'“Clearly the name is confusing consumers,” said Audrae Erickson, president of the Washington-based group, in an interview. “Research shows that ‘corn sugar’ be

'“Clearly the name is confusing consumers,” said Audrae Erickson, president of the Washington-based group, in an interview. “Research shows that ‘corn sugar’ better communicates the amount of calories, the level of fructose and the sweetness in this ingredient.”' But, Mz. Erickson, does it convey the damage that HFCS does to one's liver? Does it convey the increased risk of onset diabetes and obesity? What a bunch of straw-man BS. This is a triple-insult to our intelligence. First by calling us confused, second by thinking that a name change will trick us into buying what we avoided before, and third, by acting like we can't see the real reason for this name change: to avoid well-deserved bad press. I know a lot of people who are aware of the health risks of a high-fructose diet, and not a one of them is confused by the name. And those who are only peripherally aware of the health risks but still avoid the products, may for a brief period be confused by the name changed (ironic, isn't it), but as soon as they find out about it, they are going to be pissed off. Truth-in-labeling laws are a good thing. They allow consumers to make informed choices. I would argue that, based upon these laws, deliberately changing the name of an ingredient to avoid bad press should be illegal.