January 29, 2009
Studies Link Corn Syrup and Mercury
According to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, almost all people have some trace of methylmercury in
their tissues as a result of eating seafood or exposure through the environment.
High amounts, however, are a real concern and pregnant women, in particular,
are cautioned to limit the amount of fish and shellfish they eat to protect
unborn children from developing severe neurological problems associated
with mercury exposure.
Now, two studies suggest
that mercury may be found in detectable amounts in a common sweetener used
in a wide variety of products.
According to a study
published in the journal Environmental Health by Renee Dufault, a former scientist at the Food and Drug Administration,
nine out of 20 samples of high fructose corn syrup were found to contain
mercury. The study’s author put the average daily consumption of corn syrup
at 50 grams per person in the U.S.
Ms. Dufault,
who retired from the FDA last year, claimed to have shared her findings
with the agency but no action was taken.
A
separate study conducted by Dr. David Wallinga of
the non-profit Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy tested 55 food
items containing corn syrup. Products without corn syrup were not tested
for mercury levels.
“We
went and looked at supermarket samples where high fructose corn syrup was
the first or second ingredient on the label,” Dr. Wallinga told Reuters. “We
found about one out of three had mercury above the detection limit.”
Dr. Wallinga believes
that mercury may have found its way into the corn syrup during the manufacturing
process. The Corn Refiners Association said possible sources suggested
by Dr. Wallinga have not been used for several
years.
Discussion Questions:
What will the attention created by these studies mean for retailers selling
products with high fructose corn syrup? What is the proper response to
questions from consumers? Beyond that, will these studies have any impact
on the use of high fructose corn syrup in processed foods and beverages?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
It could cause considerable research into the manufacturing processes to determine the cause and how it can be corrected. But there will have to be an awful lot of negative news about this before any reduction in consumption of soft drinks or other foods would occur, in my opinion.
It is not surprising that Dr. Dufault had to leave the FDA to get the information out. I noted this recently in the New York Times, “Nine dissident scientists at the Food and Drug Administration who say they were forced to approve high-risk medical devices sent a letter to President Obama on Monday stating that agency officials might have made them the targets of a criminal investigation into their complaints.”
The FDA has been tilted toward big industry for some time. High fructose corn syrup is big, big industry. We find it in products that are most surprising. Sandwich Bread? High fructose corn syrup is prolific in food products. Why? The retailers don’t have any idea how prevalent it is.
There already is a growing concern about high fructose corn syrup by consumers resulting in the recent advertising effort of the sweetener association. These concerns range from high fructose corn syrup being part of the nation’s obesity problem to actually having an impact on body chemistry.
The corn sweetener lobby has been under pressure from the obesity issues. This will only add to their list of issues. However, I’m sure there will be quite a bit of debate over the studies and current formulations and on and on. In the short term it will be more negative publicity but it is only one more on top of many others.
From a science perspective, this is absurd for three reasons:
1) The dose makes the poison, as toxicologists say. “Detectable” means nothing.
2) If one was looking for health reasons to avoid HFCS, isn’t there a much more obvious reason?
3) I’m speculating here, and I know I’m treading on what is to some sacred ground, but I suspect this is designed to tie into the autism-mercury hysteria.
Unfortunately, I have no idea how consumers will react to this, as consumers today are not very good at understanding the science.
I predict uncontrolled panic for several weeks…followed by a complete collapse of interest in the issue as the public moves on to the next “crisis.” (I also expect an allegation to be made of a connection–however tenuous–between the sugar refining industry and one or both of the studies.)
Word in CPG-ville is that a new sweetener has been or is close to being approved by the FDA; an ‘all natural’ plant extract out of Africa (sorry, forgot the name–can anyone help me out?). How timely!
HFCS is obviously directly related to obesity, if not one to one, then simply by virtue of pure cost, which relates to increased serving sizes and subsequently consumption. Good riddance and the sooner the better.
Just as transfats were gradually reduced or eliminated when found to be harmful, I think that over a (long) period of time HFCS may be modified and/or replaced although I think the latter is less likely. From a PR perspective, the sooner the need for investigation and potential improvement is publicly recognised, the better. I seriously doubt it will ever disappear but equally seriously hope it can be improved.
