SUGAR BY ANY NAME IS SUGAR!-A NEW STRATEGY FOR PEDDLING SUGAR

Industry's ways to fob of the consumer are mind boggling indeed! After the universal front of the pack labeling practices were introduced a few years ago, it was no more possible for the manufacturers to hide what each product contains in terms of its ingredients and nutrients. At least this was the thinking of the policy makers. This was supposed to have ushered in an era of transparency the consumers could feel comfortable. However those who designed the labeling policies did not reckon with the ingenuity of an industry which has least concern for consumer well being and more interested in boosting their financial health. There are hundreds of instances where industry uses devious ways to mislead the consumer, some contravening the rules and others using loopholes in the statute book. Here is a latest case of mislabeling of a product, though legally it might be difficult to take the manufacturer to task. It concerns suppressing the information regarding the sugar ingredient in a product by using the scientific alternative terminology that can confuse an ordinary consumer to no end. Here is a take on this latest labeling "circus".

"While the name thing may sound like mere semantics, the stakes for the food industry are actually pretty high. FDA issued a guidance three years ago suggesting that manufacturers shouldn't use the term evaporated cane juice to describe sweeteners made from sugar cane syrup because the term hides the fact that ultimately it's sugar. Of course, because it's a guidance, and a draft one at that, the agency technically can't enforce it. Earlier this year, northern Californian Katie Kane sued the yogurt company Chobani in federal court, claiming its use of the term "evaporated cane juice" misled her into buying the company's Greek yogurt. Her class-action suit is seeking unspecified damages, and she relies heavily on FDA's guidance in her argument. We contacted Chobani. It wouldn't comment on why it uses the term "evaporated cane juice" instead of sugar. But a Chobani spokesperson told The Salt in an email that its labels are not misleading and that it plans to "vigorously defend" itself against Kane's charges. While some folks appear to be distancing themselves from the name "sugar," corn refiners have been on a longstanding quest to put on the sugar mantle. Alas, for them, the FDA ruled earlier this year that the makers of high fructose corn syrup could not change the name of their product to corn sugar. Either way, it might be best to keep in mind a version of the famous Shakespeare line: Sugar by any other name tastes just as sweet — and has just as many calories".

It is true that cane sugar is made from sugarcane by extracting the juice, cleaning it up, concentration and crystallization leaving behind the molasses. Technically evaporated cane juice and a sugar syrup has a vital difference in that the former contains all the natural ingredients which include minerals, vitamins, phytochemicals and waxy substances which were originally present in the cane. But a larger question is whether the manufacturer has really used the natural concentrate which has a characteristic brown color and chlorophyll small, making it an untenable ingredient in a product with snow white color! In the statute book there is no additive by name evaporated sugar cane juice and therefore no standards of identity for such an ingredient. For those watching out for sugar containing products it can be misleading as they may not be aware that the product contains sugar. If such leeway is given to industry next move may be to use the expression "extracted juice from peanut" in place of peanut oil to hide the fact the product contains fat! It will be interesting to watch the outcome of the legal proceedings against the industry which camouflaged the use of sugar by expressing the term evaporated sugar cane juice.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

WHAT IS THERE IN A "NAME"?-MONEY, OF COURSE!

The controversy regarding the role played by High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) in American obesity epidemic refuses to die down in spite of massive scientific evidence generated during the last 5 years absolving it of any such detrimental effect on human body. The fact that most of the so called high fructose syrup does not contain as much fructose as that present in white sugar is often ignored while casting aspersions on the former and damning the food industry. It is true that there is practically no processed sweetened food product in the US which does not contain HFCS derived from corn starch and hence the vulnerability of the food industry to such wild allegations. Having faced the wrath of critics activists with some influence on consumer perception, the food industry seems to be getting tired of fighting the battle where a single "lie repeated overtime tends to acquires the sanctity of truth" and has sought a way out by seeking a change in the name of HFCS to Corn sugar which probably is more logical than its present name.

"Would high-fructose corn syrup, by any other name, have sweeter appeal? The Corn Refiners Association, which represents firms that make the syrup, has been trying to improve the image of the much maligned sweetener with ad campaigns promoting it as a natural ingredient made from corn. Now, the group has petitioned the United States Food and Drug Administration to start calling the ingredient "corn sugar," arguing that a name change is the only way to clear up consumer confusion about the product. "Clearly the name is confusing consumers," said Audrae Erickson, president of the Washington-based group, in an interview. "Research shows that 'corn sugar' better communicates the amount of calories, the level of fructose and the sweetness in this ingredient." According to the market research firm NPD Group, about 58 percent of Americans say they are concerned that high-fructose corn syrup poses a health risk. Some scientists over the years have speculated that high-fructose corn syrup may contribute to obesity by somehow disrupting normal metabolic function,but the research has been inconclusive. As a result, most leading scientists and nutrition experts agree that in terms of health, the effect of high-fructose corn syrup is the same as regular sugar, and that too much of either ingredient is bad for your health. Marion Nestle, a professor in New York University's department of nutrition and a longtime food industry critic, says that Americans consume too much of all types of sugar, but that there is no meaningful biochemical difference between table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. "I'm not eager to help the corn refiners sell more of their stuff," Dr. Nestle wrote in an e-mail. "But you have to feel sorry for them. High-fructose corn syrup is the new trans fat. Everyone thinks it's poison, and food companies are getting rid of it as fast as they can." Dr. Nestle says she thinks the plural "corn sugars" is a better description of high-fructose corn syrup, which is actually a mixture of glucose and fructose. But she agrees that the corn refiners "have lots of reasons to want the change." "Even I have to admit that it's not an unreasonable one," Dr. Nestle said. High-fructose corn syrup, which came into widespread use in the 1970s, isn't particularly high in fructose, but was so named to distinguish it from ordinary, glucose-containing corn syrup, according to a report in TheAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition. High-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (also known as table sugar) contain about the same amount of glucose and fructose. In fact, one commonly used version of the ingredient known as HFCS-42 actually contains less fructose (42 percent) than table sugar, which has 50 percent fructose, according to the report".

There is a precedent in history when change in name was sought to correct consumer perception and Canola is the most visible example. Low erucic acid Rapeseed oil developed in Canada was renamed as Canola for better consumer appreciation though the name by itself does not convey any relation to rapeseed or erucic acid. Similarly Prunes were renamed as dried Plums though the reason is not clear. Probably HFCS may be more vulnerable to criticism if environmental degradation, corn cultivation has brought about during the last 5 decades, is taken into reckoning and will the industry seek to rename it again to avoid mention of corn? Why not better call it a "cereal sweetener"?

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com