Archive for September, 2012

Supermarket ‘short cuts’ and other tricks to steer clear of

Posted by -- September 26, 2012

Back in the days when food was actually food, shoppers didn’t need guidebooks or other informational devices, such as phone apps, to find what they needed. But now that supermarket shopping has become an exercise in navigating through a jumble of competing products, it’s gotten a lot more time-consuming. Food manufacturers, of course, have developed no shortage of short cuts and other gimmicks supposedly designed to simplify shopping and food preparation – many of which have only served to further complicate the problem of providing your family with a nutritious diet within a limited time frame.

Here are some of our picks for some of the dumb and  dumber food product ideas along these lines– items so unworthy of your consideration as a shopper that we wonder how they made it to the marketplace in the first place:

  1. How to make water uncool: If you find the ideas of plain water just too plain for your taste, you can always make some iced tea. But do you really want to want to ‘enhance’ it by pouring in some propylene glycol, acesulfame potassium, two artificial colors and a preservative? That’s what you’ll be doing when you add Mio Energy Liquid Water Enhancer from Kraft Foods. The bottle may be cool, but what’s inside is anything but.
  2. ‘Uncrustworthy’ alternative: I know folks are busy these days, but just how time-consuming is it to make a simple peanut butter and jelly sandwich? Is it really necessary to have to resort to a ready-made alternative like Smucker’s Uncrustables, which comes without any crust but a few other things added, such as dough conditioners and partially hydrogenated oils (as well as high fructose corn syrup, which is a standard ingredient in Smucker’s jelly)? The ad copy claims “Uncrustables sandwiches have that great homemade taste…” But a real “homemade” PB&J can be made quite easily using ingredients that don’t contain all those undesirable additives (in fact, my four-year-old neighbor can make one all by himself).
  3. Bogus bagels: How many times have you had to go to the trouble of taking a package of cream cheese out of the fridge, opening it, and then still having the job of spreading it on a bagel? Well that work effort is now a thing of the past thanks to Bagel-fuls from Kraft. These “toasty bagels and smooth cream cheese all in one” come in eight varieties with “no need for prep or cleanup.” What a time saver! Not mentioned, of course, is the fact that these bun-like concoctions bear no actual resemblance to bagels (a clear-cut case of bagel identity theft), But they do contain artificial colors, refined flour and dough conditioners.
  4. Junk food products in nutritious disguises: Favorites in that category include Canada Dry Ginger Ale with added green tea (and HFCS along with two preservatives), and WhoNu “nutrition rich” cookies — the cookie that is touted to be as nutritious as real foods such as oatmeal, blueberries and milk.
  5. Fruitless foods with fruity names: There are no lack of products to choose from in this category, including drinks, cereals, and so-called “fruit” roll ups. A favorite is Oops! All Berries cereal from the Quaker Oats Cap’n Crunch lineup. As we noted last March, Oops! joins such other breakfast classics as Froot Loops by Kellogg’s, Post Fruity Pebbles, General Mills’ Trix Wildberry Red Swirls and Fruity Cheerios in being a product that will have you searching fruitlessly for any actual fruit. The name of this product, “Oops!” is more of a mystery than the fact it contains no fruit. Could it be that Quaker Oats named it that as sort of a “truth-in-labeling” claim for the less-than-fruity ingredients? Despite the red, purple and odd aqua and green colors in the “fruit” balls, “Oops!” will not provide you with any of the benefits that a real blueberry or strawberry will. And as I’ve learned, if a product has “fruit,” “fruity” or “blueberries” in its name, most likely you won’t find any. So if fresh fruit is out of season in your locale, get some frozen varieties, put a bowl in the fridge at night, and by breakfast time you’ll have some actual fruit to put on your cereal – that is to say, real fruit with real taste!


The bottom line is: don’t waste either your time or money on short cuts and gimmicks that end up getting you nowhere in terms of either making your life easier or your family’s diet healthier.


