Nice. I saw that and I supported it by buying a bottle this weekend.
I don't stay up nights and stress HFCS, but when I can avoid it, I do.
Peace, G
I agree nothing to stress about, in all honesty people (aka the media) over hype HFCS, and this is coming from a person with a degree in nutrition. Yes, it could be detrimental due to its extreme concentration of fructose, but if people use common sense and don't wolf it down by the bucket, it's harmless.
Either way, it is good to see corporations making positive strides towards a more "natural" product (I assume they are just replacing it with normal sugars and taking the hit on cost?)
The dictionary is the only place you'll find success before work.
Bachelor of Science in Human Nutrition/Exercise Science from The Ohio State University
Looks like Heinz is reducing salt in all of their products :D
Same here, G. It's nice to see companies recognizing the wants of their consumers.
Salt? Yes, that is something I care more about. Thanks.
I don't know. Is is the dog wagging the tail? A few years ago, it seemed like everyone and his mother was lowering the fat in their snack foods. "Reduced fat" or "low fat" was on practically every food. Was this a case of manufacturers listening to consumers? Or just looking for ways to market their goods for increased profits? In the end, where did all these reduced fat snacks get us? Was it helpful? So perhaps I am a bit cynical when I see a company try to reduce HFCS. In general, a good thing? Sure. But what are the unintended consequences of such actions?
Salt? Yes, that is something I care more about. Thanks.
I don't know. Is is the dog wagging the tail? A few years ago, it seemed like everyone and his mother was lowering the fat in their snack foods. "Reduced fat" or "low fat" was on practically every food. Was this a case of manufacturers listening to consumers? Or just looking for ways to market their goods for increased profits? In the end, where did all these reduced fat snacks get us? Was it helpful? So perhaps I am a bit cynical when I see a company try to reduce HFCS. In general, a good thing? Sure. But what are the unintended consequences of such actions?
well some companies will switch to table sugar...but what I look for are companies that make the change to honey or mollasses, or simply remove the HFCS & sugar all to gether as it wasn't needed in the 1st place (for something foods)...then I kow IMO they are making the right choice (again this is IMO)....same with salts, I look for "sea" salt...
BodySpace Facebook Just throw "Animal" in the friend request comment/message.
Fortitudinem et Honorem
You eat everyday, you sleep everyday, and your body was made to exercise everyday.--Jack LaLanne (R.I.P.)
well some companies will switch to table sugar...but what I look for are companies that make the change to honey or mollasses, or simply remove the HFCS & sugar all to gether as it wasn't needed in the 1st place (for something foods)...then I kow IMO they are making the right choice (again this is IMO)....same with salts, I look for "sea" salt...
The large companies, the ones you see in all the national chains are, by and large, not catering to people like you. Luckily for you, you have options but you have to shop at niche grocers. That is the sad truth. For these large companies, it's about margins and profits. Margins and profits are intimately tied to price, of course, as well as things like shelf stability. There is a reason why HFCS and trans fats are so prevalent in our foods. Do we blame these companies or do we blame consumers?
The large companies, the ones you see in all the national chains are, by and large, not catering to people like you. Luckily for you, you have options but you have to shop at niche grocers. That is the sad truth. For these large companies, it's about margins and profits. Margins and profits are intimately tied to price, of course, as well as things like shelf stability. There is a reason why HFCS and trans fats are so prevalent in our foods. Do we blame these companies or do we blame consumers?
it looks like consumers here since I am goin to go out on a limb and say they are making these changes away from HFCS because they noticed that the consumer was not purchasing their merchandise do the HFCS present in it...
BodySpace Facebook Just throw "Animal" in the friend request comment/message.
Fortitudinem et Honorem
You eat everyday, you sleep everyday, and your body was made to exercise everyday.--Jack LaLanne (R.I.P.)
Salt? Yes, that is something I care more about. Thanks.
I don't know. Is is the dog wagging the tail? A few years ago, it seemed like everyone and his mother was lowering the fat in their snack foods. "Reduced fat" or "low fat" was on practically every food. Was this a case of manufacturers listening to consumers? Or just looking for ways to market their goods for increased profits? In the end, where did all these reduced fat snacks get us? Was it helpful? So perhaps I am a bit cynical when I see a company try to reduce HFCS. In general, a good thing? Sure. But what are the unintended consequences of such actions?
I can tell that you are, as you said, a cynic and the type of person who thinks that others are inherently bad. It's OK, I am not judging you. I have a brother who is the same way. I prefer to think optimistically and judge people as inherently good. "You make your own reality," as they say.
It is unfortunate we live in a time that manufacturers will do whatever they can do to increase the profit while skirting the best interests of their customers. It is fueled by greed and a lack of a conscience at the corporate level. I can't tell you if 'Hunt's' means well by their actions. Knowing how marketing works, they will do this, replace the HFCS with regular sucrose and go on a "we are looking out for the best interests of our consumers" campaign.
