After Losing a Court Ruling, The Sugar Industry Keeps Spreading Misinformation

WASHINGTON, Oct. 17, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A federal court in California recently ruled that a lawsuit seeking to hold The Sugar Association responsible for perpetuating myths and confusion about high fructose corn syrup will proceed. The suit, a counterclaim filed by member companies of the Corn Refiners Association, who were originally sued by The Sugar Association and its members in 2011, alleges that the sugar industry's trade group engaged in a campaign to denigrate HFCS and confuse consumers by spreading misinformation that is not backed by credible science.  On September 16, a federal judge ruled that the counterclaim and a related "unclean hands" defense would go forward, denying sugar industry's motions to strike and dismiss.

"We are pleased with the Court's decision," said John Bode, president of the Corn Refiners Association. "The Sugar Association should know better than to perpetuate false and misleading information about high fructose corn syrup. Their conduct makes it harder for consumers to learn the nutritional facts about the foods and beverages they consume."

The corn refiners' countersuit charges that the objective of The Sugar Association's actions was to enhance sugar company profits by causing "food and beverage manufacturers to replace high fructose corn syrup with processed sugar."  

In an angry response filed to the corn refiners' countersuit, The Sugar Association continued to take positions that are contrary to the widely held scientific view that HFCS and sugar are nutritionally equivalent.  For example, the American Medical Association has stated that HFCS "does not appear to contribute to obesity more than other caloric sweeteners" while the Food and Drug Administration has posted on its website that there is no known evidence showing a difference from a safety perspective between HFCS and other sugars, including sucrose. 

In a recent press release, The Sugar Association also attacked the integrity of two respected scientists.  Yet there is no credible science that disputes the work done by Drs. James M. Rippe and John S. White, who have shown through peer-reviewed research that HFCS and sucrose are, in fact, nutritionally equivalent. Both Drs. Rippe and White, in accordance with common industry practices, have clearly disclosed their support from the Corn Refiners Association.  On the other hand, The Sugar Association has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to "Citizens for Health," which masquerades as a consumer watchdog, to conduct an attack campaign against HFCS while hiding the financial ties.

Rejecting all of the sugar industry's arguments, on September 16, Federal Judge Consuelo Marshall ruled that the corn refining industry had set forth sufficient facts for its countersuit to proceed. The countersuit alleges that the sugar industry's trade group engaged in a misleading campaign to deceive consumers into believing that processed sugar is somehow safer and more healthful than high fructose corn syrup, despite the clear scientific evidence that the two sweeteners are nutritionally equivalent. 

"We believe in free speech and in promoting consumer education about added sugars," said John Bode.  "And we are confident that the countersuit will expose the sugar industry's tactics and efforts to confuse and deceive consumers for their own financial gain." 

A copy of the corn refiners' counterclaim and the Court's ruling can be found at http://sweetsurprise.com/western-sugar-litigation-case-history.

CONTACT: Corn Refiners Association, 202-331-1634

SOURCE Corn Refiners Association