I've gotten this alarmist warning a few times in my FB news feed- if you google it there are a few articles about it with basically the same conclusion (to me, the conclusion seems to be pointing to the obvious but unproven, unverified)
I feel very disheartened about any type of big bright labelling claiming to be something (or not something) and it's a lie. That it's coming from a brand and close cousin to one of the few foods (plain rice chex) that I'm eating right now really bugs me.
Does anyone know anything more definitive about this "fructose" ingredient?
http://blog.fooducate.com/2015/01/09/ca ... l-package/
General Mills Vanilla Rice Chex
Moderators: Rosie, JFR, Dee, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh, mbeezie
Sarah,
I tend to ignore such ridiculous claims. First off, HFCS and cane sugar are definitely not the only sources of fructose. All fruits, berries, many vegetables, honey, and various other natural foods are loaded with it. The high fructose content is one of the reasons why many of us cannot tolerate many/most fruits until we are in remission.
There are way too many people who don't have a life, so they have nothing better to do but try to win 15 minutes of fame by posting some sort of sensational BS on the Internet, simply because they hate manufacturers in general, or they correctly perceive them as easy targets, because so many people inappropriately accuse manufacturers of everything from their own obesity to the coming demise of the world.
First off, contrary to that author's ridiculous claim, fructose is definitely a natural ingredient. And who ever wrote that doesn't have the foggiest idea what the source of that fructose in the cereal might be. If they're so smart, why don't they know? They could have it tested, if they weren't so cheap. But they would rather attempt to raise a stink and use everyone else's nickle. General Mills could even source it from ordinary corn syrup, and they could legitimately do that, because it wouldn't be from HFCS, so while that might not exactly be kosher, it wouldn't contradict the label laws. But obviously General Mills does not use corn syrup of any type in the product, according to their response.
I'm not a big fan of fructose, because it's more difficult to digest than sucrose, and it tends to cause more weight gain, and other issues. But if it is a toxic ingredient, then we had better stop eating virtually all fruit (and many other foods). Here is what the author of that blog says:
Call me an ignorant old country boy, but as far as I can tell, she received a proper response — she just doesn't have sense enough to realize it, because she apparently has an agenda that is beyond truth and honesty. Life is too short to spend any of it worrying about such blather. General Mills has gone to a lot of trouble and expense to offer 6 of the Chex cereals as safe for celiacs and most of us. If it were a get-rich-quick plan, you can bet that the cereal shelves of grocery shelves would be loaded with many other similar options. It's not easy to please everyone when offering special, and expensive-to-develop foods. We don't need idiots posting lies about products to discourage their manufacture, because if enough people pay attention to such misguided trash, we lose those options.
I eat Vanilla Chex regularly, and I certainly wouldn't consider changing anything because of that blog. Vanilla Chex is so sweet that I don't eat it straight, though . . . I pour about a third of a bowl of Vanilla Chex into a bowl, and then finish filling it with Corn Chex, and it's just about right for my taste. YMMV.
Tex
I tend to ignore such ridiculous claims. First off, HFCS and cane sugar are definitely not the only sources of fructose. All fruits, berries, many vegetables, honey, and various other natural foods are loaded with it. The high fructose content is one of the reasons why many of us cannot tolerate many/most fruits until we are in remission.
There are way too many people who don't have a life, so they have nothing better to do but try to win 15 minutes of fame by posting some sort of sensational BS on the Internet, simply because they hate manufacturers in general, or they correctly perceive them as easy targets, because so many people inappropriately accuse manufacturers of everything from their own obesity to the coming demise of the world.
First off, contrary to that author's ridiculous claim, fructose is definitely a natural ingredient. And who ever wrote that doesn't have the foggiest idea what the source of that fructose in the cereal might be. If they're so smart, why don't they know? They could have it tested, if they weren't so cheap. But they would rather attempt to raise a stink and use everyone else's nickle. General Mills could even source it from ordinary corn syrup, and they could legitimately do that, because it wouldn't be from HFCS, so while that might not exactly be kosher, it wouldn't contradict the label laws. But obviously General Mills does not use corn syrup of any type in the product, according to their response.
I'm not a big fan of fructose, because it's more difficult to digest than sucrose, and it tends to cause more weight gain, and other issues. But if it is a toxic ingredient, then we had better stop eating virtually all fruit (and many other foods). Here is what the author of that blog says:
I didn't realize that some law requires General Mills to use the cheapest ingredients, just because that's a common practice with many processed foods. The price of the product doesn't suggest that they are using cheap ingredients, so why make that unjustified assumption?We called General Mills, the manufacturer of Chex, to inquire about the source of fructose. A friendly representative assured us that fructose is a natural sweetener derived from honey or fruit. She stated that no high fructose corn syrup is used in the product. This is strange: while its true that fructose is one of the sugars present in fruit and honey, it is highly uneconomical to extract fructose from these expensive inputs. Corn is much cheaper. We asked to speak with the product team at General Mills to get more than a scripted reply. We’ll update once we get a proper response.
