Corn Refiners Respond to Troubling, Inaccurate Coverage in 60 Minutes Piece

Feb. 19, 2026

Washington, D.C. - The Corn Refiners Association, which represents the American corn refining industry and its nearly 10,000 employees, recently submitted a letter to 60 Minutes to express concern with the program's portrayal of American refined corn products.

The letter specifically challenges the assertions the piece made about the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) framework, the characterization of ultra-processed foods, and the description of the farm safety net.

"We respectfully urge you to ensure that future coverage reflects the scientific and regulatory facts regarding these ingredients, food safety, ingredient regulation, and the agricultural economy," CRA President and CEO John Bode said in his message to 60 Minutes.

The text of the letter is as follows:

Dear Ms. Simon,

On behalf of the Corn Refiners Association, I write to advise you of several inaccurate assertions that were included in the piece entitled "Generally Recognized As Safe" that ran during the Feb. 15, 2026, episode of 60 Minutes. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the errors in the piece, specifically as it relates to the Food and Drug Administration's Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) framework, ultra-processed foods, and refined carbohydrates such as high fructose corn syrup.

CRA represents the U.S. corn refining industry, which employs nearly 10,000 people and has served American food manufacturers and consumers for more than a century. We support transparent, science- and risk-based food policy and share the goal of improving public health outcomes.

1. Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) Framework

After a substantial discussion of self-affirmed GRAS determinations, you reported that various refined corn products' GRAS status' are in question "unless the companies can prove they are safe." Your story should have said that each of the refined corn products mentioned has been reviewed by FDA, which has affirmed the safety of the product.

According to the FDA, a substance can be considered GRAS if it "is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use."

There are two lawful pathways by which a substance may be determined to be GRAS:

First, there is an FDA-reviewed GRAS notification pathway. In this channel, a manufacturer compiles a comprehensive scientific dossier and submits it to FDA for evaluation. FDA reviews the evidence and issues a formal response, most commonly a "no questions" letter indicating that the agency does not object to the notifier's safety conclusion. These determinations are publicly catalogued in FDA's GRAS Notice Inventory. This process involves direct agency review.

Second, there is a self-affirmed GRAS pathway. In this pathway, a company conducts an expert review - often engaging independent scientists - and determines that the ingredient meets the same statutory standard of general recognition of safety. Under current law, companies are not required to notify FDA of that determination before marketing the ingredient, which HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has referred to as the GRAS "loophole." Our association advocates for nationally uniform legislation to reform the GRAS process and ensure full transparency.

It is also important to note that every authoritative scientific body that has studied the issue has concluded that high fructose corn syrup is nutritionally equivalent to other caloric sweeteners - a fact "60 Minutes" has previously acknowledged. Clinical research demonstrates that HFCS and sucrose are metabolized similarly at typical consumption levels.

CRA recognizes that, at current physical activity levels, most Americans need to reduce their total intake of calories, including calories from sugars and sweeteners. That is why CRA does not promote increased consumption of sugars or other caloric sources. All added sugars, including HFCS, should be consumed in moderation as part of a balanced diet. Targeting a single ingredient in the absence of credible scientific evidence is unlikely to improve public health outcomes.

2. Ultra-processed Foods (UPF)

The piece focuses on the role of ultra-processed foods in the American diet, with Secretary Kennedy quoted: "there is no way for any American to know if a product is safe if it is ultra-processed." For the nation's chief food safety official to insinuate, without definition or evidence, that an undefined category of foods may be unsafe is not just misguided-it is irresponsible. This observation presumes that processing itself is somehow an unsafe procedure.

High-fiber breads, fortified cereals, yogurt, infant formula, and many perishable and shelf-stable foods are products of modern food processing. Processing enables nutrient fortification, improves food safety, extends shelf life, and reduces food waste. Suggesting that these foods are unsafe is not only groundless but counterproductive to public trust and understanding of today's food system.

Public health policy should focus on balanced diets and healthy lifestyles - not on a reckless classification that equates processing with danger.

3. Farm Safety Net

Food system reform activist Michael Pollan's argument that "we're subsidizing the high fructose corn syrup" is patently wrong. There is no government support given to HFCS production. To suggest that the U.S. farm safety net is a meaningful driver of obesity or chronic disease reflects a woeful ignorance of the system and even basic math skills. HFCS accounts for only about 3% of the U.S. corn crop, and its U.S. per capita consumption has declined more than 40% since 2000.

The farm safety net supports American producers in a variety of ways, including through weather risk management by paying part of the administrative costs of crop insurance. Contrary to Mr. Pollan's assertions, crop insurance is available for most crops, including fruits and vegetables. Other forms of support include, but are not limited to, incentives for conservation practices and, in recent years, ad hoc assistance to compensate farmers for the economic impact of trade disputes and the COVID-19 pandemic. Commodity prices are shaped by a wide range of global economic factors outside the farm safety net, and the cost of corn is a small part of the cost of producing food-grade corn products. There is no relationship between the level of farm payments and the consumption of related crops.

Reducing domestic farm supports would not eliminate global supply; it would simply disadvantage American farmers and potentially increase reliance on imports.

We respectfully urge you to ensure that future coverage reflects the scientific and regulatory facts regarding these ingredients, food safety, ingredient regulation, and the agricultural economy.

Sincerely,

John W. Bode
President & CEO
Corn Refiners Association

About the Corn Refiners Association (CRA)
The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) is the national trade association representing the corn refining industry of the United States. CRA and its predecessors have served this important segment of American agribusiness since 1913. Corn refiners manufacture sweeteners, starch, advanced bioproducts, corn oil and feed products from corn components such as starch, oil, protein, and fiber.