It doesn't matter. I'm for eating proccessed stuff that doesn't have HFCS so as long as consumer complain about the stuff then more food and drink producers won't put it in their products.

To be honest though, I'm less concerned about that as much as I'm concerned about these folks not producing accurate nutritional information. It seems that a lot of these guys produce the nutritional information per serving, but they don't account for the number of servings within a particular container of their products. As a example: Though a box of "whatchamayeats" might have the info for a 8 oz serving, the container will have say 4-5 servings thus the info isn't there for the entire container of servings.

Um, packaging has to have the number of servings per container on it. At least, every package I have ever seen does.

So either don't eat the whole package if you only want to have one serving, or else multiply the numbers by the number of servings eaten. I assume you are perfectly capable of multiplying by 4 or 5, and if a lot of people out there aren't, well I'm sorry but in most cases that is their own fault for not paying attention in 3rd grade when the times tables were taught.

There is nothing at all inaccurate or misleading about putting more than one serving of a food in a package. Should we encourage more non-recyclable packaging by making more single-serving foods? I doubt it. If you care about the nutrition you'll read the label before you buy it and make your decision accordingly. If you don't care, then it doesn't matter what the label says because you'll eat it anyway.

hopefully this kind of BS only occurs in the USA... 'all natural' yeah right... next time i'm over there i'll have to be more carful. its amazing how the self styled "'greatest country in the world" eats the worst food in the world..

@Anthony:

Yes, but the case is that many times, as is the case in terms of snacks, the serving size will be significantly smaller than what you would perceive to be a normal serving.

Case in point: 1 "serving" of an Otis Spunkenmeyer muffin only has around 300-350 calories. The only problem is, 1 "serving" is a half of the gigantic muffin you got in that single wrapper.

A cursory glance, and you may think it's okay to indulge in a muffin every so often, because the calories and calories from fat per serving are listed in larger, boldface letters, as is most of the Nutrition Facts. The servings per container, however, is in significantly smaller print.

In order to make an educated decision you must first be educated..................
HFCS is is no way natural, therefore no matter which way it is perceived, labeled or not, it is not a dietary component of our physiology. Food additives are labeled as natural also and are not required to be labeled per additive, only as "natural or artificial ". So either way you chose to analyze it you don't escape due to sheer willful ignorance, which seems to appear as denial. It isn't about eating things without HFCS , as that is not the only issue. All things processed are accompanied by MSG, regardless of whether or not you realize, which is a neurological disrupter. Depression anyone? How about Anxiety? High Blood pressure? ..these are only a few and only you can answer..MSG attaches itself to proteins within the central nervous system and makes its way along. Responsible for a number of different health issues. HFCS excites the brain cells to death affecting many other health aspects as a domino affect. Also, as MSG appears in it's original form as well it piggy backs onto 2 other food additives it is a daunting task to pick through food. If you chose to ignore this issue you can count on being a patient for life for many doctors trained and educated by Big Pharma, being a lifelong customer to BIG PHARMA, and continuing patronage to a market chain that sells its consumers death food. Has anyone ever thought to ask why health food is exclusively called health food? So what then is the food category for the rest of the grocery store? Seriously folks this is why so many of us are under the umbrella of the web of lies. It began a 100 years ago, recomended reading material is as follows: 'The Hundered Year Lie' by Randall Fitzgerald, 'Death By Supermarket' By Nancy Deville, 'Selling Sickness' By Ray Moynihan & Alan Cassels , 'Politically Incorrect Nutrition' By Michael Barbee CDC, 'Juice Fasting & Detoxiication' By Steve Meyerowitz, 'Inside the FDA' By Fran Hawthron, 'The Whistleblower-Confessions Of A Health Care Hit Man' By Peter Rost- MD, 'Shopping With A Conscience' By Duncan Clark & Richie Unterberger, 'Overdosed America' By John Abramson -MD, '12 Steps to Raw Foods' By Victoria Boutenko. Of course I know just as all others who have attempted to pass the wisdom, that until your health has an adverse reaction and affects you, you simply wont be bothered , but when you do get sick and all of western medicine condemns you to death you might think of this article and remember theres more than one way to win a race. - Cheyenne Taylor

I gave up my favorite yogurt when I discovered it was sweetened with HFCS. I looked at some other flavored yogurts and they too were sweetened with HFCS. I've switched completely to plain yogurt. I'll either throw in some fruit, muesli, or granola and maybe a just a little turbinado sugar.

