Note: this isn't the first time the Chicago Tribune has been guilty of this.
You may have seen lots of coverage about how sugar is returning to food products, replacing high-fructose corn syrup. But don't be fooled that there aren't forces at work trying desperately to keep high-fructose corn syrup on top of the sweetener heap.
But this column from Greg Burns in the Chicago Tribune is such a horrible example of that lame attempt at the keeping of the status quo.
The Chicago Tribune has been kind to Archer Daniels Midland because the company is based in Illinois. This behavior is even more disturbing when you consider that Archer Daniels Midland executives have been convicted of price fixing of lysine.
Let's start with issues the Tribune itself should have addressed. The term in question is high-fructose corn syrup, not "corn syrup." In the headline, "corn syrup" is identified without the proper marker. Within the story, there are 8 references to "corn syrup" and only 1 reference to high-fructose corn syrup.
Either Greg Burns has enough power to demand the deception, the Tribune didn't use any editors or copy editors, or Burns/Tribune is deliberately deceiving the readers.
Burns speaks of credibility and deception without looking into the mirror. Anyone who wants to challenge the "perception" of high-fructose corn syrup is looking upon with scorn. In Burns' mind, there isn't anything wrong with high-fructose corn syrup, just the people who go against the grain (pun intended).
But corn syrup carries a taint in the marketplace. Some U.S. consumers believe the grain-derived sweetener contributes more to obesity than an equal amount of sugar.
It's more than just "some" but "some" is usually used by the MSM to show disdain. In the context, it would be difficult to read the copy any other way.
In more proof that editors aren't at work here, Burns compares "corn syrup" to Tiger Woods.
Like golfer Tiger Woods, corn syrup has a team of spin doctors working on its image, and many researchers find nothing particularly bad about it.
Of course, "many" is more and better than "some." Oh, and high-fructose corn syrup have been spinning long before the world knew who Tiger Woods was.
Some do, however, including a team at Princeton University that found lab rats gained more weight eating corn syrup than sugar. The study's much-debated details hardly matter. Whatever the facts, the lobbyists at the Corn Refiners Association don't stand a chance in the credibility contest against Princeton, which is bad news for Midwest syrup-makers such as Archer Daniels Midland Co., Cargill Inc. and Corn Products International Inc.
Burns mentions the Princeton study but doesn't give it much credibility. Why? We don't know. The study's details are "much-debated" but "whatever the facts." Clearly, Burns doesn't find the study or the facts to be viable, but isn't interested in letting us know what is wrong. "Some" columnists would back up their cheap shots, but not Burns.
As if the message wasn't clear, the protected class has to be isolated: Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, and Corn Products. Burns doesn't seem to realize that if high-fructose corn syrup were to be banned tomorrow, these companies would still be plenty rich.
For decades, corn syrup reigned as the industrial food-sweetener of choice, primarily thanks to Uncle Sam. Trade barriers made sugar more costly to U.S. consumers, while farm subsidies begat bumper corn crops.
Burns gets this one correct, but doesn't make the link that political pressure from companies such as Archer Daniels Midland is why we are drenched in high-fructose corn syrup.
Burns quotes from PepsiCo Inc. Chief Executive Indra Nooyi and mentions Pepsi's activities. But Burns fails to mention Pepsi's throwback products, sugar-sweetened versions of Pepsi and Mountain Dew. Mentioning Pepsi Throwback and Mountain Dew Throwback would have defeated Burns' one-sided message.
There is the sad reality that "many" business columnists will throw themselves in front of powerful corporations, regardless of the facts involved. Burns and the Chicago Tribune have every right to pump up use of high-fructose corn syrup on its pages. But they have the journalistic responsibility and ethics to correctly identify the product as "high-fructose corn syrup." Only then can we have a real conversation on high-fructose corn syrup.
They deserve to be guilty. What they are doing might put our health to risk.
Posted by: George | June 05, 2012 at 02:23 AM