No new name for high fructose corn syrup
The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) denied a petition made by the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) to rename high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) corn sugar.
May 31, 2012 at 07:50 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) denied a petition made by the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) to rename high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) “corn sugar.” The association requested the change because of the negative impression and confusion the public has of the term “high fructose corn syrup.”
The FDA, which decides what can go on food labels, said changing the name would only confuse U.S. consumers and may even pose a health risk to people who suffer from fructose intolerance.
The CRA petitioned the FDA for the name change in September 2010. After 20 months of review, the FDA sent a letter to CRA President Audrae Erickson yesterday, explaining its ruling.
“Your petition does not provide sufficient grounds for the agency to authorize 'corn sugar' as an alternate common or usual name for HFCS,” said Michael M. Landa, director of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, in the letter. “The use of the term 'sugar' to describe HFCS, a product that is a syrup, would not accurately identify or describe the basic nature of the food or its characterizing properties. … We are not persuaded by the arguments in the petition that consumers do not associate 'corn sugar' with dextrose. The term 'corn sugar' has been used to describe dextrose for over 30 years.”
The CRA's request came only after the association launched a multimillion-dollar marketing campaign, which argued that sugar and HFCS were identical—claims that sparked false advertising suits filed by Big Sugar against the corn industry.
“The FDA's ruling represents a victory for American consumers,” Dan Callister, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the ongoing litigation, said in a statement. “It reaffirms what most consumer advocates, health experts and policy officials have been saying all along: only sugar is sugar. HFCS is not sugar. The next step is for the federal court to end the CRA's misleading propaganda campaign.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
US Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readPreparing for 2025: Anticipated Policy Changes Affecting U.S. Businesses Under the Trump Administration
Trending Stories
- 1Clifford Chance Hikes Partner Pay as UK Firms Fight to Stay Competitive on Compensation
- 2Judicial Conduct Watchdog Opposes Supreme Court Justice's Bid to Withdraw Appeal of Her Removal
- 3Lessons in Mediation & Negotiation: Attorneys' Reflections on Jimmy Carter
- 4Legal Issues to Watch in the US Appeals Courts in 2025
- 5Ex-MoviePass CEO Submits to Ban, Settling SEC Allegations
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250