15 September 2010

HFCS Name Sanitized to Boost Flagging Sales

A rose by any other name?

The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) has been trying for years to make high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which I prefer to call the ‘Corn Refiners Association Product’ (CRAP), as acceptable as all other forms of sugar. As more and more studies show that CRAP (HFCS) is a major cause of the recent dramatic increases in obesity, diabetes and other ‘metabolic diseases’ in the US, UK and other westernised countries, consumers are getting the message and are abandoning CRAP laden foodstuffs in their droves.

Does the CRA give up? No sirree! The CRA think that if they change its name, the gullible public won’t notice. According to the Associated Press, CRA is now petitioning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow it to change the name of the highly-processed, controversial sweetener to ‘Corn Sugar’, which they fervently believe will make it more acceptable.

No matter how you look at it, CRAP (HFCS) is a highly-processed, unnatural form of refined sugar that inflicts a heavy burden on the liver. Besides being derived from corn, most of which is genetically-modified (GM), HFCS is linked to metabolic syndrome, heart disease and type-2 diabetes. If that weren’t bad enough, a study last year also found that much of the HFCS contains high levels of toxic mercury caused by the chemical refining process necessary to produce the HFCS. Nearly a third of the HFCS-containing breads, cereals, sodas and other consumer foods tested as part of the study showed up positive for mercury.

Despite the overwhelming evidence showing that HFCS is harmful to health, the CRA is determined to change its image. With millions of acre of corn to get rid of somehow, they can’t afford not to. Consumption of HFCS has reached a 20-year low, and shows no sign of picking up. So the CRA have a new marketing slogan which claims that ‘whether it's corn sugar or cane sugar, your body can't tell the difference. Sugar is sugar’.

Oh yes it can – otherwise our bodies wouldn’t get sick from eating it!

The best forms of sugar are those which occur naturally, and in their whole form. That said, the main cause of sugar’s adverse effects on health lie in the fructose content, not the glucose. So it is better to cut down on even very sweet fruits and honey which are fructose (levulose) rich. If you must sweeten anything, use stevia leaf extract. Better still learn to like the naturalness of foods without adding sweetener.

So whether it’s called High Fructose corn Syrup or Corn Sugar, it’s the same thing, with the same results. As Shakespeare wrote: ‘A rose by any other name would smell as sweet’. Similarly, HFCS by any other name will still be CRAP.


Cynthia1770 said...

Hi Barry,
Here is another reason why all the
corn syrups with or without free fructose shouldn't be lumped together as "corn sugar". There is a segment of the population that is fructose intolerant. There are two forms of FI, one is a maladsorption problem whic affects about 30% of the population causing bloating, gas, and osmotic diarrhea. The other is the result of a defective liver enzyme (which can be fatal). For those
afflicted having all corn syrups
listed as "corn sugar" would make it impossible for them to discern which products contain free fructose which they need to avoid.
Cynthia Papierniak, M.S.

Barry Groves said...

Good point, Cynthia

Perhaps this would be a good time for those intolerant to such products to give them a complete miss and eat only fresh, unprocessed food.

That way, not only would they avoid the ingredients that give them overt symptoms, they would also avoid the other questionable chemicals that food companies use to enhance the shelf life of their products or make them look and taste more attractive.

I think we really do need to get back to eating real food, and dump the junk.


drdon said...

Hi Barry,

HFCS (CRAP) gives me a migraine that lasts about 3 days. No natural sugar of any kind causes me a migraine. Just a pound of grapes will give me a mild headache for the next morning. So I seriously question that HFCS is anything like sugar---maybe chirality or physical shape of molecule must be different than real organic fructose.

Has anyone verified that they are identical. I seem to be the only detector that can tell them apart, since I have googled for other people like me and found none.


Anonymous said...

Hey Barry,

This is a little off-topic but in support of your natural pet diet topic (which I whole-heartedly support) I've found the following resource:


As an obligate carnivore myself I would only ever look to feeding my dog/cat the same natural diet they should be having rather than the rice-based, high-carb manufactured crap that corporations produce.

Matt Shipton

Barry Groves said...

Hi Don

Your experience is new to me and I cannot explain it. However . . .

HFCS is a combination of glucose and fructose (as indeed is sugar (sucrose)) But where sucrose is 50% glucose and 50% fructose, HFCS comes in several different ratios of the two sugars, with more fructose that glucose. Perhaps that is the answer: It is, say, a high fructose to glucose ratio that affects you.

