Tom Philpott takes the story a step further, asking why the FDA won't investigate mercury in HFCS:
The FDA's response to Dufault's study hasn't changed since she first presented it to her superiors in 2005: The agency refuses to investigate the HFCS-mercury link. FDA press officer Michael L. Herndon told me via email this week that "there will be no testing based on" the research. Meanwhile, mainstream news organizations have largely ignored the story.
Meanwhile, tens of millions of Americans continue to consume products containing high-fructose corn syrup. The USDA reckons that the average American consumes 40 pounds of HFCS every year.
In fact, says Philpott, the average American gets 10% of his or her calories from HFCS. Sick.
Meanwhile, in other news Alicia Harvie and Timothy A. Wise released a report on the effect of corn subsidies on the price of HFCS:
While this (corn subsidies) may not have reduced soda prices to an extent that would account for rising consumption, there is little doubt U.S. agricultural policies have indirectly subsidized a sector that may be contributing to health problems.
Now, there's nothing that gives me a giggle more than trends that screw the HFCS industry, but as Marion Nestle points out, sugar ain't much better for ya if you're consuming it in the same quantities as HFCS:
sales of products bearing "HFCS-Free" labels almost reached a billion dollars last year. Fruit drinks are the biggest HFCS-free category, but HFCS-free yogurts, vegetable juices, and breads are the fastest growing. Lempert doesn't say what companies are using instead of HFCS. If it's sucrose, it won't be much of an improvement.
Two last pieces of HFCS-related news:
Apparently, the Missing link between fructose and insulin resistance was found. (Hat tip to Natasha Chart)
And the corn industry has a new product - crystalline fructose. It's made from corn and it's 98% fructose or more. Nutritionally, it ain't much different than HFCS. |
