Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Science Says High-Fructose Corn Syrup Is Pretty Much The Worst Thing Ever

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Pharaoh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:22 PM
Original message
Science Says High-Fructose Corn Syrup Is Pretty Much The Worst Thing Ever
Those spoilsport researchers at Princeton are off spreading the word that sweet, delicious high-fructose corn syrup is as bad for your diet as Taylor Swift music is for your soul. The substance, found in soda, cookies, salad dressing and pretty much everything else that tastes good, is worse for you than fat or sucrose.

From the Princeton story:


In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.

"Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn't true, at least under the conditions of our tests," said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. "When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."

http://consumerist.com/2010/03/science-says-high-fructo...

>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
taught_me_patience Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. Hydrogenated oils are pretty bad too
They seek and destroy arteries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. Oh om'on if you only exercised and ate less
:sarcasm:

Don't worry, they will come...

I mean science, shmienzy, who cares?

And you know what, cue next in the list all the GMO and other crap.

We have had a rise in things like autoimmune diseases... I don't think this is a coincidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullwinkle428 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. ...
:popcorn: <--- genuine salt & butter (no HFCS sweetener)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Can I sit with you?
:popcorn:

I'll bring the filtered water to drink. If you really want one, I can throw in a bottle of Jones Soda, which uses cane sugar. Green Apple is the best.

WORD to the person who said there's 12 things in the entire store that do not have HFCS. It takes awhile to read the labels, but we're doing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-10 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
122. If you'll get me a bottle of the Jones Soda rootbeer, I'll bring
the Arnold's bread - it doesn't have that HFCS in it, either.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-10 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #122
125. You got it.
I'll be bringing some Dave's Killer Bread along, too

http://www.daveskillerbread.com /

It's the best bread we've ever eaten. Ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Is it possible to get hydrogenated butter?
With caramelized corn syrup?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
28. Everything at McDonalds is covered in it i think. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubledamerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #9
45. They sell deep-fried butter sticks at rural State Fairs
They also sell deep fried Snickers Bars. Just get the combo.

P.S. This is no joke
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickinSTL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
49. I have mine with
garlic, curry powder and salt - no butter or other oils.

:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
safeinOhio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. I live near the RR tracks and have
seen lots of big black tankers going by in long strings. I had always assumed it was oil. The other day I noticed the label on the side said corn fructose. Lots and lots of that stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
5. I saw a commercial for Fiber One Bars, thought they must be good
Looked at ingredients in store today and wouldn't you know it - HFCS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Shopping for a cold cereal yesterday...guess what?
Corn flakes, rice Crisies ( I get the cheap brands) , everything had HFCS.
Since I cannot eat wheat or malt or barley and have to be careful with oats, that leave me rice or corn.
But HFCS is off the list too...

back to the "ingredients" part of the shelves.
For the above reasons, about 80% of the store is off limits.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. You too
I spend a few bucks on oats that are safe...

Red Mill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackintheGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. Try generics. Seriously!
I had the same problem, but then I noticed that a lot of store brand/generic knock-offs of popular HFCS cereals *do not* contain HFCS. Weird.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #19
75. Great ! which ones are wheat and oat free, do you know?
Because all the ones I have looked at contain malt, which is made from barley.

Except puffed rice.
Which for some reason is absent from my 2 stores.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackintheGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #75
100. You'll have to check your local brands
As DireStrike points out below, some generics have reformulated, and as I know some are actually major brands given the generic brand (or used to be).

Around here we have five major supermarket chains, plus Whole Foods and Trader Joe's (which for this discussion don't matter). They're all different, re: store brands. But at least two of my local generics meet my dietary needs/preferences where none of the major brands do.

Good luck!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chrisbee Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-10 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #75
115. Rice Chex and Corn Chex are free of HFCS
And they are marked gluten-free right on the front of the box.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DireStrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #19
91. Foodtown generics suddenly got HFCS about a year ago.
Their applesauce used to taste a lot different than Motts. Now it tastes the same.

I can't believe CORN FLAKES have it in them... what the hell... I just checked my foodtown box and there it is. Raisin bran also.

It's really getting impossible to not buy this crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ipfilter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. Another vote for Bob's Red Mill
I get the steel cut oats and 7 grain cereal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
30. Blame Nixon
He approved the government subsidies for corn throughout the food industry. Corporations get PAID to put that crap in your food!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
31. If you have an Aldi near you, you can sometimes find imported brands
that dont use HFCS.

http://www.aldifoods.com/us/html/service/store_locator_...

But the best advice I could offer is to make things from scratch. It doesnt consume as much time as I thought it would (you might be surprised, too) and you control much more of what goes in your body.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crazylikafox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
34. Check out Kashi
Tastes like cardboard, but it's pretty clean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #34
76. Which Kashi is malt and wheat/barley or oat free?
Most cereal have "malt flavorings"...made from barley.
Unless the box says "gluten free" it is not.

