Ramirez, Gillian

Personal Bio

My name is Gillian Ramirez (she/her) and I am a fourth year student in my last quarter! My major is Anthropology- Climate Change and Human Solutions and a minor in Business. My connection to and interest in food would be in having an understanding of its nutritional and healing properties, how it fuels our body. I love Mexican cuisine and learning about traditional methods of preparing food.

Interests

I am passionate about environmental justice, activism, integrative medicine, sustainability, writing, learning, and connecting with new people.

Personal Bio

Tamales y Twinkies: Exploring the Multi-Faceted Corn as a Staple Grain and a Killer Syrup

Tamales y Twinkies: Exploring the Multi-Faceted Corn as a Staple Grain and a Killer Syrup

By Gillian Ramirez

Introduction

Corn is ubiquitous, ever-present in our lives. The use of it as a nutritious grain compared to a killer syrup is paradoxical. I was interested in exploring how its food uses differed as a grain and syrup in both the United States and Mexico. As a Mexican-American, I have been exposed to the various corn derivatives in American mainstream products as well as corn based staples in Hispanic cooking. In this paper, I will explore the many facets of the seemingly benign corn by addressing its nutritional value, how it is advertised, its societal importance, threats to biodiversity, and economic prospects.

Nutritional Value

At the surface, unprocessed level, corn is not very nutritiously beneficial, acting more so as a topping to our Taco Tuesdays or a hand-held treat during the summertime. Traditionally processed, nixtamalized corn fundamentally changes its chemical composition and health benefits. For example, this form of processing will “release bound niacin, increase protein quality, increase calcium content, and reduce mycotoxin concentration” (Escalante-Aburto et. al 2020, 458). Per 100 grams of nixtamalized tortillas, there are 8.4 grams of dietary fiber and factoring in average consumption of 5-8 tortillas based on urban and rural populations, one would reach 50% of the recommended fiber intake (Escalante-Aburto et. al 2020, 474). Nixtamalized corn provides more nutrients than ground, unprocessed kernels. The chain reaction of increased food prices causing women to leave the home to work and supplement the family income has resulted in households buying corn flour at the store (Oxfam International 2004). The consumers complained that “the corn…doesn’t fill me up. Even a kilo of tortillas for lunch isn’t enough” (Oxfam International 2004). Corn is a staple crop for Mexican cuisine so this nixtamalizing process is important to maximize benefits and to keep people satiated.

High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has no redeeming qualities, only bringing adverse effects to those who consume it frequently. The two common variants are HCFS-55 (55% fructose), used mostly as a sweetener and in fizzy drinks, and HCFS-42 (42% fructose), used often in canned products and condiments. The differing compositions make it most conducive for their respective food categories to maximize flavor (Parker et. al 2010, 72). Compared to fructose from fruits and vegetables, liquid forms in beverages are rapidly absorbed and causes a more rapid production of lipids (Malik and Hu 2015, 6). Drinking these HFCS-sweetened beverages has also shown to “contribute to a high dietary glycemic load (GL)… though to stimulate appetite and promote weight gain… [and] exacerbate inflammatory biomarkers… associated with increased risk of diabetes” (Malik and Hu 2015, 9). Even more concerningly, a study done with mice found that the liquid form of HFCS increased the growth of intestinal tumors (Goncalves et. al 2019, 5). Another study done showed that “a high-fructose corn syrup diet in rats produced addictive behavior similar to that from cocaine use” (Norris 2013, 61). HFCS consumed in any form will only damage one’s body and make them want more, a dangerous cycle that leads many to disordered eating and health risks.

Top: Karo Syrup (High-Fructose Corn Syrup) and Coca Cola Iced Drink. Liquid sugar consumption is toxic to our health

Bottom: Homemade corn tortillas

Top: 1952 Advertisement for Karo Syrup

Bottom: Artistic representation of Monsanto GM corn

Use of Advertising

High fructose corn syrup has been able to slip through the cracks of our consumer minds because of how well it has been advertised. Front of package labelling among with educational and public health campaigns are among recommendations from one study on how harmful HFCS is to the public (Malik and Hu 205, 11). Conflicting messages from major corporations and public health organizations can explain why such a toxic product is still being majorly used. Labels can help inform the consumers of the nutrient content of the product they want to purchase, a right we are all entitled to.

