Long but interesting video. If you eat food I would recommend watching this and then evaluating what you eat.
High fructose corn syrup is an omnipresent component of modern day food and it is a toxin that causes obesity, hypertension, gout, insulin resistance, leptin resistance, and diabetes.
Apparently the stuff is so toxic and fattening that it is impossible to consume it and exercise your way out of being fat.
http://www.youtube.com/v/dBnniua6-oM&hl=en_US&fs=1&
Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Series: UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public [7/2009] [Health and Medicine]
I can't get the video from here but I've seen and read enough to know where you are coming from. It's disgusting what we've become accustomed to putting in our bodies. Really, it's hard to think about and still be one that does eat food or at least what we've grown to know as "food".
Here are a couple more - "food for thought".
http://www.michaelpollan.com/omnivore.php
http://www.foodincmovie.com/
The reason that there is so much high fructose corn syrup in everything is that sugar in the US is twice as expensive as anywhere else in the world. Years ago the Fanjul family, who control most of the sugar production in this country, used political contributions to get very high tariffs placed on imported sugar to protect their profits from their South Florida sugar plantations. Can you say Everglades destruction?
As a result of the high prices, food and soda producers turned to high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener. Coke has never tasted the same since. Now both the sugar (cane and beet) and the corn industries, ADM and Bunge, lobby hard to keep this tariff in place.
Our bodies metabolize sucrose (sugar) and fructose (aka high fructose corn syrup) very differently and we are now discovering that it has health consequences. Watch the corn industry fight this the same way the tobacco industry fought about cigarettes. Look out for the "not proven" and false science press releases backed by hidden, industry-backed "public interest" organizations.
You are right Dog Walker... check out http://www.sweetsurprise.com/.
They even have commercials "debunking" any problems with HFCS.
Quote from: Dog Walker on April 17, 2010, 09:49:16 AM
As a result of the high prices, food and soda producers turned to high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener. Coke has never tasted the same since.
That's why I almost never drink soda, it doesn't taste good to me anymore. I guess my taste buds have more common sense than I give them credit for.
I can only speak for myself.........I don't drink soda's, eat at fast food places and do try to watch what I eat!
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Bridge-Community-Garden/DSC0032/824625890_wuMVK-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Bridge-Community-Garden/DSC0028/824622498_iKNYg-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Bridge-Community-Garden/DSC0027/824622656_mRgau-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Bridge-Community-Garden/DSC0024/824617197_MsFwe-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Neighborhoods/Bridge-Community-Garden/DSC0022/824615382_Ai2C9-M.jpg)
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public"
- H. L. Mencken
Robert Lustig, MD video...300,000 views
I like turtles zombie kid video....17,000,000 views
The nitwits win 56 to 1.
Wait a minute....1,000,000 of those views might have been me.
Quote from: Dog Walker on April 17, 2010, 09:49:16 AM
The reason that there is so much high fructose corn syrup in everything is that sugar in the US is twice as expensive as anywhere else in the world. Years ago the Fanjul family, who control most of the sugar production in this country, used political contributions to get very high tariffs placed on imported sugar to protect their profits from their South Florida sugar plantations. Can you say Everglades destruction?
As a result of the high prices, food and soda producers turned to high fructose corn syrup as a sweetener. Coke has never tasted the same since. Now both the sugar (cane and beet) and the corn industries, ADM and Bunge, lobby hard to keep this tariff in place.
Our bodies metabolize sucrose (sugar) and fructose (aka high fructose corn syrup) very differently and we are now discovering that it has health consequences. Watch the corn industry fight this the same way the tobacco industry fought about cigarettes. Look out for the "not proven" and false science press releases backed by hidden, industry-backed "public interest" organizations.
If you thought that was bad, what do you think about the State's grand idea of buying their holdings from them in the Everglades, making a huge downpayment, and then when the economy turned and the State couldn't finance the deal and had to back out, they kept the land and the money! LMAO...
QuoteDaily consumption of fructose -- the sugar commonly found in soft drinks -- significantly increased hepatic fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, according to a study of patients enrolled in a clinical research network.