Kashi cereal, which contains kashi, or buckwheat (a non-gluten grain), also contains wheat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TuxedoKat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #7
56. I have the same problem
I try to stay away from wheat, but most of the cereals have them, or the gluten-free ones are so low in fiber they aren't worth eating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shallah Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
109. arrowhead mills & nature's path make puffed rice cereal made only of rice
Your local supermarket may have a health food section which may have one or both of these

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EVQ0NQ/ref=pd_lpo_...


http://www.amazon.com/Natures-Path-Organic-Cereal-6-Oun...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kalyke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-10 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
123. Here's a list for you (and everyone else)
Cheerios
Giant brand Instant Oatmeal most flavors
Kashi (most, if not all)
Life ceral (regular and cinnamon)
Natures Pride Organic (most, if not all, varieties)
Kelloggs Reduced Sugar Froot Loops
Trader Joes Graham Bites Cereal

http://highfructosehigh.com/no-hfcs /


Handiest list I've every seen!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TuxedoKat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #5
55. FYI
These are supposed to be really good: high fiber, low fat, low sugar, and taste good. I haven't tried them yet as I haven't been able to find them.

http://www.extendbar.com/about/extendbar.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #55
99. thanks!
i'll have to try them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TuxedoKat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
57. FYI
They were talking about these being good in my diet group: low fiber, low fat, low sugar, etc. I haven't tried them yet though.

http://www.extendbar.com/about/extendbar.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stuntcat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
86. right? me too
only I had already bought it and was eating it when I read the label :( least I know now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
8. They have obviously never eaten a Slider from White Castles :) (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MattBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. White Castle is teh shitz
You can eat one on Friday after a late night bender; burp on Sunday, and still taste it.

mmmmm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. We call em rectum rockets for a reason - now I may have to go get me some
YUM :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
global1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
13. Does Anyone Know That If One Stops Consumming Foods With HFCS That......
they can reverse the obesity?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. well yeah!
i've been reading labels religiously for 2 months now and buying NOTHING with hfcs. i've lost over 20 pounds. my A1C was tested at 4.9 on monday too! it's not easy, but it's do-able.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. There are few breads now that say "NO HFCS".. so marketers
are starting to pay attention..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emmadoggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #14
24. Awesome! Congrats!
I've been SORT of doing the same thing. I'm following a pre-diabetic diet. I'm SUPPOSED to have cut it completely out, but haven't succeeded 100%. I HAVE dramatically reduced the amount I consume though. I've lost about 33 pounds.

It's frustrating and maddening how much food is off-limits because of HFCS and partially hydrogenated oils. It is definitely a difficult climb, but I feel really good about the progress I've made.

I truly believe that HFCS deserves a good share of the blame for the obesity and diabetes epidemic in this country. There are certainly other factors as well, but the timing is just too much of a coincidence in my opinion.

Keep up the good work!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #24
88. thanks!
and congrats on your hard work too! it really is a struggle, but with more light shined on this issue, food manufacturers will hopefully listen up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabbycat31 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. I stopped consuming HFCS
among other things (increased exercise, etc) and I went from a size 14 to a size 6
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Out of curiosity, what else did you stop eating?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabbycat31 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #23
32. just HFCS and anything with it in it
I have a VERY VERY sweet tooth and now if i'm craving baked goodies, I have to make them from scratch.

I also have a strict workout routine, and cut my food portions dramatically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #32
89. that's great!
portion control is very important too. when i first started on my diabetic journey, i was amazed at the actual size of portions. they seemed child sized, but that was just because i was so used to eating large sizes of food and considering them normal.

i also have a huge sweet tooth, but use sugar very sparingly if at all. splenda and stevia work for me in most things now.

keep up the good work!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #23
83.  I had the same experience when I stopped consuming HFCS
The only thing that I changed was to stop consuming HFCS--no other changes in diet and no change in exercise. I lost 20+ pounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. That's interesting. I can't see how you could eliminate HFCS without making big changes though,
Edited on Thu Mar-25-10 01:17 PM by Gwendolyn
since it's mostly found in processed foods. Far as I know, it isn't bottled and sold on its own to pour over your breakfast cereal or into coffee. So that means you would've had to make other changes in your diet such as switching to more whole foods. Can you give a little summary of what you did? I'd be interested to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #85
90. first thing is
Edited on Thu Mar-25-10 01:57 PM by shanti
you read labels on processed foods, or you prepare your own food (without HFCS). it drastically limits the foods you eat, but if it's that important to your health, you will do it. for myself, it means oatmeal with frozen blueberries, yogurt (sugar free) or a hardboiled egg for breakfast - no boxed cereals, and i used to buy/use them a lot. and you can't really eat fast food as you don't know what's in it unless the ingredient description is there (or online). chipotle is one of the better ones.

until we speak with our wallets, manufacturers will continue to kill us with their products.

