Which Companies Have Switched To Sugar? Another High-Fructose Corn Syrup Thread.

• ConAgra - Hunt's ketchup - May 2010
  
• - Healthy Choice All Natural - early 2009
  
• Pinnacle Foods - Log Cabin syrups - March 2009
  
• Jason's Deli - all products except some soft drinks
  
• PepsiCo - Gatorade - first half 2010
  
• - Pepsi Natural - early 2009
  
• - Pepsi Throwback
  
• - Mountain Dew Throwback
  
• Pizza Hut - "The Natural" pizza - early 2009
  
• Kraft Foods - salad dressings - 2009
  
• - Lunchables - tbd
  
• - Capri Sun beverage line
  
• Dr Pepper - Heritage Dr Pepper - 2009
  
• Nabisco - Wheat Thins
  
• Ocean Spray - some juices - 2007-2009
  
• Starbuck's - baked goods - June 2009
  
• Snapple - beverage line - 2009
  

If you know of any other national brands that have switched from HFCS, please post and I'll add them.

I couldn't begin to provide even a sampling of the products that contain HFCS. Basically, if it's not on the list above, it does (this, of course, is a massive generalization).

Imported sugar was targeted in the late 70s via tariffs that made the 50s-era development, HFCS, an attractive alternative. Corn subsidies and the lower price further enhanced the appeal of switching from sugar to HFCS.

HFCS sales were down 9% between 2007 and 2009 (and 11% between 2003 and 2008). Refined sugar production increased about 7% 2003-2008. The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) has spent more than $30 million 2008-2010 on the "what's so bad about high-fructose corn syrup?" ads. The CRA also requested from the FDA to change the name of HFCS to simply "corn syrup," which was honored in January 2010 … until the CRA's nemesis, the Sugar Association, objected and provoked the FDA to postpone the matter.

Even as HFCS declines in popularity (and sales) in the US, as with cigarettes, its popularity and usage is increasing outside the US. And the big boys, Coke and Pepsi, still use it in their flagship products (and most of the others, as well).

Products which switch from HFCS to sugar do not typically experience an increase in sales. Sugar is also more expensive than HFCS. These costs may be passed on to the consumer, or like in the case of Hunt's ketchup, absorbed by the manufacturer.

Many experts, even among those manufacturers making the switch, indicate there is no evidence that proves HFCS is any more detrimental than other sugars including cane and beet. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a persistent fly in the ointment of unhealthy food manufacturers/providers (i.e., 99% of them), even claims the idea that HFCS is somehow worse than regular sugar is an urban legend "that sounds right, but is basically wrong." However, the CSPI does object to the CRA's claim that HFCS is natural, emphasizing the points that HFCS doesn't occur in nature and is heavily processed.

Is the anti-HFCS movement a scam? And is the rush to replace HFCS with cane or other "natural" sugars a marketing distraction? Is it about obesity or is it more a result of the natural, anti-processed foods movement? Food manufacturers who have made the switch indicate the decision was based on (often admittedly distorted) customer perceptions, not anything to do with nutrition, negative effects, obesity or cost. So, manufacturers switching from HFCS can't be used as support for the evils of HFCS … unless you look at it from the point of view of public pressure. Does the public know more than food manufacturers? Or do they have higher standards?

Nutritionally speaking, there is no evidence that the alarming rate in the increase in obesity, particularly as plagues children in, especially, the US, can be attributed to HFCS as opposed to other sugars. The suggestion is that if HFCS had never come along, obesity rates would still be what they are now (shockingly high and increasing drastically). If you drink sugared soda and don't exercise, you will get fat whether the sweetener is HFCS or cane sugar, right? [Aspartame and other artificial sweeteners is, of course, a whole other story.] continued

[edit on Jun 15, 2010 by Hadrian]

Is the issue "sweet" in general whether HFCS, cane sugar, beet sugar, aspartame, sucralose, etc.?

Also, what of the connection to the corn used to make HFCS? 80% of all corn planted in the US comes from Monsanto's genetically-engineered seeds. Earlier this year, the International Journal of Biological Sciences released a study linking Monsanto's genetically-modified corn with organ failure in laboratory animals. The report indicated that the functions of the body's two major detoxification organs, the liver and the kidneys, were disturbed by three varieties of Monsanto's corn (and effects were noted on the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and blood cells, as well). Monstanto has criticized the study.

More information on the negatives of HFCS (in response to the CRA's advertising campaign) can be found on concerned190's thread.

Well, I do know that a large portion of sugarcane grown in the US is genetically modified. So in that sense, making the switch from GM corn (HFCS) to GM sugarcane is a sleight of hand. But HFCS has many serious health effects besides being made from GM corn, so overall, it's probably a positive step. I wouldn't be surprised to find out though, that the sugar they are using is just as bad as the HFCS.

reply to post by Son of Will


Very true, very relevant. US production of US sugar usage, though, is 10%. (Not to say that imported sugar isn't necessarily from GM sugar cane - I don't know).

reply to post by Hadrian

Hi Hadrian.

That is why we switched to BIOLOGIC-ORGANIC food.

It is so impossible to know what chemestry we put in our body,
that we don't mind the little more $ we spend for the food.

And ONE of the chemestries that is CRAZY, now, is
the "Roundup ready" food from Monsanto's psychopaths ! !
They are insane ! ! Spraying and feeding their food/crop with the
"universal killer" ! And then, we should EAT that poison ???
Not for us !

