Corn
photo by iowa spirit walker, reprinted under a Creative Commons License
Whenever I see a full page ad in a major newspaper, I'm immediately suspect. I haven't a clue how much these ads cost, but I know they're not cheap. An organization, corporation, or religiously or politically-minded group willing to fork over that much cash simply must be on the defensive.
Don't you think?
Page A5 of today's New York Times features a huge ear of corn emblazoned with the words, "And now, a little food for thought."
Here's the accompanying text:
A little sweetness in life is good. And what sweetens lots of our favorite foods and beverages are sugars made from corn, such as high fructose corn syrup. It has the same natural sweeteners as table sugar and honey. And the same number of calories. But like most foods, sweeteners should be enjoyed in moderation. Please visit our website and learn the facts. We welcome a healthy discussion.
Of course, the ad was sponsored by the Corn Refiner's Assocation in response to the still-raging debate over the nutritive value, or lack thereof, of high fructose corn syrup. I should have some clarity on this issue, but I don't. I simply avoid HFCS because I avoid nearly all processed food and that's generally where HFCS is found. (Please don't mention the occasional camping-trip Pringles.)
I've read for years that HFCS promotes obesity, is sweeter than sugar, is more concentrated, symbolizes big, evil agribusiness, and so on and so on and so on. But not all of these things are true. At least, they may not all be true. The noise on both sides makes the facts extremely difficult to parse.
But is a giant ad the answer, or will it simply create even more confusion? The ad leads the readers to a website, where the CRA presents its "facts" through the lens of blatant self-interest. That's going to do more harm than good, at least for me.
Respected author Michael Ruhlman recently offered these thoughts in the comments section of his own blog:
I haven't studied the situation carefully, but my understanding is ... [that] there's nothing inherently evil about HFCS, it's the fact that it's allowed agribusiness to create really unhealthy food very cheaply. the crappy food, sweetened by this cheap sugar, is the real danger. same as saying salt is bad for you. in fact you will die without salt. salt in the cheetos and ketchup and campbells chicken noodle soup is what's bad for you.
And I think I agree. It's not the HFCS per se. It's what the syrup is in. And what the syrup is in, I'm afraid to say, is usually gross.
Which is reason enough to avoid it.
Maybe I should take out a big ad in tomorrow's paper.
Anyone got a few bucks?