Meta-Luxury

rss

lather, rinse, rebrand

Corn Sugar vs. Corn Syrup: Sweet-Talking Consumers

Posted by Abe Sauer on September 14, 2010 03:45 PM


Here's a story that illustrates why many Americans abhor the practice of branding and its practitioners.

The Corn Refiners Association, the lobbying arm of US manufacturers of high-fructose corn syrup, is petitioning America's Food and Drug Administration to change the name of corn syrup to "corn sugar."

The lobbying group applied today for permission to drop the "corn syrup" moniker, arguing that "the name is confusing consumers." And when the Association says consumers are "confused" about what the product actually is, what it means is that consumers (now) "perfectly understand" what the product actually is.

The CRA is supporting its renaming campaign with a new online marketing push at cornsugar.com and sweetsurprise.com, a Twitter page called Sweet Facts and TV spots.

The New York Times reports on research from the NPD Group indicating that nearly 60% of Americans are worried about the health risks of high-fructose corn syrup.

Indeed, the substance has been taking a beating in the last few years, shouldering much of the blame for America's skyrocketing obesity rates. High-fructose corn syrup is now commonly mentioned as the key ingredient in the millions of gallons of sweetened beverages that themselves are blamed for the supersizing of portions (and Americans).

The FDA has not yet made a ruling on the petition, which would lead to name changes on food labels. It has six months to decide.

While cynics can (probably somewhat justifiably) find malevolence in the CRA's efforts, the group does have a point about confusion.

Other sweetening agents, including cane, beet and other sources, go by the term "sugar." Corn sugar is fundamentally also a sugar so it should be granted the same branding terms; as the Times notes, "most leading scientists and nutrition experts agree that in terms of health, the effect of high-fructose corn syrup is the same as regular sugar."

Of course, that confusion didn't seem to be a concern of the CRA's when it lobbied in high-fructose corn syrup's favor for years as everyone was looking out for "sugar."

Will consumers really buy this name change? Maybe. Message board comments about the story would indicate not. Then again, it's likely that those who never cared about what they ate aren't about to start noticing now.

In the meantime, consumers will see commercials such as this one, which uses the CRA's desired name in the line, "Whether it's corn sugar or cane sugar, sugar is sugar. Your body can't tell the difference."

Comments

Elliott Krejci United States says:

Here is the problem with HFCS. This is taken from cornsugar.com: “HFCS was developed in the 1970s when the food industry began looking for alternatives to traditional cane sugar that could provide similar sweetness, taste and quality for a fraction of the price." "...Taste and quality for a fraction of the price". It was developed with the bottomline in mind. A good business decisions in most applications, but when it comes to my body and health I don't think my best interests where thought of at the time it was created. Consumers are too smart to be fooled by this campaign. The trends show that consumers are more interested in functional and healthier more natural ingredients and from my research, this is not slowing down.

September 15, 2010 09:50 AM #

Mike United States says:

Yet another example of people not "thinking" this through.  What's the problem with the re-brand . . . it IS sugar?!?!  Let them rebrand, and don't villify them for it.  It's high time for personal responsibility in this country.  The CRA didn't make the nation obese, the people of the nation did it to themselves.

Sorry, but I can't fathom a comment such as "I don't think my best interests were thought of at the time it was created".  That's because it's up to you to make your own decisions of what you eat.  Don't blame it on anybody else but yourself.  And if the ingredients call for sugar, but you can get the EXACT same thing for less $ w/ HFCS, why not??

September 15, 2010 10:29 AM #

Elliott Krejci United States says:

"Sorry, but I can't fathom a comment such as "I don't think my best interests were thought of at the time it was created".  That's because it's up to you to make your own decisions of what you eat."

I agree with you and with that we have rid our household of products containing HFCS. My point was that some companies in the past have put profit over safety, health, etc., before. The science may not have been around in the 70s, but it is today and the research I have done concludes the HFCS can aid in the development of type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease. So you would say, don't eat it. But until the backlash that have sent a lot of companies reeling to take it out, HFCS was hard to avoid. They can re-brand all they want. My point is that the re-branding efforts will be like trying to paddle upstream without a paddle.

September 15, 2010 10:52 AM #

Howard J. Wilk United States says:

A very important point has been missed.  The Corn Refiners Association should not be allowed to call HFCS "corn sugar," because "corn sugar" already means something else:  corn sugar means glucose aka dextrose.  No other sugar or sugars (HFCS is a mixture of glucose and fructose) can be called corn sugar.

A wikipedia search for "corn sugar" was redirected to glucose or dextrose up until 14 September 2010, when somebody changed the redirection to HFCS.  (Last I checked, a search for "corn sugar" goes to a disambiguation page, which states that corn sugar is glucose but the Corn Refiners Association wants it to be used for HFCS.)

If you google shop for "corn sugar" you get hits on places you can buy glucose/dextrose.  The Corn Refiners Association has a sponsored link to one of their HFCS pages.

The Corn Refiners Association should not be at liberty to change the English language at their command.

September 15, 2010 03:26 PM #

Comments are closed

What Branders are Saying on Twitter

elsewhere on brandchannel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
brandcameoThe Avengers
Acura leads brand blitz
Martin LindstromMartin Lindstrom:
On Brandwashing, Brand Ethics, and Privacy
debateJoin the Debate
What's your can't live without brand?
BPBP
Back in Business?
Michael Stone and Nancy BaileyMove Over Mad Men: Here Come the Brand Licensors
Beanstalk's Michael Stone & Nancy Bailey
Digital Watch: WahlWahl Climbing
Wahl’s Digital Branding
paperThe Millennial Consumer: Debunking Stereotypes
The latest from The Boston Consulting Group
Jeff Weedman
P&G's Jeff Weedman

Connect + Develop Your Career
Marketing to the New MajorityBranding 123
By Barry Silverstein