5 ms·

Seems like "Big Sugar" is increasingly behaving like the new "Big Tobacco" as they gear up to fight against regulation and taxation.

yuhong 10y ago
I wonder if the technology to convert sugar to ethanol exists in the 1960s, which would probably involve yeast. Even turning it to charcoal using sulfuric acid would be better. (background: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-in...)
- gjm11 10y ago
  The technology to convert sugar to ethanol probably existed in the 6660s. BC, that is. (And yes, it probably involved yeast.)
  - yuhong 10y ago
    And burning the ethanol in say power plants would not be hard even back then and better than burning fossil fuels, right?
    - r00fus 10y ago
      EROEI would have something to say about that - where's the power used in harvesting and refining the sugar vs. refining crude oil? BioFuels, unless you're talking about biodiesel which was generally using waste byproduct, are a losing proposition. Solar, Nuclear, Wind all provide a much higher total output than biofuels. [1] http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/EROEIFossilFuels.htm http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/EROEIFossilFuels.htm
      - yuhong 10y ago
        The point is whether it would be better than eating the sugar, hence why I posted the nytimes link.
        r00fus 10y ago
        The point is not to invest in sugar or corn creation in the first place simply to have it turn into fuel or sweeteners.
calibas 10y ago
The sugar industry has been doing this for about as long as the tobacco industry. They've been using their influence to poison nutrition science for decades and steer modern dental practices. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-in... http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001798 http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...
- dmix 10y ago
  Big Oil has done this in the past too. I remember reading 'Private Empire' about ExxonMobil and the previous CEO was funding all of these PHD researchers to challenge climate science research in the early 2000s. They were quite successful at it too. Fortunately when Rex Tillerson (current Secretary of State), who was trained as an engineer, took over ExxonMobil he stopped the company from taking a climate denial position and took some minor steps to reverse that position, such as investing in some green tech companies. This was largely due to the fact they got a bad name from doing it and they otherwise had a very rigid clean cut image. So it's important to call these companies out when they do it. Despite what people think corporations do respond to bad press. Especially companies run by engineers and scientists, they can be persuaded to stop being anti-science. Now if only we could get more STEM people into politics on the right... One thing lawyers aren't known for is an affinity for numbers and science.

yuhong 10y ago

I wonder if the technology to convert sugar to ethanol exists in the 1960s, which would probably involve yeast. Even turning it to charcoal using sulfuric acid would be better. (background: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-in...)

gjm11 10y ago
The technology to convert sugar to ethanol probably existed in the 6660s. BC, that is. (And yes, it probably involved yeast.)
- yuhong 10y ago
  And burning the ethanol in say power plants would not be hard even back then and better than burning fossil fuels, right?
  - r00fus 10y ago
    EROEI would have something to say about that - where's the power used in harvesting and refining the sugar vs. refining crude oil? BioFuels, unless you're talking about biodiesel which was generally using waste byproduct, are a losing proposition. Solar, Nuclear, Wind all provide a much higher total output than biofuels. [1] http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/EROEIFossilFuels.htm http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/EROEIFossilFuels.htm
    - yuhong 10y ago
      The point is whether it would be better than eating the sugar, hence why I posted the nytimes link.
      - r00fus 10y ago
        The point is not to invest in sugar or corn creation in the first place simply to have it turn into fuel or sweeteners.

calibas 10y ago

The sugar industry has been doing this for about as long as the tobacco industry. They've been using their influence to poison nutrition science for decades and steer modern dental practices. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-in... http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001798 http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...

dmix 10y ago
Big Oil has done this in the past too. I remember reading 'Private Empire' about ExxonMobil and the previous CEO was funding all of these PHD researchers to challenge climate science research in the early 2000s. They were quite successful at it too. Fortunately when Rex Tillerson (current Secretary of State), who was trained as an engineer, took over ExxonMobil he stopped the company from taking a climate denial position and took some minor steps to reverse that position, such as investing in some green tech companies. This was largely due to the fact they got a bad name from doing it and they otherwise had a very rigid clean cut image. So it's important to call these companies out when they do it. Despite what people think corporations do respond to bad press. Especially companies run by engineers and scientists, they can be persuaded to stop being anti-science. Now if only we could get more STEM people into politics on the right... One thing lawyers aren't known for is an affinity for numbers and science.