A study compared stakeholder responses in Mexico about labelling their products and the conflicting viewpoints from business, nongovernmental organizations with public interest groups was stark. While those in the public health and interest sector advocated for it, explaining that it “provided more information and improved food choices”, the business organizations argued they expected “revenues and profits would decrease, product reformulation would decrease and eating habits would worsen” (Duran et. al 2022, 7). If implemented, the major concern was that it would go against existing treaties (Duran et. al 2022, 9). How do treaties corner countries to behave in a way that aligns with the role they play in the treaty agreement? The arguments used by business organizations to discourage the use of such labels and discredit public health opinions “coincide with those used by the tobacco industry, suggesting that the private sector uses the same strategies to protect its interest” (Duran et. al 2022, 10).

The Food and Drug Association only perpetuates the use of HFCS by its ambiguous categorizing of it. Depending on the producer’s intended use of HFCS in their product, it can be referred to as a sweetener or a flavoring (Ashley 2010, 246). The subjectivity of its functional use has allowed groups like the Corn Refiners Association to “claim that the production of HFCS involved hydrolysis and enzymolysis and that HFCS thus meets the FDA’s definition of ‘natural flavor’, since it is derived from a vegetable using the prescribed processes” (Ashley 2010, 247). The FDA does not regulate the use of the word “natural” either. Who can we trust to get accurate nutritional information if the leading organization, the FDA, was developed for the well-being of the nation?

I want to highlight some past and present advertisements for corn syrup to normalize its usage in the public eye. As highlighted in the Simi and Matusitz 2017 reading from class, the use of religiously-meaningful colors and the Hindi language played a major role in the success of Subway in India. A targeted audience with marketing intended to address their needs is critical in selling a product well. On the right is a graphic from 1952. The little kid is included to normalize HFCS because “It’s a rich, quick-energy food for growing youngsters” and “Karo never encourages children’ appetites for excessively sweet foods.” Now knowing what we know about HFCS, this marketing is quite ironic. The advertisements from this time all used this poster child to push the HFCS agenda, acting as if it was healthy and safe to be used regularly.

As a modern case study of advertising, I wanted to highlight Monsanto. Transitioning from a chemical to food company is a jump for anyone so only skillful advertising could reframe their perception in the public’s mind. Faced with many opponents like those in organic farming or advocating for improved health regulations can see past the tactics of Monsanto. For example, a 2008 documentary exposed Monsanto negligence’s in which they negatively contributed to environmental racism. (Murphy 2017, 99). Even the farmers were fooled by Monsanto’s marketing which “promised increased yields and the road to better earnings, but delivered instead a vicious cycle of crop failure, forced debt, and mass suicide” (Murphy 2017, 99). How is it possible that even farmers were fell into Monsanto’s trap? It is through the company’s greenwashing and image building that promoted “the company as a ‘new’ ‘food company’ dedicated to producing seed for farmers…[the company] defines itself as a ‘sustainable agricultural company’ committed to meeting the ‘needs of a growing population, to protect and preserve the planet we all call home, and to help improve lives everywhere” (Murphy 2017, 104). Simultaneously creating this new eco-conscious and innovative image separates the company from its problematic past and establishes itself in the competitive landscape of biotech (Murphy 2017, 109). It inserts Monsanto into the conversation and makes the consumer feel that the company is necessary in helping solve global food problems. Monsanto also uses on the ground marketers, i.e. ambassadors, to fine-tune the brand identity and keep people in an echo chamber (Murphy 2017, 115).

To lightly touch on grain corn advertising, not much can be said. Its pervasiveness is found through HFCS in America and maize is already an established cultural signifier in Mexico. Guzzon makes an interesting argument though that, “in case of lack of demand for maize landraces, developing market channels for local products, linked with educational and promotional campaigns to expand the demand for landraces, can increase the value of these traditional varieties” (2021, 9). In the same way that HFCS has been pushed out by effective marketing, maize strains can be re-popularized through many avenues which in turn would increase demand for biodiversity and hopefully combat against the increase in hybrid crop favorability.

