In this case the Corn Refiner’s Association is a D.C. based trade association representing the corn refining (wet milling) industry of the U.S. In case you didn’t know a trade association is an organization that compromises of member firms and performs a number of services for them, one of which is lobbying the government.

Interestingly enough – Archer Daniels Midland, a public company, is one of the members of the Corn Refiner’s Association. According to SourceWatch’s sources Archer Daniels Midland "is one of the world's largest processors of oilseeds, corn, and wheat. Its main offerings include soybean, peanut, and other oilseed products. From corn, it produces syrups, sweeteners, citric and lactic acids, and ethanol, among other items.” Additionally, another member is Corn Products International, another public company, which claims to be “one of the world’s largest corn refining and ingredient companies” and “a leading supplier of starches, sweeteners and other ingredients. We are the world’s largest producer of dextrose and a leading regional manufacturer of starches, syrups and glucose”.

I point out the fact that ADM and CPO are both public companies, because all public companies effectively run on one basic principle – making investors money. Public companies may have different mission statements and ethics and whatnot, but at the end of the day, if they do not make their investors money, they will not be a viable company. I have worked in the investor relations department of public companies and have been on the other end of the pressure investors can put on CEOs to turn a profit. So know this first hand.

So if there is a drop in consumption of HFCS it hurts the bottom line of companies companies that are built on the premise of manufacturing refined corn products. Simplistically, lower profits means lower valuation which means lower rate of return for investors.

At this point I start wondering, does the Corn Refiner’s Association really have the public's best interests at heart? I’m a business woman so I think; wouldn’t I promote anything that will make my business successful? Of course I would. So this is no different.

I’m not against the great American Dream. In 1982 when a system of price supports and sugar quotas made importing sugar into the US cost prohibitive, entrepreneurs saw an opportunity and capitalized on it. After all we live in a capitalistic country.

So what about the other side of the equation, the people that are against the consumption of HFCS what do they gain? Well some gain business…such as myself. As a holistic health practitioner I advocate clean eating based on whole foods because from personal experience processed foods of any sort have wreaked havoc on my body from adult acne, weight gain to painful PMS. If I discourage the use of HFCS which is prevalent in processed foods in the US then I potentially gain your business to tell you what your alternative options are.

However, there is a huge difference between my gain and the public companies gain…I don’t have investors breathing down my neck to turn a profit. I answer to only one person and that is myself and my morals. I need to be able to sleep at night based on the recommendations that I make that I believe are in my client’s best interest. I don’t need to spend $30 million dollars to convince the public that eating fruits is a better way to go.

There is always something that someone gains for any side of an argument and it may not always be monetary. So whenever I am presented with a conflicting option, I always stop and ask

1) Who is to gain by this big push and what will they gain?
2) Could this product have a detrimental affect on my health or the environment? And is it an acceptable risk for me?
3) What are the alternatives?

As a consumer I am acutely aware that I am supporting someone’s vision or cause. At this point in my life I make it a point to be aware of what my consumer dollars are being spent on supporting.