An adjusted analysis showed high fructose consumption was associated with reduced hepatic steatosis but increased fibrosis stage (P<0.05). In older patients, daily fructose consumption increased the risk of hepatic inflammation and hepatocyte ballooning.
"These results identify a readily modifiable environmental risk factor that may ameliorate disease progression in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)," Manal Abdelmalek, MD, of Duke University, and co-authors reported online in Hepatology.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Gastroenterology/GeneralHepatology/19825
Thank goodness ingredients are written on the label, Praise Jesus, oh no wait the FDA has something to do with that.
P.S.
I wonder if food labels were being proposed today if they would be called a "government take over of the food industry" or "a socialist plot to kill grandma"?
QuoteFor years the federal government has subsidized corn to the tune of several billion dollars a year. Much of America's heartland is covered by endless swaths of corn, often genetically modified because of the huge cash incentives offered to farmers who grow it. As a result, corn-based ingredients are present in a great majority of processed food products. Ingredients like maltodextrin, corn starch (typically modified in some way), corn syrup, and HFCS can be found in virtually every processed food.
HFCS was invented in the 1970s when scientists discovered a way to convert corn glucose into fructose, causing it to be substantially sweeter. Interestingly around the same time, the U.S. government began imposing tariffs on imported sugar and implementing sugar quotas on the amount of domestic sugar that could be grown. As a result, producers were able to obtain this new corn sweetener much more cheaply than they could sugar and they began to use it to sweeten their products.
http://www.naturalnews.com/027606_corn_subsidies_HFCS.html
After watching this video I have really tried to monitor what I consume. It's amazing how many things have HFCS in them.
Quote from: JC on April 30, 2010, 09:35:30 AM
P.S.
I wonder if food labels were being proposed today if they would be called a "government take over of the food industry" or "a socialist plot to kill grandma"?
Actually, more food labels have recently been up for debate -- and contrary to your simple-minded jab at simple-mindedness, they are actually being backed by the conglomerates as food labels provide another barrier to entry for start-ups and small businesses.
Quote from: stephendare on April 17, 2010, 10:34:56 AM
Isnt it because we hold the Presidential primaries in Iowa first every election, and the candidates have to make egregious concessions to the corn industry as a result?
Methinks you are certainly on to something..........
There was an excellent episode of "Point of View" on PBS up here recently about the commercial food industry, the fact that the federal government makes it so that corn can be purchased at prices below the cost of production, and the resulting omnipresence of corn in everything we eat. Essentially when you look at an ingredient list all the stuff that you don't know what it is..... about 95% of the time that is Corn. Corn is in EVERYTHING both food and non-food. According to the program corn-feeding beef makes e-coli much more prevalent than grass-feeding.. but its so much cheaper to buy corn and corn feed that beef producers don't care. It was really an eye-opening program, I recommend looking for it on PBS down there.
It also had a segment regarding obesity. Essentially through unintended consequences, the federal government's policies have resulted in a green bell pepper costing the same amount as a 1/4 lb double cheeseburger at burger king... 99 cents. When you barely have enough money to eat each day which of those two are you going to spend your dollar on?
It was called "Food, Inc." apparently it was Oscar nominated as a documentary.
Quote from: Tripoli1711 on April 30, 2010, 10:16:03 AM
It was called "Food, Inc." apparently it was Oscar nominated as a documentary.
And the fact the you apparently only now are aware of it shows how successfully the industry has supressed this info.
You are probably right, but in all honesty it has been willful ignorance.
here is another good movie I watched recently.
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/kingcorn/
Quote from: redglittercoffin on April 30, 2010, 10:05:32 AM
Quote from: JC on April 30, 2010, 09:35:30 AM
P.S.
I wonder if food labels were being proposed today if they would be called a "government take over of the food industry" or "a socialist plot to kill grandma"?
Actually, more food labels have recently been up for debate -- and contrary to your simple-minded jab at simple-mindedness, they are actually being backed by the conglomerates as food labels provide another barrier to entry for start-ups and small businesses.
