LOS ANGELES, Calif. — A longstanding dispute between the producers of sugar and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) took the stage last week in a federal courtroom in Los Angeles.

At issue, in part, is how the two groups view HFCS and table sugar. The makers of HFCS have said scientific research supports their claims the two are nutritionally equivalent and that the human body can’t tell any difference.

The sugar industry, however, says those claims are wrong and misleading to the public. The industry has also accused HFCS producers of false advertising.

The trial began Nov. 3 in U.S. District Court and is expected to last until early December. The jury is considering a suit originally filed in 2011 by the sugar industry, and a counterclaim brought the following year by HFCS manufacturers.

The president of the Corn Refiners Assoc. (CRA) hopes the jury and public will learn the facts from scientific studies regarding HFCS and sugar. "There’s a growing recognition that sugar and HFCS are nutritionally equivalent," John Bode said. "We expect this trial to continue that broadening recognition."

The litigation between two agricultural groups is unfortunate, he said. "It’s really sad when we have one ag group making statements about others. It’s not the way American agriculture ought to behave. We ought to be behaving as neighbors."

Attempts to reach officials of The Sugar Assoc. for comment were unsuccessful.

In April 2011, the Western Sugar Coop-erative, the Michigan Sugar Co. and C&H Sugar Co. filed suit against the CRA, Corn Products International and several other parties. In the suit, the plaintiffs said the use of HFCS increased from the 1970s to 1990s, but dropped after some research at the time indicated obesity in the United States could be traced to it. Manufacturers began replacing HFCS in their products with sugar from cane and beet plants.

"The HFCS industry has not taken the decrease in sales lightly," the suit stated. "Instead, the CRA and its member companies have crafted a publicity campaign to revitalize and rebrand HFCS. This ongoing, evolving effort has already manifested in a variety of different strategies, including the promotion of HFCS as ‘natural’ and the assertions of equivalence between HFCS and sugar."

Corn refiners use the term "natural" to describe HFCS because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has said it meets the agency’s definition of a natural product, Bode explained.

As for the claims of false advertising, he said, "Every single time we used the term ‘corn sugar’ in talking about HFCS, we said it was sugar from corn. That’s exactly what the FDA says. The FDA wrote us a letter saying we should say that HFCS is sugar from corn."

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs said the activities of the defendants have caused harm for which they have no adequate remedy at law: "Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable injury to their goodwill, rights and businesses unless and until defendants and any others in active concert with them are enjoined from continuing their wrongful acts."

Bode is eager to see what proof is presented to show harm to the sugar industry. "They said we did something to mislead consumers," he noted. "They said they should be paid billions of dollars because they were damaged. Their market share has been increasing and ours has been declining."

The plaintiffs are asking $1.5 billion in damages, plus additional money for such items as attorney fees. In 2012, HFCS makers filed a counterclaim, saying The Sugar Assoc. misrepresented science regarding HFCS and concealed findings that sugar was at best nutritionally equal to HFCS. The suit also said the organization misled consumers about HFCS. The countersuit sought $531 million in damages. Consumers should use moderation and balance when consuming sweeteners, regardless of how they’re made, Bode said.

The FDA has stated it isn’t aware of any difference in safety between foods containing HFCS and "foods containing similar amounts of other nutritive sweet-eners with approximately equal glucose and fructose content, such as sucrose, honey or other traditional sweeteners."

Katherine Zeratsky, a licensed and registered dietitian for the Mayo Clinic, said there’s not enough evidence to show HFCS is any less healthy than other sweeteners. "Research has shown that HFCS is chemically similar to table sugar," she explained. "Controversy exists, however, about whether the body handles HFCS differently than table sugar. If you’re concerned about your health, the smart play is to cut back on added sugar, regardless of the type."