Call me an ignorant old country boy, but as far as I can tell, she received a proper response — she just doesn't have sense enough to realize it, because she apparently has an agenda that is beyond truth and honesty. Life is too short to spend any of it worrying about such blather. General Mills has gone to a lot of trouble and expense to offer 6 of the Chex cereals as safe for celiacs and most of us. If it were a get-rich-quick plan, you can bet that the cereal shelves of grocery shelves would be loaded with many other similar options. It's not easy to please everyone when offering special, and expensive-to-develop foods. We don't need idiots posting lies about products to discourage their manufacture, because if enough people pay attention to such misguided trash, we lose those options.
I eat Vanilla Chex regularly, and I certainly wouldn't consider changing anything because of that blog. Vanilla Chex is so sweet that I don't eat it straight, though . . . I pour about a third of a bowl of Vanilla Chex into a bowl, and then finish filling it with Corn Chex, and it's just about right for my taste. YMMV.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Tex....was just reading this article, too.....
http://blogs.naturalnews.com/sneaky-nam ... alth-food/
http://blogs.naturalnews.com/sneaky-nam ... alth-food/
Linda :)
LC Oct. 2012
MTHFR gene mutation and many more....
LC Oct. 2012
MTHFR gene mutation and many more....
Linda,
The Corn Refiners Association applied for that name change about a year ago (if my memory is reasonably close), but I'm not aware that the FDA has ever approved it. If they did, I missed it, and I follow a food industry daily newsletter so that I can keep track of things such as that. Also, since the request was only made about a year ago, it's a bit too soon for an approval (let alone the release of products actually using it), because the FDA is usually pretty slow to rule on requests such as that.
I think this is nothing but a tempest in a teapot. The problem with most of these "industry watchers with an agenda" is that when one of them posts something, they all jump right on it, and all the blogs all over the Internet make it appear to be a legitimate beef. Note this request at the end of that blog:
But to hedge my bet a little, even if these claims are valid, so what? Is a little bit of renamed fructose from corn going to kill anyone? You don't see these guys going after the fructose in all the other foods. What's so bad about this particular one? Obviously they have an agenda. Whether they like or not, fructose is natural, and so is corn.
HFCS-90 does not have GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status, and FDA food labeling laws require that HFCS be listed as an ingredient separate from other sweeteners. So in order for General Mills to be in violation of the labeling laws, 2 things have to be true — the name change would have to be approved, and they would have to be using corn as a source. Otherwise, their label would be in violation of the FDA labeling requirements. If that is true, why hasn't the FDA said anything?
Tex
The Corn Refiners Association applied for that name change about a year ago (if my memory is reasonably close), but I'm not aware that the FDA has ever approved it. If they did, I missed it, and I follow a food industry daily newsletter so that I can keep track of things such as that. Also, since the request was only made about a year ago, it's a bit too soon for an approval (let alone the release of products actually using it), because the FDA is usually pretty slow to rule on requests such as that.
I think this is nothing but a tempest in a teapot. The problem with most of these "industry watchers with an agenda" is that when one of them posts something, they all jump right on it, and all the blogs all over the Internet make it appear to be a legitimate beef. Note this request at the end of that blog:
They rightly assume that if they cover the Internet with this stuff, General Mills' legal department won't be as likely to pursue them with defamation suits. They know that General Mills is a very public company, so it can't afford the negative publicity it would get by suing all of them.Please Share “High Fructose Corn Syrup Hiding in Your Health Food"
But to hedge my bet a little, even if these claims are valid, so what? Is a little bit of renamed fructose from corn going to kill anyone? You don't see these guys going after the fructose in all the other foods. What's so bad about this particular one? Obviously they have an agenda. Whether they like or not, fructose is natural, and so is corn.
HFCS-90 does not have GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status, and FDA food labeling laws require that HFCS be listed as an ingredient separate from other sweeteners. So in order for General Mills to be in violation of the labeling laws, 2 things have to be true — the name change would have to be approved, and they would have to be using corn as a source. Otherwise, their label would be in violation of the FDA labeling requirements. If that is true, why hasn't the FDA said anything?
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Tex,
I always try to remind myself that the Internet can be a wealth of information, but it has it's downfalls too. It's saturated with right & wrong info, and deciding which is which can be cumbersome.
If I took to heart everything Mike Adams writes about, I'd be nuts by now.
Thanks for your input.