*fixed a typo*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #90
95. Yes, exactly. I've been reading labels since I could, well, read.

So what you're saying is that eliminating HFCS means basically getting rid of all processed foods and junk foods. Since most of these foods are fattening and disgusting whether they have HFCS in them or not, when people say they've lost 30 pounds "just by eliminating HFCS" that's not exactly true. They've eliminated a bunch of junk and are eating better in general.

I'm doing a little experiment and would love to find someone who has actually replaced HFCS products with sucrose products, without changing any other aspect of their diet (meaning they're still eating all the junk and processed foods as they did before) and see what the difference is. That would be a very interesting result, but I don't think it's possible. Health food stores stock some "junk" but not enough to make a comparison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dustbunnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #95
101. You're right but what difference does it make?

For years people have been ingesting garbage and growing more and more obese. Now they have the fear of God smacked into them because they believe HFCS is demon nectar. They're reading labels and putting junk back onto the shelves. If they want to believe that getting rid of HFCS is the reason they lost weight, and not the fact that they stopped eating stuff you wouldn't feed your dog, it doesn't matter. Good is being accomplished. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-10 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #101
127. Heh. Honestly I think it's all pretty bad when you overdo it.

HFCS, msg, sugar, trans fats. These are all ingredients found in processed food. Just eat as simply and as fresh as you can and you don't even have to think about what all chems and additives are in your meal. You're right about the last part in that at least people are paying attention, even if it's somewhat misguided.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #85
106. I quit drinking soda
That was the only change that I made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #106
126. Thanks. You aren't the first person to say that just cutting out soda made a big difference!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
16. Just a heads-up, they're using something called "Crystalline Fructose" now..
Edited on Wed Mar-24-10 04:07 PM by tridim
I found it in my favorite regional yogurt brand the other day (they went from "cane juice" to crystalline fructose). I will not be buying it any more.

Got home, looked it up, and it is all just PR by the industry. It's also reportedly even more dangerous than the HFCS that it replaces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
17. I suspect HFCS is the root cause of the sharp increases in U.S. obesity...
...and that it's not a simple correlation related strictly to overall calorie consumption and relative dollar costs.

There seems to be more to this than a simple increase in the consumption of sugars. There's lots of speculation that HFCS interferes with the normal sensation of satiety; that it disrupts the signaling systems that tells your brain you've "had enough."

The substance may have other psychoactive effects as well.

When all the science is done, I'm betting we'll see that the substitution of HFCS for ordinary crystalline sucrose was a public health catastrophe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emmadoggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. That is one of the biggest changes I have noticed since I started
following my new eating plan. I no longer have that CONSTANT urge to eat. I also notice that when I do fall off a little bit and eat some of the things I shouldn't, that urge seems to come charging back!

For me, that is one of the most dangerous parts of it - it makes me want to eat more and more and more. (And I don't mean more food in general, of course, but more and more of THAT stuff.) Of course, this creates a snowball effect.

I agree with you on it being a public health catastrophe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #17
58. but the sharp increase in obesity in mexico must be caused by something else, since
hfcs is rare there.

actually, there's been a sharp increase in obesity everywhere, regardless of hfcs consumption.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #58
62. Such comparisons are dubious...
... and tend to arise in business journals rather than scientific journals. We're playing peek-a-boo with ADM.

In many nations (China is one) increasing obesity is clearly associated with fatty foods.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. no, it's associated with the move from farms to the city.
and the comparison of mexico v. us didn't arise in a business journal either. i'm a dietitian; it arose in a clinical dietetics journal comparing hfcs consumption internationally. europe consumes much less; obesity rising. japan, ditto.

and as for ADM: what faddists don't get is that *every* idea they have about food comes from somewhere else. who do you think sponsored the rash of research into soy a few years back, which had all the faddists drinking soy milk, cause it was "better for you"? where do you think the "dairy = bad" meme first arose (look at the consolidation of dairying for the answer). who do you think sponsored the research on margarine v. butter, the anti-egg campaign, the "disease in your apple juice," & who the heck do you think is behind the "hfcs = poison" campaign? who do you think invents "lifestyles"?

corporations & financiers move people's TO MAKE MONEY ON THE ARBITRAGE, NEW PRODUCTS, & WITH FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE DIRECTION OF CHANGE.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 05:03 AM
Response to Reply #63
68. how could i have forgotten the "sugar is poison" campaign before the surge in the use of HFCS?
Edited on Thu Mar-25-10 05:06 AM by Hannah Bell
the "drink 8 glasses of water" campaign coincident with the marketing of bottled water?

man, i could go on & on.

the nutrition industry = scam city.

eat real food & quit obsessing. you're going to get old & die. live while you can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #68
102. sugar IS poison
to diabetics...HFCS is simply an offshoot and it's NOT "real food". are you diabetic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. no, i'm a registered clinical dietitian. & sugar isn't "poison," to diabetics or anyone else.
Edited on Thu Mar-25-10 03:03 PM by Hannah Bell
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #63
72. I was quick to post, a reflexive response to "Mexico is fat too!" HFCS defenders.
One of the things I find most interesting about HFCS are the expensive chemical contortions required to make higher fructose HFCS, like HFCS-90.

