High-Fructose Food Labeling Loophole Bullshit

[Masato]

Hey all

For those who even passively care about what they eat or read ingredients etc, this is interesting:

http://www.naturalnews.com/054301_HFCS_ ... ctose.html

CORN SYRUP has quite obviously become known as a source of illness in today's western food supply. It is all the shit we don't need, and is linked to a ton of disease and awful stuff.

Its a straight up poison, yet it is in EVERYTHING. ALL cheap-but-sweet foods in our supermarket are filled with this shit. fucking ALL OF IT. (seriously, try to find a sweet food product in your supermarket that does not contain this. Good luck)

So people freaked out, and now you see a lot of packaging that brags; "contains no high fructose corn syrup" (HFCS)

But check this out, all they did was tweak the ingredient (the new stuff is supposedly even more potent), give it a new name, and you can legally claim it "contains no high fructose corn syrup", even though they are still pumping you full of this poison.


I'll copy/paste from here on:

For example, Vanilla Chex cereal boasts a "no high fructose corn syrup" claim on the label, yet a glance at the ingredients reveals that it contains an additive labeled simply "fructose." This is the same ingredient that until recently was known as HFCS-90 – that is, HFCS that contains 90 percent fructose, rather than the "typical" range of 42 to 55 percent.
HFCS hidden in 'natural' foods

To understand this shifty name change, it's important to start with some basic chemistry. Standard table sugar is known chemically as sucrose. It is a disaccharide, meaning that it contains two chemically bonded sugar molecules (monsaccharides). Sucrose contains a single glucose molecule and a single fructose molecule. Thus, it is always exactly 50 percent fructose. Sucrose is the most common form of sugar in plant foods (and also honey), including fruits, sugar cane and maple syrup.

HFCS, in contrast, is manufactured from corn using various chemical additives. The final product consists of free monosaccharides of glucose and fructose. Although the fructose content of HFCS is officially 55 percent (thus, "high fructose"), in reality the content may vary. Because the fructose in HFCS is unbound, it enters the bloodstream much more quickly and can have different effects than when consumed in the form of sucrose.

The product formerly known as HFCS-90 is particularly common in foods advertised as "natural" or "light," according to the Corn Refiners Association (CRA), because "very little is needed to provide sweetness."

"Syrups with 90% fructose will not state high fructose corn syrup on the label [anymore], they will state 'fructose' or 'fructose syrup,'" the CRA said, explaining the name change.

Why is HFCS-90 suddenly allowed?

The deceptive name change actually seems to have arisen from an effort to improve labeling of HFCS. In 2010, researcher Dr. Michael Goran of the University of Southern California and the Childhood Obesity Research Center, discovered that the HFCS used in Coke, Pepsi and Sprite samples actually contained fructose levels as high as 65 percent – even though the FDA only allows a maximum of 55 percent.

Another study found a similar result, with popular beverages containing HFCS with fructose levels as high as 65 percent. The findings suggest that prior studies – which have accepted the 55 percent number – have dramatically underestimated the fructose consumption of the U.S. population, the researchers said.

The higher-than-expected fructose content of HFCS also undercuts industry efforts to downplay research demonstrating the harms of consuming a high-fructose diet. The industry typically claims that the "extra 5 percent" fructose content of HFCS is not enough to make a nutritional difference.

Following the studies showing fluctuations in fructose content, the consumer watchdog group Citizens for Health petitioned the FDA to make food producers actually specify the fructose content of the HFCS used in their products. The petition also asked the agency to enforce its rules about HFCS, considering any HFCS with a fructose content higher than 55 percent "adulterated," and therefore prohibited in interstate commerce.

On the defensive, J. Patrick Mohan, interim president of the CRA, claimed that the FDA had approved the use of HFCS-90 when it classified HFCS as "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS). But the FDA decision alluded to actually reads: "HFCS-90 is not included in this rulemaking because the agency does not have adequate information to assess the safety of residual levels of the processing materials in the final product."

"Additional data on the effects of fructose consumption that is not balanced with glucose consumption would be needed to ensure that this product is safe," it continues.

Given this 1996 document, it's unclear why the FDA has now chosen to allow HFCS-90, albeit under another name.

[Canuckster]

Because $

[Masato]

^ I sometimes think there's more to it than that

Ideas of some kind of drugging or slow genetic manipulation via food and pharma, some collusion between food and medicine industries to create predictable and profitable illness etc are not too far-fetched for me to consider.

Not saying its so, lets hope its only money creating this issue... because it really is a strange one. Not just the labelling, but the whole package of how and why our food has become such crap, and why known poisons are still totally running rampant in our food supplies.

The relationship between Monsanto and US Government is SO weird, they are making their own laws, regulating themselves its crazy. I was astounded when the first bunch of GMO labeling law propositions were all denied one after the other. How obvious can you be?

[Canuckster]

oh i agree, but the true nature of the depopulation agenda will never be shown to you and I, we can only ever speculate and connect the dots.

but at the end of the day, these things I believe are done purposefully for money first and agenda second.