LOL... I knew there would be an argument against having the public being informed about what it consumes! So here is a proposal, maybe if you sell less than x-number of units, you can opt out of food label participation? Maybe we can leave it up to industry to do the right thing? Do you think without transparency and oversight the food industry will do the right thing, like not poison its consumers? I would say probably not, since they have been doing it for a very long time. Maybe large food companies can pay into a fund which small start ups can use to subsidize their costs? Consider it a sort of reparation for getting rich off poisoning consumers for the last 5 decades plus!
Every cause becomes a business > Every business becomes a racket > Every racket becomes a government agency.
The corn producers are also fighting ethanol production, so that it is mainly corn based.
Hate to bring this up, but 1 acre of Hemp (ultra low THC content, not enough in an acre to get high) would produce more ethanol than 1 acre of corn, moreso when you factor in items such as having to dry the corn, the water used to grow the corn, etc.
Hemp is a much hardier plant requiring less water and time to deal with.
Quote from: jandar on April 30, 2010, 12:56:20 PM
The corn producers are also fighting ethanol production, so that it is mainly corn based.
Hate to bring this up, but 1 acre of Hemp (ultra low THC content, not enough in an acre to get high) would produce more ethanol than 1 acre of corn, moreso when you factor in items such as having to dry the corn, the water used to grow the corn, etc.
Hemp is a much hardier plant requiring less water and time to deal with.
I believe it can produce more harvests per season, and is less harmful to top soil. Hemp was gold a 150 years ago. It really is a no brainer.
Quote from: jandar on April 30, 2010, 12:56:20 PM
The corn producers are also fighting ethanol production, so that it is mainly corn based.
Hate to bring this up, but 1 acre of Hemp (ultra low THC content, not enough in an acre to get high) would produce more ethanol than 1 acre of corn, moreso when you factor in items such as having to dry the corn, the water used to grow the corn, etc.
Hemp is a much hardier plant requiring less water and time to deal with.
Why would corn growers care if they had to switch to hemp? I mean, if, as you claim its less work, and yields more, wouldn't they just switch to growing hemp? Is it the subsidy that prevents this or something else?
Maybe due to the fact that growing hemp (cannibus) is outlawed in the US?
Quote from: buckethead on April 30, 2010, 04:16:03 PM
Maybe due to the fact that growing hemp (cannibus) is outlawed in the US?
And this is the fault of the corn growers?
No. Perhaps I misunderstood your previous post. It might cost corn growers subsidy money, but that would depend on how Congress would see fit to alter the situation.
Quote from: buckethead on April 30, 2010, 04:42:40 PM
No. Perhaps I misunderstood your previous post. It might cost corn growers subsidy money, but that would depend on how Congress would see fit to alter the situation.
My comment wasnt really aimed at you anyway, it was a few posts back.
Quote from: jandar on April 30, 2010, 12:56:20 PM
The corn producers are also fighting ethanol production, so that it is mainly corn based.
Hate to bring this up, but 1 acre of Hemp (ultra low THC content, not enough in an acre to get high) would produce more ethanol than 1 acre of corn, moreso when you factor in items such as having to dry the corn, the water used to grow the corn, etc.
Hemp is a much hardier plant requiring less water and time to deal with.
check out the vids @ www.424889.bodybyvi.com. I got some of the stuff from this guy and its the real deal.
For Corn Syrup, the Sweet Talk Gets Harder
By MELANIE WARNER
FOR much of 2009, Michael Locascio, an executive at ConAgra Foods, watched with concern as the bad news about high-fructose corn syrup kept coming.
In January, there were studies showing that samples of the sweetener contained the toxic metal mercury. Then came a popular Facebook page that was critical of the syrup. By year-end, there were about a dozen spoofs on YouTube mocking efforts by makers of high-fructose corn syrup to show that science is on their side.
But it was pleading comments like this one, from a devoted ConAgra customer, that finally persuaded Mr. Locascio, president of the meal enhancers category at ConAgra, to take action: “Hunt’s is by far the best ketchup ever, but please start making a variety without the high-fructose corn syrup,†wrote Jennifer from New Hampshire.
