5 ms·
I was thinking similar, but I think its plastic contaminants and byproducts.
by noasaservice 4y ago
I was thinking similar, but I think its plastic contaminants and byproducts.
- pengaru 4y agoThey're not mutually exclusive. How fructose is metabolized is so well understood at this point it's clearly a major factor in obesity and diabetes. It's the primary cause of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease AIUI. And it hasn't been removed from the US diet. That's very unlikely to occur until corn subsidies go away. Even once that occurs it'll take awhile for such a huge industry to evolve away from such a mature supply chain. It strikes me as a problem resembling pivoting from fossil fuels. It won't happen quickly, and we haven't even started yet w/fructose. Which is why I don't think the graph at that twitter link above is even plausibly true. Furthermore there's massive business interest in convincing the public sugar isn't the problem, so don't bother stopping consuming it. That's what all the sugar addicts certainly want to hear anyways.
- stjohnswarts 4y agosugar isn't that much more expensive than corn syrup, so I don't think cancelling subsidies on it would make much difference at all as sugar could replace it 1:1 with very little overall increase in prices of food products.
- pengaru 4y agoI don't think it's so simple, HFCS has industrial advantages over sucrose in addition to the subsidies. So if HFCS were made more expensive it's unclear to me if sucrose would even be an acceptable substitute for all the ways HFCS is (ab)used due to its sweetness, stability, and ease of use advantages over sucrose. They put HFCS in practically everything processed on store shelves because it's so cheap and checks many boxes from preservative to browning agent, and I'm sure myriad other effects I know nothing about.