7 ms·

Yes, the wording is sketchy, but are you aware… * one of the reasons HFCS is so prevalent in the US is because it's effectively government subsidized? * which

Yes, the wording is sketchy, but are you aware… * one of the reasons HFCS is so prevalent in the US is because it's effectively government subsidized? * which is also why the worst foods are often the cheapest? * that HFCS is in all kinds of food you'd never expect, like "grilled" chicken in the salads at mid-level (or worse yet, fast food) restaurants? If you're a label reader, you will find HFCS in a million places it oughtn't be. Since nobody expects their grilled chicken strips to stuffed with sugar, they are being tricked -- an angry person might say "force-fed." "Big Food" may be inflammatory but it's also true, in this case. Agribusiness is an enormous industry and in the top 10 lobbyist groups in the US. Other countries have outlawed HFCS. There's no reason that our government shouldn't.

jordan0day 14y ago
> Other countries have outlawed HFCS. There's no reason that our government shouldn't. Nothing in your post appears to justify a ban on HFCS. Are "it gets used in foods you wouldn't expect" and "other countries ban it" justification enough? I'm not trying to defend HFCS, but if you're going to call for something to be banned, you need to provide better reasoning.
Strang 14y ago
You make a very good point: between tariffs, subsidies, FDA and UDSA regulations, etc., the government has effectively shaped the US food industry into what it is today. However, that doesn't mean it would be a good idea to ban HFCS. But I agree we should stop subsidizing it.
pdeuchler 14y ago
The problem is, people do know that their "grilled chicken stripes [are] stuffed with sugar". McDonalds is unhealthy. Do not buy processed foods. Buy simple, fresh, unprocessed foods. A whole chicken, rice, and fresh broccoli can feed a family of up to 8-9 for under $20. There are very easy ways to eat healthy for cheap without ever having to resort to sketchy Tyson pre-packaged chicken, or suspicious Wonder Bread. There are negative forces attempting to gain a maximum of profit by producing unhealthy food. No doubt. Fact. You can also never buy any of their products. Also a fact. Anyone who says otherwise is essentially choosing their short term pleasure over their long term health. That decision is 100% made by the individual. If your health is important to you, you make time and money for it. If it isn't, then that's fine, but don't go blaming other people for your misallocation of personal resources.
- recuter 14y ago
  > There are negative forces attempting to gain a maximum of profit by producing unhealthy food. No doubt. Fact. You can also never buy any of their products. Also a fact. Anyone who says otherwise is essentially choosing their short term pleasure over their long term health. That decision is 100% made by the individual. If your health is important to you, you make time and money for it. For some people, McDonalds is cheaper than the healthy alternatives and they simply can't avoid it even though they'd like to. I know that's hard to believe but there you go.
  - hughlomas 14y ago
    It is a myth that fast food is cheap. Fast food is more expensive than other foods on a by-weight basis. http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/junk-food-expensive-healthy-food-study-dept-agriculture-study-article-1.1079412 http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/junk-food-expen... http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/09/24/opinion/sunday/20110925_BITTMAN_MARSHgph/20110925_BITTMAN_MARSHgph-popup.jpg http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/09/24/opinion/sunda... People can eat more and healthier by purchasing and preparing their own food.
    - recuter 14y ago
      It most certainly is not a myth. In order to purchase and prepare your own food you need a kitchen and some basic things but most of all, and what I'm guessing is being overlooked by the dismissers above me: You need time. Assume you have no car, have to rely on public transport, and work multiple jobs in geographically spread out locations. Nipping across town and back to stock your fridge with some healthy goodies doesn't sound so trivial now, does it? The McDonalds is probably a lot closer and thus indeed cheaper even if the bill for groceries is a few bucks less.
      - thenomad 14y ago
        Also, you need training and you need kitchen implements. Good food preparation equipment is far from cheap. Bad food prep equipment makes it a lot harder to do. And learning to cook healthy food, particularly when it has to be tasty enough to compete with the draw of processed meals, isn't easy either. I did some looking into this problem a few years ago when I was fronting a Web cooking show, and it's far more complex than it appears. Saying "They should just cook healthy food!" is a lot like saying "They should just install configure Linux to be as good as Windows" circa 2003 or so. It might make the speaker feel good, but actually the problems are more complex and more real than that.
JumpCrisscross 14y ago
Evidence does not suggest that high-fructose corn syrup is any unhealthier than other sugars. The problem isn't so much HFCS as the consumption of refined sugars without the fibrous padding that accompanies them in nature. Note that sucrose is almost immediately broken down into glucose and fructose in your gut. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2991323/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2991323/ Health implications of fructose consumption: A review of recent data (2010) Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup_and_health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup_and_he...
- ahoyhere 14y ago
  "The first study showed that male rats given water sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup in addition to a standard diet of rat chow gained much more weight than male rats that received water sweetened with table sugar, or sucrose, in conjunction with the standard diet. The concentration of sugar in the sucrose solution was the same as is found in some commercial soft drinks, while the high-fructose corn syrup solution was half as concentrated as most sodas." http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/index.xml?section=topstories http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/inde... Not saying one two-part study alone is everything, but it's also not nothing.
  - moheeb 14y ago
    That study doesn't say anything as to whether high-fructose corn syrup is unhealthier than regular syrup. That study's only claim is that mice gain more weight if they eat high-fructose corn syrup compared to normal syrup. I think they could have probably counted the calories within each sample and saved everyone a lot of time. And who's to say additional weight gain is bad for those mice? Mammals in a cold climate might appreciate the additional weight gain.
    - sstrudeau 14y ago
      From the article: "[The study] demonstrated that rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup ... gain significantly more weight than those with access to water sweetened with table sugar, even when they consume the same number of calories." So, they did indeed count the calories and the result seems to indicate something about HFCS encourages rats to gain weight in a way that standard table sugar does not.

jordan0day 14y ago

> Other countries have outlawed HFCS. There's no reason that our government shouldn't. Nothing in your post appears to justify a ban on HFCS. Are "it gets used in foods you wouldn't expect" and "other countries ban it" justification enough? I'm not trying to defend HFCS, but if you're going to call for something to be banned, you need to provide better reasoning.