At least, now we know we don't eat Aspartame, fluoride,
MSG, growth hormones, pesticides, etc. . .etc. . .
Remember the chicken, making breasts grow on MEN ???

Blue skies.

Nestle Nesquik Chocolate syrup claims to have No HFCS right on the front of the bottle.

CapriSun pouch drinks are made with sugar. no HFCS.

Country Time (pink) Lemonade is a made with Fructose ( not sure how good an alternative this is) no HFCS in ingredient list

reply to post by toolstarr


thanks, ts. couldn't find any evidence that nestle syrup or country time ever did contain hfcs. perhaps they were always sugar.

I buy Coke (Coca-Cola, that is) at my local Costco that is imported from Mexico and is made with cane sugar instead of HFCS. I am aware of the controversial health concerns attributed to HFCS and sometimes pay attention, but I buy the Mexican Coke mostly because it tastes way better.

Still though - drinking Coke either way isn't the most healthy thing to do.

reply to post by tallcool1


yes, i've heard your story before, tc, regarding getting "real" coke from mexico.

it's confusing and i don't know the facts, but i believe that mexico is one of the largest expanding markets for HFCS. on the other hand, i know mexico has placed tariffs on HFCS in an effort to protects its own sugar industry. i'm not sure what the status of this "war" is.

Nutritionally speaking, there is no evidence that the alarming rate in the increase in obesity, particularly as plagues children in, especially, the US, can be attributed to HFCS as opposed to other sugars.

Yes, there is. Published February, 2010:

High-fructose corn syrup causes characteristics of obesity in rats: Increased body weight, body fat and triglyceride levels.

High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) accounts for as much as 40% of caloric sweeteners used in the United States. Some studies have shown that short-term access to HFCS can cause increased body weight, but the findings are mixed. The current study examined both short- and long-term effects of HFCS on body weight, body fat, and circulating triglycerides. In Experiment 1, male Sprague-Dawley rats were maintained for short term (8weeks) on (1) 12h/day of 8% HFCS, (2) 12h/day 10% sucrose, (3) 24h/day HFCS, all with ad libitum rodent chow, or (4) ad libitum chow alone. Rats with 12-h access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than animals given equal access to 10% sucrose, even though they consumed the same number of total calories, but fewer calories from HFCS than sucrose. In Experiment 2, the long-term effects of HFCS on body weight and obesogenic parameters, as well as gender differences, were explored. Over the course of 6 or 7months, both male and female rats with access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than control groups. This increase in body weight with HFCS was accompanied by an increase in adipose fat, notably in the abdominal region, and elevated circulating triglyceride levels. Translated to humans, these results suggest that excessive consumption of HFCS may contribute to the incidence of obesity. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The suggestion is that if HFCS had never come along, obesity rates would still be what they are now (shockingly high and increasing drastically).

Probably so. Though, Epidemiology may provide a more definitive guess to this answer. If we find a group traditional people that are healthy and thin that are introduced to a western diet devoid of HFCS and despite it's absence they still develop obesity. Luckily, there is such a group of people. They're called, The Pima and they have the worst diabetes rates in America.

If you drink sugared soda and don't exercise, you will get fat whether the sweetener is HFCS or cane sugar, right?

Generally, yes. But the research suggests HFCS is slightly more harmful and leads to metabolic syndrome quicker.

The truth is....sucrose and High-Fructose Corn Syrup are both dangerous.

-Dev

thanks for the info, DE. here is a link to an accessible overview of the study ...

and here is the Corn Refiners Association rebuke.

Log Cabin pancake syrup (which I grew up with) is now offered in a non-HFCS version. Tastes just like I remember too! Pour some in a small saucepan and add a tablespoon of butter. Heat on low until warmed throughout. Truly a waffle's best friend!

I think most companies have. Its hard to find a label without HFCS.
Here is a thread I started about HFCS. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Up until that study, I hadn't seen anything that would suggest HFCS to be any worse that sucrose. They're essentially metabolically the same.

Consumers should rest assured that high fructose corn syrup is safe. The American Medical Association concluded that high fructose corn syrup does not appear to contribute more to obesity than sugar.

But it does contribute similarly, which is A LOT!!!! So, no, it's not safe. Idiots.

The medical community has long dismissed results from rat dietary studies as being inapplicable to human beings,

The medical community? Sorry, but the medical community understands that the only way to properly conduct a study with controls in a laboratory setting that is double-blind and doesn't break the bank.....well, that's through rat dietary studies. I'd rather not get my dietary information from CRA.

-Dev


[edit on 15-6-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]

reply to post by concerned190


hi concerned. yes, i linked to your thread in the op because it has a lot of interesting information and opinions. it's what prompted me to notice the proliferation of food manufacturers actually switching from hfcs to "real" sugar and the reasons behind them doing so.

that was supposed to be the point of this thread: to examine the relationship between a seeming dearth of real scientific evidence in the negative regarding hfcs and the public's perceptions (founded or not ... or, perhaps more informed) and how food manufacturers respond.

reply to post by TXRabbit


thanks, txr. on the list. my understanding is that all log cabin syrups have switched and are exclusively cane sugar now.

Originally posted by Son of Will
Well, I do know that a large portion of sugarcane grown in the US is genetically modified. ....

Proof please. Casual inference is one thing. Claiming knowledge is another. Brazil produces well over 200 times the sugar cane the USA does.

Would you consider "selective breeding" to be geneticaly modified?

[edit on 6/15/2010 by abecedarian]