I always try to remind myself that the Internet can be a wealth of information, but it has it's downfalls too. It's saturated with right & wrong info, and deciding which is which can be cumbersome.
If I took to heart everything Mike Adams writes about, I'd be nuts by now.
Thanks for your input.
Linda :)
LC Oct. 2012
MTHFR gene mutation and many more....
LC Oct. 2012
MTHFR gene mutation and many more....
Hi Linda,
I hear you. And I realize that some of those sites sometimes do accomplish a lot of good for consumers by bringing attention to something that is definitely a serious risk in our food. But in order to maintain and grow their influence (and their feeling of power) these bloggers have to continue to produce "sensational" articles about "serious and unacceptable risks" in our food, whether those risks actually exist (or if they do exist, whether they might actually be significant), or not. If the truth be known, most of these sites/bloggers are mostly interested in their own self-promotion, above all else, and they are well aware that they can take a half-truth and turn it into a big stink, by exploiting the fears of health-conscious people, many of whom sometimes approach a level of fanaticism in their search for truth in miniscule food trivia. And they know that if/when they become notorious enough, they will be rewarded with beau coups of money.
Just how serious a risk is fructose, anyway? If it's so bad, why don't we outlaw all the foods that are naturally loaded with it? They received a reasonable answer from General Mills. Why do they feel obligated to call the response a lie, when they have no evidence to support that accusation? Let's see the accusers actually come up with some valid evidence! Insinuations and half-truths are cheap, and it's easy to complain and criticize (no special skills are required), especially when the accusers don't have any risks on the negative side when they are wrong. Here's what bothers me the most (in this particular case):
Ever since they introduced the line of GF Chex cereals, General Mills has caught nothing but flack from celiacs and self-appointed "protectors of the public health". What started out as a good idea as a way to offer more options for celiacs, has been hijacked by self-appointed food police who have turned the project into pretty much of a PITA for General Mills. They've been accused of various crimes ranging from allowing contamination with gluten (despite the fact that they use very strict manufacturing standards), to labeling fraud (because of the use of fructose as a sweetener, despite the fact that fructose is indeed a natural sweetener). And even if they were to choose to use fructose made from corn (which I doubt they are doing), fructose is still legally, well . . . fructose. After spending millions of dollars to develop these products, and sell them at near-mainstream cereal prices, in order to help consumers who have food sensitivities . . . this is the thanks they get . . . criticism that just goes on and on and on, ad nauseam. If I were in charge of decisions about new products at General Mills, I certainly wouldn't be considering any new products catering to people who have food sensitivities. My attitude would be, "Let 'em eat cake".
Tex
I hear you. And I realize that some of those sites sometimes do accomplish a lot of good for consumers by bringing attention to something that is definitely a serious risk in our food. But in order to maintain and grow their influence (and their feeling of power) these bloggers have to continue to produce "sensational" articles about "serious and unacceptable risks" in our food, whether those risks actually exist (or if they do exist, whether they might actually be significant), or not. If the truth be known, most of these sites/bloggers are mostly interested in their own self-promotion, above all else, and they are well aware that they can take a half-truth and turn it into a big stink, by exploiting the fears of health-conscious people, many of whom sometimes approach a level of fanaticism in their search for truth in miniscule food trivia. And they know that if/when they become notorious enough, they will be rewarded with beau coups of money.
Just how serious a risk is fructose, anyway? If it's so bad, why don't we outlaw all the foods that are naturally loaded with it? They received a reasonable answer from General Mills. Why do they feel obligated to call the response a lie, when they have no evidence to support that accusation? Let's see the accusers actually come up with some valid evidence! Insinuations and half-truths are cheap, and it's easy to complain and criticize (no special skills are required), especially when the accusers don't have any risks on the negative side when they are wrong. Here's what bothers me the most (in this particular case):
Ever since they introduced the line of GF Chex cereals, General Mills has caught nothing but flack from celiacs and self-appointed "protectors of the public health". What started out as a good idea as a way to offer more options for celiacs, has been hijacked by self-appointed food police who have turned the project into pretty much of a PITA for General Mills. They've been accused of various crimes ranging from allowing contamination with gluten (despite the fact that they use very strict manufacturing standards), to labeling fraud (because of the use of fructose as a sweetener, despite the fact that fructose is indeed a natural sweetener). And even if they were to choose to use fructose made from corn (which I doubt they are doing), fructose is still legally, well . . . fructose. After spending millions of dollars to develop these products, and sell them at near-mainstream cereal prices, in order to help consumers who have food sensitivities . . . this is the thanks they get . . . criticism that just goes on and on and on, ad nauseam. If I were in charge of decisions about new products at General Mills, I certainly wouldn't be considering any new products catering to people who have food sensitivities. My attitude would be, "Let 'em eat cake".
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.