Corn syrup like margerine and processed cooking oils are harmful to the body. These substances have the effects of slow acting poisons to the system and the body reacts to them. The body reaction to CS is the onslaught of diabetes due to the fact that the body cannot properly process the CS. This places somewhat of a strain on the system. The second effect is the gaining of weight because since the system cannot properly process the CS as useable energy, it tends to store it in the form of fat.

Since CS is found in so many of our foods (just look at the lables), its effect, in continued concentrations is overwhelming. The real problem, of course, is that we are unable to purchase too many foods that do not contain CS for it is found even in common products such as catsup.

It may take decades to realize that CS is really a food contaminant and not a food just as it took decades to "discover" the harmful effects of cigarette smoke. We may expect a very large number of our populace to suffer accordingly until laws are enacted to better protect our food products from the invasion of this slow acting but deadly additive.

adrianakau2aol.com

why did my comment not get posted? let me know via email-thanks-

I'm sorry, but I have never understood the argument over HFCS. I'm no nutritionist. I have taken 2 bio classes in college but I'm majoring in chemistry and physics. But from every piece of information I can find, the only chemical difference between HCFS and table sugar is that sucrose is a disaccharide made up of one glucose and one fructose molecule bonded together, whereas the fructose and glucose in HFCS are unbonded monosaccharides. Since your body breaks down disaccharides into their component monosaccharides before digestion, how do we know HFCS is worse for people than other sugars? The HFCS most often used in soft drinks is 55% fructose, 45% glucose, not too far from a 1:1 ratio like your body experiences when it breaks down sucrose.

Now it very well may be that the metabolism of disaccharides might take longer or happen in a different part of the digestive tract, thereby changing the way it affects the body, but I've never actually seen any evidence one way or the other. I have seen reports that both sucrose and HFCS affect insulin and certain other hormone levels in the same way.

I admit right now that most of us eat too much sugar of every sort, and that this is harmful to us. Thus, we should seek out foods containing less sugar. But I've never been convinced that HFCS is any worse for us than the rest of our sugar options out there (excluding the calorie-free sugar substitutes).

Lloyd,

Leaving aside the arguments about whether HFCS is actually bad for us at any dose, can you further explain why you don't think the process of producing it is natural?

Enzymes can be naturally occurring. For example, enzymes (including alpha-amylase which is mentioned in the article) are used in the production of beer. The enzymes in the grain convert tarch into sugar which is then consumed by yeast to create alcohol and other compounds. See this page on how mashing works for more details.

Andrew

What's the matter with sugar cane???

Anthony...you're probably wasting your words. Using facts and logic isn't going to change the minds of those who think HFCS is considerably more harmful than other sugars. Fructose is the main sugar found in fruit right off the tree...named fructose because it occurs in fruit...Some seem so incensed about HFCS that logically they should quit eating fruit too...Too much monosaccaride or disaccaride of any kind in the diet is probably what's harmful, whether glucose, fructose, galactose, maltose, sucrose or whatever.... "All Natural" ? Empty words, as are so many advertising phrases, content free......DB

Whoah, the court did not agree _with_ the FDA.

The court said that Congress gave the FDA the rulemaking power, and that's all the court says it said:

"... we simply find that Plaintiff's claims, which pertain
to labeling of the described beverages only, are impliedly
preempted by the statutory scheme created by the FFDCA and its implementing regulations."

"Because we have found that Plaintiff's claims are
impliedly preempted, we need not address the applicability of the primary jurisdiction doctrine or the actual merits of Plaintiff's claims."

@ Anthony
HFCS does get metabolized differently in the body than natural sugar. Though they are chemically similar, like you say, the bonds that hold together the fructose and glucose to form sucrose are broken down in the acidic environment of the stomach and trigger different reactions from the hormones that control hunger - primarily leptin, which tells the brain's "appetite center" that the body has had enough to eat.

Without this trigger, most foods containing HFCS are less filling than foods sweetened with pure cane sugar or beet sugar. People then eat more because they are not yet satisfied.

More info on this and a campaign that is working to tell soda companies that consumers would buy non-HFCS sweetened drinks at www.thepoint.com

Anthony, read this:
http://www.utsouthwestern.edu/utsw/cda/dept353744/files/476605.html

We need some good ole 50's style fearmongering now to get people off their expanding rears and to wake them up to their gradual pickling:

http://tshirtinsurgency.com/high-fructose-corn-syrup-t-shirt

I think HFCS should be investigate much more thouroughly. Even if there's a small chance it could be worse than regular sugar the people should know!