Higher fructose HFCS blends are sweeter than more conventional HFCS blends, but they don't seem to be making this stuff to save on shipping.

Overall, Mexico has a rather odd distribution of obesity and underweight.



http://www.fao.org/FOCUS/E/obesity/obes3.htm

The situation in Mexico is complex.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #72
80. Conclusion first, evidence later. Mexico consumes less HFCS than the US did in 1980 -- before *its*
Edited on Thu Mar-25-10 01:05 PM by Hannah Bell
surge in obesity.

"The situation in Mexico is complex" = no more than anywhere else.

That chart is from 1997, when Mexicans consumed *even less* HFCS than the 14 tons per capita they did in 2009. 402,000 tons total v. 653,000 tons in 2009. And in 1996 it was 116,000 tons, & even less before that (i.e. pre-NAFTA).

You'll notice already half the population is already "overweight" in 1997, & a number of other Latin American countries are in the same boat.

The overweight/underweight spread is typical a highly unequal middle-income country in the midst of the rural/urban transition.

Poor urbanized populations typically weigh more than poor rural populations, for fairly obvious reasons.

Different foods (processed = more highly concentrated calories), cheaper foods (in "developed" economies food = cheaper due to mass production & = lower % of total income), & less strenuous work on average.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 05:15 AM
Response to Reply #62
69. here for your "dubious" comparisons. US consumption = 371% of mexico's.
Edited on Thu Mar-25-10 05:16 AM by Hannah Bell
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dream Girl Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #69
74. Many of the poorest Mexicans don't eat processed food.
However, there is a sizeable segment that does, and it is likely affecting them. There is also an increase in refined carbs, e.g. white flour and genetically modified corn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #74
81. conclusion first, evidence later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #58
65. Mexico imported nearly 400,000 tons of HFCS from the U.S. last year.
You can download the reports here: (see 34a & 34b)
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Sugar/Data.htm

In 1995, after NAFTA, Mexico imported a mere 40,000 tons and rose each year until Mexico put a tariff on HFCS imports to protect their sugar market but the WTO ruled against Mexico and imports rose again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 04:26 AM
Response to Reply #65
67. Let's compare disappearance data, as that's what's used rather than imports --
Edited on Thu Mar-25-10 04:46 AM by Hannah Bell
problem with the "imports from US" number is, Mexico also *produces* corn syrup, & exports it, & uses it in products made for export.

Disappearance data = domestic consumption.


And lest you think I'm cherry-picking, the disappearance figures are *higher* than the 400,000 tons you cite.


So, check my math, it's late:

TABLE 30, US domestic disappearance of HFCS (42/55, column J)

2009: 8,026,000 short (US = 2000 lbs) tons:

US population = 300 million

Consumption per person = 8/300 = .026 tons/person = 52 pounds***

***This is in range of the figures in table 52, which shows US retail consumption at 53 lbs/capita in 2008, consumer level at 47 lbs/capita.



TABLE 56, Mexico utilization (closest thing I could find to disappearance)

2009: 653,000 metric (long = 2205 lbs) tons = 719,797 US tons

Mexican population = 100 million

Consumption per person = 7/1000 = .007 tons/person = 14 pounds


If you average the data 1995 to 2009, Mexico's consumption is even less for that period, & the difference between Americans & Mexicans even greater.

Especially since Mexico had a tariff on HFCS about 2000-2005, & in those years consumption dropped precipitously (by more than half).

Tariff declared illegal by WTO in 2005.


So 2009 per capita consumption in the US was 371% of Mexico's.

Or, Mexico's 2009 consumption was 26% of the US's.

Or, Mexicans consume about 75% less than Americans.

Or, Mexicans in 2009, per capita, consumed less HFCS than Americans did in 1980 (see Table 52, column F, 1980).



Yet Mexico is (supposedly) the second-fattest country in the world, with about 70% of adults overweight, up from 10% in 1989:

http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080324/new...


And according to some, it's because of HFCS.


I don't think so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
18. Does high-fructose corn syrup make you fatter?
Edited on Wed Mar-24-10 04:19 PM by FarCenter
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/does-high-f...

