HFCS AND SUGAR BATTLE RAGES ON

On Tuesday, a group of manufacturers of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) that includes Cargill Inc., ADM, Ingredion and Tate & Lyle filed a countersuit against the sugar industry in the U.S. District Court of Central California (Western Sugar Cooperative v. Archer Daniels Midland Company et al, case No. 11-03473). The heart of the lawsuit is centered on the claim that the sugar industry is misleading consumers regarding its message that differences exist between HFCS and sugar. The sugar industry originally brought suit against HFCS after those manufacturers filed a petition with FDA to label HFCS as “corn sugar” (a request that was denied by FDA) and their continued branding of HFCS as “natural” in tandem with marketing efforts claiming that no physiological difference exists between HFCS and sugar—that the human body cannot tell the difference between the two.

As reported by Reuters and the Chicago Tribune, this is just the latest in a lengthy dispute between manufacturers of HFCS and the sugar industry regarding whether or not the two sweeteners can, and should be, marketed as equivalent (see “Sugar vs. corn syrup: sweeteners at center of bitter food fight”).

As noted in the Chicago Tribune article, the HFCS faction contends that consumers are being misled by the sugar industry, asserting that “there is no scientifically proven correlation between HFCS and health problems,” and that the “sugar industry’s advertising claims are false…” David Knowles, spokesman, the Corn Refiners Association, notes, “Both high-fructose corn syrup and processed sugar are nutritionally equivalent and consumers have a right to this information.”

Adam Fox, the lawyer for the sugar industry, has said that the allegations by the HFCS faction are “baseless.”