Be sure to take a moment to sign the new Citizens for Health petition asking the FDA to take action against food and beverage manufacturers using HFCS with fructose amounts above 55 percent (the highest amount the FDA allows), and also, in the interim, to provide accurate label information so consumers know just what they’re buying (you can read the petition here). This “truth-in-labeling” petition asks that the FDA require a manufacturer that uses HFCS to state the fructose percentage in that HFCS formulation and have the label reflect that information, such as HFCS-55, or HFCS-9



When it comes to the fructose in HFCS, there’s no getting away from ‘overconsumption’

Posted by -- September 22, 2012

In Wednesday’s Chicago Tribune, reporter Monica Eng covered the scientific debate over fructose, including mentioning the Citizens for Health petition filed with the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) last month calling for accurate labeling of fructose amounts in HFCS-sweetened foods and beverages.

Eng’s article, headlined “Some health experts sour on fructose,” reported on “fructose dominant” sweeteners – namely high fructose corn syrup formulations that contain amounts of fructose higher than what has been determined to be safe by the FDA (which is no more than 55 percent), in some cases as much as 90 percent.

The Citizens for Health petition is asking the FDA to take action against food and beverage manufacturers using these ‘high fructose’ versions of HFCS, and in the interim, to have them provide accurate label information so consumers know how much fructose is in the HFCS-sweetened food they are buying. (You can sign that petition here, and read it by clicking here.)

The Tribune article also mentions a 2010 study led by Dr. Michael Goran, director of the Childhood Obesity Research Center at the University of Southern California, which found that several popular HFCS-sweetened sodas contained up to 65 percent fructose, not the 55 percent version the Corn Refiners Association has said that these drinks contain.

Of the other experts interviewed by Eng, including Youtube sensation Dr. Robert Lustig (who continues to inaccurately refer to HFCS beverages as “sugar-sweetened drinks” in interviews), most seem to agree that higher fructose amounts “would be more damaging” to the body and that fructose-percentage labeling would be of benefit to consumers.

The ‘missing link’ the ABA failed to take into account

But one apparent dissenter, Dr. John Sievenpiper, a researcher at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, a critic of the anti-fructose movement, is quoted in the Tribune story as saying that “going after this one ingredient has distracted us from the major issue, which is overconsumption.”

Sievenpiper, senior author of a study published this year which reviewed 18 trials (none of which he conducted) came to a conclusion that was well received by industry, especially the American Beverage Association (ABA). Reporting on the study the very next morning after its publication under the headline A calorie is a calorie, the ABA’s take of Sievenpiper’s work was that “…fructose – one of the simple sugars contained in the common sweetener HFCS – is not linked to extra weight gain.”

However, when Food Identity Theft spoke with Sievenpiper in July, he claimed that while below 50 grams of fructose a day does not appear to be triggering any ill effects regarding lipids, blood pressure, uric acid, glycemic control and weight gain,  it’s another story when you go to higher levels.

Relying on what he called the “best data” available, Sievenpiper said he believes the “average (fructose) intake in the U.S. is about 49 grams per day…the 95th percentile intake is 87 grams per day,” and “adolescents are probably consuming 100 grams or more per day just from soda.”

“When we looked at hyper-caloric feeding trials,” he added, “…we do see a very clear, robust and consistent signal for harm. So yes, if you overfeed fructose you do see weight gain, you do see an increase in uric acid and you do see an increase in triglycerides.”

Sievenpiper said at amounts over 60 grams a day, less fructose than what the Tribune story stated would be consumed in an HFCS-sweetened large McDonald’s drink, you will see an increase in triglycerides. And by his own calculations, two regular-size cans of soda with HFCS would put you above the “average” mark with 50 grams — that is if it contained HFCS 55, not the higher amounts found in the Goran study. And what about HFCS 90 and all the other “fructose dominant” versions of HFCS?

“The problem is that fructose is not on the label, either in Canada or the U.S.,” said Sievenpiper. “To be honest, I don’t know what the impact might be, I have more questions than answers,” he added.

But, based on what he told us, one thing seems evident: “overconsumption” may very well have become the norm when it comes to the fructose “jolt” from HFCS.

Wellness guru Andrew Weil, M. D. labels HFCS ‘a direct driver of obesity in kids’

Posted by -- September 18, 2012

“I will predict to you that high fructose corn syrup is going to turn out to be one of the very worst culprits in the diet.”

That statement, from popular author and pioneer in integrative medicine, Andrew Weil, M.D., pretty well sums up what scores of others, consumers and health professionals alike have been saying all along about HFCS.

