When is sounding scientific a bad thing?

I can think of a few answers, but the Name Inspector points out that naming food is one: apparently the Corn Refiners Association is trying to rename "high fructose corn syrup" "corn sugar."

it's gotten an especially bad rap lately, partly because it has a name so long and scientific sounding that it has to be abbreviated.

First off, I don't think "high fructose corn syrup" is all that "scientific sounding"; try "monosodium glutamate" on for size and get back to me. It's also not that long: six syllables, people! But the interesting issue is that the aura of high-tech innovation and space-age synthetics, so desirable in other consumer products, is distasteful (ahem) when it comes to food. People don't want their food engineered anymore, and manufacturers don't want to turn buyers off. So, they opt for words grandma would have used - "corn" and "sugar" - and ditch the "fructose." Is this a sign of the "slow foods" movement going mainstream? Are we on a path toward a European-style distrust of genetically modified food? Either way, nothing about the food itself is healthier. High fructose by any other name. . . will taste as sweet.

More like this