There’s evidence that a major contributor to the fall of the Roman Empire was their plumbing – including the delivery of drinking and cooking water – which was made of lead. Thus, lead poisoning shortened their memories, intelligence, sanity, health, and lives.
There are three basic negative issues about high fructose corn syrup: 1.) Medical reports indicate that our bodies process these sugars differently than other sugars and contribute to the various forms of obesity. 2.) The chemical process of converting fructose corn syrup into “high” fructose corn syrup (HFCS) introduces untested or undetected substances into our bodies. 3.) Growing the type of corn used to make fructose corn syrup is heavily subsidized by the U.S. government, sometimes covering the $4 cost of producing a bushel by as much as $3. Thus, the big purchasers of HFCS (soda companies, etc.) often buy the corn to produce their syrup at the equivalent of $1 per bushel with American taxpayers covering the additional cost even before they buy the sweetened products in the supermarket.
“So,” said Mr. HFCS, “How do you like me now that I’m linked to mercury poisoning?”
From an agricultural point of view, the pressure on corn production is immense both economically and politically. From the (now proven ridiculous) ethanol-from-corn crusade to animal feed to HFCS, corn production is negatively influencing transportation costs, acreage for other crops, storage and processing availability, fallow land, organic fertilizer manufacturing, feedlots, and many other industries. All because we apparently prefer an unhealthy sweetener in most of our foods. The Romans liked lead, and we prefer HFCS.
To bone up on HFCS, you could begin by visiting this YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi6fK1PvQK4&feature=related. As with all YouTube links, several related links are also provided on both sides of a question. Check it out and see what you think.
If recent commercials are any indication, the corn sweetener lobby was already sweating bullets about bad press before this latest revelation. Like most food ingredients, I believe it probably is “fine in moderation” like the ads say. But the same can’t be said for mercury, so producers have an obligation to determine how the metal finds its way into the product and stop it from occurring.
Tracking “moderation” is not easy, especially when so many products, from soft drinks to sauces, are formulated with refined corn sweeteners. If they carry mercury too, this could be a stealth risk worth avoiding as we make dietary choices.
Instead of backpedaling and rhetorical arguments about the level of risk, I’d recommend the corn sweetener manufacturers root out the cause of this latest concern, solve it, and inform the public. That’s the best path to lasting trust.
The sweetener Lee is looking for is called Stevia. It is an all-natural sweetener that supposedly has no negative side effects. Only trace amounts are required compared to sugar and it has low calories. Stevia has been on the fringe for quite some time. It will be interesting to see how the FDA’s new stance on the sweetener will affect its use in manufacturing.
If the US allowed free trade with Cuba, and dropped all sugar tariffs and subsidies, would food processors stop using high fructose corn syrup? Sugar might be a lot cheaper than it is today. Would it be cheaper than HFCS?
More Discussions
As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…Is Supply Chain Volatility Here To Stay?
Can we expect an ongoing volatility to remain in terms of retail supply chain?Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?
It could cause considerable research into the manufacturing processes to determine the cause and how it can be corrected. But there will have to be an awful lot of negative news about this before any reduction in consumption of soft drinks or other foods would occur, in my opinion.
It is not surprising that Dr. Dufault had to leave the FDA to get the information out. I noted this recently in the New York Times, “Nine dissident scientists at the Food and Drug Administration who say they were forced to approve high-risk medical devices sent a letter to President Obama on Monday stating that agency officials might have made them the targets of a criminal investigation into their complaints.”
The FDA has been tilted toward big industry for some time. High fructose corn syrup is big, big industry. We find it in products that are most surprising. Sandwich Bread? High fructose corn syrup is prolific in food products. Why? The retailers don’t have any idea how prevalent it is.
There already is a growing concern about high fructose corn syrup by consumers resulting in the recent advertising effort of the sweetener association. These concerns range from high fructose corn syrup being part of the nation’s obesity problem to actually having an impact on body chemistry.
The corn sweetener lobby has been under pressure from the obesity issues. This will only add to their list of issues. However, I’m sure there will be quite a bit of debate over the studies and current formulations and on and on. In the short term it will be more negative publicity but it is only one more on top of many others.