Early this year, she got her wish when ConAgra decided to reformulate one of its biggest brands, replacing the high-fructose corn syrup in Hunt’s ketchup with old-fashioned sugar. This month, new bottles featuring a banner proclaiming “No high fructose corn syrup†arrive in stores.
Hunt’s ketchup is among the latest in a string of major-brand products that have replaced the vilified sweetener. Gatorade, several Kraft salad dressings, Wheat Thins, Ocean Spray cranberry juice, Pepsi Throwback, Mountain Dew Throwback and the baked goods at Starbucks, to name a few, are all now made with regular sugar.
What started as a narrow movement by proponents of natural and organic foods has morphed into a swell of mainstream opposition, thanks in large part to tools of modern activism like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter and movies like “Food, Inc.†and “King Corn.â€
As a result, sales of the ingredient have fallen in the United States. Charlie Mills, an analyst at Credit Suisse, says that the combined United States sales of high-fructose corn syrup for Archer Daniels Midland, Tate & Lyle and Corn Products International were down 9 percent in 2009, compared with 2007. A further decline is expected this year, he says.
This is happening even though many scientists say that high-fructose corn syrup is no worse for people than sugar, which costs some 40 percent more.
“Manufacturers are tired of hearing about the e-mails, the 800-number calls and the letters,†says Phil Lempert, editor of the Lempert Report, which focuses on supermarket trends. “People don’t want it, so why fight them?â€
The Corn Refiners Association, which represents makers of the syrup like A.D.M., Cargill and Corn Products Internatiional, has spent the last six years trying to convince Americans that high-fructose corn syrup is a natural ingredient â€" made from corn! â€" that’s really no different from sugar.
High-fructose corn syrup is singled out because it is still one of the biggest sources of calories in our diet and because it is made from corn â€" a lavishly subsidized crop that appears, in one way or another, in so much of our food.
According to the NPD Group, a market research firm, more than half of all Americans â€" 53 percent â€" now say they are concerned that high-fructose corn syrup may pose a health hazard, up from 40 percent in 2004.
Leading scientists, however, say that the product, made when various chemicals convert corn starch into syrup, is not any worse than sugar. Both sweeteners are made up of roughly equal amounts of glucose and fructose, they say.
“I’m no fan of the Corn Refiners Association, but in this case they have biochemistry on their side,†says Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University who has campaigned against unhealthy foods marketed to children.
Such defenses, however, don’t hold much sway with people like Ivan Royster, 27, who runs Ban of HFCS, a Facebook page that has 120,000 fans. Like many people who get a creepy feeling about high-fructose corn syrup, Mr. Royster points out that it is a highly processed ingredient that was invented in the late 1960s and introduced into the food supply in the ’80s.
In March, his Facebook page lit up after a study from Princeton University gave credence to the idea that high-fructose corn syrup might, in fact, be worse than sugar.
“Our bodies have been adapted over the years to metabolize sugar, which is natural,†Mr. Royster says. “But the body doesn’t know what to do with high-fructose corn syrup.â€
Even though the Corn Refiners Association is losing ground to people like Mr. Royster, it’s not giving up the fight. But by the time an ingredient is pilloried on Facebook and YouTube, it faces an uphill battle. Mr. Lempert, the supermarket expert, puts the corn refiners’ chances of turning around consumer sentiment at exactly zero.
FROM her ninth-floor office on Pennsylvania Avenue, Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association, can see the flag on the White House. More comfortable hunkering down for international trade negotiations and compiling the weighty Corn Annual report that’s sent to libraries, Ms. Erickson was thrust into the national spotlight after a 2004 paper by two prominent researchers suggested a link between America’s obesity problem and high-fructose corn syrup.
Working with the ad agency DDB and a team at Ogilvy Public Relations, the Corn Refiners Association has plowed more than $30 million over the last two years into an ad campaign called “Sweet Surprise†that highlights what it says are vague and unsubstantiated opinions.
