Topic: Sugar industry behind anti-HFCS demonization

[Pandora]

Propaganda.

... Documents released just days ago in U.S. federal court — part of a lawsuit in which the sugar industry accuses high fructose corn syrup companies of running a misleading advertising campaign — reveal a multi-year effort by The Sugar Association to drive food and beverage companies away from its arch-rival, high fructose corn syrup, and back to beet and cane sugar.

In other words, when policy makers and the American public correctly became concerned in recent years about the role of excessive sugar consumption and the rise in obesity and diabetes, the sugar industry had a ready response: point the finger at high fructose corn syrup.

... The documents show that as far back as 2003, The Sugar Association hatched a secretive, sophisticated campaign to fund phony consumer groups, generate consumer alarm, and promote flawed science critical of HFCS that their own scientists believed was bogus.

For example, in an email to Sugar Association president Andy Briscoe, the association’s chief science officer advises, “The data in the HFCS study are so illogical and incoherent it’s recommended that we neither cite nor issue any public comment … No more time will be spent on this politically motivated propaganda as we have more important issues to address.” Yet, apparently Briscoe and his association rejected that advice and promoted the study, anyway.

... Previously released documents show that The Sugar Association gave the sketchy consumer group, Citizens for Health, more than $300,000 to attack HFCS. It turns out that CFH is actually run out of the DC-law firm Swankin & Turner, which houses several purported “consumer groups.” Currently, CFH is flogging a petition into FDA urging the agency to crack down on HFCS. One can only imagine how many of the people who signed the petition realized it is all a put-up job by the sugar industry.

From there, The Sugar Industry went on to sue the HFCS industry, which a federal judge in California has already declared a SLAPP suit, essentially meaning its primary purpose is to silence and harass the other side. It gets uglier and uglier, but you get the picture.

So, let’s put all of this together. The beet and cane sugar industry, not satisfied with a lavish federally-supported system that guarantees them market share and profitability, funds operatives and law firms to attack another U.S. industry. Is this what the legion of congressman on the receiving end of sugar industry political donations truly want: for $2 billion in extra costs to consumers to be used to pay trial attorneys and front-groups to disparage another product?

It's estimated we're already paying double what we would for sugar in a competitive market.

[whimsicalmamapig]

well, for our personal health we could all start sweetening with honey and maple syrup. this would enervate a few small businesses, but I can see agribusiness soon overwhelming those small industries and creating the same situation as we have with sugar and/or corn sweeteners.

this is the nature of humanity, we only have our ballot box and the constitution to protect us and we are way to being otherwise involved in our personal lives to actually do anything about it. we leave the work to our congressman (mere mortals that they are) and then act indignant when they do as humans do as is their nature.

we do not want the inconvenience of being the watchdog yet we complain when things go awry, shame on us

[richb]

It's estimated we're already paying double what we would for sugar in a competitive market.

Ironically,  due to the sugar businesses crony deal (tariffs on foreign sugar,  made decades ago) which props up the price of sugar in the US,  created the high fructose corn syrup industry.    Only in the US does the soda pop industry use high fructose corn syrup,  due to its lower price.   They use sugar everywhere else because the price is far lower. 

[Libertas]

It's estimated we're already paying double what we would for sugar in a competitive market.

Ironically,  due to the sugar businesses crony deal (tariffs on foreign sugar,  made decades ago) which props up the price of sugar in the US,  created the high fructose corn syrup industry.    Only in the US does the soda pop industry use high fructose corn syrup,  due to its lower price.   They use sugar everywhere else because the price is far lower.

And who does this?  Politicians, lobbyists...LAWYERS!!!

Cue the Bard!

[ToddF]

Loser
Pays

Enough already