Slightly More Subtle...

Ok, so this entry from the Seattle Times website already has a mark against it at the outset for being a regurgitated AP news story.  Seriously, guys: you're the last remaining old-school print newspaper in this town.  Write your own goddamn articles.

But since you posted it in your Food & Wine section with only a small by-line to establish that it isn't your reporting, I'm indicting both you and the AP equally for this piece of faux-objective garbage.  This article is full of subtle language that undermines one side while falsely bolstering the other.  For example look at this:

(from the article)   Two new commercials try to alleviate shopper confusion, showing people who say they now understand that "whether it's corn sugar or cane sugar, your body can't tell the difference. Sugar is sugar."


Oh!  Those helpful commercials!  Trying to alleviate confusion!  You know how most people 'alleviate confusion?' by using facts to explain the situation.  So at first glance, it seems like the commercials are legit:  Your body can't tell the difference!  Sugar is sugar!  It's the same thing, so don't worry, herp derp!


Except, a 3 second session with Google finds several examples of how that statement is patently false.  And mind you, that is while studiously avoiding the one study the article actually mentions.


Then the article quotes a high-level executive from a large, 'science-y sounding' group (the Center For Science in the Public Interest), who makes major claims:


(again, from the article) But sugar and high fructose corn syrup are nutritionally the same, and there's no evidence that the sweetener is any worse for the body than sugar, said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The bottom line is people should consume less of all sugars, Jacobson said.


Dang.  That's a huge appeal to authority argument.  Except, he isn't a scientist, and by it's own admission the CSPI isn't a scientific organization.  On their own website, they refer to themselves as a 'public advocacy action center'.   So, maybe he should have to back his claim up?  But nope.  In fact, whatever your ultimate position on HFCS, it's obvious his claim is not factually correct.


And on the other side?  moms don't like it...even the First Mom!  Way to be misleading and sexist at the same time (which is super-ironic considering that the article was written by a woman).


And the author completely avoids questioning how, exactly, the term 'corn sugar' is more accurate a term than High Fructose Corn Syrup, after a quote from 'corn refiners' that says:

Corn refiners say their new name better describes the sweetener.

"The name 'corn sugar' more accurately reflects the source of the food (corn), identifies the basic nature of the food (a sugar), and discloses the food's function (a sweetener)," the petition said.

All the change of terminology like that does is hide the substance from the public eye.  A shell game.  And to make the comparison to prunes (unfairly associated with old people) and rapeseed oil (of course they'd want to find a name that doesn't have rape in it!) is just specious.

I'd be almost inclined to wonder if the author has some sort of agenda, but since I have no information to back that claim up, I won't actually suggest it.  Instead, I'll just go with my gut feeling, which is that she is just lazy.

In conclusion, to the author and whomever at the Times who posted the article.  Do your fucking job, both of you. It's not that hard.