In one of the TV ads, a woman at a picnic stares critically at her friend who is pouring a drink containing high-fructose corn syrup. “Wow, you don’t care what the kids eat, huh?,†she asks. When the mom can’t identify why the syrup is so bad, she awkwardly changes the subject, announcing, “Love that top!â€
Among the numerous spoofs of the campaign, one of the more outrageous recreates the picnic scene with a man in drag playing the syrup-loving mom, though this time she is also defending lead from China, female genital mutilation (“It’s safe in moderationâ€) and K.K.K. cross-burning. Two Los Angeles comedians created the video, which has been watched more than 150,000 times.
Ms. Erickson says she has heard of the spoofs but has not bothered to watch most of them. “We’re really focused on trying to correct the record since a lot of the information consumers have is incorrect,†she says. “High-fructose corn syrup is a case of mistaken identity.â€
Although it hasn’t done much good yet, Ms. Erickson continues to point out that science does not support the demonization of the product. One of her favorite documents is a two-page list of quotations defending the syrup, which she has culled from various media sources. Many are attributed to people like Ms. Nestle, who spend much more time criticizing the food industry than defending it.
On the list there’s Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest; David S. Ludwig, director of the Optimal Weight for Life Clinic at Children’s Hospital Boston; Walter Willett from the Harvard School of Public Health; and even Barry Popkin, a nutrition professor at the University of North Carolina and a co-author of that 2004 obesity paper.
Recent studies “have convinced me that H.F.C.S. does not affect weight gain,†he told The Los Angeles Times in July 2008.
And as for those mercury studies that spread like wildfire last year, Ms. Erickson says that there is no reason to believe that the mercury detected in various foods was coming from high-fructose corn syrup.
In a further attempt to improve its image, the Corn Refiners Association has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to allow a name change to the simpler, less-chemical-y “corn syrup.†In January, the F.D.A. issued a letter to the Corn Refiners giving its thumbs-up to the name change. But after an objection from the Corn Refiners’ rival, the Sugar Association, F.D.A. officials sent another letter saying that they needed to give the matter further thought.
Mr. Royster, founder of the Facebook page, says that dropping “high fructose†from the name would be nothing more than a ploy to trick people. “It’s just another attempt to defraud consumers into thinking their products are safe and natural,†he says.
FROM 8 to 10 every night, after returning from his job at the North Carolina State University library in Raleigh, Mr. Royster sits down at his laptop and starts answering e-mail, mostly from the dozens of people each day who want to know more about the dangers of high-fructose corn syrup.
Mr. Royster says that he spends no money on his Ban of HFCS page, but that he devotes several hours each night to posting information about various studies, alerts on products that are free of the syrup and links to other sites opposed to it.
With an impressive working knowledge of nutrition, Mr. Royster decided to start the Facebook page almost a year ago after his 10-year-old nephew mentioned giving an insulin shot to his young classmate, who has Type 2 diabetes.
“I was shocked because this kid was only 9 at the time and he already had Type 2 diabetes. So I started doing research,†Mr. Royster said. And he came to a controversial conclusion: “I realized that it has something to do with the high-fructose corn syrup.â€
Mr. Royster says he respects the opinions of people like Dr. Willett and Mr. Jacobson. But he says that the syrup is harmful in ways that science simply hasn’t yet figured out because not enough of the right studies have been done.
In the recent Princeton study that gave support to his side, one group of rats was given access to high-fructose corn syrup, while another got sugar-sweetened drinks. The study found that rats that gulped lots of drinks with high-fructose corn syrup gained more weight than those that had the sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.
Dr. Ludwig, of Children’s Hospital in Boston, calls the findings interesting and says they warrant further study, but he isn’t leaping to any conclusions. “You can feed almost anything to rats and they’ll get fat, and a rat study is a long way from understanding human nutrition,†he says.
Back at ConAgra’s headquarters in Omaha, the Princeton study didn’t stir much more than passing interest. “Our focus is on consumer preference, not the science,†says Mr. Locascio.