Weil, who discusses HFCS in a video he made for his web site at, calls HFCS “a direct driver of obesity in kids, one of the single worst things you can give to people that have this genetic constitution that predispose them to insulin resistance…”

Weil adds that “it’s very hard to find things made with sugar.”

If the Corn Refiners Association (CRA)  has its way, that may turn out to be even harder. After the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) rejected its petition attempting to “officially” change the name of high fructose corn syrup to “corn sugar” at the end of May, the CRA apparently went to plan B, hitting up food and beverage manufactures, grocery retailers and chain restaurants with the message that consumers no longer check food labels for, or care about the presence of HFCS in food.

Big Corn even goes as far as to claim on its “Sweet Surprise” web site that “96% of consumers aren’t avoiding HFCS.” But the fact remains that, despite having already spent over $60 million on an advertising blitz aimed at convincing us that its laboratory concoction was a perfectly natural sweetener, the CRA has struck out with consumers, whose responses to its relabeling petition were overwhelmingly negative and who also indicated they’re making a real effort to avoid products laced with HFCS.

Turning the tables, petition-wise

What we now need to do is keep the momentum going with the food industry. To this end, Food Identity Theft has launched its own petition that will be delivered to CEOs of some of the largest food and beverage companies and grocery and restaurant chains, as well as to the FDA, for the purpose of letting them all know that we do care what’s in our food – and that we DON’T want it to contain HFCS!

Our goal is to have collected 100,000 signatures by October – so please take a moment to let the food industry know that the corn refiners are attempting to hoodwink them with misinformation by signing our petition here.

In the meantime, here are a few tips to help keep HFCS out of your diet:

1. Buy organic

While there are  numerous things that make organic a superior choice, one very good reason for buying organic processed foods is that they do not contain any high fructose corn syrup. That means you can be assured that items such as bread, crackers, cookies, ketchup, mustard and jellies bearing the USDA Organic seal are HFCS-free.

2. Read the label

Out mantra here at Food Identity Theft may be “read the label!” Yes, it can be annoying, tedious and a hindrance to fast shopping, but these days it’s the only way to really know what you’re purchasing.

3. Shop at Whole Foods Markets

The entire chair of Whole Foods Markets is a HFCS-free zone. HFCS is on the supermarket’s list of “unacceptable ingredients for food.”

The bottom line, is, we’ve won a major victory in keeping the corn refiners from fooling us with a phony name – but the fight isn’t over, And it won’t be until food producers and retailers realize that HFCS is an ingredient that the majority of consumers decidedly don’t want in the food products they regularly buy – or in their diet.

Organic’s superior nutritional value has already been confirmed and reconfirmed

Posted by -- September 11, 2012

As happens every so often, a supposedly “scientific” analysis has once again attempted to debunk the value of organic food.  And, as usual, the news media have dutifully jumped on board with breathless reporting that a group of expert researchers has determined that organic products simply aren’t what they’re cracked up to be, so we probably shouldn’t waste our money on them.

In this case, a team of doctors from Stanford University, having “combed through thousands of studies to analyze the 237 that most rigorously compared organic and conventional foods,” has concluded that the nutritional differences between them are insignificant, and that generally speaking,  “there isn’t much difference” in their effects on individual health.

While acknowledging that consumers may have various reasons for buying organic food, the study’s senior author, Dr. Dena Bravata, a senior affiliate with Stanford’s Center for Health policy, reportedly declared that if the main reason for doing so was the expectation that organic foods would provide more nutrients, “I would say there is not robust evidence to choose one or the other.”


Not in our book.  And I mean that quite literally, having co-authored the 2008 book Chemical-Free Kids: the Organic Sequel, which describes a multitude of  studies comparing the nutritional quality of organic and non-organic foods, which, all-told, comprise a rather impressive body of “robust evidence” to the contrary.