As you may know, glucose and fructose, also called dextrose and laevulose respectively, are stereo isomers of the same compound (C6H12O6). The difference between them is that the one is a mirror image of the other as far as their chemical structure is concerned; and their alternative names are because glucose refracts light to the right (dexter), while fructose refracts light to the left (laevo). Our bodies can cope with dexter sugars, but laevo sugars seem to be alien and harmful. Dr John Beard, published a book about the cause of cancers in 1909. It was his contention that the laevo sugars were a cause of all cancer. Having read it, I can say that his hypothesis was persuasive.

But, if the fructose in HFCS is a problem to you, why is it that you seem able to manage fruit (you don't say that has any adverse effects) but not HFCS? I'm puzzled.


Anonymous said...

I love the Google ads at the bottom of your page: "What does scientific research really say about HFCS?" (with a link to some URL like "sweetsurprise.com"). I can taste the irony (if it were any sweeter I would probably be diabetic).

Sander said...


As far as I know, most HFCS in food is 55/45 fructose/glucose. If so, why is that so much different from the 50/50 table sugar combination to make it so much worse? Are there added ingredients that cause this?

Or maybe, is the link between HFCS and the current rise in metabolic diseases simply the result of the fact that HFCS is omnipresent nowadays? In other words, any sugar would cause the epidemic, but HFCS simply happens to be the sugar of choice these days.

Just wondering, like to hear your opinion.


Barry Groves said...

Hi Joseph

I have little control over what ads Google Adsense puts on a page. Their bots look for keywords and an ad is chosen by computer. As you say, it can lead to irony - and to all sorts of odd combinations.

Hi Sander

Fructose in all its guises has been shown in many studies to be the worst form of sugar for health. The sheer amount we eat today is worrying.

You are right: most HFCS is 55/45, which isn't so different from table sugar. But there are other combinations as well. I think, like you, that it is the ubiquity of sugar these days which is the problem. I find that even tins of meat contain sugar (50% fructose). Why?? There is no need for it.


Barry Groves said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Luddite said...

Barry, this is O/T but have you seen this?
Can cutting carbohydrates from your diet make you live longer?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1323758/Can-cutting-Carbohydrates-diet-make-live-longer.html


Barry Groves said...

Thanks for posting that, Jean

It's good to see that 1mm worms have discovered the way I have lived for nearly half a century.

I tell my doctor that I intend to live to 120 or die in the attempt! Looks as if I might stand a chance - although Monica doesn't seem as keen as I am!!

I've commented on the article.


Luddite said...

Good comment, Barry - glad to see the DM published it. I gave you an up tick. :-)


Luddite said...

Barry, a few people are leaving comments referencing your name and/or book on this article:

Everything you thought you knew about food is WRONG

Fibre's bad for you. Fat's healthy. And five-a-day is a gimmick to make fruit and veg firms rich. Or so claims a remarkable new book...

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1325453/Everything-thought-knew-food-WRONG.html

Barry Groves said...

Hi Jean

The review in the Mail is a good one - and lots of interest shown by the comments. What I have been actively preaching since 1971 is catching on. My wife, Monica, who thought we wouldn't live long enough to see it happen may prove to be wrong.

I proof-read and reviewed Zoe's book in August. It is good. I can understand the comparison with Trick and Treat as it takes a similar approach but concentrating on obesity.

I included one chapter on obesity and was restricted as my publisher was concerned about the extent of T&T; Zoe has written a whole very comprehensive book. For a thorough demolition of the calories in/calories out fallacy, I can recommend it.


Anonymous said...

Hi Barry,

This is eradically off-topic but I've read before (can't remember if it's in your work or another) that nicotine is one of the few if not only true weight loss drugs developed because rather than supressing appetite, it actually increases fat mobility.

This has some relation to niacin, doesn't it? (and is partially where the word 'niacin' comes from?) Could you elaborate a bit on the biochemical pathways of this?

Not that I would ever recommend smoking, just out of curiosity.

Matt Shipton

Barry Groves said...

Hi Matt

I hadn't heard that niacin could help weight loss, so I went looking in the medical press. Interestingly, in view of your comment, I found a paper which found that niacin was likely to increase obesity. It is at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20480523

Another name for niacin is nicotinic acid. Not because niacin and nicotine are related,it seems, but because the molecules of each are a similar shape!


Nightingale said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Barry Groves said...

Hi Nightingale

Firstly, sorry to keep you waiting. I'm travelling on vacation.

Yes, it is off topic. When you have had time to read this I'll delete it.

Raised cholesterol is part of the 'fight or flight' reflex. For this reason, any form of stress can raise it, so, yes, it is possible that chemo is to blame.

