year because clearly, they were doing something wrong if sales went down -- more than they hurt the fat cat sitting at the top who did whatever it is that I'm mad about. I know from past experience that the mistakes of corporate CEOs are born on the backs of the workers who had no input into those decisions in the first place. The CEO will walk away from the mess retaining his signing bonus and stock options and the workers will get laid off. That, my friends, is capitalism.
What I'm saying is that the root of the HFCS problem is not corn growers or maybe even corn refiners (though, hello, get rid of the mercury). They're responding to the requests of food manufacturers, who are responding to focus groups and wallet share. They're all responding to us.
Farmers grow what they grow because that's what's in demand. The root of the HFCS problem is us -- the consumers -- who have taught the food industry by our buying patterns what we want.
True, we didn't know that what we wanted was made that way by stuff that might not be that great for us.
Or did we? What did we really think gave Twinkies a shelf life of 25 days?
We make cookies from scratch. We make cookies from a mix. The cookies in the little sleeve -- they sure look so much nicer. I wonder why that is?
Did we really not know?
And now that we know, we have to be willing to sacrifice the taste and consistency that we are used to in our food to get rid of it. We can't expect to have what we're used to only without that one thing we don't like if that one thing we don't like was what caused the mouth feel or whatever the hell they call it. Same as everything. You can't have your 99-cent tube socks and your American manufacturing. That's capitalism. That's supply and demand.
If we stop demanding it, they'll stop supplying it.
In the meantime, CORN SUGAR.