Societal Importance

The cultural importance of maize in Mexico cannot be understated. Beyond maize, communal ties to the land or food products are common in many cultures. Huff puts it beautifully, “the power of stories for marginalized peoples cannot be underestimated… they have the potential to become spaces of resistance and hope” (2006, 82-83). With this in mind, we can understand how compelling tales of creation and identity are when they come from religious texts like the Popol Vuh. This text explains that “maize is both the material from which humans are formed and the material that provides nourishment to that form” (Huff 2006, 84). The idea that the Mayans believe creates commonality between all, regardless of socioeconomic status, and grounds them in the land. This is especially true for women who are often synonymous with nature and Mother Earth in many cultures. In current times as well, “it’s the women who are marking these [seed saving] decisions and have the demand for these characteristics” (Bradbury 2006, 20). One story details how the First Father used lightening to break apart a rock which revealed to him the staple foods of corn, squash, beans, cacao, and chili peppers (Huff 2006, 91). The extent to which the corn kernels were burnt by the lightening also explains the variance in kind, white, yellow and black maize.

Maize has also played a role in national Mexican politics within the past century. It was key in the social marketing of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional who “relied on nationalistic notions in its policies to sustain popular support… corn was painted in official political discourse as a source of domestic pride and Mexican national identity” (Hernandez-Lopez 2008, 679). The rapid shift towards liberalizing the tariffs under the trilateral agreements have threatened the role of corn in the Mexican diet though (Hernandez-Lopez 2008, 687). Historically, corn was not accepted well by Europe because of the pellagra it gave Europeans who did not nixtamalize it, resulting in “corn being considered a grain suitable for animal feed but not for human food” (Tello 2017, 316). The contrasting perceptions of corn made it that much more meaningful when it was brought to the forefront of social life and national identity in Mexico.

Compared to the major importance of corn in Mexico, it is not a product that many of us identify with or even consider in our daily lives. “Wealthy don’t eat grain gruels”, explains Manning, relative to the majority of the globe who are in poverty. This food hierarchy means that poor people survive off grain foods more meaning that “half of all people, are malnourished, in that they, like American livestock, eat mostly grain, which contains little protein, little fat, and few vitamins and minerals, washed down with filthy water” (Manning 2004, 18). Most of us will never grow our own food or meet the people feeding us every day. This dissonance is what allows us to be complacent with current food politics and with the threat it poses.

Top: Creation of humans from corn as described in Popol Vuh, a Mayan religious text

Bottom: Maize God blooming out of corn

Top: A beautiful picture that highlights various strains of corn

Bottom: Campesino helping preserving seed diversity and showing off his harvest

Biodiversity

Biodiversity is critical to preserve strains of any crop and protect food security. Estimated to be domesticated 9000 years ago, maize is a staple crop for 1/3 of the global population (Guzzon et.al 2021, 2). Guzzon stresses, “conservation of maize landraces is extremely important because they contain the bulk of genetic diversity of this crop, and therefore are vital for overcoming current and future challenges to crop production and needs from consumers” (2017, 2). With this in mind, it is alarming that “more than 70% of traditional crop genotypes and land races” have been lost due to genetic erosion (Guzzon et. al 2021, 2). This partly due to the use of hybrid seeds which threaten the purity of seed strains. Factors like urbanization and cash crops also influence maize production. The map above is from the Our World in Data database to emphasize how much more corn the US is producing relative to Mexico, most of which is genetically modified.

Murphy spotlights ecofeminist Vandava Shiva whose concept of seed sovereignty conveys that the “seed is the primary link in the food chain and so directly tied to farmers’ rights, biodiversity and the public good” (2017, 101). Connecting the seed to humans and our future creates a more integrated image of agriculture. This idea is further explored by Bradbury who discusses campesinos, or small farmers, and their importance in preserving landraces, or maize crop varieties. The influx of US genetically modified corn in Mexico with NAFTA’s subsidies caused contamination of homogenous strains which is concerning because of how easy maize cross-pollinates and grows (Bradbury 2006, 20). The Mexican government in 2005 allowed GM seeds to be grown in the state leading to the legislation being named “the Monsanto law” because they believe it protects the interest of the producers of genetically modified crops over campesinos” (Bradbury 2006, 20). The permittance of hybrid seeds has resulted in health crises because of the chemicals on the seeds which farmers were not used to accounting for (Oxfam International 2004). The personal and communal effects of lost corn sovereignty can be felt by those who took pride in helping maintain biodiversity.