Although sugar costs more than high-fructose corn syrup, the price of Hunt’s is not set to increase. Eager for a sales boost from the switch, ConAgra decided to absorb the extra costs.
Ms. Erickson of the Corn Refiners Association disputes the idea that ditching high-fructose corn syrup will result in a sales bonanza. She says an analysis by the association of six products that had made the switch from high-fructose corn syrup to sugar found that none had had any notable sales growth.
“Companies are trying to suggest that their products are now more natural and healthier when in fact they’ve changed nothing,†she says.
Madelyn Fernstrom, founding director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Weight Management Center, says she thinks the frenzy over products that don’t contain the syrup may end up doing more harm than good if it gives a health halo to things like soda and high-calorie desserts.
“This makes consumers even more confused than before,†Dr. Fernstrom says. “I worry that it’s a license to overconsume unhealthy products.â€
No one is more infuriated about sugar’s new-and-improved profile than Ms. Erickson. “A sugar is a sugar, and that’s what we need to get people to understand,†she says.
One place where that thinking seems to prevail is Mexico. Mr. Mills of Credit Suisse says that A.D.M., Tate & Lyle and Corn Products International all have had big sales increases of high-fructose corn syrup in Mexico, largely offsetting their United States declines.
In a reversal, manufacturers are replacing the sugar in Mexican soda and other beverages with the less-expensive high-fructose corn syrup. In Mexico this year, consumption of the sweetener is expected to be up by a whopping 50 percent, according to the United States Department of Agriculture.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/business/02syrup.html?scp=1&sq=HFCS&st=cse
HCFS is not substitute for sugar because they are putting it in EVERYTHING,even food that shouldn't have sugar at all.Reason they do that is because HCFS makes you EAT MORE,tricks your brain into eating more then you should.
Take a liter of Cola or any other drink and liter of water and drink it ,see which one makes you full.I bet you will drink half bottle of water and whole bottle of Cola and still want more.
I think they put HCFS into hot sauce too.
Bos, Don't give them any ideas! They've shoved this sweetener in to everything else already. Don't encourage them to ruin my favorite condiment.
Chemically, all sugars are very similar, but our bodies are really particular about how they process food molecules. This is especially true for how they affect your brain. You have it right.
Have you all seen the new commercials for corn syrup? What a joke!
They are trying to make it sound like it's not a bad thing.
There was a quote from a nutritionist published in the NYT last week (!@@$% can't find the quote to post it!)
He said in effect that high fructose corn syrup was a perfect indicator for foods we should not eat as it is put in the most highly processed, preservative laden food out there. Interesting take.
Quote from: Burn to Shine on June 08, 2010, 11:01:27 AM
Have you all seen the new commercials for corn syrup? What a joke!
They are trying to make it sound like it's not a bad thing.
The sad part is that most people are too dumb to realize it.
If they ruin my Mexican Coke with this stuff I will never forgive them.
Stephen, You didn't have to post pictures of your sisters to make your point! ;D
Well now we know who got the looks in the family! ;)
Is you sister single?
Field, That's Sportmotor's line!
Ah. Who was it that was always looking for a date then? (Senior moment)
Hot, 41 and dangerous... just the kind of girl for newly single field, lol
QuoteCancer cells feed on fructose, study finds
Research shows the refined sugar helps cancer cells proliferate.
WASHINGTON â€" Pancreatic tumor cells use fructose to divide and proliferate, U.S. researchers said on Monday in a study that challenges the common wisdom that all sugars are the same.
Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways, the team at the University of California Los Angeles found.
Full Article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38528161/ns/health-cancer/
great post Lunican.. some people wonder why they can't lose weight with their salads and a cup of fat free ranch dressing or south beach diet candy bars.. and yes it's hard to find food these days w/o HFCS.. but there are natural fructose found in fruits that is good for you..
To add insult to injury the Obama administration has just tentatively agreed to increase the allowance for ethanol in auto fuel to be as much as 15%. Not just a rant against Obama, every administration of both parties has cowtowed to the corn growers wayyy too much.
