While high fructose corn syrup (usually a blend of fructose and glucose) was a ubiquitous food ingredient, it now has a bad reputation. For example, the bottle of syrup I used on my pancakes proudly proclaims, “no high fructose corn syrup!” As consumers turned against high fructose corn syrup, the Corn Refiners Association tried to get the United States FDA to allow them to rename the syrup “corn sugar.” While there are serious health concerns about sugar, it is generally looked upon more favorably than high fructose corn syrup. The FDA denied this request because the syrup did not meet the definition of “sugar” and thus, using an argument by definition, it follows that high fructose corn syrup is not sugar. According to the FDA, sugar must be “a solid, dried and crystallized food.” High fructose corn syrup, being syrup, obviously does not meet this definition.
The Corn Refiners Association did try to convince the public that high fructose corn syrup is a form of sugar and is comparable to table sugar. Not surprisingly, the Sugar Association responded with a lawsuit. Battles over names in the food industry is nothing new or particularly unusual. For example, there was a battle between the producers of dairy milk and the makers of soymilk over whether soy milk should be legally allowed to be called “soy milk.” As you can see in your local supermarket, soy milk is still legally milk.
It might, of course, be wondered why food names matter. In the case of high fructose corn syrup, the most likely reason was noted above: while high fructose corn syrup has a bad reputation, sugar still has a better reputation (deserved or not). As such, replacing “high fructose corn syrup” with “corn sugar” on ingredient labels could cause uninformed consumers to believe that they were not consuming high fructose corn syrup, thus allowing more syrup to be sold.
Because of government subsidies for corn, high fructose corn syrup is cheaper than “table” sugar and is widely used because it provides more sweetness for the dollar. As such, high fructose corn syrup is a competitor to sugar that enjoys a price advantage. As might be suspected, it seems reasonable that the Sugar Association did not want a major competitor to change the name of their signature product that was falling out of favor.
For those who recall basic chemistry, this dispute will probably seem odd. After all, fructose is chemically classified as sugar (as is, obviously, glucose). As such, it is tempting to agree with the Corn Refiners Association: high fructose corn syrup is sugar. However, the FDA does not define “sugar” chemically, but also in terms of its state (it must be a solid-at least in its “normal” state). As such, syrup is not a sugar–even if it is chemically sugar (or two sugars mixed). This, of course, might suggest that the dispute was the result of an arcane legal process in which the definition of what seem to be a chemical term is set by bureaucrats and lobbyists rather than by chemists. Given that chemists are the legitimate experts on what counts as a sugar, it would seem more rational to rely on the scientific rather than a political definition of “sugar.”
One obvious reply is that the FDA might have a legitimate reason for classifying sugar in a way that involves it being a specific sort of solid rather than based on its chemical composition. After all, looking at the matter from the standpoint of food classifications, there does seem to be a reasonable distinction between syrup and sugar. To use an appeal to intuition, imagine that you ask for some sugar for your coffee and you are handed a bottle of syrup. If the response to your puzzled look was “this is fructose syrup, which is a sugar”, then you would probably say you meant the white crystal stuff. As such, from the standpoint of how consumers understand “sugar” and “syrup”, high fructose corn syrup would be syrup and not sugar. This leads to the second point.
A second obvious reply is that renaming high fructose corn syrup would seem to mislead consumers. As noted above, until consumers realized that “corn sugar” is just high fructose corn syrup, they would probably buy products thinking they are avoiding an ingredient they do not want. While I will not make any claims about the true intentions of the Corn Refiners Association, misleading the public in this way is morally dubious at best. But probably good business.
My second reply could be countered by arguing that the name change is not intended to mislead consumers but to offset an unfair bad reputation. After all, consumers often seem to see high fructose corn syrup as bad or at least as worse than sugar. If this is not the case, then the syrup is being judged unfairly. If this is the case, then it could be contended that the name change would merely allow the maligned ingredient to shed its unearned bad reputation. This could be seen as a person who has been falsely accused of misdeeds electing to change their name for a fresh start because they have been unable to erase the stain on their original name. This does have a certain moral appeal to it, but I am inclined to think that it is offset by the fact that most consumers would be ignorant of the name change and hence would be misled by such labels.
While one should always check the latest science, the best evidence now is that sugar is not good for us—at least if we eat too much. So, sugar by any other name would be just as sweet but also just as harmful.
A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!
You can subscribe and read for free.