Did you know that high fructose corn syrup is good for you? Oh yes! So says the Corn Refiners' Association, which is launching an 18-mo $20-$30 million national ad campaign starting tomorrow. Phew! Time to celebrate with a 42 oz. Coke from McDonalds!
In other news, I saw a full page NYT ad this week from "the people's" oil companies, telling me how the real reason they want to drill the caribou up in Alaska is because they love me and want to make my life better. And of course, who can forget previous ad campaigns public service announcements letting us know that obesity is no problem, it's just hype, and that CO2 is natural because we breathe it out and plants breathe it in.
I'm so glad that all of these enormous corporations are on our side! (And I'm even gladder that Michele Simon - a big thorn in groups like the Corn Refiners' Association's side, no doubt - is speaking at Netroots Nation this year!!)
More on HFCS and more on Michele Simon after the flip...
To say that Big Food uses tactics like the tobacco industry has for decades would almost be too kind. The reality is that one of the big, slimy front groups for Big Food (the Center for Consumer Freedom) is headed up by a tobacco lobbyist, Rick Berman, who has received millions for his various front groups from Phillip Morris.
First let's talk about HFCS specifically, and then I'll share a few blurbs from Michele Simon's wonderful book Appetite for Profit with you because she speaks directly to this exact kind of slime.
The pro-HFCS ad campaign will say that:
HFCS has the "same natural sweeteners as table sugar and honey" and is therefore no better or worse.
Source
Is this true? Answer: I don't care.
Why don't I care? Give me a second and I will get to that. First, let's discuss the claim briefly.
I have read some accounts that our bodies metabolize fructose differently than they metabolize glucose. I asked Marion Nestle if there was any truth to that and she responded on her blog:
Today’s question: "From what I’ve read about high fructose corn syrup, the bad-for-you part about it (in addition to the high quantities people consume at once, like in a 20 oz coke) is the fructose. Is fructose the real evil, and if so, then aren’t foods like fruit juices bad as well?"
Today’s answer: I deal with this vexing question in the Sugar(s) chapter of What to Eat. The problems (and I’m not convinced they are very serious) of fructose depend on what you compare it to. Sucrose, the white stuff in sugar bowls, is a double sugar made of glucose and fructose, 50% each. Corn sweeteners are also glucose (42%) and fructose (55%). I’m not convinced the body can tell them apart. Fruit juices also have glucose and fructose. If you compare the metabolism of fructose to glucose, there are differences, but I think the problems are with quantity, not quality. A little sugar makes foods taste good; a lot adds calories that nobody needs these days. From the standpoint of calories, fruit juice has just as many as soft drinks so a little goes a long way even though it is a healthier alternative.
So is the evil of HFCS the product itself? I'm not convinced. But regardless, I believe arguing that it is the same as sugar or honey is virtually irrelevant.
To me, HFCS on a label is indicative that the food inside is probably cheap, processed junk. Does the theory always hold? Usually. And don't think for one second that "wholesome" products containing "natural" ingredients are necessarily all healthy either. As a former Whole Foods bakery employee, I can tell you that I have 20 lbs on my body that entirely came from junk foods made from natural things like heavy cream, butter, eggs, sugar, and cocoa.
That said, in your average grocery store (not Whole Foods) most of the processed junk has HFCS. There are sodas, where all the calories come from HFCS. Then you've got candies, where you get calories from HFCS plus some fat and calories from other sources like nuts or cocoa butter, or even trans fats. And the aisles of various baked goods where the calories come primarily from HFCS and refined grains.
Even in the yogurt section, you'll find yogurts made with HFCS. Sure they have calcium-rich milk and often fruit too - but so would a less-sweetened or unsweetened yogurt that has less empty calories. Same principle goes for salad dressing. The healthiest and tastiest salad dressings are the ones you make yourself with simple ingredients like healthy oils, fruit juice, herbs, and vinegar.