If we are going to redistribute any wealth in this country, it should be from the corn growers to everyone else. They see enough subsidies and incentives for every product from 70% of food products to gasoline to fabric materials to just about anything to include something from corn. Corn has tons of nutrients and uses, but the hemp plant arguably has even more and that's an illegal crop.
Those Iowa Congressmen/Senators are every bit as powerful as the Speaker of the House/Senate Majority Leader because they always get what they want (more power/money for corn farmers).
Besides, exercise has been proven to not be the main determining factor in body mass index. Pure diet alone can keep someone from ever getting fat, even if they barely lift a finger. Unfortunately like the research indicates, it is hard to maintain a truly healthy and "balanced" diet when 70% of food products contain corn.
This is ludicrous. It takes more petroleum products to produce ethanol than its use in gasoline saves. It has a negative net benefit. Partly also because ethanol infused gasoline delivers less mpg. I'm not kidding. Why are we doing this?
Didn't anyone else notice that gas mileage went way down when ethanol became mandatory in fuel in FL?
Time to rail against Big Corn!
Agree Chris. Ethanol drops fuel economy, and now it's mandatory to blend into gasoline. On the one hand, the administration is all for raising fleet MPGs, but by mandating higher ethanol percentage blends in fuel, is hampering the very same.
Weird.
We're talking real subsidies, not tax relief.
Billions in cold, hard (if not soon to be worth much less) cash to Big Cornholio. [source: Bevis and Butthead]
Is this a good time to break into a Monsanto rant?
They are seemingly more powerful than any union, and perhaps moreso than all the left wing union thugs combined.
Food is the ultimate commodity and corn is quite valuable as such. Should it carry the big political stick it does? (Why not wheat or rice?)
The ethanol deal was a scam that rivaled the scope of the bundled securities fiasco, but somehow the ethanol scam continues to grow. (In the name of GREEN)
Not to mention that the majority of corn raised in this country is not raised for human consumption - it is raised to feed to cattle and chickens - so even when you are eating meat - you are really eating corn.
Neither of these animals was meant to eat corn so they are way more fatty than is natural too. Allowed to graze on open range, both of these animals are leaner and healthier for us to consume, if we choose to consume them.
The best thing to come from corn is the corn maize (maze). Ethanol is a crock. As soon as ethanol was introduced to boat gas, people's engines were rapidly burned up (and a boat engine can be many tens of thousands of dollars, even for a 30 ft. or under boat). Ethanol should be banned already, even the leftist greenies have taken back their hope for ethanol as the way of the future. The only people pushing ethanol are the corn growers. Not to mention because corn is so heavily used in food all across the world, much of that coming from here, food products got considerably more expensive and that hits the poor the hardest.
Public enemy number 1: corn growers
I am a big fan of alternative fuels and even run B-20, 20% biodiesel, in the Jetta. But even I think that corn ethanol is an abomination. Ethanol from algae, from swithgrass or sugar cane is marginally OK in some circumstances (that don't exist in this country) but never, ever from corn.
Farmers are the biggest "welfare queens" in this country already and certainly don't need more of our money.
Quote from: simms3 on October 15, 2010, 12:47:56 PM
The best thing to come from corn is the corn maize (maze). Ethanol is a crock. As soon as ethanol was introduced to boat gas, people's engines were rapidly burned up (and a boat engine can be many tens of thousands of dollars, even for a 30 ft. or under boat). Ethanol should be banned already, even the leftist greenies have taken back their hope for ethanol as the way of the future. The only people pushing ethanol are the corn growers. Not to mention because corn is so heavily used in food all across the world, much of that coming from here, food products got considerably more expensive and that hits the poor the hardest.
Public enemy number 1: corn growers
Eats your fuel tanks too. Thankfully none of my boats have had fiberglass or plastic fuel tanks, but many do, and ethanol de-bonds it, causing flakes and sludge which then get sucked into the motors. Ethanol is just nasty stuff, they need to phase it out rather than continue to subsidize it. We have romanticized farming long enough, it's no longer about farmers it's all owned by mega corps and done by machine now, crop subsidies are only really subsidizing fortune 500 companies these days, which of course was not the point of the subsidy program. And did you notice in your car, when ethanol went into the gas, fuel economy drops by around 10%! There goes any alleged benefit from using it.