The name of the chapter devoted to this particular aspect of organic food, “Reclaiming the Food Value That We’ve Lost,” says it all. The extensive research it describes includes:

  • a European Union-funded analysis of a comparative four-year study conducted on a 725-acre farm in Britain and other locations, which found that the organic crops contained up to 40 percent more antioxidants, as well as higher levels of iron and zinc, milk produced by organically raised cows had up to 90 percent higher levels of antioxidants than milk from a conventionally raised herd in a nearby pasture, and that organic tomatoes contained substantially higher levels of antioxidants, including flavonoids, which are credited with reducing the risk of heart disease;
  • another comparative study of organic and conventionally grown melons reported on by a group of University of Colorado researchers at a  2007 meeting of the American Society for Horticultural Science, which indicated that the organic varieties offered greater amounts of vitamin C and polyphenols, antioxidants believed to help prevent both heart disease and cancer;
  • a study done by Italy’s National Institute of Food and Nutrition Research showing organic pears, peaches and oranges also provided higher antioxidant levels than chemically cultivated kinds;
  • comparative studies conducted by University of California at Davis researchers that found organic corn, marionberries and strawberries  to be richer in antioxidant content by 58.5 percent, approximately 50 percent, and 19 percent respectively than nonorganic varieties of the same commodities, and
  • studies conducted at Missouri’s Truman State University concluding that organic oranges contained 30 percent more vitamin C than larger, conventionally grown ones.

Collective analysis of studies?  We’ve got those, too                         

But what about the type of analysis of large groups of studies, such as the one purportedly performed by those Stanford researchers and given so much media hype over the past week?

It just so happens that we talked about a couple of those as well, such as the 2001 review of 41 studies performed by Virginia Worthington at Johns Hopkins University for a doctoral dissertation, which included  an analysis of farm- and market-basket surveys, field trial and greenhouse pot experiments. When taken together, these studies revealed that the organic produce contained 29.3 percent more magnesium, 27 percent more vitamin C, 21 percent more iron and 13.6 percent more phosphorus, as well as having 15.1 percent fewer nitrates, which are far less desirable.

Then there’s the 2008 review of 97 published studies that showed “organic fruits, vegetables and grains contain higher levels of eight of 11 nutrients, including significantly greater concentrations of polyphenols and antioxidants,” and that “organically grown, plant-based foods are on average 25 percent more nutrient dense than their conventionally grown counterparts.”

As it happens, Dr. Chuck Benbrook, chief scientists for the Colorado-based Organic Center, who was a member of the team that reviewed those studies, has weighed in with his own evaluation of the Stanford research. “The basic statistical indicators used by the Stanford team to compare the nutritional quality and safety of organic versus conventional food consistently understate the magnitude of the differences reported in high-quality, contemporary peer-reviewed studies,” Benbrook said.

Benbrook also noted that carefully  designed studies comparing organic and conventional raw foods, including apples, strawberries, grapes, tomatoes, milk, carrots, grains, have found the organic varieties contained 10 to 30 percent higher levels of several nutrients, including vitamin C, antioxidants and phenolic acids, about 60 to 80 percent of the time.

According to Benbrook, the Stanford researchers also failed to consider “extensive, high quality data from the USDA and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on pesticide residue levels, toxicity and dietary risk, as well as a persuasive body of literature on the role of agricultural antibiotic use in triggering the creation of new antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria, and the genes conferring resistance.” That material, in his estimation, shows the most significant, proven benefits of organic food and farming to include reduction in gradual, chemical-induced changes during fetal and childhood development.

As Stanford’s Dr. Bravata acknowledged, there are various reasons why an increasing number of consumers opt for organic foods, chief among which is the desire to reduce as much as possible their dietary exposure to toxic pesticides (which was found to be on average 30 percent lower in organic foods by the Stanford researchers, although Benbrook, using the same data, calculated “an overall 81 percent lower risk or incidence of one or more pesticide residues in the organic samples compared to the conventional samples”).  And that’s not even to mention the fact that organic is the best way to keep a whole slew of undesirable additives out of your family’s diet.

But the fact that they’re also nutritionally superior, by virtue of being grown in soil  that contains far more nutrients than soil used to grow ordinary crops, had already been well established – over and over again — when the Stanford team decided to conduct this latest study said to be aimed at allowing people to “make informed choices.”

So here at FIT, we thought it only fitting that we inform you that nutritional value is one more very important reason to buy organic whenever possible.


Be sure to take a moment to sign the new Citizens for Health petition asking the FDA to take action against food and beverage manufacturers using HFCS with fructose amounts above 55 percent (the highest amount the FDA allows), and also, in the interim, to provide accurate label information so consumers know just what they’re buying (you can read the petition here ). This “truth-in-labeling” petition asks that the FDA require a manufacturer that uses HFCS to state the fructose percentage in that HFCS formulation and have the label reflect that information, such as HFCS-55, or HFCS-90.

