4 ms·

High-fructose corn syrup is poison, period. Weight gain is minor, bring on the diabeties, heart disease, inflammatory issues. The list goes on and on. Simple

by krav 17y ago

High-fructose corn syrup is poison, period. Weight gain is minor, bring on the diabeties, heart disease, inflammatory issues. The list goes on and on. Simple solution is to let market prices dictate cost of sugar, rather than corn subsidies. We're subsidizing one of the greatest health risks of the last and current generation.

donaldc 17y ago
Sugar is actually rather bad for people also. Corn syrup is just even worse, apparently.
patrickgzill 17y ago
You are right, the US sugar producers are protected - they buy off both Dems and Republicans. One family is the Fanjul family - who got some unwelcome attention when it was disclosed that Clinton was talking to Fanjul while spending uh, "time with" Monica Lewinsky. Part of the reason that HFCS is so heavily used is that it is cheaper than sugar - since sugar is so heavily protected from the world market price.
- Groxx 17y ago
  Another reason is that it's easier to use, and you can use more of it than sugar (higher concentrations don't crystallize / precipitate as quickly as with sugar in water). I'm undecided on the whole == poison part, though I'll do some reading. But if nothing else, more sugar == more addictive, and simple sugars in particular are excellent for skyrocketing your blood sugar levels. Shock and awe that it's used so often by junk food producers.
  - jerf 17y ago
    The video stuartjmoore already posted is the place to start. Directly addresses the question, done by someone whom nobody here is qualified to argue credentials on, goes into the biochemistry, not a pop-culture video but actually a recording of a class or seminar session at medical school, everything you could want from a video making such a claim.
- aresant 17y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fanjul_Brothers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fanjul_Brothers U.S. protection of the sugar industry costs American consumers about $8 per year per person. Not surprisingly, FanjulCorp benefits significantly (their net profits average an additional $50 million to $100 million per year due solely to the quota and break-even program.
- hristov 17y ago
  There is a difference in that sugar is mostly protected with quotas, while corn is protected by subsidies. (although there are some subsidies for sugar as well). So the effect is that government intervention causes sugar prices to go up and corn prices to go down. Thus, there is government interference on both sides of the equation. I consider corn subsidies more problematic, because they come directly from taxpayer money, while the costs of sugar tariffs are more roundabout (i.e., they result in higher market cost of sugar, but are not taken from my tax dollars, thus one can avoid the cost by eating less sugar). Also from my limited research it seems that corn subsidies are much more costly than all the cost of sugar price support.
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    One might assume that since our government now says that healthcare is a right, they might also say that it's time to end tariffs that are demonstrably damaging our health.
    - jerf 17y ago
      Unfortunately, that's going to require our government to step up and admit that they have been grotesquely and aggressively wrong about dietary issues for fifty years now. I'm watching the murmuring about taxing soda; I'll know they're just bullshitting us about the health angle if it taxes sodas with no sugar in them, too. (I've read the health evidence about mere carbonated water; it's a non-zero risk (mostly potential lower esophagus damage caused by excessive belching spreading stomach acid around) but minimal next to the risks of obesity.)
  - jsz0 17y ago
    I don't know much about the history of farm subsidies but on the point of government intervention perhaps it made sense at some point in history but its time has past. Anyone who tends to argue for government intervention / regulation is usually pretty realistic about the need for the policies to be continuously adapting and evolving over time. It'd be silly to think we should never revisit these policies just because they've become the accepted political status quo. I'm a fan of any regulation / intervention to come with built in sunsets instead of being considered something that will stay on the books indefinitely.
stuartjmoore 17y ago
Fructose in general (sugar and HFCS) is poison - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
- pyre 17y ago
  According to Wikipedia, most HFCS in use is 55/45 fructose-glucose, so it's slightly worse than sucrose (sugar) which is 50/50 fructose-glucose. {update} I guess it's worth mentioning also that that YouTube video was already posted to HN in December sometime.
jrockway 17y ago
Regular sugar is nearly as bad. Eat a lot of sugar, don't exercise a lot, and you will gain weight. It's sad because sugar is so delicious.

by krav 17y ago

donaldc 17y ago

Sugar is actually rather bad for people also. Corn syrup is just even worse, apparently.

patrickgzill 17y ago

You are right, the US sugar producers are protected - they buy off both Dems and Republicans. One family is the Fanjul family - who got some unwelcome attention when it was disclosed that Clinton was talking to Fanjul while spending uh, "time with" Monica Lewinsky. Part of the reason that HFCS is so heavily used is that it is cheaper than sugar - since sugar is so heavily protected from the world market price.

Groxx 17y ago
Another reason is that it's easier to use, and you can use more of it than sugar (higher concentrations don't crystallize / precipitate as quickly as with sugar in water). I'm undecided on the whole == poison part, though I'll do some reading. But if nothing else, more sugar == more addictive, and simple sugars in particular are excellent for skyrocketing your blood sugar levels. Shock and awe that it's used so often by junk food producers.
- jerf 17y ago
  The video stuartjmoore already posted is the place to start. Directly addresses the question, done by someone whom nobody here is qualified to argue credentials on, goes into the biochemistry, not a pop-culture video but actually a recording of a class or seminar session at medical school, everything you could want from a video making such a claim.
aresant 17y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fanjul_Brothers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fanjul_Brothers U.S. protection of the sugar industry costs American consumers about $8 per year per person. Not surprisingly, FanjulCorp benefits significantly (their net profits average an additional $50 million to $100 million per year due solely to the quota and break-even program.
hristov 17y ago
There is a difference in that sugar is mostly protected with quotas, while corn is protected by subsidies. (although there are some subsidies for sugar as well). So the effect is that government intervention causes sugar prices to go up and corn prices to go down. Thus, there is government interference on both sides of the equation. I consider corn subsidies more problematic, because they come directly from taxpayer money, while the costs of sugar tariffs are more roundabout (i.e., they result in higher market cost of sugar, but are not taken from my tax dollars, thus one can avoid the cost by eating less sugar). Also from my limited research it seems that corn subsidies are much more costly than all the cost of sugar price support.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  One might assume that since our government now says that healthcare is a right, they might also say that it's time to end tariffs that are demonstrably damaging our health.
  - jerf 17y ago
    Unfortunately, that's going to require our government to step up and admit that they have been grotesquely and aggressively wrong about dietary issues for fifty years now. I'm watching the murmuring about taxing soda; I'll know they're just bullshitting us about the health angle if it taxes sodas with no sugar in them, too. (I've read the health evidence about mere carbonated water; it's a non-zero risk (mostly potential lower esophagus damage caused by excessive belching spreading stomach acid around) but minimal next to the risks of obesity.)
- jsz0 17y ago
  I don't know much about the history of farm subsidies but on the point of government intervention perhaps it made sense at some point in history but its time has past. Anyone who tends to argue for government intervention / regulation is usually pretty realistic about the need for the policies to be continuously adapting and evolving over time. It'd be silly to think we should never revisit these policies just because they've become the accepted political status quo. I'm a fan of any regulation / intervention to come with built in sunsets instead of being considered something that will stay on the books indefinitely.

stuartjmoore 17y ago

Fructose in general (sugar and HFCS) is poison - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

pyre 17y ago
According to Wikipedia, most HFCS in use is 55/45 fructose-glucose, so it's slightly worse than sucrose (sugar) which is 50/50 fructose-glucose. {update} I guess it's worth mentioning also that that YouTube video was already posted to HN in December sometime.

jrockway 17y ago

Regular sugar is nearly as bad. Eat a lot of sugar, don't exercise a lot, and you will gain weight. It's sad because sugar is so delicious.