From a science perspective, this is absurd for three reasons:
1) The dose makes the poison, as toxicologists say. “Detectable” means nothing.
2) If one was looking for health reasons to avoid HFCS, isn’t there a much more obvious reason?
3) I’m speculating here, and I know I’m treading on what is to some sacred ground, but I suspect this is designed to tie into the autism-mercury hysteria.
Unfortunately, I have no idea how consumers will react to this, as consumers today are not very good at understanding the science.
I predict uncontrolled panic for several weeks…followed by a complete collapse of interest in the issue as the public moves on to the next “crisis.” (I also expect an allegation to be made of a connection–however tenuous–between the sugar refining industry and one or both of the studies.)
Word in CPG-ville is that a new sweetener has been or is close to being approved by the FDA; an ‘all natural’ plant extract out of Africa (sorry, forgot the name–can anyone help me out?). How timely!
HFCS is obviously directly related to obesity, if not one to one, then simply by virtue of pure cost, which relates to increased serving sizes and subsequently consumption. Good riddance and the sooner the better.
Just as transfats were gradually reduced or eliminated when found to be harmful, I think that over a (long) period of time HFCS may be modified and/or replaced although I think the latter is less likely. From a PR perspective, the sooner the need for investigation and potential improvement is publicly recognised, the better. I seriously doubt it will ever disappear but equally seriously hope it can be improved.
There’s evidence that a major contributor to the fall of the Roman Empire was their plumbing – including the delivery of drinking and cooking water – which was made of lead. Thus, lead poisoning shortened their memories, intelligence, sanity, health, and lives.
There are three basic negative issues about high fructose corn syrup: 1.) Medical reports indicate that our bodies process these sugars differently than other sugars and contribute to the various forms of obesity. 2.) The chemical process of converting fructose corn syrup into “high” fructose corn syrup (HFCS) introduces untested or undetected substances into our bodies. 3.) Growing the type of corn used to make fructose corn syrup is heavily subsidized by the U.S. government, sometimes covering the $4 cost of producing a bushel by as much as $3. Thus, the big purchasers of HFCS (soda companies, etc.) often buy the corn to produce their syrup at the equivalent of $1 per bushel with American taxpayers covering the additional cost even before they buy the sweetened products in the supermarket.
“So,” said Mr. HFCS, “How do you like me now that I’m linked to mercury poisoning?”
From an agricultural point of view, the pressure on corn production is immense both economically and politically. From the (now proven ridiculous) ethanol-from-corn crusade to animal feed to HFCS, corn production is negatively influencing transportation costs, acreage for other crops, storage and processing availability, fallow land, organic fertilizer manufacturing, feedlots, and many other industries. All because we apparently prefer an unhealthy sweetener in most of our foods. The Romans liked lead, and we prefer HFCS.
To bone up on HFCS, you could begin by visiting this YouTube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi6fK1PvQK4&feature=related. As with all YouTube links, several related links are also provided on both sides of a question. Check it out and see what you think.
If recent commercials are any indication, the corn sweetener lobby was already sweating bullets about bad press before this latest revelation. Like most food ingredients, I believe it probably is “fine in moderation” like the ads say. But the same can’t be said for mercury, so producers have an obligation to determine how the metal finds its way into the product and stop it from occurring.
Tracking “moderation” is not easy, especially when so many products, from soft drinks to sauces, are formulated with refined corn sweeteners. If they carry mercury too, this could be a stealth risk worth avoiding as we make dietary choices.
Instead of backpedaling and rhetorical arguments about the level of risk, I’d recommend the corn sweetener manufacturers root out the cause of this latest concern, solve it, and inform the public. That’s the best path to lasting trust.
The sweetener Lee is looking for is called Stevia. It is an all-natural sweetener that supposedly has no negative side effects. Only trace amounts are required compared to sugar and it has low calories. Stevia has been on the fringe for quite some time. It will be interesting to see how the FDA’s new stance on the sweetener will affect its use in manufacturing.
If the US allowed free trade with Cuba, and dropped all sugar tariffs and subsidies, would food processors stop using high fructose corn syrup? Sugar might be a lot cheaper than it is today. Would it be cheaper than HFCS?