CRA members’ countersuit: simply another ‘sugar subterfuge’

Posted by -- September 7, 2012

Like that really annoying kid in the third grade who won’t stop kicking the back of your chair, it seems Big Corn can’t stop kicking around the notion that its ubiquitous, laboratory-derived concoction, high fructose corn syrup is a “form of sugar,” despite the Food & Drug Administration informing them back in May that HFCS does not meet the regulatory definition for actual “sugar.”

In the latest legal action, several giant companies that make HFCS, including Cargill and Archer-Daniels-Midland, have countersued the Sugar Association, saying the group has made “misleading representations” about HFCS. And, as to be expected, all the statements and press releases issued by the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) use the “s” word numerous times when referring to its HFCS product.

Last year, sugar growers and refiners filed a complaint in Los Angeles federal court alleging that the CRA and its member companies have conspired to “deceive the public” about the test-tube sweetener. And in March, those HFCS manufacturers went back to court, asking the judge to dismiss the portion of the case against them, claiming the Corn Refiners Association was solely responsible for the big-bucks ad campaign proclaiming that “sugar is sugar.” But like the CRA’s attempt to officially rename HFCS “corn sugar,” that didn’t’ work either. In the beginning of August, the judge ruled that the case will proceed against the CRA and four member defendants named in the suit.

In the just-filed action, CRA spokesman David Knowles is quoted in a wire story as saying that the Sugar Association has created a “deception” about HFCS – one that will cause HFCS-making companies to suffer damages “in the form of price erosion and lost profit.”

Sugar Association attorney Adam Fox is quoted in the same article, saying that “HFCS has gotten somewhat of a bad name. They can’t change the name, so now they are going to try to sling mud at the sugar industry and try to blame it for all the problems they are experiencing.”

A case that puts a spotlight on the pervasiveness of HFCS

The side benefit of all this being hashed out in court might very well be all the various expert witnesses brought in to testify – and, in the process, shine a critical spotlight on the presence of HFCS in so many processed foods, from soda to ketchup to yogurt to snack cake.

In the press release issued by the CRA about the countersuit, spokesman Knowles reiterates previous comments by his trade group to the effect that “The Sugar Association’s lawsuit (is) part of a ‘silencing campaign.’” intended to “censor our efforts to communicate the simplest and most meaningful fact about high fructose corn syrup. It’s a form of sugar, and consumers should reduce their intake of all added sugars.”

So in essence, what the CRA is asking the court to do is counteract the FDA and allow it to “educate” the public that HFCS is not only no different from sugar metabolically, but no different from sugar at all.

In fact, right on its website, the CRA continues to insist that “(h)igh fructose corn syrup is simply a kind of sugar that is made from corn.” To which is added, “It is comprised of glucose and fructose, the same simple sugars found in table sugar,” although it doesn’t specify what percentage is fructose – which is precisely what the new petition being circulated by Citizens for Health is aimed at making the manufacturers of HFCS disclose on product labels.

Perhaps it will take a court ruling to ‘silence’ the Corn Refiners Association and its member companies by ordering them to cease, once and for all, trying to sell its product under the “sugar is sugar” mantra. If that should result, the best part would be an end, finally, to those commercials about how HFCS is nothing more than sugar made from corn. That, alone, would make this whole sticky situation worthwhile.


Be sure to take a moment to sign the new Citizens for Health petition asking the FDA to take action against food and beverage manufacturers using HFCS with fructose amounts above 55 percent (the highest amount the FDA allows), and also, in the interim, to provide accurate label information so consumers know just what they’re buying (you can read the petition here ). This “truth-in-labeling” petition asks that the FDA require a manufacturer that uses HFCS to state the fructose percentage in that HFCS formulation and have the label reflect that information, such as HFCS-55, or HFCS-90.


Join Citizens for Health in asking the FDA to require accurate HFCS labeling

Posted by -- September 4, 2012

Food Identity Theft — September 4, 2012: Last week I wrote about our petition here at Food Identity Theft to counteract the hype being dispensed by the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) advising food and beverage manufactures that consumers don’t really give a hoot whether their food does or does not contain high fructose corn syrup.

