No matter how you slice it, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a thing that humanity would be better off without. Consequently, the state of Indiana decided to ban it as a food ingredient. On the surface, this is an odd and impractical choice, because Indiana grows a lot of corn. But it mainly winds up being changed into animal feed, and fuel, via ethanol, which has psychoactive properties, and is also used in processing vanilla beans into vanilla extract.
Additionally, ethanol can be made into both gasoline and antifreeze. And also into HFCS. Some people simply don’t want to be feeding their kids anything related to jet fuel.
The Indiana attempt to put a leash on HFCS failed. A couple of years back, New York tried to ban a bunch of food additives, and Pennsylvania did too. In the latter state, Rep. Natalie Mihalek dryly remarked, “It is not asking too much for consumers to have a reasonable expectation that the foods they are eating are safe.” It appears that objectionable food additives are sometimes “grandfathered in,” just because they have been allowed for so long, even though no one has ever bothered to look into their composition or calculate the probable harm caused to humans.
Picky about prohibition
Many voters wish that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would fix things by banning various substances on a nationwide basis, to save the trouble and expense of each state needing to fight the battle. But some states don’t really care very much, and many Americans value the freedom-of-choice principle over any other consideration.
In many cases, the problem is not so much in the composition of the product itself, but in the passion that children feel for it. Even if any one ingredient could be indisputably proven not dangerous and not addictive, there will always be a certain number of kids who react to it as if it were both. They attract the attention of journalists, and sometimes other interested parties. Professionals on both sides of the issue are forced into defending their positions.
Folks get upset. They defend their positions, and with good reason. Here is one issue, stated in practical terms. As previously noted,
Many adults feel that when a child acts addicted, she or he is as difficult to deal with as a physically addicted child would be. Whatever is in that snack or cereal may be potent enough in some way to stoke up a behavioral addiction, which sells product quite as effectively as a literal, molecular-level addictive ingredient could.
A hopped-up speed freak and a child who acts like a hopped-up speed freak are both troubling propositions, especially if the child is overweight and capable of causing more damage because of it.
This is the sort of problem that the protests attempt to bring to an end. Everyone has better things to do than argue about the obvious. Foods without all kinds of detritus mixed up in them should be just as easily available as the other kind. Or maybe the objectionable substances should not be available at all. Some folks are in favor of banning bad stuff for everybody.
Others cherish the right to pursue perdition in their own ways. At the same time, they may be willing to do what is best for everyone. In their view, research is fine, but until the results come in, leave us alone. Plenty of folks are reluctant to violate the rights of others, while at the same time endeavoring to peacefully change laws they do not like.
GRAS means “generally recognized as safe”
A while back, California assemblymember Jesse Gabriel said,
The [FDA] has increasingly avoided its responsibility to rigorously evaluate proposed food chemicals by allowing food manufacturers to self-certify that a chemical is generally recognized as safe to be used in food. Between 2000 and 2022, manufacturers have been allowed to self-certify almost 99% of the 756 new chemicals used in food.
The terms “99%” and “self-certify”, appearing in such proximity, send cold chills up the spines of many citizens. Reportedly, the whole determination process is being rethought. In September 2024, the Food and Drug Administration held a public hearing where officials announced that they recognize the need to conduct post-market assessments of the presence of chemicals in food, and are developing a “systematic process” for that purpose.
We really need to know what the substances are doing to our kids (and us). Does a certain ingredient make children obese? Even if the answer is no, what else does it do to the human body, especially to one that belongs to a still-growing and not totally formed young person? Many parents and others have a keen interest in finding out more about these issues, and in defining the rules pertaining to who gets to write the rules.
Your responses and feedback are welcome!
Source: “15 uses of Ethanol,” AllUsesOf.com, 06/13/21
Source: “How State-Led Ingredient Bans Are Reshaping Food Manufacturing Regulations,” HartDesign.com, 02/14/25
Image by fietzfotos/Pixabay
FAQs and Media Requests: 
