5 ms·

I despise the corn lobby more. They ensure the high tariffs on imported sugar in order to protect the corn prices to produce corn syrup instead of using raw sug

I despise the corn lobby more. They ensure the high tariffs on imported sugar in order to protect the corn prices to produce corn syrup instead of using raw sugar. Only the US has soft drinks made with HFCS simply because of the tariff on imported sugar.

superswordfish 10y ago
Just as bad is how it's made trash-grade corn the preferred livestock feed.
MustardTiger 10y ago
Canada has HFCS pop too.
CyberDildonics 10y ago
All that does is make it cheaper.
bhouston 10y ago
Accord to the movie Sugar Coated (on Netflix here in Canada) and Dr. Lustig there is no meaningful difference between HFCS and normal sugar -- they are equally quite bad for you. Switching from HFCS to cane sugar will achieve nothing I believe if you keep the sugar intake the same. What I believe happened is that at the same time HFCS came on the market there was also a larger push to put sugar into a lot of things in place of fat. Thus the introduction of HFCS seems to correlate with the North America weight problem but the North American weight problem also correlates with the increase in sugar in our diet -- and I understand from Sugar Coated and Dr. Lustig that is the causitive correlation.
- hippich 10y ago
  weight-wise sugar has only half of fructose, and fructose is main offender. So yes, too much sugar is bad, but if you compare gram to gram, fructose is worse.
  - aexaey 10y ago
    As far as I understood, "high fructose" in HFCS is only high relative to the corn syrup that was hydrolyzed, but not processed with isomerase, i.e. essentially compared to corn syrup with no fructose at all. Most commonly used HFCS varieties contains 42% or 55% fructose [1], which compares well with 50% in sucrose. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup#Composition_and_varieties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup#Compo...
- adamnemecek 10y ago
  It's not the same. HFCS does not trigger an insulin response.

superswordfish 10y ago

Just as bad is how it's made trash-grade corn the preferred livestock feed.

MustardTiger 10y ago

Canada has HFCS pop too.

CyberDildonics 10y ago

All that does is make it cheaper.

bhouston 10y ago

Accord to the movie Sugar Coated (on Netflix here in Canada) and Dr. Lustig there is no meaningful difference between HFCS and normal sugar -- they are equally quite bad for you. Switching from HFCS to cane sugar will achieve nothing I believe if you keep the sugar intake the same. What I believe happened is that at the same time HFCS came on the market there was also a larger push to put sugar into a lot of things in place of fat. Thus the introduction of HFCS seems to correlate with the North America weight problem but the North American weight problem also correlates with the increase in sugar in our diet -- and I understand from Sugar Coated and Dr. Lustig that is the causitive correlation.

hippich 10y ago
weight-wise sugar has only half of fructose, and fructose is main offender. So yes, too much sugar is bad, but if you compare gram to gram, fructose is worse.
- aexaey 10y ago
  As far as I understood, "high fructose" in HFCS is only high relative to the corn syrup that was hydrolyzed, but not processed with isomerase, i.e. essentially compared to corn syrup with no fructose at all. Most commonly used HFCS varieties contains 42% or 55% fructose [1], which compares well with 50% in sucrose. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup#Composition_and_varieties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup#Compo...
adamnemecek 10y ago
It's not the same. HFCS does not trigger an insulin response.