<SNIP>
In the absence of a coherent picture on the biochemistry, the new study attempts to look at the longer term impact of access to HFCS. The Princeton study set up groups of age-, weight-, and sex-matched rats, and gave them access to all the chow they could eat. In addition, different groups of rats were given access to an HFCS solution for either 12 or 24 hours; another group were given a similar sucrose solution, and a control group was simply given water. The amount of calories consumed, both from rat chow and sugar solutions, was monitored daily, and the rats were weighed every week. Two experiments were run, one for two months, the second for six.

At the end of the shorter trial, the male rats with 12-hour access to HFCS had gained significantly more weight than the group given access to sucroseeven though they actually consumed fewer calories in liquid form (the sucrose group ate enough chow to make up for the difference). That seems pretty important until you look at some of the details: the 24-hour HFCS group consumed roughly the same number of calories, on average, as their 12-hour peers, but didn't put on the same amount of weight. In fact, the 24-hour group wasn't significantly different (in the statistical sense) than either the sucrose or chow-only controls.

The longer-term study could have clarified exactly what was going on here, but the authors eliminated the sucrose group, "Since we did not see effects of sucrose on body weight in Experiment 1." In this experiment, the 24-hour group actually gained more weight than the control population as early as three weeks into the experiment. In fact, they gained more weight than the 12-hour group, although this difference isn't statistically significant. It doesn't appear that the authors attempted to explain why the two experiments seem to have produced different results.

At the end of this study, the fat pads were dissected out and weighed, and the abdominal fat pads of the 12-hour group were significantly different from those of the chow-only control. However, the abdominal fat of the 24-hour group (which, remember, gained more weight) wasn't significantly heavier than the control group.

To confuse matters further, the authors also ran a group of females through the long-term study protocol, and this time included a group with access to a sucrose solution. Females gained less weight in general than males, and those with 12-hour access to either HFCS or sucrose solutions finished the experiment in a statistical dead heat. Only the 24-hour HFCS group showed a significant increase in weight gain (and had a corresponding increase in fat deposition).

(One other thing that seems worth noting is that the procedures took place during a time when the rats normally gain weight. For example, the chow-only control group doubled in weight during the long-term experiment, while the HFCS group bulked up by roughly 260 percent.)


<SNIP>

Unfortunately, although the study was supported by taxpayer dollars, the paper is behind Elsivier's pay wall. doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2010.02.012
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Touchdown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
20. Even worse than that little Spanish Brat who I taught a lesson to...
all those years ago.. chasing me down all this time only to fail now? I think that's the worst thing ever. How marvelous!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
26. who is Taylor Swift? Or am I better off not knowing?
:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #26
35. Meh, you're better off not knowing, but
She's a waifish singer who got a big sympathy career boost when Kanye West jumped onstage and interrupted her acceptance speech at the VMAs last season, proclaiming that Beyonce had the best video. She scored a Grammy or two, but I don't see (or hear) what's so amazing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greencharlie Donating Member (827 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
27. well...
limited edition Coca Cola with REAL SUGAR... FTW!!!

Mmmmm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
29. I wrote a email to complain about a product that included trans-fats.
I got a nice email back telling me that trans-fats were really so bad and then another paragraph telling me, unsolicited, that HFCS wasnt so bad either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FatDave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #29
48. What, you expect them to have two separate form letters for their complaints?
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
33. k&r! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
36. I really wish there would be heavy taxes for HFCS,,, enough that companies would use cane sugar
again.


I'm not looking for a ban.


Just a "health" tax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
37. Bad tasting and bad for you
slimy, disgusting industrial by product posing as a foodstuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
38. really what happened to global thermonuclear war?
what happened to world hunger and lack of safe drinking water for that matter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joe_sixpack Donating Member (655 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
39. Was there any logical reasoning behind America using so much HFCS
other than as a way to subsidize corn farmers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. It was corn farmers versus sugar loby
you know who lost

By the way, this goes back to... 1973 and the cheap food policy started under Nixon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #40
51. And brilliantly illustrated by Michael Pollan in...
The Omnivore's Dilemma.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Still on my to be read book list
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #52
61. Move it up to the top of your list. I wish I had.
It is the most important book that I've read about food and the food industry. And he's and excellent writer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conscious evolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. ask coke about
their ADD study.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanusAscending Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #39
105. Well..........
back in the fifties, when I was having my babies, we Mom's who bottle fed used it to make their formula! There was no such thing as canned baby formula back then.I can't say that it harmed any of my children for the 6 months or so that they were on it, before being switched to whole milk. Things sure have changed since then. Dr's. back then must have really been uneducated?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Sparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
41. For whatever reason i am under the impression that it is the addictive substance in juke food.
Edited on Wed Mar-24-10 09:21 PM by Mr. Sparkle
So I try and avoid foods that contain it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. During the worst of my struggles I didn't know about HFCS. This past year I started reading labels
I think that multiple studies are showing that HFCS acts differently than sugar in both the body and the brain.