Biodiversity is majorly threatened by the use of chemicals by commercial agriculture which makes up most of the crops today. Popularized during the Green Revolution, nitrogen fertilizer aids the process of plant growth. According to Manning, “seventy percent of the Mississippi’s nitrogen comes from a relatively small six-state area that is the heart of the nation’s corn belt” which then runs down to the Gulf (2004, 15). Decades of inconsideration for how these chemically-infused technologies will affect the population has led to many environmental disasters such as the Dead Zone whose low levels of oxygen are killing marine life, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It is safe to assume that this has been due to the excess in corn crops given that “corn farming accounts for 57% of all herbicides and 45% of all insecticides applied to all U.S. crops” (Manning 2004, 16). Corn is to blame for these disasters.

Many people have claimed that corn domesticated us, shifting the blame to a non-human force, nature. How does personifying corn shift our perspective on how it is being used? Manning adds to this perspective, “humanity’s role has become not shaping agriculture to meet its needs but figuring out how to pay for and dispose of all the grain that agriculture chooses to grow” (2004, 17). In a TED talk by Michael Pollan, he explained how we have been seduced by nature and that identifying ourselves as sovereign subjects separates us from the cycle of growth. Who is truly responsible for corn’s infiltration into politics, economics and our lives?

Economic Prospects

Genetically modified (GM) crops have been highly contested for decades, mainly pushed by biotech companies and major corporations for their ability to help solve global food scarcity problem. Given that we have now passed the 8 billion population mark and the amount of land to grow food on is only diminishing, we need to start looking for solutions to the problem of food scarcity and malnourishment. In this discussion of economic opportunities, we need to address NAFTA /USMCA and government subsidies.

NAFTA and the recent 2020 USMCA effectively uplifted the US agenda to continue being the number #1 exporter of corn under the guise of trilateral opportunities between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The subsidies under NAFTA allowed for the campesinos to receive less for their product in exchange for low interest loans, “enabling US maize to be sold across the border at less than production cost” (Bradbury 2005, 19). Tello expresses, “technologies enable to appropriation of seeds and the ancient knowledge linked to enabling their productivity, resulting in the transformation of a common resource into a commodity, whose ultimate function is to generate profits” (2017, 317). Corn loses its cultural importance and value as a food and becomes simply a natural resource that can be manipulated by new technologies. The demand for corn has been artificially crafted and pushed by legislation like the Energy Act of 2005 “which requires a certain percentage of all fuel come from ethanol” (Masquera 2018, 202). By going against the grain and planting less corn, this excessive output will reduce environmental threats posed by chemical use, animal feed, and ethanol. The data above is from the Our World in Data database to showcase the steady increase in corn production over the past five decades.

Government subsidies are the enemy in this battle against the overuse of corn. Manning defines it succinctly as, “increased production suppresses prices below the cost of production, and the government makes up the difference” (2004, 1). This paid for system of production reframes the product, produce, into a commodity, one that can be manipulated by the liking of those at the top for the maximum profit. Who benefits when the government is willing to pay less for a commodity than its production costs? The omnipotent individuals who oversee the entire corn industry use their hand to influence politics and further the corn agenda, explaining why ethanol is highly sought after now despite evidence showing that the “production of ethanol consumes more energy than it yields” (Manning 2004, 26). This demand for ethanol has resulted in an increase in prices for corn grown for food (Hernandez-Lopez 2008, 686). The data above shows how little of corn production actually goes towards food consumption, the majority towards ethanol and feed use. The factorization of the most natural thing on Earth, growing food, highlights how removed farmers today are from the production process, receiving only four cents to the consumer’s dollar when under the puppeteering of corporations like ADM (Manning 2004, 22). The table to the left is from the Environmental Working Group and it highlights how corn is the most expensive crop in the direct payment program, apart of subsidies provided to farmers. Farmer’s markets and seasonally-based produce delivery services are ways to give power back to local farmers and give the consumer more quality produce that has been eliminated with the current system of production (Manning 2004, 32).

Top: The corn husk being money is representative of the greed and cash flow in the agricultural sector

Middle: Steady increase in corn production over five decades

Bottom: Corn was crop that received most direct payments, form of subsidy, totaling $21 billion over 26 year period

Conclusion

Corn has stood the test of time and is well engrained in politics, culture, and economics. The US is poisoning the nation daily by allowing minimal regulation of its food products. HFCS will never be nutritionally beneficial, but we should look into having more corn flour on the shelf be nixtamalized. Nixtamalized corn in food deserts or impoverished areas would also help combat malnutrition, often under the radar in developed countries. Without state intervention, Mexico will always be at a disadvantage given the subsidies offered to US farmers. It is through the manipulation of corporations and exploitation of farmers that corn has persisted and made the US the top exporter globally. We need to grow less corn and shift away from ethanol production. Corn is powerful and we need to be careful with how we use it as agricultural moguls have hand-crafted the narrative until now. These people have been protected by corn’s durable husk for too long.