That said, low cholesterol increases the risk of cancer and high cholesterol helps boost the immune system, so I wouldn't worry about it all. Quite the reverse.

Best wishes


Nightingale said...

Dear Dr Groves,

Thank you for your response.

(Deep breath!)

This information helps my stress levels.

Rebecca Berglund said...

Wow, its scary Barry,
Those "Rats" are trying to sneak into our kitchen again while we are all asleep! With all of the past charades we are just now catching on to, such as the aspartame killing game and the frankenstein GMO thing and the way those big guys (the rats) have befriended the FDA, we need to wake up to this one. Thank you for posting. We have to expose the labels that we thought we were reading. Sure glad we have a label to read, but knowing how to read it can be so tricky, if only more people cared to know that they even should read it! Its a bigger fight than reading labels. We need to wake up from the sleep we've been drugged into by the FDA these past few years and set up a few giant "rat traps" in our nation's kitchen. R.B.

Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals


Conscious Life said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
http://bogtag269.blogspot.com/ said...

Dear Barry,

I've been meaning to write and thank you for a long time now......it's only taken me 8 years!

The life changing advice and information that you've been imparting to those of us who are 'independant of spirit' enough to listen, read and understand has been of an enormous support.

I have been a pure carnivore now for over 8 years. Only meat and meat products (butter, cheese, eggs and cream) have passed my lips and ZERO VEGETATION. Every mealtime I enjoy wonderful feasts and total contentment. I am in very good health and having a very active job, can confirm the wonderful benefits of this lifestyle.

I am a pure carnivore because of my father. He died at 51, when I was 11, from a heart attack and for the next 20 yrs my mission was defined (I didn't know it at the time).
I read every book I could get my hands on relating to anthropology, tried every diet going and pretty much used myself as a guinea pig whilst trying to discover mans true diet.

Well, as I mentioned earlier, that was over 8 years ago now and I did discover it. After a period of de-culturalisation I got rid of all my hang-ups, stopped listening to everyone and applied COMMON SENSE(rare nowadays) and then, without a backward glance, proceeded to tuck in BIG TIME!

I have never looked back.

Initially it was a lonely path I trod but it wasn't long before I discovered you and read your first book. My immediate thoughts after a few pages? "He's been at it for ages and I'm not the only one!!!!!" (I think I shouted it outloud).

That was the start of many strange looks and comments that have been directed at me ever since!

This is the real deal, the way we should eat FULL STOP. It's not rocket science and very accessable to everyone. To put it simply, you will LIVE LONGER if you adopt this way of life...........and who doesn't want that?! Lots apparently.

On this beautiful planet of ours, evil lurks.

Apologies for this rambling post but I will summarise it as best I can!

Thank you for everything you've done and please keep up the excellent work. You will of saved many lives.

Kindest Regards

Dane Thomas

Barry Groves said...

Thank you, Dane, for your kind comments. I am delighted to have been of help.

As you say, it isn't rocket science. Unfortunately, Big Pharma and Big Food (the forces of evil) have run a spectacularly successful propaganda campaign telling us that real food is a killer, and we should use their products. And, as you have noticed, Common Sense isn't very common any more. That's probably not surprising as eating a nutrient-poor, plant-based diet does not help the brain to function.

Best wishes


http://bogtag269.blogspot.com/ said...

A pleasure Sir.

I'm a Fireman and it's always been fun to watch my the faces of my colleagues as I eat my 80% fat 20% protein daily diet.

It's interesting being within a large governmental organisation. The low fat high carb smoke screen is so embedded within the culture of my work environment, the power it weilds is all consuming. Periodic medicals and healthy eating advice all stem from the LFHC hoax. I've had some very interesting conversations with the service PTI regarding my diet.......

It's strange, you are regarded as a crackpot and even slightly dangerous or anarchic if you live this way. It can be very threatening, the low carb concept, to many people.

Over the years I have been plugging away and trying to educate my colleagues on the health benefits of eating low carb but it is a tough task. One of my friends is currently reading my old copy of Eat Fat Get Thin and there's a gleam in his eye already.....I hope he sees the light.The rest are harder to convince.

They can't understand how I stay in shape, especially in the mornings when I scoff my cheese sandwich (Firefighters have a tradition of eating a cheese sandwich mid-morning).

My 'cheese sandwich' consists of 1cm thick slices of cheese as the outer and a 1 cm slice of raw butter as the inner.

It's an uphill battle but I'm quietly determined to help my friends in this manner.

They deserve a chance.

Jack said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jack said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.