Any motor older than 1998 is victim of Ethanol. Ahh yes, it effectively gives gasoline a lifespan of 30 days till it is watered down with H20 that it collected.
It has been noticed by Vintage auto/RV mechanics I know that this amount of alcohol is just enough to knock off the old sludge and clog our fuel filters 3 times faster. Someone already mentioned that some manufactures rubber or silicone seals will be broken down by alcohol.
Is this nudging the bar up once again so we will have to purchase new cars every year? We'll see soon enough.
Maybe it's a sinister plot by the Feds to get back the money they gave to bailout the automobile industry.
ok ...Its not rocket science. Eat the right stuff and you will live a longer healthier life, generally speaking. Its hard to do because we as a society have become so used to the instant gratification we get from fast food. And that doesn't just mean greasy macs, fries or cokes. How many of us go to the farmers market to buy our veggies? Not many I would guess. Who has time to drive across town and pick through what might be available? So even the grocery stores are selling fast food. And the demand for augmented perfect fruits and vegetables is so powerful that stores are forced to carry products that have less and less nutrition even if they look like the right thing to eat. And if they do have an organic section most people will choose the less expensive prettier produce over the nutrient rich (but ugly) selections. And of course its always easier to buy the processed foods. Fixing a meal from scratch would be almost out of the question for many of us. If we have the skills we probably don't have the time. A friend in a nursing program told me he was shocked to see the common very high blood pressure and obesity that were causing so many health problems and deaths. He said that even among the health care professionals in the know there is a problem and it seems to be the norm. Because of this he is starting a program at his school to direct the attention of nursing students back to themselves and their own nutrition. I think its a good place to start. Our medical professionals should set the best example. After all we look to them for help when we are sick.
Quote from: Dog Walker on October 16, 2010, 12:57:59 PM
Maybe it's a sinister plot by the Feds to get back the money they gave to bailout the automobile industry.
The amount given to the auto industry bailout pales in comparison to the amounts lavished on agricultural subsidies.
Exactly, finehoe. But, do you think that this sacred cow would be up for slimming down? Nooooo.
How about Vidalia onion and snowmobile subsidies? How about conservation easements for suburban backyards? How about Big Sugar price supports and import tariffs while we try to restore our ditched and drained Everglades?
Here's a link to a series of Washington Post stories from 4 yrs. back about talking about the inability of Congress to face up to those cuts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/interactives/farmaid/
It's a lot of reading but worthwhile if you really want to know what we spend.
Corn Syrup is a problem but it's only one part of the obesity problem the country has.
If I remember correctly, there was a scientific study done using an "endless pasta bowl". It was a pasta bowl with a tube for more pasta. The interesting thing the study is that is showed when people ate from this tube, they ate a whole bunch more (3x more if my memory is serving me correctly) food then they would have without the tube adding more pasta.
If you want to get your mind blown away, I highly recommend watching a hilarious but serious documentary called "King Corn" IMBD Link - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1112115/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1112115/) Yes, it is all about the corn industry and their golden star, the high fructose corn syrup. You would be surprised by what chemicals they actually use to make HFCS (hint: extremely toxic for human).
-Josh
Quote from: cityimrov on October 22, 2010, 11:37:29 PM
Corn Syrup is a problem but it's only one part of the obesity problem the country has.
If I remember correctly, there was a scientific study done using an "endless pasta bowl". It was a pasta bowl with a tube for more pasta. The interesting thing the study is that is showed when people ate from this tube, they ate a whole bunch more (3x more if my memory is serving me correctly) food then they would have without the tube adding more pasta.
I have to disagree with you that the corn syrup is "only one part of the obesity problem". If you can eliminate that corn syrup issue, then give about 10 years, the entire nation will start have less and less health problems and the health care cost would decline or ease off.
-Josh