Works Cited

Ashley, Josh. 2010. “A Bittersweet Deal for Consumers: The Unnatural Application of Preemption to High Fructose Corn Syrup Labeling Claims.” Journal of Food Law & Policy 6 (2): 235–66.

Bradbury, Danny. 2005. “Saving Maize.” Alternatives Journal 31 (2): 19–20.

Durán, Regina et al. 2022. “Analysis of Stakeholders’ Responses to the Food Warning Labels Regulation in Mexico.” Health Research Policy & Systems 20 (1): 1–12.

Escalante-Aburto, Anayansi, Rosa María Mariscal-Moreno, David Santiago-Ramos, Nestor Ponce-García 2020. “An Update of Different Nixtamalization Technologies, and Its Effects on Chemical Composition and Nutritional Value of Corn Tortillas” Food Reviews International 36(5): 456-498.

Goncalves MD, Lu C, Tutnauer J, Hartman TE, Hwang SK, Murphy CJ, Pauli C, Morris R, Taylor S, Bosch K, Yang S, Wang Y, Van Riper J, Lekaye HC, Roper J, Kim Y, Chen Q, Gross SS, Rhee KY, Cantley LC, Yun J. 2019. “High-fructose corn syrup enhances intestinal tumor growth in mice” Science: 1345-1349.

Guzzon, Filippo, Luis Walquer Arandia Rios, Galo Mario Caviedes Cepeda, Marcia Céspedes Polo, Alexander Chavez Cabrera, Jesús Muriel Figueroa, Alicia Elizabeth Medina Hoyos et al. 2021. "Conservation and Use of Latin American Maize Diversity: Pillar of Nutrition Security and Cultural Heritage of Humanity" Agronomy 11 (1): 172.

Hernandez-Lopez, Ernesto. 2008. "Law, Food, and Culture: Mexican Corn's National Identity Cooked in ‘Tortilla Discourses’ Post-TLC/NAFTA." St. Thomas Law Review 20(3): 670-690.

Huff, Leah Alexandra. 2006. “Sacred Sustenance: Maize, Storytelling, and a Maya Sense of Place.” Journal of Latin American Geography 5 (1): 79–96.

Malik Vasanti S. and Hu Frank. 2015. “Fructose and Cardiometabolic Health: What the Evidence From Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tells Us.” J Am Coll Cardiol. 66(14):1615-1624.

Manning, Richard. 2004. “Against the Grain: A Portrait of Industrial Agriculture as a Malign Force.” The American Scholar 73(1): 13–35.

Mosquera, Jennifer. 2018. “Corn, Cows, and Cash: How Farming Subsidies Work and What They Could Potentially Achieve.” Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law 34 (1): 191–210.

Murphy, Patrick D. 2017. “Battle of the Blogosphere: Monsanto versus the World.” In The Media Commons: Globalization and Environmental Discourses. University of Illinois Press: 95-116.

Norris, John. 2013. “Make Them Eat Cake.” Foreign Policy 202: 1.

Oxfam International. 2004. “Corn Crisis: The Impact of U.S. Food Policy on Mexican Farmers.” Race, Poverty & the Environment 11 (1): 30–32.

Parker, Kay, Michelle Salas, Veronica C. Nwosu 2010. “High fructose corn syrup: Production, uses and public health concerns” Biotechnology and Molecular Biology Review Vol. 5(5): 71-78

Pollan, Michael. 2007. A plant’s eye view. TED Talk.

Simi, Demi, and Jonathan Matusitz. 2017. “Glocalization of subway in India: How a US giant has adapted in the Asian subcontinent.” Journal of Asian and African Studies 52(5): 573-585.

Tello, Adelita Sanvicente, and Araceli Carréon. “Sin Maíz, No Hay País: Mesoamericans and Civil Society in the Defeat of Monsanto. 2017. ” Mexican-Origin Foods, Foodways, and Social Movements: Decolonial Perspectives, edited by Devon G. Peña, Luz Calvo, Pancho McFarland, and Gabriel R. Valle, University of Arkansas Press: 311-342.

Page updated

Report abuse