Well, we know that’s nonsense – just another way for the CRA to promote an objectionable ingredient that consumers have clearly indicated they don’t want. If you feel that way as well, you can sign our petition by clicking here. We will be delivering the results to the top guns in the food and beverage industry, as well as to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

During the past few months I’ve reported on high fructose corn syrup that contains concentrations of possibly up to 90 percent fructose  – way more than is permitted by the FDA – that appears to be used in some foods and beverages.

Now Citizens for Health is doing something about it. The group has filed a petition with the FDA asking that the agency take action against food and beverage manufacturers using HFCS with fructose amounts above 55 percent (the highest amount the FDA allows), and also, in the interim, to provide accurate label information so consumers know just what they’re buying (you can read the petition here and sign it by clicking here). The petition asks that the FDA require a manufacturer that uses HFCS to state the fructose percentage in that HFCS formulation and have the label reflect that information, such as HFCS-55, or HFCS-90.

This Citizens for Health campaign comes on the heels of the unsuccessful multimillion-dollar “corn sugar” scam attempt by the CRA, in which  it tried to have high fructose corn syrup relabled with that sweeter-sounding name. In rejecting Big Corn’s petition at the end of May, the FDA made it quite clear that HFCS is NOT sugar. The question of how much fructose this chemical concoction actually contains, however, is still unresolved.

Help prevent the use of unlawful HFCS formulations!

Even if HFCS has never crossed your lips, there’s a bigger issue involved here – truth in labeling – that affects all consumers. So please support and comment on this Citizens for Health petition to accurately label HFCS, even if you regularly avoid products that contain it.

If you never heard about HFCS with these higher fructose concentrations, don’t feel out of the loop, as most folks haven’t. A major part of the CRA’s big bucks campaign was to try and somehow sell the illusion that HFCS is the “same as sugar” with equal amounts of fructose and glucose (natural sugar, or sucrose, contains 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose).

Comments from the FDA and USDA, HFCS sales material and some studies have all indicated that these HFCS formulations with varying fructose amounts have been used for some time. For example: In 2010, Dr. Michael Goran, director of the Childhood Obesity Research Center and professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California, got a surprise when he found the fructose amounts in some of the HFCS-sweetened beverages his team analyzed coming in as high as 65 percent – almost 20 percent higher than if they in fact had contained HFCS 55. Calling it an “unexpected jolt of unhealthy fructose” in his press release, Goran’s landmark study got only limited press coverage.

“The only information we have,” Dr. Goran told me when I spoke with him this past November about his 2010 study, “is that industry says that sodas and beverages are made with HFCS 55, which suggests that 55 percent is fructose. That’s an assumption that everybody makes. So we decided we wanted to actually verify, measure the fructose content so we could get a better handle on how much fructose people were actually consuming every time they open a can of soda,” he said.

Goran who said he “totally supports” the Citizens for Health petition, also believes this labeling reform effort is “badly needed.”

“This petition makes perfect sense given the broad use of high fructose corn syrup in our food supply,” Goran told Food Identity Theft.  “Consumers need to be provided with accurate label information, especially with regards to fructose content.”

Another indicator of higher-than-allowed fructose formulations is a product called HFCS 90, an acknowledged 90 percent fructose HFCS formulation.

HFCS 90 isn’t new; it was developed in the 1970s, and one of the most interesting references to HFCS 90 comes from a leading manufacturer of high fructose corn syrup, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), which has a page on its corporate website about its trademarked version of the product called Cornsweet 90.®
“Cornsweet 90 ®,” the site says, “containing about 90% fructose, is ADM’s sweetest high fructose corn syrup. Its high sweetness makes it the ideal choice for reduced calorie foods such as beverages, jellies and dressings.”

As for the FDA, they know about HFCS 90, too, saying they deliberately did not include it in the 1996 generally recognized as safe (GRAS) notice for HFCS. The FDA commented that HFCS 90 has “a substantially different ratio of glucose to fructose,” and that “the agency does not have adequate information to assess the safety…”

All of this leaves us with the question of what exactly is the fructose content of foods containing HFCS? Is it 42 percent, 55 percent, 65 percent, 90 percent,or somewhere in between? And what about those low-calorie and diet foods that ADM says its Cornsweet 90 ® is “ideal” for?

These are things every American consumer should have a right to know.  And by signing and supporting this Citizens for Health Petition, you’ll be making a statement that secrecy is impermissible when it comes to what we’re ingesting – and how much.