If you look at where Americans get their empty calories from, HFCS (particularly in our beverages) is high up on the list. Take a look at this graph of the sources of added sugars in our diets:
When we are eating the foods in this chart, we are eating empty calories. If we opted to get our calories from other foods - fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, legumes, whole grains, fish, lean meats, and low fat dairy - we would get nutrients along with our calories. We'd get fiber too, so we'd feel fuller when we finished eating. And those foods, by and large, do NOT contain HFCS.
Also consider that nearly half of the pie chart (46%) comes from beverages. People often don't account for the calories they drink. If you consume a bunch of HFCS in a candy bar or a slice of cake, you might feel a bit fuller and eat less later... or feel a bit guilty and eat less later. But if you drink a Coke? Or a bottled tea? Not so much.
Michele Simon makes an incredibly pertinent point about portion size inflation over the last half century. Following its elimination of "supersizes" in response to the movie Supersize Me:
The company merely eliminated its "supersize," 7-ounce french fries while maintaining the "large" 6-ounce portion, whihc is still significantly bigger than the original 2.4-ounce portion that McDonald's began serving in the 1950s. Also, the available soda sizes would still range from 12 ounces to a whopping 32 ounces. - Appetite for Profit, p.69
One of the brilliant marketing moves by McDonald's was the realization that a person who would not buy two 2.4-ounce fries would often gladly buy a 5-ounce fries. People don't want to buy two because they don't want to look like pigs. But they certainly want more food. Serve them bigger portions, and they'll eat them.
Now, of course, the supersize sodas are back, at least in my neck of the woods. The McDonald's near my office has a sign on its roof advertising 42-ounce sodas (410 calories if it's Coke) for $.69. Over 20% of a 2000 calorie diet, consisting entirely of HFCS with zero fiber, vitamins, or minerals. Bon appetit!
I want to share a few more sections from Appetite for Profit that are semi-related but may seem like a bit of a non-sequitur here. I know I'm shifting the topic a bit, but I want to put Michele's ideas out there since they are instrumental in correctly framing these corporate front group slime campaigns.
Regarding campaigns like this new one about HFCS - and more specifically those run by the Center for Consumer Freedom, Michele says:
When they say: Making the right food choices is about personal responsibility.
They assume: The status quo provides the full range of choices.
The fact tha most people simply do not have access to healthy food options is of course of no concern to CCF. When CCF says choice it means those choices provided by industry. But why do corporations get to decide what "choices" we even have? The assumption here is that the current range of food options is ideal and that any attempt by advocates or government to alter or limit these choices is tyrannical. The truth is quite the opposite; in allowing corporations to unilaterally and undemocratically determine our food choices for us, we wholly abdicate our freedom to choose. Indeed, what we really have in our food environment is a grand illusion: freedom from choice masquerading as freedom of choice. The choice between Quarter Pounders, Oreos, Diet Mountain Dew, and Whole Grain Cocoa Puffs is really no choice at all. - p. 55
When they say: Big Brother is taking away your rights.
They assume: Government is not already involved in our food choices.
When CCF sounds alarm bells about government on the march to do away with the American way of life and your freedom to enjoy your favorite foods, it conveniently glosses over the fact that government is already intimately involved in our food choices. Various federal agencies set standards for food safety, provide nutrition advice, subsidize agriculture, and otherwise oversee the types of foods we eat and the information we receive about them. Even "permissive policies," such as opening public school doors to soda companies, represent forms of government oversight. In fact, somewhere along the line, every food and beverage sold in the United States is already subject to some sort of government rule making. Food choices do not take place in a vacuum, but rather in the context of a domestic and global political economy driven by policies aimed at keeping the engine of capital operating smoothly. Many nutrition advocates are simply opposed to fueling that engine at the expense of public health; our objective, rather, is to work for government policies that are health-promoting and environmentally sustainable. - p. 57
Amen, sista!
So now you know why HFCS is healthy and delicious have a taste of Michele Simon's excellent work, and I know you'll want to visit her website, buy her book, and come see her speak at this year's food panel (Friday, July 18, 10:30am). Michele will be signing books at the convention, but I recommend picking up a copy ahead of time because last year our panelist (Marion Nestle) sold out of books very quickly.