I do not want to get into a political debate about this, as it is not allowed on the FORVM. But I will say that, with all things being equal, if it comes down to choosing between HFCS or sucrose in a product, I would be better served health-wise choosing sucrose.
I can tell that you are, as you said, a cynic and the type of person who thinks that others are inherently bad. It's OK, I am not judging you. I have a brother who is the same way. I prefer to think optimistically and judge people as inherently good. "You make your own reality," as they say.
It is unfortunate we live in a time that manufacturers will do whatever they can do to increase the profit while skirting the best interests of their customers. It is fueled by greed and a lack of a conscience at the corporate level. I can't tell you if 'Hunt's' means well by their actions. Knowing how marketing works, they will do this, replace the HFCS with regular sucrose and go on a "we are looking out for the best interests of our consumers" campaign.
I do not want to get into a political debate about this, as it is not allowed on the FORVM. But I will say that, with all things being equal, if it comes down to choosing between HFCS or sucrose in a product, I would be better served health-wise choosing sucrose.
One man's cynicism is another man's realism. It's not as simple as I made it out to be, nor as simple as your'e describing it to be. "Greed" is a strong word, I think. "Lack of conscience"? I don't think so. The relationship between company and consumer is more dynamic and more dialectical, I think. Companies are looking to minimize costs and maximize profits. But they are also looking to produce widgets that appeal to consumers. So they always have to take consumer desires into account. If consumers want HFCS-free products, and if companies see a competitive advantage, they will invest in the short terms costs of launching a new product. There are always opportunity costs that have to be taken into account on the production side. On the consumer side, we want it all. We want convenience, cheap prices, and a constant supply of products to choose from. We can all ask that companies use only natural ingredients--let's say molasses or sea salt. But sea salt is pretty expensive compared to good old Morton's. Molasses is a natural ingredient that will reduce shelf life. Are we willing to pay 100% more for ketchup if we knew it contained no HFCS and other additives? Some are. We are the minority. In the end, consumer demand for an endless supply of cheap, inexpensive goods is partially why we are in the state that we are.
One man's cynicism is another man's realism. It's not as simple as I made it out to be, nor as simple as your'e describing it to be. "Greed" is a strong word, I think. "Lack of conscience"? I don't think so. The relationship between company and consumer is more dynamic and more dialectical, I think. Companies are looking to minimize costs and maximize profits. But they are also looking to produce widgets that appeal to consumers. So they always have to take consumer desires into account. If consumers want HFCS-free products, and if companies see a competitive advantage, they will invest in the short terms costs of launching a new product. There are always opportunity costs that have to be taken into account on the production side. On the consumer side, we want it all. We want convenience, cheap prices, and a constant supply of products to choose from. We can all ask that companies use only natural ingredients--let's say molasses or sea salt. But sea salt is pretty expensive compared to good old Morton's. Molasses is a natural ingredient that will reduce shelf life. Are we willing to pay 100% more for ketchup if we knew it contained no HFCS and other additives? Some are. We are the minority. In the end, consumer demand for an endless supply of cheap, inexpensive goods is partially why we are in the state that we are.
I would like to go into this discussion further, but FORVM rules prevent this. If you would like, send me a PM with your email and we can bounce some more ideas off of each other. I am always up for a good debate :)
I will agree though that we are the minority, and it is sad that we focus more on emergency care i.e. the health care debate, rather than preventative care i.e. eating better foods, exercising more, having more sleep, drinking water and milk instead of sodas and fruit drinks. This is why I am interested in the removal of HFCS from products. It shows hope for more healthy changes in the future.
just for arguement sake I know HFCS has a long self life, which is why it is used so much, well that and it is dirt cheap...but I'd also like to point out that Honey is the only (well the only one I am aware of) naturally made food that DOES NOT spoil...I am not sure about molasses or maple syrup...
BodySpace Facebook Just throw "Animal" in the friend request comment/message.
Fortitudinem et Honorem
You eat everyday, you sleep everyday, and your body was made to exercise everyday.--Jack LaLanne (R.I.P.)
What are you talking about? Haven't you seen the commercials? HFCS is made from corn, and is equivalent in calories to sugar, and is fine in moderation! HFCS is good for you!...lol
WHEN YOU DOUBT YOUR POWER, YOU GIVE POWER TO YOUR DOUBT
just for arguement sake I know HFCS has a long self life, which is why it is used so much, well that and it is dirt cheap...but I'd also like to point out that Honey is the only (well the only one I am aware of) naturally made food that DOES NOT spoil...I am not sure about molasses or maple syrup...
Remember, it's about mass production for those foods you find in national supermarket chains. Honey is pretty stable as you said due low water activity among other things. And while it is not particularly allergenic, for those who are allergic to it, honey can induce anaphylaxis. You might make 1000 people happy by using a natural sweetener like honey, but you get 1 person who goes into anaphylatic shock, well, you've got problems. Plus, would the majority of consumers pay more for products sweetened with honey than with HFCS? Again, it's the tyranny of the majority.