We've been suckered.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #44
59. And the suckering will not stop.
Once HFCS is widely exposed, the "food" industry will introduce yet another corn derivative. They'll lie and lie and lie about probable harm and it will take another 30 years of poorly funded non-corporate funded research to expose the next poison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #59
104. *all* nutrition research is driven by corporate interests. including the princeton study.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ParkieDem Donating Member (417 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #104
107. This:
"actually, there's been a sharp increase in obesity everywhere, regardless of hfcs consumption."

Much of the rise in obesity can be attributed to (1) a rise in national wealth, and (2) the relative inexpensiveness of foods (pretty much all kinds).

In places like Mexico, parts of Latin America, the Middle East, and some places in the Pacific, obesity is skyrocketing. And it's primarily because the average wealth of these countries has increased (in the case of the Middle East, dramatically). Take this quiz: http://www.sporcle.com/games/fattest_countries.php

There are no hard and fast rules, but you can see that obesity can be largely correlated to wealth. Now, there aren't many countries in Europe with high obesity rates, because (1) people spend a much higher percentage of their income on housing and taxes there, and (2) European agricultural policy keeps food relatively expensive (in fact, this is one reason why HFCS is popular here -- our agricultural policies keep real sugar much more expensive than it should be).

Is HFCS part of the problem? Of course. But it's not the whole story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #107
110. europeans have higher obesity rates than they did 20, 30, 40 years ago.e.g.:
e.g.:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6639227.stm

i repeat, obesity is on the rise almost *everywhere*. and has been for some time.

per this, 75% of german men are overweight -- very similar to the us.

eu countries here:

http://www.iotf.org/media/euobesity3.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Morbius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
43. I've noticed that more and more products are being offered
...without HFCS. That tells me it isn't just loony lefties like myself who are concerned.

I recommend people consume less than three soft drinks a week, and I personally usually drink tea, sweetened lightly with good old fashioned cane sugar (sugar in the raw, sometimes). The strange thing is, there's so much demand for corn already. Why manufacturers don't shift to other sweeteners (like beet sugar), I don't understand. It's probably not more expensive, and it's becoming a selling-point to make your product with real sugar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
46. Wasn't this discussed to death the other day
if you bother to read the article the conclusive evidence was eating lots of sugar is not good for your weight. The evidence that HFCS was worse than Sucrose would appear to be open to debate based on the evidence in the study. The authors had their own opinion on their results. They thought they were conclusive, although they failed to explain several null results in their study. (You don't have to agree with the conclusion of an author of a paper). No doubt many DUers hate HFCS and saw it as affirmation of their beliefs. Yet the study itself leaves room for an open mind. I personally wasn't very convinced by their HFCS vs sucrose results. Really study after study says the same thing. Don't eat a lot of your daily calories in the form of refined sugars. Which is a problem because our food industry was driven to produce lots of cheap processed food high in these sugars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dustbunnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #46
54. It's kind of funny actually, but there is an upside to the American penchant --

for looking for another quick fix to a really very large problem. People who haven't been reading labels will now begin to do so and maybe cut down on their consumption of processed and other assorted junk food. The downside is that people are now cheerleading sugar which is just mind-boggling. It's like saying "wow, brain cancer is really bad, think I'm gonna go for the melanoma instead!" Of course, these people will continue to overeat, will continue to become obese, get sick, lather, rinse, repeat. Those who have a better understanding of their bodies and how refined sugars work will do okay though and that's at least some portion of the population.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cbdo2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
47. I think the HFCS in soda pop is even worse than the others.
Maybe our bodies have a more difficult time with the liquid rather than solid HFSC that gets processed along with food?

I don't know but I read labels pretty closely on what I eat and I have a major sweet tooth and I just won't gain weight. It's rare if I drink one soda pop in 6 months though and when I do, I definitely feel it. It about puts me in the bed for a whole day afterward.

Stay away from the HFSC people especially in soda pop. You'll notice a decrease in weight and you'll feel better all around, and no this doesn't mean to just switch over to some other pop. Just drink water or coffee or tea. Your body can process those. You'll lose weight and feel better and for God's sake, limit pop intake in your children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CLANG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
50. knr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
53. If HFCS is the worst thing humanity has to worry about
Then the world's not as bad as I thought it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beringia Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-10 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
60. I assume it is like sugar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pundaint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 02:54 AM
Response to Reply #60
66. Yes, it has all the excess calories of refined sugar, but it doesn't occur all by itself in nature,
so the human body doesn't respond the same way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cbdo2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #60
71. Hopefully your pancreas agrees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
64. K&R. Get off this poison, fellow posters. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomm2thumbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 05:17 AM
Response to Original message
70. Reagan would call high-fructose corn syrup a fruit and should be served to children

sort of like catsup/ketchup being a vegetable. it really fulfills his vision
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geardaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
73. Do want some popcorn with your HFCS?
:popcorn:

I agree with you. HFCS is evil and just a product to keep big corn in business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
77. HFCS dook er jerbs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. I hear they had a peer reviewed study, which makes it all true and gospel
Cause such things are, especially from peer reviews of tobacco companies/etc, like words from the pope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. Yeah, they had a peer reviewed study.
Except the peer-reviewed study, like other peer reviewed studies, showed there was no difference between HFCS and sucrose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #79
82. And if just ONE did? Would it make it true, or do you believe them all? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
84. K&R
We must stop poisoning ourselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stuntcat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
87. k, r, AND...
and anyone on this discussion saying it doesn't matter is a fucking moron.

The stupid are getting unmanageably fat and unhealthy. regular people are getting cancer. the wrong pigs are making millions off of it.
This is OUR FOOD we're talking about, for gosh sakes. The stuff that makes us alive.

If you don't see why this is a big fuck of ALL of us at once then you should be neutered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #87
92. It's the commies trying to sap our precious bodily fluids.

"The stupid are getting unmanageably fat and unhealthy"

So you're saying that fat people are stupid? And it's not because their excessive diets and lack of exercise?

"regular people are getting cancer."

Haven't regular people always gotten cancer? What sort of people used to get cancer? Witches and preverts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stuntcat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #92
93. more people get cancer from their processed food now
I realize people online need things spelled out explicitly, I'll try to remember this :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #93
94. Cancer rates are going down.
I realize people online just make up random crap. But I don't know why they expect people to believe them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #94
96. You didn't address his post at all.
Yes cancer rates might be going down as a whole, but the poster was referring to cancer caused by process foods. I don't know whether that's true or not (I don't have time to look it up at the moment), but if you're going to be snarky and insulting like that, at least try to address what was said in the post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. It's not.
Cancer rates are not going up because of processed foods at all.

In fact, and this may be a big surprise, but the FDA doesn't allow carcinogens into processed foods.

This sort of goofy shit really deserves snark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-10 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #97
112. I'm afraid you're quite wrong again.
There are many carcinogens in our foods. Some of them are naturally occurring, others are not. You are really quite uninformed on this subject. You make yourself look rather foolish every time it comes up. But just continue throwing out the snark to make yourself feel better. You gotta do it somehow.

http://cancer.suite101.com/article.cfm/carcinogens-in-f...
http://www.copperwiki.org/index.php?title=Carcinogens_i...

And if you think that carcinogens can't get into our food supply in an extra-legal manner, you've got another thing coming.

http://psep.cce.cornell.edu/issues/epa-agree-carcin.asp...

Your goofy shit doesn't fool anyone but yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-10 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #112
114. You're being intellectually dishonest.
Are there carcinogens in food?

Yes. Is this something that's happening because the FDA is allowing processed foods to be processed to allow carcinogens? No.

Is there an epidemiological effect of increased cancer because of processed foods? No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-10 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #114
116. What a laugh, you talking about intellectual dishonesty.
From someone who would never have an argument without the use of a strawman. So your argument now is that we shouldn't worry about these foods because the FDA doesn't allow carcinogens in them even though they actually DO contain carcinogens both naturally occurring and otherwise. And I'm calling bullshit on your other claim as well. For someone who claims to be so all about science, you sure as hell expect people to take you at your word an awful lot even though you've been proven wrong so many times in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-10 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #116
117. What, exactly, should the FDA do to prevent natural carcinogens?
Think about that for a moment.

As for "unnatural" carcinogens, if you remember back to your basic, basic, 17th century chemistry, there's no such thing as a toxic chemical, only toxic concentrations of chemicals. These carcinogens are at such small levels that they cannot possibly cause cancer, and if they did they wouldn't be on the market.

Rendering entirely moot the false claim that processed food are causing cancer, even in "regular" people, whatever the fuck that still means.

"you sure as hell expect people to take you at your word an awful lot even though you've been proven wrong so many times in the past."

If people don't want to take my word, they're perfectly welcome to look at the science themselves. I'm not talking goofy woo woo astrology shit. But the science. There's nothing I've said that isn't supported in the scientific literature.

And as for me being proven wrong so many times in the past- post one example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-10 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #117
119. I've looked at the science. And you're wrong.
Apparently, you still expect people to take you at your own word when I've provided the words of several qualified people other than myself. Apparently, you've never heard of something called "cumulative effect". Perhaps you missed that in your science class. I've proven you wrong several times just in this thread. If you're ever confronted with evidence proving you wrong, you simply dismiss it as 'woo'. You're not interested in a debate, you're just interested in shouting out how right you are. If there's one thing I can say about you and science, it's that you've got being wrong down to a science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-10 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #119
120. I don't believe you.
"Apparently, you've never heard of something called "cumulative effect". "

Apparently you've never heard of something called "evidence."