Strang 14y ago

You make a very good point: between tariffs, subsidies, FDA and UDSA regulations, etc., the government has effectively shaped the US food industry into what it is today. However, that doesn't mean it would be a good idea to ban HFCS. But I agree we should stop subsidizing it.

pdeuchler 14y ago

The problem is, people do know that their "grilled chicken stripes [are] stuffed with sugar". McDonalds is unhealthy. Do not buy processed foods. Buy simple, fresh, unprocessed foods. A whole chicken, rice, and fresh broccoli can feed a family of up to 8-9 for under $20. There are very easy ways to eat healthy for cheap without ever having to resort to sketchy Tyson pre-packaged chicken, or suspicious Wonder Bread. There are negative forces attempting to gain a maximum of profit by producing unhealthy food. No doubt. Fact. You can also never buy any of their products. Also a fact. Anyone who says otherwise is essentially choosing their short term pleasure over their long term health. That decision is 100% made by the individual. If your health is important to you, you make time and money for it. If it isn't, then that's fine, but don't go blaming other people for your misallocation of personal resources.

recuter 14y ago
> There are negative forces attempting to gain a maximum of profit by producing unhealthy food. No doubt. Fact. You can also never buy any of their products. Also a fact. Anyone who says otherwise is essentially choosing their short term pleasure over their long term health. That decision is 100% made by the individual. If your health is important to you, you make time and money for it. For some people, McDonalds is cheaper than the healthy alternatives and they simply can't avoid it even though they'd like to. I know that's hard to believe but there you go.
- hughlomas 14y ago
  It is a myth that fast food is cheap. Fast food is more expensive than other foods on a by-weight basis. http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/junk-food-expensive-healthy-food-study-dept-agriculture-study-article-1.1079412 http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/junk-food-expen... http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/09/24/opinion/sunday/20110925_BITTMAN_MARSHgph/20110925_BITTMAN_MARSHgph-popup.jpg http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/09/24/opinion/sunda... People can eat more and healthier by purchasing and preparing their own food.
  - recuter 14y ago
    It most certainly is not a myth. In order to purchase and prepare your own food you need a kitchen and some basic things but most of all, and what I'm guessing is being overlooked by the dismissers above me: You need time. Assume you have no car, have to rely on public transport, and work multiple jobs in geographically spread out locations. Nipping across town and back to stock your fridge with some healthy goodies doesn't sound so trivial now, does it? The McDonalds is probably a lot closer and thus indeed cheaper even if the bill for groceries is a few bucks less.
    - thenomad 14y ago
      Also, you need training and you need kitchen implements. Good food preparation equipment is far from cheap. Bad food prep equipment makes it a lot harder to do. And learning to cook healthy food, particularly when it has to be tasty enough to compete with the draw of processed meals, isn't easy either. I did some looking into this problem a few years ago when I was fronting a Web cooking show, and it's far more complex than it appears. Saying "They should just cook healthy food!" is a lot like saying "They should just install configure Linux to be as good as Windows" circa 2003 or so. It might make the speaker feel good, but actually the problems are more complex and more real than that.

JumpCrisscross 14y ago

Evidence does not suggest that high-fructose corn syrup is any unhealthier than other sugars. The problem isn't so much HFCS as the consumption of refined sugars without the fibrous padding that accompanies them in nature. Note that sucrose is almost immediately broken down into glucose and fructose in your gut. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2991323/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2991323/ Health implications of fructose consumption: A review of recent data (2010) Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup_and_health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup_and_he...

ahoyhere 14y ago
"The first study showed that male rats given water sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup in addition to a standard diet of rat chow gained much more weight than male rats that received water sweetened with table sugar, or sucrose, in conjunction with the standard diet. The concentration of sugar in the sucrose solution was the same as is found in some commercial soft drinks, while the high-fructose corn syrup solution was half as concentrated as most sodas." http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/index.xml?section=topstories http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/inde... Not saying one two-part study alone is everything, but it's also not nothing.
- moheeb 14y ago
  That study doesn't say anything as to whether high-fructose corn syrup is unhealthier than regular syrup. That study's only claim is that mice gain more weight if they eat high-fructose corn syrup compared to normal syrup. I think they could have probably counted the calories within each sample and saved everyone a lot of time. And who's to say additional weight gain is bad for those mice? Mammals in a cold climate might appreciate the additional weight gain.
  - sstrudeau 14y ago
    From the article: "[The study] demonstrated that rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup ... gain significantly more weight than those with access to water sweetened with table sugar, even when they consume the same number of calories." So, they did indeed count the calories and the result seems to indicate something about HFCS encourages rats to gain weight in a way that standard table sugar does not.