Although it would be nice if they would fundamentally change the process to something more healthy, backers of the product have solved the problem by just changing the name. Although the NYTimes article doesn't suggest that HFCS is any worse for you than regular sugar , its a totally dishonest way to ameliorate bad press. Calling something bad for you by a different name to confuse consumers is dishonest and it will invariably make worse problems of obesity and those at high risk for diabetes.
Note that this hasn't gone through yet with the USDA yet but the article seems optimistic it will.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment