westerndave's Flickr photostream/Creative Commons

New York City’s recent health initiatives, championed by Mayor Bloomberg, have been meet with mixed reception. While I’m not convinced a ban on bake sales is the best approach to combating obesity, I do think that parts of the campaign--such as ads warning against the adverse effects of sugary drinks--are important means of helping people make smarter choices about what they eat.

Well, apparently the campaign has provoked the ire of the non-profit Center For Consumer Freedom, which is asking “When did the Big Apple become Big Brother?”  The group has launched a $1 million dollar ad campaign, which criticizes New York’s campaign against sugary drinks and trans-fats. “Sweet Scam,” the group’s latest ad series, attempts to defend high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) against accusations that it has contributed to rising rates of obesity and other health problems. The campaign sounds an awful lot like the propaganda style of the “Sweet Surprise” ads launched last year by the Corn Refiners Association. Take a look:

While there may be some caloric similarities between HFCS and other sweeteners, as the ad argues, there is mounting evidence that the body processes the ingredients differently and that HFCS is indeed a major contributing factor to health problems, including obesity, diabetes and allergies.  According to Marion Nestle, one of our favorite nutritionists, “fructose is preferentially metabolized to fat, raising the possibility that HFCS--or any other source of fructose (but we won’t worry about fruit)--could have something to do with current obesity trends.

Moreover, because HFCS is so cheap due to corn subsidies, it’s pumped into a vast array of  foods and beverages, so Americans are consuming more sweeteners than they may otherwise and are left with pretty limited options to choose otherwise.  In general it’s a good idea to limit the amount of sugar one consumes in a day, but the widespread prevalence and associated health risks with HFCS make it one ingredient that requires a great deal of effort to steer clear.

The Center For Consumer Freedom won’t disclose which companies support their efforts, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the Corn Refiners Association and beverage manufacturers are involved, which to me runs contrary to the very idea of “consumer freedom”.  If the group was truly concerned about the freedom of the consumer wouldn’t they want people to know what health risks certain foods and drinks might pose, even if all the reports aren’t in yet, rather than attempt to squash peoples concerns with sarcasm, condescension, and obfuscation.  Marion again: “HFCS has a big public relations problem, but I don’t get this campaign.  Since when is insulting the intelligence of critics an effective marketing strategy?” Marion goes on to say, “Yes, HFCS has a place in the American diet and sometimes has cooking advantages over sucrose. And the research is still out on whether HFCS differs from sucrose metabolically. But the most sensible approach to HFCS and to sugars in general is not moderation. It is, ‘Eat less.’”