Over the past few decades, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has been criticized with some very biting comments.

With it's reputation for contributing to obesity and related health issues in America, it's easy to see how the term 'HFCS' could leave a bad taste in your mouth.

In 2004, a couple of well respected university professors even stated that HFCS was uniquely responsible for the obesity epidemic in the US.

With a ratio of fructose to glucose nearly identical to that of ordinary table sugar, the bad press seems a little unfair, according to the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) and several supporting US senators.

In response, the CRA has recently petitioned the FDA to allow food manufacturers to use the term 'corn sugar' rather than HFCS. They argue that many consumers are misled by the ingredient name, due to the current negative stigma.

In support, several US senators have also petitioned for the name change with hopes to change public opinion. The senators argue that HFCS is mischaracterized in the market place largely because of its name.

They declare that the manufacture of HFCS keeps food affordable for American consumers and creates high-paying jobs here at home.

The also assert (with support from nutritional experts) that HFCS is actually just sugar made from corn.

Biochemists concur that HFCS is basically the biochemical equivalent of sucrose. One product, HFCS 42 (commonly used in foods) is actually lower in fructose than ordinary table sugar.

Quick to dissent are the sugar refiners and farmers, who are trying to stop the CRA's efforts with various lawsuits, etc.

In support of US corn refiners and farmers, the CRA retorts:

CRA members have the same interests as the broader food industry and consumers in promoting a clear and accurate food labeling and in assuring that all ingredient producers are permitted to compete on a level playing field.

In other words, if food labels can describe food ingredients as 'cane sugar' or 'beet sugar,' why not 'corn sugar'?

Are sugar drinks your choice for thirst-quenching refreshment? If you answered yes, you're certainly not alone.

Recently, the National Center for Health Statistics revealed sugar drink consumption data, compiled between 2005-2008, showing that the consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks in the US has increased over the last 30 years. The results are categorized by age, sex, income, race and ethnicity, and availability.

The following set of selected statistics are interesting from both a marketing and personal standpoint.

The data states:

• About one-half of the population (ages 2 and up) consumes sugar drinks.
• Males consume more than females
  
  • 70% of boys (aged 2–19) consume sugar drinks.
  • Average consumption of sugar drinks is higher in males than females at almost all ages.
• Teenagers and young adults consume more than other age groups.
  
  • Consumption increases until the teenage years and then decreases with age.
• Low-income individuals consume more sugar drinks in relation to their total diet than higher-income individuals.
• 52% of sugar-drink calories are consumed in the home.
• 48% of sugar drinks are consumed away from home
  
  • 43% purchased in stores
  • 35.5% in restaurants/fast-food establishments
  • 1.4% in schools and/or day-care settings.
  • Remaining 20% obtained in other places (i.e. vending machines, cafeterias, street vendors,etc.).

Other poignant results involve the range of sugar-drink consumption.

• About 50% of the population consumes no sugar drinks.
• 25% consumes some sugar drinks (about 1 can cola).
• 5% consumes at least more than four 12-oz cans of cola.

In summary, sugar-drink consumption differs by sex, age, race and ethnicity, and income.

Despite recommendations to limit the consumption of added sugars by the U.S. dietary guidelines in 2010, demand for sugar-sweetened drinks by the US population remains high.

But you don't really need to read about this to see the reality... just walk down any supermarket beverage isle.