"I've proven you wrong several times just in this thread."

No, you haven't. Processed food does not cause cancer.

"it's that you've got being wrong down to a science. "

Says the 9-11 twoofer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-10 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #120
124. Great use of snark while providing absolutely nothing in terms of actual information.
Here's some more information for you, but I guess I should just assume that these scientists are just peddling woo.

http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/10/19/all-the-hea...

Cancer

A seven-year study of close to 200,000 people by the University of Hawaii found that people who ate the most processed meats (hot dogs, sausage) had a 67 percent higher risk of pancreatic cancer than those who ate little or no meat products.

A Canadian study of over 400 men aged 50 to 80 found similar results. Men whose eating habits fell into the "processed" pattern (processed meats, red meat, organ meats, refined grains, vegetable oils and soft drinks) had a significantly higher risk of prostate cancer than men in the other groups. Men who ate the most processed foods had a 2.5-fold increased prostate cancer risk.

Yet another study published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Mile Markers, and Prevention found that refined carbohydrates like white flour, sugar and high fructose corn syrup is also linked to cancer. The study of more than 1,800 women in Mexico found that those who got 57 percent or more of their total energy intake from refined carbohydrates had a 220 percent higher risk of breast cancer than women who ate more balanced diets.



Processed meats like hot dogs, lunch meats, bacon and other sausages have been linked to various forms of cancer.

Acrylamide, a carcinogenic substance that forms when foods are heated at high temperatures, such as during baking or frying, is also a concern. Processed foods like French fries and potato chips have shown elevated levels of the substance, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

"I estimate that acrylamide causes several thousand cancers per year in Americans," said Clark University research professor Dale Hattis.

And fantastic job on trying to change the subject. I suppose when you're exposed as being so incredibly ignorant on a particular subject, bring up 9/11. That's just fucking brilliant. You'll notice that I never mention the fact that you're a tremendous asshole when replying to your posts. I just let other readers find that out for themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwendolyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #96
98. Making sweeping statements about stupid people becoming fat isn't exactly polite.

Neither is pronouncing to the world that anyone who disagrees with you should be neutered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-10 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #98
118. I didn't catch that.
But considering the source, it doesn't surprise me much at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EOTE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-10 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #98
128. I see the post you're referring to now, and I quite agree.
I don't agree with that sentiment at all, I didn't mean to suggest that I did. However, I do think that processed foods are quickly becoming a serious health issue for more and more people. I eat far more processed foods than I should and I fear I'll suffer the consequences. I don't blame anyone but myself for that, but I do think more should be done to curb their harmful effects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LongTomH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
108. HFCS may also cause liver damage.
At least according to an article in the journal: Hepatology

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is one of the many consequences of obesity, as fat accumulates not only across the body and around the visceral organs, but inside the organ that helps break down fats, filter toxins from the bloodstream and create useable fuel from the food we eat. About 3 in 10 American adults suffer from nonalcoholic fatty liver. But it's a population of patients that's grown so fast, there isn't a lot known about their risks, and what factors aggravate those risks.

<snip>

A new study suggests that for those with nonalcoholic fatty liver, drinking a lot of beverages sweetened with fructose may do the same thing as liquor.

The study, published in the journal Hepatology, tracked 427 patients with fatty liver disease to see whether consumption of fructose made a difference in the progression of fatty liver to the organ's failure. The Duke University researchers asked subjects only about how many fructose-sweetened beverages a week they drank, including fruit juices and soft drinks sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup -- yielding a conservative accounting, since the stuff is also used in baking and other processed foods. Though only 19% of the fatty liver patients consumed few or no fructose sweetened beverages, 28% drank at least one a day.

<snip>

Compared to subjects who drank the least fructose beverages, those who drank the most were significantly more likely to have the hepatic scarring that will more often progress to cirrhosis or liver cancer. And older subjects who regularly consumed fructose beverages showed more signs of liver inflammation. After they stripped out the effects of age, gender and body-mass index, the researchers also found that the heavy fructose drinkers also have lower levels of HDL (or "good") cholesterol.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/03/h...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-10 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #108
111. obesity & overconsumption of *all* sugars = fatty liver = "liver damage".
Edited on Thu Mar-25-10 05:32 PM by Hannah Bell
excess of sugar in the blood stream = liver fat storage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-10 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
113. If we cut sugar subsidies....
But that won't happen. Big sugar demands it, and ADM likes selling HFCS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kip Humphrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-10 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
121. I guess the Pepsi Generation will be short-lived
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 20th 2017, 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC