Fructose and HFCS: Once again the "skeptics"* are wrong.

[TalkingDog]

All sugars are not the same. Sorry.

(*For those who actually practice skepticism, you were waiting for scientific validation of the thesis one way or the other, so I'm not talking to you)


Fructose alters hundreds of brain genes, which can lead to a wide range of diseases
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-04-fructose-hundreds-brain-genes-wide.html

Americans get most of their fructose in foods that are sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup, an inexpensive liquid sweetener made from corn starch, and from sweetened drinks, syrups, honey and desserts. The Department of Agriculture estimates that Americans consumed an average of about 27 pounds of high-fructose corn syrup in 2014. Fructose is also found is in most baby food and in fruit, although the fiber in fruit substantially slows the body's absorption of the sugar—and fruit contains other healthy components that protect the brain and body, Yang said.

To test the effects of fructose and DHA, the researchers trained rats to escape from a maze, and then randomly divided the animals into three groups. For the next six weeks, one group of rats drank water with an amount of fructose that would be roughly equivalent to a person drinking a liter of soda per day. The second group was given fructose water and a diet rich in DHA. The third received water without fructose and no DHA.

After the six weeks, the rats were put through the maze again. The animals that had been given only the fructose navigated the maze about half as fast than the rats that drank only water—indicating that the fructose diet had impaired their memory. The rats that had been given fructose and DHA, however, showed very similar results to those that only drank water—which strongly suggests that the DHA eliminated fructose's harmful effects.

Other tests on the rats revealed more major differences: The rats receiving a high-fructose diet had much higher blood glucose, triglycerides and insulin levels than the other two groups. Those results are significant because in humans, elevated glucose, triglycerides and insulin are linked to obesity, diabetes and many other diseases.

[lagomorph777]

1. Uh-oh. Monsanto's trolls will be on you like mold on

corn syrup.

[SkyDaddy7]

29. LOL!

[jomin41]

30. Boy, were you right!

Ka-ching...Ka-ching...Ka-ching...Ka-ching

[HuckleB]

32. So you're saying those who corrected the OP's errors are "Monsanto's trolls?"

[jomin41]

84. If the brown hiking boot fits...

[HuckleB]

107. So supporting your claims is not your thing.

Got it.

[JackRiddler]

282. You certainly are.

Whether you're a self-appointed volunteer who actually believes the bullshit you post or an employee of their PR office is irrelevant. Very nearly your sole function on this board is to dispense the talking points of the GMO industry. It doesn't matter if you also occasionally get a fact straight, because all you ever do is instrumental, it's always pushing the agenda. You post about almost nothing else except a bit of other propaganda abusing the idea of "skepticism." So what's your connection to the GMO industry? Will you be honest? It may not involve your being directly employed to do this but certainly you've developed either a direct contractual relationship or an emotional one due to earlier experiences.

[HuckleB]

289. I go with science.

That has nothing to do with any industry. If you can prove me wrong, I will acknowledge it. Can you?

[JackRiddler]

316. Yeah yeah, "science."

You mean, you abuse a term for which you show no understanding by repeating it the same way religious nuts use "god."

I asked you a simple question: Who do you work for, whom did you work for, or what connection do you have to the GMO industry? No one can make you say the truth. Yet you don't answer.

[HuckleB]

317. No, I look at the actual evidence.

I have no connection to anyone in any GMO industry.

Your inability to discuss the matters at hand is noted, yet again.

Why do you think it's ok for the OP to spread misinformation?

And why do you think it's ok for you to spread Vandana Shiva's misinformation?
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-myths-of-vandana-shiva/

[JackRiddler]

318. Yeah, yeah, "evidence."

Your tedious repetition of the word doesn't make it so.

Vandana Shiva can defend herself very well!
http://vandanashiva.com/

Your tendency to adopt the McCarthyite style is also noted.

You have a way of non-denial denial. When you post here, are you working for anyone? Are you writing on behalf of a specific interest that you share in defending the present food production system, as an employee, shareholder or other stakeholder? What's your claim to expertise? When did you study these subjects? (Because your simple posting of links doesn't establish that, see?)

(By the way, to your other insinuation: I don't live on this board, always ready to pounce with the exact same bullshit talking points always on the same narrow set of subjects, like some people suspiciously do. So it may be days or longer before I reply.)

[HuckleB]

319. Shiva is a scam artist, of the worst kind.

And you have been shown that. She lies constantly. Why are you promoting something that cannot be defended with evidence and science? Why are you defending people who clearly lie to make money off of the vulnerable? That is not ok.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/25/seeds-of-doubt

So you want to play logical fallacy games? Look. I can discuss the matters at hand, and show that the science supports my claims. My background does not matter. The fact that you don't understand that is part of the problem. You want to dismiss the real world via a back door that has no purpose.

Either show that you understand the issues, or don't. I don't think you can. When I post something that you think is inaccurate, prove it. This is not hard stuff.

You have promoted scam artists like Shiva at DU, and you attack me with pure ugly nonsense that appears to have no real purpose, and on an OP that pushes disinformation. It's time for you to take a long look in the mirror.

[JackRiddler]

323. You repeat the same lie over and over and think you win.

People can read and judge for themselves who is a scam artist.

Seeds of Truth – A response to The New Yorker
http://vandanashiva.com/?p=105

Your background need not matter, if you had anything to offer. Hell, if you're an actual practicing scientist, you could say so.

Repeating that you are right does not make you right, nor does your constant abusive repetition of "science" or "evidence" mean you are right, and your McCarthyite style only makes it all look worse for you.

The way you so consistently show up to say the same wrong things over and over is what makes you suspicious as someone who's probably on a payroll or otherwise carrying an interest to do this. That is something you have never definitively denied, only in selective fashions that further raise suspicion.

[HuckleB]

325. You refuse to acknowledge the evidence.

That's really not anyone else's fault.

And you post nonsense from the scam artist herself as evidence of what? That she doesn't like the truth being told about her?

Oh, and silly sarcasm doesn't help your case. It just shows that you can't discuss the issues.

You do what you accuse me of doing, and it's rather humorous. Or it should be. I don't have to deny things. That is juvenile silliness. Either support your claims, or go away. You and i both know you can't support your claims, so...

Name one lie I've made, specifically, and prove that it's a lie. Thank you.

You have been shown several made by Shiva, and yet you persist in defending her. Why is that? What are you gaining by defending her?

https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/vandana-shiva-fanatic-or-fantasist/

[nadinbrzezinski]

346. And if he is not

He should get s job spreading FUD...he is good at it. Never mind we just laugh.

[HuckleB]

348. Yea, you've shown that laughing is all you can do.

Too bad your obsessive repeats make no sense at all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

349. Too bad your FUD does not work either huh?

[HuckleB]

350. Too bad your pointless, obsessively repeated accusations are false.

You might fool the already fooled, but no one else is going to buy your act, since you can't support your fictions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

351. Mirror. Use it

[HuckleB]

352. I have for years. You should try it.

Keep ignoring simple chemistry. It's sad to watch.

[nadinbrzezinski]

356. Same comment with lead

It is hysterical. You beed a letter of recommendation?

[HuckleB]

357. Nice socks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

359. Bamboo, renewable and comfy as hell

Thanks for noticing

[HuckleB]

360. The googly eyes are a nice addition.

I'm not so sure about the pipe cleaner, though.

[nadinbrzezinski]

363. LMAO

You honestly believe I care about your so called personal attacks

[HuckleB]

364. Derp.

Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)

The irony is noted in the fact that you had say it instead of show it.

Indeed.

[truedelphi]

331. Thanks Jack R. I Know it remains a Sissyphian task to try and

Deal logically with some of the people here, but I appreciate your taking HuckleB on so I don't have to!

[HuckleB]

333. ROFLMAO!

"Logically." When have you ever bothered to try that? What is logical about anything Jack has posted?

You posted this, right?
http://www.sciencegymnasium.com/2013/12/5-mind-blowing-things-science-still.html



Should we discuss your anti-vaccine posts?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=837746

Logic?



Poor Jack.

[womanofthehills]

371. All that rolling on the floor you are doing

they are going to come and take you away!

[Generic Other]

385. Did someone give you

a caffeine-infused underwear wedgie? You sure work yourself into a dither whenever any of us refuse to drink the high fructose kool-aid you always push!

[HuckleB]

392. Derp.

[Generic Other]

395. "Derp" pretty much summarizes most of your posts,eh?

Your vast expertise boiled down into pithy inarticulate noise. Why do you care so damn much if some of us try to limit chemicals, pesticides, and carcinogens from our diets? Why do you care if I don't want to eat your GMOs or prefer to buy organic food? It's no skin off your nose what I choose to eat. Or not eat.

[HuckleB]

399. Cute.

If you had ever bothered to attempt to discuss or understand anything, you might have appoint, but you have not, so you have no point.

[GoneFishin]

302. +1,000,000. Thank dog somebody came right out and said it. It couldn't be more obvious.

[HuckleB]

308. It's obvious that you can't discuss the issues.

That's for sure. Why do you think it's ok for the OP to spread misinformation?

[HuckleB]

309. And you make a ludicrous personal attack and run.

Why can't you show that I am wrong? That's something you should seriously ask yourself. Also, why do you think it's ok for the OP to promote misinformation?

[sense]

31. Yes, I see them now, below...

Always the same posters, always shilling and calling anyone with a brain stupid, deluded or woo woo followers. I can't fathom why they're allowed to continue to bully here.... or maybe I can.

[HuckleB]

34. People who correct bad claims are "bullies?"

And your ad hominem attacks are ok?

[Humanist_Activist]

56. Uhm, none of us said any of those things in the posts below, yet we are called bullies why you...

outright lie about us?

[womanofthehills]

368. I can't understand how some of them are allowed to run the Health Forum

Quite a while back, a new guy with cancer asked a question there about alternative health and they were just as mean to him as they are here.

[HuckleB]

374. Honesty is not mean.

The fictions you promote are mean to everyone.

[sense]

398. Stuns me as well.

I expect this site to be progressive and yet, any discussion that is not fully supportive of big ag, big pharma, gmo's, etc. is shut down. They arrive together, yet pretending they are not, to support each other, posting "science" funded by the above and slamming all who won't drink their kool-aid.

We need to think outside the corporate box, instead of buying into the very crap that's made so many on the planet ill. Not to mention made the planet itself ill. More processing, more poison, more drugs but no cure isn't the way to go for the 99%. All it does is make the obscenely wealthy even more so.

[HuckleB]

401. You expect a progressive site to support scam artists?

Scary.

[sense]

402. Proving my point that they do.

Right on schedule.

[HuckleB]

403. Wrong answer.

You want this site to promote scams. That's not ok. Fix yourself and get back to us.

[Zorra]

229. It is inevitable as the sunrise. They're just doing their job.

[HuckleB]

245. Anti-GMO activists are the ones practicing “tobacco science”.

http://fafdl.org/blog/2015/05/19/anti-gmo-activists-are-the-ones-practicing-tobacco-science/

And you probably should have figured out that the study has nothing to do with HFCS. It was just added as click-bait by the crap source, and the OP decided to pretend that it did, and then attacked people who care about the actual science with baseless nonsense.

Whoops.

[immoderate]

336. The tobacco guys had evidence. Epidemiological.

GMO guys claim consensus. But that's not evidence. And the consensus most often cited is not of scientists.

--imm

[HuckleB]

337. So you have nothing but fictions to offer?

Got it.

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/the-solid-gmo-scientific-consensus/

[immoderate]

345. I'm pointing to what your source said. I make up nothing.

This new reference of yours uses a bait and switch to try to give the impression that there's a consensus on GMOs something like the wave of near unanimity of climate scientists. But it meanders over to the AAAS poll for evidence(?) and then the meta studies with the feed lot, antibiotic fed slaughter. Might as well poll a Trekkie convention. Nothing new from you.

They even reference Cook and Nuccitelli!

--imm

[HuckleB]

347. In other words, evidence is meaningless to you.

No one is surprised.

[immoderate]

353. Meaningless evidence is, indeed, meaningless to me.

But it somehow fascinates you.

--imm

[HuckleB]

354. And you confess that fictions are your thing, yet again.

Nicely done.

[immoderate]

355. You put the words right into my mouth!

--imm

[HuckleB]

358. When's your novel being released?

[djean111]

2. Always felt those were bad for us, stopped buying anything with them in it years ago.

The only thing that HFCS and sugar have in common is that they are both devoid of nutrition. We don't need to eat them at all.

[Maedhros]

332. If you eat no sugar, you will have no energy to power things like muscle movement.

That could have negative effects...

[djean111]

335. I have got that covered when I eat fruit.

There is sugar (glucose) in a lot of foods. I do not add sugar to anything. Keeping it on hand for friends who put sugar in tea and coffee, I once threw out a half a bag (4 lb. bag) of sugar when I realized, by looking at the coupon printed on it, that it was about seven years old. I didn't think it had gone bad, but maybe stale or something.

Got to 70, with no health problems so far.

My truck (big old Dodge Ram, the power steering went out years ago and I drove it with no power steering for about eight years. Used to laugh when someone borrowed and I warned them, and they made a face when they realized how much harder it is.) was broke down for a while last summer - I walked a three mile round trip to the grocery store maybe every other day, in heat that "feels like 110", lugging heavy groceries home in a two wheel cart - and just got sweaty.

Still lift heavy stuff when I need to - two days ago I helped my much younger next door neighbor pick up his lawn mower and put it in his car trunk. I took the heavy end - evidently a lot of people have bad backs. Yeah, I know lots of things are genetic and just luck There is sugar (glucose) in a lot of foods. I will stick with that, and pure Stevia for sweetening. I have this same discussion with my grandson, about sugar.

[HuckleB]

338. And plenty of fructose in fruit, too!

Be afraid! Be very afraid!

[truedelphi]

339. ALMOST everything with HFCS has MSG as well.

That substance is always Gm, and it is an exocitin that parlays the brain's wiring into a confusion.

Fruit is a far better alternative than something with HFCS and MSG. And fruit has the benefits of vitamins and minerals, unlike 92% of the crap that is marketed with HFCS and MSG.

[Maedhros]

340. I was responding to "we don't need to eat [sugar] at all."

Yes, fruit sugars are better than refined sugars.

[HuckleB]

344. Links to support your fictions about MSG?

Fruit is always better. Derp.

[truedelphi]

366. Do your own research.

In fact there is quite a bit of research that shows that organic fruit is healthier than pesticide laden fruit.

[HuckleB]

367. Another BS claim bites the dust.

[womanofthehills]

369. Organic fruits and vegetables always have a 5 digit sticker code beginning with 9

genetically modified is 5 digit starting with 8. I always check to make sure it's organic.

[HuckleB]

375. Why are you promoting the organic marketing scam?

Hmmmmmm.

[Generic Other]

386. Don't eat eight, nine is fine

Easy enough to remember! Thanks.

[CurtEastPoint]

3. Bad link.

One little letter missing!

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-04-fructose-hundreds-brain-genes-wide.html

[TalkingDog]

7. Thanks. Fixed it. Copy/Cut/Paste error. n/t

[Buzz Clik]

4. I'm not familiar with this debate. Why the focus on fructose in HFCS?

The fructose content in HFCS42 is actually lower than the fructose in content in sucrose, and HFCS55 is nearly identical.

[TalkingDog]

6. I think because HFCS is in EVERYTHING.

I'm a label reader (allergies) and it can literally be found in a majority of prepackaged foods.

If sugar (sucrose) was in everything, there would probably be the same complaint. So, I'd like to see the same study run with table sugar.

As it stands I'll wait and see. (skeptically)

[Buzz Clik]

8. I see. It's not a comparison to glucose.

High fructose corn syrup is called that because corn syrup normally contains little fructose. HFCS is treated to increase the fructose content by converting the glucose into fructose.

It seems like an odd discussion. We basically all know that high sugar intake is a bad way to go....

[HuckleB]

10. Indeed. Sugars weren't compared, the N is too small, & the study itself is at odds with the article.

The OP's claim that someone or another is "wrong" about something in is rather odd, as no one claims sugar is good for you, and this study does not compare types of sugars. Oh, and it appears that the OP apparently claims that sugars are different based on this study. Umm. What?



And, on edit: Of course, the click bait headline doesn't reflect what the actual study shows:
http://www.rickilewis.com/blog.htm?post=1028092

[Major Nikon]

12. Yep, just more click bait intended for the consumption of those who have no idea what sugar is

[HuckleB]

13. But, but them durned "SKEPTICS"* are WRONG! Dang nabbit!

Last edited Tue Apr 26, 2016, 12:53 PM - Edit history (1)

No matter what the study actually shows! "Real skeptics" ignore the reality of the science, don't you know!!!!!

I do like how the OP added an asterisk, and it turned out to be quite prescient.

I mean who cares what our bodies do to glucose!

[puffy socks]

277. Princeton Univefrsity is "click bait"?

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

A high-fructose corn syrup researcher answers his critics
http://grist.org/article/interview-with-princeton-hfcs-researcher-dr-bart-hoebel/

My niece had really terrible acid reflux for months until her doctor told her to stop eating foods with high fructose corn syrup in them. It stopped within a few days after she's switched to BBQ sauces made with sugar, drinks sugar coke etc. She also lost almost 25 lbs and has kept it off.
If some of these man made substitutes are proving to be harmful we should stop consuming them. But since huge profits are at stake the fight will continue to keep selling products with HFCS in them.

[HuckleB]

287. Name that logical fallacy.

Actually the multiple fallacies there. That researcher is not supported by most peers, north most other research. Whoops.

[puffy socks]

324. Ah a real logical fallacy.

We heard the same thing about Robert Folk, Galvani, William Harvey, Crick and Watson and many others.

[HuckleB]

326. So, you have no idea what to say when you're propaganda is debunked.

Got it.

[puffy socks]

328. You havent debunked it. nt

[HuckleB]

330. I did. Your denial doesn't change that.

Science has debunked it, as it has never been replicated, and the clear problems with the study have been outlined by many people.

Next.

PS: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/high-fructose-corn-syrup-another-overhyped-study/

[HuckleB]

320. Always spend time exploring before posting things that confirm your preconceptions.

http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/03/hfcs-makes-rats-fat/

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-fructose-corn-syrup/

[puffy socks]

327. I see, only your sources are the correct ones.

I also remember scientists claiming lead wasn't bad for us. It was natural.
In fact Standard Oil co paid a scientist to lie and then black list CC Patterson.



A funny way to attempt to discredit scientific proof from a prestigious University. A link to an author trying to market her books . I'm surprised you didn't cite the Corn Refiners Association

[HuckleB]

329. I see you can't accept that the study was clearly debunked.

And it has never been repeated. And you don't know why that's a problem.

Keep laughing. You are promoting fictions that will only serve to harm the planet.

How do you not know the problems of a lack of replication? How do you not understand what cherry picking is?

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/high-fructose-corn-syrup-just-sugar/

[awoke_in_2003]

98. Good point...

regardless the form, Americans consume far too much sugar (and for that matter, salt)

[AxionExcel]

23. Also because this crud is manufactured from GMO corn grown in fields of glyphosate

...and lots and lots of people have a way harsh bad reaction to to the crud. Many suspect it's a major culprit in the epidemics of diabetes and obesity.

...and of course the glyphosate being pissed all over the planet willy nilly is showing up just about everywhere: wells, aquifers, beer, wine, breakfast cereal, and even tampons for crying out loud.

This data is all over the net, so you'll not need to look too far. Beware of the heavily funded Big Ag, Big Chem, Big Pharmaceutical and Big GMO propaganda sites. Big bucks are at stake here, and so the CORPORATE PROPAGANDA is thick, and there are trolls all over the freaking intertoobs.

[Indydem]

25. Yes. Trolls.

Like trolls who make outrageous claims about things with no legitimate scientific proof to back their assertions.

Like those trolls.

[Major Nikon]

163. Some have even been given a pizza for the trouble, yet live on as zombies

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7766768

[Fast Walker 52]

33. but accoridng to other people, glyphosate is perfectly safe and chemicals used on organic foods are

worse.

[Humanist_Activist]

58. glyphosate is actually safe, particularly in the levels found in food, are you saying there's...

evidence to the contrary?

Where is this evidence?

In addition, I would say some chemicals used in organic farming are worse that glyphosate, and some are just as good, such as BT, but apparently this safe to consume organic pesticide is a dangerous poison when corn is genetically engineered to produce it so you don't have to spray it on fields several times a season, which saves on things like fossil fuel and chemical production/extraction, and hence less pollution.

[Fast Walker 52]

62. surely you admit glyphosate has some toxicity to people?

In the residual levels that most people consume, yeah, it's relatively safe.

[HuckleB]

66. For perspective.

http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/

https://doccamiryan.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/toxicity-table-20161.pdf

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/03/what-does-a-gmo-label-tell-you-about-herbicide-use/

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/organic-pesticides/

--------------------------

[Humanist_Activist]

103. Of course, but that level is so low as to be practically irrelevant from a product safety...

standpoint.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/04/30/is-glyphosate-used-with-some-gm-crops-dangerously-toxic-to-humans/

[Major Nikon]

164. True. It's relatively safer compared to things like table salt

The residual levels you speak of are measured in parts per billion, while salt is typically measured by the teaspoon.

[womanofthehills]

115. World Health Organization Won’t Back Down From Study Linking Monsanto to Cancer

The scientists behind a recent World Health Organization study which concluded the herbicide glyphosate “probably” causes cancer, say they stand behind their assessment. The comments come in response to criticisms from Monsanto Co., who said the study was based on “junk science”. The main ingredient in Monsanto’s Round Up product is glyphosate. Monsanto executives said they are reviewing their options as they move forward.

Aaron Blair, a scientist emeritus at the National Cancer Institute and lead author of the study, told Reuters,“There was sufficient evidence in animals, limited evidence in humans and strong supporting evidence showing DNA mutations and damaged chromosomes.” The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published their study of glyphosate on March 20, finding that the popular herbicide may contribute to non-hodgkins lymphoma.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/world-health-organization-wont-back-down-from-study-linking-monsanto-to-cancer/5439840

[AxionExcel]

133. HFCS & glyphosate residue are a freaken fugly Corporate Combo, Inc. (R)

Up the Scuzzy-wuzzy River without a barf bag: Metabolic Syndrome
"People who consume too much high-fructose food can in time become overweight and develop high blood pressure, dyslipidaemia with fatty liver and insulin resistance -- symptoms that doctors group together under the name metabolic syndrome..."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150617135038.htm

[HuckleB]

137. You're using a conspiracy theory loving source.

And the reality is that the IARC is ludicrously wrong.

https://risk-monger.com/2016/04/10/iarcgate-for-dummies-three-reasons-this-who-agencys-glyphosate-campaign-is-a-scandal/

[Major Nikon]

167. The EU says the IARC is full of shit as do 3 out of 4 WHO programs

Following a second mandate from the European Commission to consider the findings from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) regarding the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate or glyphosate-containing plant protection products in the on-going peer review of the active substance, EFSA concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302

[HuckleB]

169. yup.

Indeed.

[womanofthehills]

175. Duh! - So you go with the Guidelines for Drinking water people over

the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

[HuckleB]

182. So you just make crap up.

Got it.

[womanofthehills]

198. Just reading the chart HuckleB

I didn't post the chart..

[HuckleB]

209. You are just making things up, as usual.

Last edited Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:26 AM - Edit history (1)

Trying to divert the reality that the world's scientists do not agree with the IARC, and that the evidence of serious problems with the IARC's "findings" is becoming more and more clear does not change that reality.

Wake up.

[Major Nikon]

214. You do understand what "Guidelines" means, yes?

[Major Nikon]

166. 3 out of 4 WHO programs agree on glyphosate safety

[womanofthehills]

176. FDA will begin testing food for glyphosate!!! It's about time!!

FDA to Begin Testing for Pesticide Glyphosate, Probable Human Carcinogen, in Food

PORTLAND, Ore.— The Food and Drug Administration will finally begin testing food for glyphosate, the world’s most commonly used pesticide, according to Civil Eats. This marks the first time that a U.S. agency will routinely test for glyphosate residue in food. It comes after the Government Accountability Office released a report condemning the FDA for failing even to disclose its failure to test for glyphosate in its annual pesticide residue report.
Pesticide Spraying
Photo courtesy EPA. This photo is available for media use.

The World Health Organization found that glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup, was a probable human carcinogen, and glyphosate has been named as a leading cause of massive declines in monarch butterflies.

“In the wake of intense scrutiny, the Food and Drug Administration has finally committed to taking this basic step of testing our food for the most commonly used pesticide. It’s shocking that it’s taken so long, but we’re glad it’s finally going to happen,” said Dr. Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. “More and more scientists are raising concerns about the effects of glyphosate on human health and the environment. With about 1.7 billion pounds of this pesticide used each year worldwide, the FDA’s data is badly needed to facilitate long-overdue conversations about how much of this chemical we should tolerate in our food.”

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2016/glyphosate-02-17-2016.html

[arikara]

180. 3 out of 4 who programs are

probably stacked full of Monsanto shills.

[HuckleB]

183. Links?

[Major Nikon]

215. Sure, along with every regulatory agency in the first world

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/corporate_publications/files/efsaexplainsglyphosate151112en.pdf

[womanofthehills]

189. If it is so safe, why is the FDA going to start testing levels in our food

FDA obviously does not know the levels in food.

[womanofthehills]

196. The FDA is about to test the levels of glyphosate in food

No one knows the levels yet.

[Humanist_Activist]

205. Really, apparently Australia conducted a study years ago...

this from a brief google search:

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/applications/documents/A1021%20GM%20Maize%20SD2%20Glyphosate%20residues.pdf

This article here has loads of sources, many primarly from the government, about glyphosate toxicity:

https://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/glyphosate-toxic/

[womanofthehills]

248. The government??? FDA is a joke in this matter!! - good for the Government Accountability Office!!

so lets see - The FDA set limits for amounts of glyphosate that can be in food but has NEVER tested the levels in our food. That is totally disgusting and in the pockets of corporations. They are now being forced to test the food by the Government Accountability Office.





FDA to Start Testing Monsanto’s Glyphosate in Food

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will begin testing food for glyphosate, the world’s most commonly used pesticide, according to Civil Eats. This marks the first time that a U.S. agency will routinely test for glyphosate residue in food. It comes after the Government Accountability Office released a report condemning the FDA for failing even to disclose its failure to test for glyphosate in its annual pesticide residue report.

http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/18/fda-test-food-glyphosate/ (if you don't like this link, there are many others about this)

[merrily]

5. Jeebus!

[Jim__]

9. "The brain and the body are deficient in the machinery to make DHA; it has to come through our diet"

I was wondering about DHA:

DHA strengthens synapses in the brain and enhances learning and memory. It is abundant in wild salmon (but not in farmed salmon) and, to a lesser extent, in other fish and fish oil, as well as walnuts, flaxseed, and fruits and vegetables, said Gomez-Pinilla, who also is a member of UCLA's Brain Injury Research Center.

[Major Nikon]

11. That's not what your link says

You do realize cane and beet sugar also contains fructose, yes?

[womanofthehills]

188. beet sugar -fructose , GMO's and glyphosate

Even Hershey's feeling the pressure to stop using GMO beet sugar.

They have switched to cane sugar .


http://www.startribune.com/hershey-dumps-sugar-beets-because-of-gm-concerns/363498311/

[HuckleB]

212. Baseless fear mongering, like On Fox.

And this is not going to be good for the environment. Oh, you don't know the realities of sugar cane production? Of course you don't.

[womanofthehills]

249. Your probably right - the sugar cane is probably GMO free but loaded with glysphate

Like all of our "non organic" food. Why I only buy organic sugar.

[HuckleB]

250. Thanks for showing us that you don't understand the topic at all, yet again.

[Humanist_Activist]

266. Well thats just silly, sugar is refined to the point where there are no chemical differences....

between organic and conventional.

[womanofthehills]

278. Buying organic can keep the rivers and lakes from being even more polluted

In Louisiana, there was glyphosate in the rain. Now that is really scarry. Stay out of the rain folks esp. the first minute as that's when you get all the radiation (and maybe now the glyphosate).

[Humanist_Activist]

293. Why would that be scary, and is that even true? In addition, organic isn't better for the...

environment, where are you getting your information on that?

[womanofthehills]

381. Wow! you and HuckleB make a great team - talk exactly alike - maybe you are the same person

[Bradical79]

14. How are the "skeptics" wrong? -nt

[sharp_stick]

15. They need to add a sucrose and a glucose arm

for it to actually compare any sugars. On it's own this isn't telling us much.

[mopinko]

17. ^^^^this^^^^

more research to show, not research to know.

please people, get familiar w the scientific method if you are gonna post about such.

[womanofthehills]

382. Oh no, Monsanto would be proud

Rhyming

[HuckleB]

19. And many more rats.

[PasadenaTrudy]

43. I'm really starting to wonder

about this DU place. So much misinformation being touted daily. I need a site with a more educated populace, me thinks My head feels like it is spinning..Am I on Natural News by accident?

Carry on....

[HuckleB]

44. It's scary to see people work so hard to maintain mistaken beliefs.

And so many others have simply stopped correcting pseudoscience based posts.

Now it appears that mere derision is all that is needed to ignore actual science.

[ronnie624]

55. It's not *that* scary.

Global climate change is scary. The effects provoked by US militarism is scary. The prospect of a Republican dominated political system is scary. A US policy establishment controlled by global corporate elites with no concern for anything other than self-enrichment is scary. But some progressives embracing a little pseudoscience on DU isn't all that frightening.

I'm highly skeptical of your supposed strict adherence to scientific principles in all things.

[Humanist_Activist]

57. There's a girl in Idaho who needs a heart and lung transplant because...

her parents believed in faith healing growing up, and also tried to treat her with "alternative medicine".

http://www.kgw.com/news/health/denied-medical-care-because-of-religion-she-now-wants-her-parents-prosecuted/142977047

These types of beliefs aren't harmless, but cause actual harm, other examples include the measles outbreaks that have been occurring lately, pseudoscience is never harmless because it illustrates a lack of critical thinking on the part of believers and can lead to bad public policy if enough people believe in it. Quacks are allowed to profit off the suffering of others, sometimes in some of the most atrocious ways, etc.

[ronnie624]

63. That's very sad,

but appealing to emotionalism doesn't make nonsense any easier for me to swallow.

[HuckleB]

59. It's belief in pseudoscience that makes it difficult to deal with climate change.

Also, some of the things that could be helpful to mitigate climate change are opposed by those who support pseudoscience.

And, as already noted, people die, stay sick, and are scammed out of money by pseudoscience. As a progressive, I find those things intolerable.

So, yeah, I find it scary.

[womanofthehills]

116. It's scary to see people who think putting pesticides in our bodies is a good thing

Now the levels of pesticides in bread are double that in fruits and vegetables. Eat organic people!

[skepticscott]

125. Plants make their own pesticides

Including "organic" plants. Why do you put those pesticides in your body if it's a bad thing?

[womanofthehills]

341. I don't think plants make organophosphates

[HuckleB]

128. Organic pesticides are not safer.

Last edited Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Don't spread misinformation. It's not ok.

https://risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2015/11/12/the-risk-mongers-dirty-dozen-12-highly-toxic-pesticides-approved-for-use-in-organic-farming/

http://acsh.org/news/2016/04/21/organic-fertilizer-is-great-at-killing-bees/

[womanofthehills]

276. Organic pesticides are safer - traditional farming uses organophostphate pesticides

Just take a look at the EPA’s inventory of the most widely used pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. 8 The most commonly used insecticide in the United States is Chlorpyfiros. This is an organophostphate pesticide, part of a class of chemicals that, according to three recent independent studies9, can lower children’s IQ by an average of as much as seven points — enough to affect a child’s math and reading skills. The most commonly used fungicide is Chlorothalonil, which the EPA rates as “very highly toxic” to aquatic organisms and which the agency warns is used at levels of concern in potato and peanut production.10

Compare those to natural pesticides. The most commonly used naturally occurring insecticide is Bt, or Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium found in soils.11 Bt is effective at killing boll weevils, cabbage loopers, and corn ear worms — and it’s not toxic to humans.12 Two of the other most common OMRI-approved insecticides are neem oil (derived from the seeds of the neem tree) and insecticidal soaps. The active ingredient in insecticidal soaps (which desiccate insects’ exoskeletons) is potassium salts — no danger to people there. Neem is so benign that it appears in some brands of toothpaste. I have yet to see any dental hygiene products containing Chlorpyfiros.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/myths-busted-clearing-up-the-misunderstandings-about-organic-farming/

[HuckleB]

279. Not even close. And an old organic marketing blog pieces don't make it so.

Heck, that piece was debunked before it ran by the piece it supposedly replies to....

Also, it's very clear that you didn't read the piece I linked, or you would have known better than to post that nonsense.

The Reality of Organic Pesticides
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/organic-pesticides/

The Problems With Organic Pesticides
http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2013/06/organic-pesticides.html

12 highly toxic pesticides approved for use in organic farming
https://risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2015/11/12/the-risk-mongers-dirty-dozen-12-highly-toxic-pesticides-approved-for-use-in-organic-farming/

Try to learn something. You will actually be able to help the planet if you do so. Right now you are not helping.

[womanofthehills]

284. That piece debunks the piece written by Christie Wilcox - corporation shill

Christie is your girl. You guys love to use her studies. Here she is out in the field sniffing mushrooms.

[HuckleB]

286. No, it doesn't.

And the rest of the information I've provided further shows your claims to be without justification.

[Major Nikon]

396. The most commonly used "organic" fungicide is Copper Sulfate

[Act_of_Reparation]

237. I discovered some time ago that Republicans don't have a monopoly on stupid.

And I am reminded of it each and every time the topics of food safety or medical science arise.

[nadinbrzezinski]

256. Yup

[HuckleB]

258. .

[HuckleB]

259. It's amazing to see the disconnect.

And the ugly attacks upon those who prefer evidence over hyperbole.

[Act_of_Reparation]

262. DU, and liberalism more broadly, are subcultures....

...and present a few of the more annoying traits subcultures tend to share.

In closed groups like DU, one's status within the community is often measured by one's perceived authenticity. The more authentically liberal you seem to be, the higher the social ladder you climb. This isn't a conducive environment for a free exchange of ideas, because the status of those at the top is completely dependent upon the presumed truthfulness of certain assumptions. Tout the benefits of psychotropic drugs and you threaten the social status of REAL LIBERALS obsessed with the pharmaceuticals industry. Question the the anti-GMO panic and you threaten the social status of REAL LIBERALS who may or may not have jumped the gun on that whole "organic and local" thing. A number of posters have so invested their sense of authenticity in these topics that there is no way to have a nuanced discussion. That is why the response is always sharp and often accusatory.

It's the same reason believers get pissed off when atheists criticize their religion.

[HuckleB]

263. Spot on, and fantastic insight.

[CanSocDem]

314. It's Sociology 101, not "a fantastic insight".

And, ironically, it's all about your behaviour at DU.

Your science doesn't 'hold a candle' to Sociology.


.

[HuckleB]

315. Derp.

[womanofthehills]

124. rats - are you projecting again!

[HuckleB]

129. Seralini's abuse of rats is sad.

And your failure to recognize that abuse is sad.

[womanofthehills]

342. Sad? - the rats got to eat your favorite stuff - glyphosate

Monsanto fed rats for 90 days only. Seralini fed them glyphosate for 2 yrs. Study is being republished as scientists around the world demand it.

[HuckleB]

343. As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[womanofthehills]

370. As usual, you are living on a different planet

[HuckleB]

376. I am on the real planet.

Your fantasies and fictions hold no sway here.

[Indydem]

27. They fed them a liter of soda.

And they wonder why they are slow? Spoiler, cause they are fat!

These studies where there is no correlation between the amount consumed and reality always set off red flags for me.

(Yes, I know plenty of people probably consume a liter of soda in a day. Some of them may even be healthy. But lab rats may not be so lucky.)

[TexasBushwhacker]

272. I was thinking the same thing

Further more, I wonder what the results would be from fructose gotten from fruit as opposed to corn. Is the sugar the culprit or the GRAIN.

A lot of people are finding they feel better when they eliminate all grains from their diet. I'm not just talking wheat for those who are sensitive to gluten - all grains. Dr. Terry Wahls, a physician in Iowa, reversed the symptoms of her progressive MS by eating a grain free Paleo type diet. So I'm wondering if it's the sugar or the grain or both.

[Person 2713]

16. Just had my bowl of chia seeds and am aware of DhA's effects but this blew me away

Totally off headline but the DHA info is new to me
The sluggish brain that comes with HFCS along with other issues glysophate is all a yawn to me accepted and nothing new , but the supplement difference should be furthered studied also.

It is still better always IMO to get it naturally like my chia seeds , but if it could bring us a better brained HFCs eating population just fortify it.

[dionysus]

177. what's DHA?

[yellowcanine]

18. Wondering why HFCS and Sucrose were not tested.......

Looks as if they tested fructose water against fructose plus DHA with pure water as a control.

That is fine as far as it goes, and the DHA stuff is quite a useful result. But it doesn't get at the question of whether, calorie for calorie, HFCS is worse for you than sucrose. So I don't see how this refutes the "skeptics," if by that you mean people who question whether HFCS is any worse for you than sucrose.

[Thor_MN]

80. Because that was what they were studying. And Anti HFCS Woo mongers are misinterpreting.

HFCS is a mixture of fructose and glucose, just like Sucrose.

The woo mongers can't ever seem to understand that. They hear "High Fructose" and the panic and rage blind them to anything else.

The study in the OP says nothing about HFCS compared to Sucrose. There is absolutely no information in the study that can be applied to the HFCS vs. cane sugar debate. Suggesting that there is any info in this study applicable to HFCS vs. Sucrose would be a sign of ignorance of the topic.

[yellowcanine]

99. In sucrose fructose and glucose are chemically combined as one molecule.

In HFCS fructose and glucose are a mixture of separate molecules. So they are not the same. But whether that makes any difference in terms of metabolism is something which has just not been studied all that much. My suspicion is that the calories outweigh any marginal differences in metabolism. And as you say, this study says nothing about that question.

[Thor_MN]

102. When sucrose dissolves, the fructose and glucose separate. They are the same.

By the time sucrose and HFCS hit your stomach, they both are solutions of glucose and fructose dissolved in water. The only difference is if the HFCS is not a 50-50 mixture, such as HFCS55 (45% glucose 55% sucrose) used in soda.

Saying that it has not be studied is ridiculous. Sugar metabolism has been extensively studied.

[yellowcanine]

104. Not really - needs to undergo hydrolysis, a chemical reaction.

Sucrose can actually stay in solution for a long time without separating into fructose and glucose if needed enzymes are not present. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose

Hydrolysis breaks the glycosidic bond converting sucrose into glucose and fructose. Hydrolysis is, however, so slow that solutions of sucrose can sit for years with negligible change. If the enzyme sucrase is added, however, the reaction will proceed rapidly.[11] Hydrolysis can also be accelerated with acids, such as cream of tartar or lemon juice, both weak acids. Likewise, gastric acidity converts sucrose to glucose and fructose during digestion the bond between them being an acetal bond which can be broken by an acid.


What I meant to say is that more study is needed to assess he differences of metabolism between sucrose and HFCS in terms of possible health effects. http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/236.full

Taken together, these findings suggest that we must be very cautious when attributing adverse health consequences to the consumption of fructose, HFCS, or sucrose, particularly at normal population consumption levels. More randomized, controlled trials at normal levels of consumption using commonly consumed sugars are necessary to resolve these issues. In the meantime, it is important to recognize that scientific debates of this nature do not take place in a vacuum. These discussions have enormous potential to confuse and alarm the public, making the need to frame results with appropriate caution and minimize speculation imperative.

[Thor_MN]

105. Did you read what you posted?

"Hydrolysis can also be accelerated with acids, such as cream of tartar or lemon juice, both weak acids. Likewise, gastric acidity converts sucrose to glucose and fructose during digestion the bond between them being an acetal bond which can be broken by an acid."


IOW, sucrose is rapidly broken into sucrose and fructose in your stomach.


To believe that no one has studied sugar metabolism is completely ridiculous.

[yellowcanine]

106. Yep, it is a chemical reaction. And you mistated what I said about metabolism.

Bye.

[Thor_MN]

111. See ya.

If you don't understand that solutions of glucose and fructose in the stomach are indistinguishable as to their source, you can't understand that sugar metabolism is the same regardless if started out as HFCS or "pure Cane Sugar" or Honey or Agave.

[D Gary Grady]

404. For that matter, what about grapes and grape juice?

Grapes contain glucose and fructose in proportions that depend on the ripeness of the grapes. I don't offhand know the exact balance of the two in typical store-bought grapes or grape juice, but I suspect it's in the general vicinity of 50-50 and hence comparable to the most commonly used forms of HFCS (and digested sucrose). But for some reason people concerned about HFCS don't seem to be as worried about grape juice or other foods that contain a fair amount of fructose.

[eridani]

131. Sucrose is not a "mixture". It is a disaccharide with one glucose and one fructose molecule n/t

[Major Nikon]

135. True, and that weak bond is broken virtually immediately by a weak acid

...like the one found in everyone's stomach.

[eridani]

202. So why did our digestive tracts ever evolve sucrases?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrase

It stomach acidity is sufficient, why waste the ribosomes to construct a complicated protein?

[Major Nikon]

216. Because your body needs enzymes to digest all carbohydrates

[eridani]

296. OK--then stomach acidity is irrelevant. Glad we agree n/t

[Major Nikon]

298. I agree to no such nonsense

I don't think you understand what an enzyme is.

[eridani]

299. I discovered a third form of carbonic anhydrase, so I know what an enzyme is

If stomach acid was all we needed, then we would have no digestive enzymes.

[Major Nikon]

300. Well you certainly failed to demonstrate that knowledge

Regardless where you fucked up to begin with is you seem to think I claimed "stomach acid was all we needed" when I claimed no such thing and you compounded it by claiming "stomach acidity is irrelevant".

Those two things demonstrate lack of comprehension(or a half-assed attempt at strawman) and ignorance of the chemical processes involved.

[eridani]

301. You need digestive enzymes. That's mostly what breaks down sucrose into

--glucose and fructose.

[Major Nikon]

303. Wrong

The acid is doing all the heavy lifting. The enzyme is the catalyst which speeds up the process, but while necessary for more efficient macro nutrient absorption is not necessary for the basic chemical reaction. The enzyme, by itself, can't create the chemical reaction, so claiming "stomach acidity is irrelevant" is very telling as is the fact you're now contradicting yourself with "mostly".

As I said, I don't think you understand how enzymes work and I'm done explaining it.

[eridani]

361. That is bullshit. The enzyme catalazed rate is 1000X the uncatalyzed rate

The sucrase optimum p[H is 4.5, which makes sebse given the environment. Carbonic anhydrase also catalyzes a reaction (CO2 + water to bicarbonate) which proceeds more slowly in its absence.

[Thor_MN]

153. I am aware of the chemical structure of sucrose.

Many do not know what disaccharide means. They do, however understand what mixture means.

Beyond you not liking general terms, do you have a point?

[eridani]

201. It does NOT mean a molecule. Salad dressing is a mixture. Sucrose is not n/t

[Thor_MN]

217. I have a BA in chemistry. I am well aware of the technical differences.

For biological purposes, the fact that dry, granulated sucrose is a disaccharide is meaningless. In a aqueous, acidic solution, for instance, soda pop, it will be almost completely hydrolysed, before it ever reaches your mouth, into (gasp, da duh DAH) a mixture of fructose and glucose!!!! Holy schniekes, Batman, that disaccharide has become a mixture of monosaccharides!!!

Any other tidbits you care to share?

[eridani]

297. If acidity alone does the trick, why do we have sucrases? n/t

[Thor_MN]

304. You think there is only one way to skin a cat?

[eridani]

362. I don't just think, I KNOW that catalyzed reactions are thousands of times faster than

--uncatalyzed ones.

[Thor_MN]

365. And,,, You've admited uncatalyzed reactions exist, destroying your line of...

whatever it is. You have not really stated what your point is, other than try to argue (unsucessfully) with what I have said.

[eridani]

372. If uncatalized rates were fast enough, there would be no sucrase or invertase n/t

[Thor_MN]

373. I see logic is not your strong suit either.

Do you actually have a point?

[eridani]

377. I'd like people to quit talking about acidic hydrolysis as if it were meaningful

If it were, there would be no need for enzymes.

[Thor_MN]

378. Get over it. The fact that there are enzymes in no way invalidates other mechanisms.

That's like saying that cars can't exist because there are airplanes. It's a logical fallacy.

There's a study showing that Mexican Coke, made with sugar, contains no measurable amount of sucrose. It's all fructose and glucose. Unless you want want to claim they are adding enzymes, or they are not using sucrose, care to explain why there is no measurable sucrose in Mexican Coke?

http://goranlab.com/pdf/Ventura%20Obesity%202010-sugary%20beverages.pdf

[eridani]

379. Food doesn't sit around for months in your digestive tract

--which is where acidic hydrolysis is irrelevant.

[Thor_MN]

380. Wow. Have fun with your beliefs, you are out there on your own island.

Whether sugars in soda are hydrolysed by the phosphoric acid and gastric acids or by enzyme actions is meaningless as by the time it hits your stomach, it is hydrolysed into fructose and glucose.

If acid hydrolysis took months (which it doesn't), why in hell could it only start in one's digestive tract? You do understand that soda contains phosphoric and/or citric acid? Hydrolysis of sodas made with sucrose starts in the bottling plant, not the digestive tract/

[eridani]

383. If acid were enough, sucrase and invertase would not exist, period n/t

[Thor_MN]

384. Back to the "There can be only one" nonsense, with absolutely nothing to back it up...

The fact the yeast and bees can make invertase says exactly what about human physiology?

I gave you a study that showed there was no sucrose in Coke from Mexico. Coke from Mexico is supposedly made with "pure cane sugar" according to the bottling plant and woo aficionados. Care to explain why analysis shows only glucose and fructose? This is the second time I have asked you, are you going to continue to ignore evidence? Either answer that question or bring something to support your theory. This "I know you are, but what am I?" from you is tiresome.

[eridani]

387. Let sucrose sit around long enough in acid and it will eventually hydrolyze

If acid were sufficient, we would not have invertase and sucrase in our guts, period.

[Thor_MN]

388. We don't have invertase in our guts, unless we add it to our food.

Which is not meant to detract from the complete lack of anything to back up your illogical assertion.

Simply repeating nonsense doesn't make it true

[eridani]

389. WE've got sucrase n/t

[Thor_MN]

390. Yes, we do. Which still means nothing, as you have no point.

I'll give you that we produce sucrase in the villi of our small intestine. We don't produce invertase. (Unless you are a yeast, in which case I apologize and commend your mastery of a keyboard).

Everything you have said means jack towards sucrose being hydrolysed by other methods. You can argue until the end of the earth that an enzyme invalidates all other mechanisms that produce the same result and you will still be as wrong.

Third time. Explain why Mexican Coke has been tested to contain only fructose and glucose when it's made with sucrose. According to you, that is simply not possible. I've given a link that proves you wrong. I've shown that you've babbled for days about an enzyme not produced in the human body.

Try posting something to back your assertions, rather than the "LA LA LA, I can't hear you" that has been the basis of your posts to date.

[eridani]

391. Acid hydrolysis takes place over time in bottles

If that were sufficient, there would be no sucrase in our small intestines.

http://www.njsas.org/projects/light_polarization/answer45_invertase.htm

The systematic name for invertase is beta-fructofuranosidase and the designated number is EC 3.2.1.26 In the human body the enzyme that does the same function as invertase is called sucrase (see question 16). The term "invertase" usually refers to enzyme from either fungal/bacterial or plant sources.

[Thor_MN]

393. Bargle, garble same old crap.

Got it. You have your mind made up like a conservative binary thinker and no amount of facts will dissuade you from just repeating the same thing over and over.

Please tell us all once more why an enzyme means that no other mechanisms can possible work. Have a nice life.

[eridani]

394. Working and being significant are two different things.

Or maybe you think that soda pop is the sole dietary source of sucrose?

[Humanist_Activist]

20. Which skeptics? Your link doesn't compare different sugars. N/t

[drm604]

39. I was thinking the same thing.

This study doesn't prove any difference between different sugars since it didn't compare different sugars. It compared sugar vs no sugar vs sugar + DHA. It could very well be that the same study using table sugar would give the same results.

Sugar is bad for you, very few people seriously and honestly deny that.

This study may be worthwhile however because of what it was designed to study - whether or not DHA supplementation ameliorates the effects of sugar.

It appears that DHA may protect us from at least some of the bad effects of sugar.

[Humanist_Activist]

46. I think even saying sugar is bad for you is incorrect, we need it to live...

too much of it is bad for you, but then again, too much of damn near everything is bad for you, and quite a few things we shouldn't eat, ingest or smoke at all. I know of no one who actually argues that we should eat more sugar.

[drm604]

51. True, and obviously that's what I meant.

Spoonfuls of refined sugar in food and beverages are bad for you, but the smaller amounts occurring naturally in food are necessary.

It would be great if we discovered that eating fish regularly could allow you to more safely sweeten things.

[Humanist_Activist]

54. I like my spoonful of sugars, there's also the other side, lack of exercise.

Leading a sedate lifestyle leads to things like obesity and diabetes. Moderation in food intake, particularly the amount of calories we take in daily and moderate exercise would do wonders for the population. Problem is getting them motivated enough to actually do it.

Doesn't help that it appears our brains are keyed into craving sugar, goddamn reward centers light up when we munch on sweet stuff, have I mentioned how much I like sugar? lol

[drm604]

64. You and me both (and every other human on the planet).

Our brains crave fat and sugar, because those things weren't readily available to our ancestors and small amounts are necessary.

[womanofthehills]

117. Fish from where?

Do you think eating mercury and radioactive cesium will help a sweet tooth?

[drm604]

147. I'm not aware of any cesium contamination in commercial fish (maybe I just haven't heard about it)

and if you stick to the lower end of the food chain and eat things like sardines you can avoid the biomagnification of both cesium and mercury.

[womanofthehills]

281. It's only been the Pacific Ocean fish

Eat the Atlantic

[Rex]

77. Too much salt, too much potassium...not enough sodium, not enough etc..

You make a grand point often overlooked here.

[HuckleB]

79. Too much alcohol, on the other hand, is relative, especially...

... When it comes to surviving this year's presidential election.

I kid. I kid. I gave it up.

I hope my knees hold up. I'm going to need to run a lot.

[LiberalArkie]

230. That was what the article was about. How DHA protects the brain and perhaps improves the brain.

[drm604]

232. Exactly. That's why I said it.

The OP misinterprets the study, honestly I'm sure.

[HuckleB]

40. And what were they wrong about before?

[Orrex]

21. A tanker full of HFCS overturned and ruptured on a highway near here.

Everyone within 50 miles was killed instantly and then rose as sweet-toothed zombies.

True fact.

[jtuck004]

22. We manipulate the market to insure the use of corn syrup in our foods...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy"I mpact on nutrition
"...One peer-reviewed research suggests that any effects of U.S. farm policies on U.S. obesity patterns must have been negligible.[51] However, some critics argue that the artificially low prices resulting from subsidies create unhealthy incentives for consumers. For example, in the USA, cane sugar was replaced with cheap corn syrup, making high-sugar food cheaper;[52] beet and cane sugar are subject to subsidies, price controls, and import tariffs that distort the prices of these products as well.
The lower price of energy-dense foods such as grains and sugars could be one reason why low-income people and food insecure people in industrialized countries are more vulnerable to being overweight and obese.[53] According to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, meat and dairy production receive 63% of subsidies in the United States,[54] as well as sugar subsidies for unhealthy foods, which contribute to heart disease, obesity and diabetes, with enormous costs for the health sector.[54]
Market distortions due to subsidies have led to an increase in corn fed cattle rather than grass fed. Corn fed cattle require more antibiotics and their beef has a higher fat content.[55]"]..."

You know, Adult diabetes has almost quadruped since 1980. So perhaps we should quit dying early and giving ourselves diabetes at an increasing rate, or fix this. No phony bills, either.

[fasttense]

24. The Japanese invented it but Ohio perfected it.

It is soooo cheap to make (especially because of subsidies to grain growers) that we pump it into practically anything.

I've gone to a low carb, high fat diet and it has done wonders for my mood and weight loss.

[villager]

26. What's hilarious about self-described "skeptics" is that they are never skeptical about corporate

...claims and assertions.

They are only, conveniently "skeptical" when those claims are questioned....

[AxionExcel]

41. + 1

[Humanist_Activist]

47. Well that's just not true, but keep believing that if it makes you feel better. n/t

[villager]

48. I'd love to see some examples of "corporate skepticism...."

That'd definitely make me feel better!

[Humanist_Activist]

49. Examples of concern, in for example, food production...

overuse of glyphosate that is possibly leading to glyphosate resistance in weeds. Valid concern, some preliminary science supporting it, issue is that its a very safe herbicide, hence the overuse, similar issue with antibiotics, we need it to a certain extant, and need to figure out alternative formulations and methods that are just as effective and safe.

Speaking of antibiotics, the overuse of them in the raising of food and milk animals, particularly in factory farms where sanitary issues are rampant. This leads to more general exposure to antibiotics for bacteria, which creates a selective pressure for them to adapt and helps those who mutate to resist the antibiotics to survive, which means they have opportunities to proliferate. Particularly concern for human disease vectors. Of particular concern is use of low dosage antibiotics in feed, and not in the treatment of acute infections in animals.

RBGH is another example, its not necessary, does lead to changes in milk production, the human effects of the hormone itself is negligible, but it does lead to things such as udder infections leading to the issues of the paragraph above, etc.

The fact is that there are concerns that are pushed by corporate interests at the expense of public health, safety and the environment in many cases, the Energy Industry, particularly fossil fuel companies, are a classic example of this. But that doesn't validate promoting false narratives and debunked hypotheses. Genetic Engineering is a useful technology that should be implemented for the good of humanity, and is, or at least people are attempting to do so, but are protested or outright stopped due to the outright ignorance of groups that I would call well meaning if they weren't being disingenuous(for example, Greenpeace). Neither does a single company control this research or technology, nor are they the root of all evil. Yes talking about Monsanto. Still trying to figure out where that narrative came from.

Anyways, the point is I don't know if you are actually interested in having a serious discussion on this or if you just want to have people reaffirm your own biases. Either way, take my post for what it is, I get paid by the word from Monsanto, it must be true, I was accused of it enough on DU.

[villager]

50. Those are some good points.

I may not agree with all of them at the outset, but I like the analogy of glyphosates to antibiotics -- something that may actually be safe in certain doses/circumstances, but due to a vast overuse (due to a corporate imperative), is morphing into a pronounced hazard.

That is certainly an intriguing avenue for further discussion of the subject.

But I think the fact that companies have to skew toward short-term profit does, alas, put them increasingly on the "evil" side of the equation. See, for example, Exxon's covering-up of global warming/C02 research since the 1970's.

And my point about skeptics wasn't intended to mean that certain individuals on this website -- who I might disagree with on the community-friendliness of Monsanto, say -- can't themselves be skeptical in their own right of unchecked corporate (or government-toady-acting-for-corporate-interests) claims.

But I have yet to see any professional group which identifies itself as "skeptic" really go after everything worth being "skeptical" about. There is, in other words, a larger agenda there beyond "skepticism."

In any case, I do appreciate the actual discussion, and the laying aside of snark. Hopefully said discussion can continue in further threads, and areas where we disagree don't require the usual tiresome denunciations of the other poster, after all.

[Humanist_Activist]

53. The issue is when you have to make shit up to get your point across, that's not honest...

particularly when it comes to Monsanto, they have been blamed or implicated on some level to everything from farmer suicides to the Zika virus outbreak. Its getting ridiculous, they are the "Thanks Obama" of the left.

In addition, name these professional groups that don't go after things that are "worth being skeptical about". And identify those things that we should be skeptical about.

Climate science has a broad reaching consensus among scientists that anthropocentric climate change is happening. The public is, largely aware of the issue, and has been neutral to warm(pardon the pun) on the idea.

There's a broad reaching consensus among scientists that evolution is a fact, not really controversial, the public is more split, mostly related to ignorance or extreme cognitive bias related to religion.

There's a broad reaching consensus that moderation in eating and increasing physical activity levels is good for you, this is true of both the general public and scientists and doctors. Individual needs being considered, of course.

There's a broad reaching consensus among scientists that vaccines help prevent disease outbreaks, and protect individuals who can't take the vaccines for various reasons due to herd immunity.

Identify your concerns, and we will see what "professional skeptics" say about them, and more importantly, where the evidence leads.

[villager]

61. Not sure where those replies are headed, exactly.

But rarely, in my ex MIL's issues of "Skeptical Inquirer" did I see them take on the pressing issues -- having to do with the agendas of power and wealth -- worth actually being skeptical about.

You act as if waiting for "broad consensus" is the only way or means that change can, or should, happen. And yet those ahead of that consensus -- see: Civil Rights movements -- need to act when historical conditions demand it.

Further, if Exxon hadn't been allowed to cover up the truth about climate change in the 1970's, we might be much farther along toward a solution. But anyone talking about climate change was called an "alarmist." Trust me, I remember.

[Humanist_Activist]

74. We are talking about scientific issues, not political or economic...

You seem to be requesting that they focus on issues that have little to do with scientific inquiry or skeptical fact checking.

[villager]

113. You seem to think the political and economic is entirely divorced from the scientific.

Alas, it is not.

Hence, the need for skepticism depending on the source of various claims, etc.

[Humanist_Activist]

204. The scientific should be used to inform policies, but aren't policies themselves....

the problem is that skepticism and critical thinking are best applied towards claims of fact, not opinion. Some people have difficulty differentiating the two.

For example, Anthropogenic climate change is happening, its a fact, and the job of scientists are to report these facts, its then the jobs of politicians, engineers, society, business, etc. to figure out how best to tackle the challenge of reducing our carbon footprints to reduce the amount of climate change happening. The problem is you have a shitload of politicians who outright deny the facts and evidence. Makes it very difficult to pursue sound public policy.

But, and this is key, very few hot button issues with such far reaching consequences are so clear cut, most are a lot fuzzier, being less reliant on hard or easy to find facts, and more rely on studies of human behavior and belief. Its not the science can't help inform, its that this information can then be interpreted in any number of ways, leading to policy differences in which both sides have valid points. Not really a case where skepticism can be easily applied.

[nadinbrzezinski]

223. Alas in 1986 when I took a college class

We were told of this new theory called climate change. Did I mention there was no consensus back then? It was something that was spoken in whispers by one of the early people who connected the dots. Many new theories, later reaching consensus start that way. Read Kuhn's Nature of Scientific Revolutions, why my comment that science is not a religion

[HuckleB]

225. Except you appear to want to simply make things up and pretend science will support them.

That tends to show us that science appears to be a religion in your hands.

[nadinbrzezinski]

226. Look even if I cited the actual early studies here

You would not believe it. I know doctors are speaking of this as cause. There are early studies on for instance leptein function, and brain function... But those would not matter to you. In the nature of a paradigm shift we are where tobacco was about 1960 and climate change in the 1980s.

At this point I have to conclude you have way too much faith in corporations...I mean it, get a job, you do it well, as a spokesperson you do this FUD business well

[HuckleB]

227. Again, those studies refer to fructose.

Your desire to convolute basic chemistry is ludicrous, as fructose is in all forms of natural sweeteners at the same percentage as HFCS or higher. The science does not support your claims. You are actually the one acting like the tobacco companies, at this point in time. And your attempt to convolute basic chemistry and science with corporations shows that you really aren't here to discuss anything. It is a religion for you, not the other way around. You will propagate any line to push emotion where it has no valid purpose.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-sweetener-wars-hfcs-strikes-back/

[nadinbrzezinski]

235. Making the same FUD arguments

People made over lead in gasoline and paint I see.

[HuckleB]

238. Nope. Your accusation is ludicrous.

Wow.

[nadinbrzezinski]

239. Yes you are

Read that history if you must. I have

[HuckleB]

241. You haven't bothered to understand the topic at hand.

So, I"m not putting any stock in any claims of knowledge by you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

242. Yup, same exact arguments

And trying to discredit were used with lead, tobacco and still used with climate change. You need to get a job. You are good at this business. Alas I recognize it a thousand light years away (figure of speech).

Many other posters do as well. So you think your insult is going to have any effect?

[HuckleB]

243. And more baseless assumptions.

You do realize that you showed everyone that you don't understand this issue at any level, right?

And yet you keep making ludicrous, baseless attacks, as if magic is going to change the reality.

Why would you do that? What purpose does fomenting misinformation and ugly attacks serve you?



http://fafdl.org/blog/2015/05/19/anti-gmo-activists-are-the-ones-practicing-tobacco-science/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/high-fructose-corn-syrup-vs-sugar/2013/06/18/fdbedb90-c488-11e2-914f-a7aba60512a7_story.html

http://www.eatingwell.com/nutrition_health/nutrition_news_information/the_13_biggest_nutrition_and_food_myths_busted?page=3

[nadinbrzezinski]

246. Actually I do

I said that no study would be enough for you. I said you are using the same techniques used in the past by FUD spreaders. You are proving me very correct

[HuckleB]

247. You have already pushed misinformation about the topic, so your claim is rather misleading.

You can push some cherry-picked study, if you want, but you have repeatedly failed to recognize the whole of the scientific evidence, and repeatedly ignored basic chemistry in relation to sugars.

Nice try.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/03/fructose-sugar-hfcs

[nadinbrzezinski]

254. Cherry picked. Yup more corporate FUD

It might work with friends. But this exact language was used in the past as well.

[HuckleB]

257. You seem to think that ignoring the science and crying "corporate FUD!" magically ...

Makes something, well, something or another. That's not how this works. Your behavior is not ok.

[nadinbrzezinski]

267. Mirror and self awareness

[Humanist_Activist]

268. Fructose is present in most foods you eat, thats a fact...

Particularly fruits. You seem to be arguing that it is just as toxic as lead or nicotine/tar, which is obviously not true. Is too much of it bad for you? Yes, of course, thats why we should reduce our consumption of foods that have sugar added and reduce our consumption of refined sugar.

[HuckleB]

269. Excuse me.

Why is it so hard for you to admit you made a mistake?

[Thor_MN]

305. "Skeptical Inquirer" is the sole arbiter of skepticism?

I really doubt that is true... See what I did there?

[womanofthehills]

118. Monsanto should be blamed - Agent Orange, Dioxin, DDT, Roundup, PCB's, rBGH, GMO's

[Humanist_Activist]

140. So now its down to outright lying? Seriously, has there been a single post you have posted...

that isn't devoid of facts?

[womanofthehills]

197. Actually you were lying in one of the posts above

saying levels of glyphosate in food are safe when the levels have never been tested.

[Humanist_Activist]

206. Glyphosate has little toxicity, the levels would have to be extremely high to be toxic to humans....

you are more likely to OD on vitamin D than on glyphosate.

[womanofthehills]

251. You say the levels of glyphosate need to be high

How would we know - The FDA has never tested levels in our food but are being forced to now with their new 5 million dollars worth of glyphosate testing equipment.

[HuckleB]

252. And yet you have no worries about organic pesticides and herbicides...

... not to mention, the more toxic herbicides glyphosate replaced. Somehow, you don't care about having tests for those.

Amazing.

[womanofthehills]

285. What organic pesticide

is worse than chlorpyrifos?

[HuckleB]

292. You've been given links showing that.

Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 11:45 AM - Edit history (1)

Check the LD 50s there, and ask yourself why harm the bees that way?

On edit: Yet more information on the ugliness of natural pesticides: http://risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2015/06/17/save-the-bees-ban-these-two-toxic-pesticides-immediately/

[Humanist_Activist]

255. Youbwould have to drink the concentrate to get measurable health effects....

Unless yoh are eating food with globs of pure glyphosate stuck to them the levels in food is negligable.

[womanofthehills]

280. It seems like our bread supply is getting to that level

Because of drying wheat with glyphosate, bread levels of glyphosate are way way higher than most vegetables. Of course, this is reported by private labs because the FDA has not yet ever tested our food levels of glyphosate. Seems like eggs and milk levels are off the wall too - way more than fruits. Just keep feeding those animals glyphosate and those chickens will keep laying those glyphosate eggs. Yummy

Thank god I have my own chickens and eggs!

[womanofthehills]

199. Why do you accuse me of lying? Agent Orange brought to you by Monsanto and Dow

Agent Orange was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical. It was given its name from the color of the orange-striped barrels in which it was shipped, and was by far the most widely used of the so-called "Rainbow Herbicides".

Wikipedia

[Humanist_Activist]

203. No shit, they were forced to do so by the government, the government even knew the health effects...

and didn't tell them, having exposed their workers to a toxic chemical without their knowledge, and when they cried foul, they were threatened with shutdown if they didn't comply and the herbicide would have been manufactured anyways.

Besides that, here's a key fact, this was in the 1970s, most, if not all current employees and managers at Monsanto weren't exactly working for them then, they were either in school or not born yet. So what you posted, as a meme, is inaccurate, the same people who made Agent Orange for the government are NOT the same people who now currently work at Monsanto. Unless you think its a secret cabal of immortals or something equally ridiculous.

[Nevernose]

83. I'd humbly recommend spending more time w/ skeptics

Most of us are skeptical about damn near everything, but all we mean by "skeptical" is "I wanna see some evidence."

Personally, I reserve my vitriol for faith healers, psychic mediums, and money-making anti-vaxers. I'd guess that other skeptic's triggers are agricultural in nature.

[drm604]

65. Good post.

If I tell people that "big pharma" isn't lying about vaccines, or that genetic modification isn't inherently bad, or that some amount of pesticides are needed to be able to feed the billions of people on this planet I get called a corporate shill when I'm anything but that.

There's plenty of things wrong with the way corporations operate. Big ag is doing terrible things with the way they feed antibiotics to livestock. Infectious bacteria are becoming more and more resistant to even our most powerful antibiotics because of it. And the manufacturers of soap products that contain unnecessary antibacterials add to the problem.

Big pharma abuses the patent system, and they spend millions convincing people to pester their doctors for prescriptions. Don't get me started on the horribly unethical and immoral Opdivo ads.

Do I even need to mention Wall street and the big banks? Do I even need to mention the way corporations dodge taxes?

Just because you and I don't buy into every single criticism doesn't mean that we think corporations are all peaches and cream.

[HuckleB]

67. Indeed. It's astounding to see people just make blanket statements about others.

And there is no reason or justification for those statements. Ih fact, I'm not really sure why they are allowed to be made at DU. There is no good reason for them.

Good post, btw.

[ZombieHorde]

101. I've seen many posts of corporate skepticism.

For example, the corporations that make homeopathic medicine are often put down for making claims that can't be backed up by scientific studies.

[villager]

112. And that post is the perfect example of what I was talking about.

Any other corporations rankle you? Or just Swiss Homeopathic firms?

Could a wee bit of skepticism be warranted anywhere else?

[ZombieHorde]

148. Exxon and the like whom destroy the environment, many banks, etc.,

but that's a bit off topic since we're talking about companies that make claims that are not backed by scientific research.

[villager]

149. Not off-topic at all. The sub-thread topic was "who is skepticism reserved for?"

And of course there are larger issues about "backed by scientific research," since available research in the 70's would have made you a "nut," and an "alarmist," to talk about global warming -- though Exxon already knew different.

Hence, the need for healthy skepticism.

[HuckleB]

151. The addition of the attack on skeptics was without warrant.

In fact, it was rather incoherent, considering the reality what the study actually shows. The fact that none of those who attack skeptics here have bothered to recognize that is rather astounding, and it makes any further concerns that might be offered seem rather disingenuous.

[villager]

155. No -- it was furthering what was stated in the OP, actually.

Additionally -- who gets to define a "skeptic?" What are "skeptics" generally "skeptical" of?

Who gets to anoint certain people as "skeptics" anyway? Etc.

[HuckleB]

156. Thanks for the confirmation.

You just made it clear that you don't really want discussion, as you're not being honest about the ugly pointlessness of the OP's attack, which was an addition that only served to show further ignorance of the data in the study itself. The fact that you are not willing to back away from that says a great deal.

Anyone can call themselves a skeptic. It really doesn't matter. However, if one posts an OP such as this, claiming that a study shows something it does not, it's fairly difficult to get others to believe that you actually care about science.

[villager]

157. " Anyone can call themselves a skeptic." Thanks for the confirmation!

[HuckleB]

159. Oh, goodness. That response is more hilarious than you, apparently, could ever imagine.

I honestly give up with you. I thought you might be able to discuss things on an honest plane, at some point. I guess not.

[villager]

186. No need to disparage my imagination, my friend. I need it for the SF threads...

....where we're not trading barbs.

Or where, at least, you're not slinging them at me! (I'm really trying to ratchet all that down, but I fear discussion does seem precluded between us, alas, on certain subjects...)

Take care!

[HuckleB]

108. Ben Goldacre.

Steven Novella.

Read their work.

[pa28]

179. Interesting how corporate public relations arguments suddenly become the bar of accepted truth.

I've seen it right here on DU on topics ranging from nuclear power, GMO's and of course HFCS.

[HuckleB]

184. Prove it with a consensus of science.

[pa28]

192. Hi HuckleB.

Just for the record I was offering an observation we apparently disagree on so proving would be something I don't really have time for tonight.

Just as a side note your very good post on Cervantes the other day prompted me to re-read the Rime of the Ancient Mariner.

Thanks!

[HuckleB]

210. I'm glad you liked the Cervantes piece.

Please don't make claims you can't support with a consensus of science. Thanks!

[Scootaloo]

231. Well, the OP claims that the fructose in HFCS is "different" from other fructose

Right off the bat, that's not true, because "fructose" is a molecule with a defined structure. If it's different, it's just not fructose.

The OP then argues that because lab rats on a pure fructose diet have impaired concentration and elevated insulin levels, then fructose must be dangerous. Missing of course that both of those conditions are normal for ANYTHING that eats a pure sugar diet.

Now if the argument wwere made that sugary corn syrup doesn't belong in damn near everything, then okay. That's an argument to make, and a warren full of heavily distracted rats with pancreas problems underline that a bit. But the claim is that fructose itself is the dangerous monster, NOT the over-sugaring of processed foods.

[villager]

233. Exactly. So little "skepticism" applied to corporate PR spin....

kinda makes you wonder....

[HuckleB]

270. The only spin here comes from conspiracy theory, anti-science silliness.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge is rather astounding.

[villager]

271. Sure.

Truthfulness can only reside in the halls of financial and political power.

Of course.

[HuckleB]

273. How does this study have anything to do with "the halls of financial and political power?"

It is a study about the effects of DHA. It used fructose as a way to explore possible benefits of DHA. It is a tiny, preliminary study that has nothing to do with HFCS, with financial and political power, or much else, and yet the OP chose to pretend otherwise, and you have chosen to support that ludicrous spin. This is not hard stuff. If you can't back away from this, you have no justification for calling out anyone else on anything. Promoting misinformation is not ok.

[villager]

274. History simply shows that skepticism should generally be levied toward the powerful

...rather than the powerless.

[HuckleB]

275. Generalized platitudes don't support any of your claims.

Last edited Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Is it that hard for you to step down from the pulpit?

Addressing the damage done by organizations promoting pseudoscience remains a necessary action for the true progressive. These organizations have continued to gain power, and their effects are becoming ever more insidious. The anti-GMO movement is now leading to probable increases in the use of pesticides in total, and the use of more toxic products, in general. It is also likely to lead to the use of more land for farming, not something that is going to help with climate change. Its actions keeping food from people in dire need of it, as well as working to keep new foods with supplementation aimed at improving health are astoundingly unethical, and that's being very kind. Even in the US, families now convinced that they must purchase organic or non-GMO products strain budgets to purchase them, even though they offer no added benefit. Scam pseudo-health care providers leave people in distress of various kinds for no good reason for years on end, sometimes keeping them from getting life-saving care. They typically keep people coming back to them for regular "treatments," wasting people's time and resources for no good end, and straining communities for no good end.

We now offer loans in the hundreds of millions for people to get "educations" in naturopathy and acupuncture, two "professions" that have no basis in the real world. Billions of dollars of research dollars are lost to studying long-debunked alt med practices.

And then there is the big business of creating baseless fear of things like HFCS and GMOs by big corporations, fighting one another for an edge in the market place by fomenting ever increasing ignorance of basic nutrition and science.

The harm is large and great, and your depiction of it as something else is not accurate. Skeptics just happen to fight on the same fronts you do when it comes to climate change, corporate malfeasance and the like. We also fight these fronts. Why do you refrain?

[villager]

283. You are free to have as many corn-syrup laden products as you want, HuckleB

...and to give them to your kids, unreservedly.

Same with pesticide-laden food.

I'm simply saying that the word "skeptic" shouldn't be coopted by those always willing to give big business a pass.

[HuckleB]

288. And another pointless throw-away post.

You really went with that old BS? And completely ignored the content of my post?

You are showing that no one has co-opted anything. You're not skeptical, and you don't inquire or question. You just repeat your preconceptions ad nauseum. That won't help the world. It will only do harm.

BTW, I don't serve my kids organic food, so they don't get all those unregulated pesticides. Nor do my kids get much additional sweetener. At least I'm not foolish enough to believe one sweetener is better, however.

[villager]

290. "You just repeat your preconceptions ad nauseum"

Well yes.

That's why discussion with you in these threads is nigh well impossible.

Your very first post to someone is with guns blazing, calling them liars, etc., etc.

So there's no real point to it, is there?

[HuckleB]

291. Not true.

I have engaged you earnestly here, but you have either no desire or ability to discuss the issues on a factual level. You have made the personal attacks, ignored all content that shows your preconceptions for what they are, and on and on. I know how I behaved in the past, but you are still not even trying.

Maybe you could point out that calling people shills and claiming skeptics were wrong about an imaginary topic is not ok. Or would that piss off all your friends too much?

[villager]

294. Well, there at least is a genuine yearning for conversation, it seems, underneath all that.

So, good.

I have certainly used the "shill" word in the past -- and given what we know about paid trolling, it's likely that much shillery exists, including on this site.

Don't take that personally, btw. I'm just noting there is substantial cause for, well, skepticism, when the tenor of many posts seems to be "comforting the comfortable, and afflicting the afflicted," as it were.

But that is not this thread, my dear HuckleB. I don't believe I myself have used the shill word here. My main point in joining in was to riff off the OP -- to note how the use of "skeptic" has been allowed to be co-opted (kind of like "pro life," actually), and is often used by those who... well, aren't nearly skeptical enough about the pronouncements coming out of the corridors of power.

But none of this is directed at you here -- I was stopping by this thread to note my own views on the use of the "skeptic" noun.

And the thing with so many "facts" when it comes to Big Food is that so many are... fungible, depending on the funding of the study, who's doing it, the potential profit (or loss of same) involved, etc. (As noted, it would have been a "fact" in the 70's and 80's that the effects of global warming were a century or so away -- only "eco-nuts," etc., were saying otherwise).

And my basic view of food, btw, jibes with Michael Pollen's: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

I think there is too much sweetener -- mostly artificial, nearly all of it refined one way or another -- in too many products, most of them scarcely qualifying as "dessert."

And I think it's not a coincidence that so much stealth "additioning" to our foodstuffs jibes with a massive obesity epidemic.

I hope that explains most of where I'm coming from on these issues.

Be well!

[HuckleB]

295. Just FYI.

I am currently without an actual keyboard, but I will respond when I have one to use.

[Thor_MN]

306. Does the OP not use "skeptics" as a pejorative for those who actually understand science?

Tell me if I'm wrong here but the OP is the one co-opting "skeptic".

[villager]

310. It was a riposte to those self-anointed "skeptics" who sought to keep the term to themselves

...regardless of what things they chose to be "skeptical" about.

[HuckleB]

311. Indeed, and, as it turned out, in a rather ironic manner.

[HuckleB]

312. It does explain where you are coming from...

... however, I don't see anyone who subscribes to skepticism "comforting the comfortable," etc... And I am always going to be rather suspicious of the reasons so many will choose fear mongering over actual science. That's where one has to consider the motivations of the other poster, IMO. Further, comparing climate change to the science on agriculture and nutrition is simply a way to ignore the science. In this case, we have understood how sugars work for a long, long time. There is no magically hidden information that chemists around the world are keeping hidden. The "science was wrong" gambit does not hold water. It will lead to one thing: bad decisions.

[villager]

313. Well, we disagree, though in a non-incendiary manner, at least.

We appear to come equipped with different sets of "suspicions," for whatever reasons of cultural and historical contexts, etc. (I believe I have a few years on you, demographically...)

I think a lot of "science" is kept from us, of course -- hence the use of the salient climate change example. My point being: They let us have the "science" they want us to have.

I also think there's a lot we have yet to learn about the interplay between the chemical baths we are routinely subjected to, both internally (our food) and externally (everything else).

And I think there's a rather staggering profit motive at work to keep the "pure" science... less than pure. And to shunt "inconvenient" findings aside.

In any case, we know we disagree on various fundamentals in these discussions. Perhaps knowing that, we can approach each other's posts with less irascibility, since it's dubious either of us will "change" the other in an online discussion thread.

Besides, heated discussion threads just cut into pleasure reading time, que no?

[HuckleB]

321. I agree with your last comment/question to no end.

I do need to get back to the books for my own mental health.

Have you read any Valeria Luiselli? Or have we already touched on that?

[villager]

322. If you mentioned that name in one our "outside" threads, I forgot.

Huh -- just looked her up. Thanks for putting her on my radar!

[procon]

28. Other countries don't use high-fructose corn syrup in their product.

In California, most supermarkets stock a lot of products made in Mexico or imported from other South American countries. Things like carbonated drinks, even big brands like Coke, are made with different ingredients and use real sugar instead of HFCS... they taste much sweeter to me. If I don't bake my own, there are lots of different Mexican brands of cookies to choose from that are made with sugar.

HFCS is in many products you would even suspect would need a sweetener added, and it can also be disguised under many other trade names to fool consumers. To avoid it entirely, you'd need to be extremely vigilant about everything you ate, or cook everything from scratch using fresh ingredients and nothing that was processed.

[Thor_MN]

81. And neither did the study. HFCS is not in this study.

Bringing up HFCS in the discussion of this study is a total tangent, and would indicate a general lack of knowledge about sugars.

[procon]

89. It's my choice, yeah?

I avoid most processed foods. I don't want foods with loads of salt or sweeteners, fats, preservatives, added chemicals or fillers. I like to cook, and I know the ingredients I use are as fresh as I can find, and even though I may suffer from a deplorable "lack of knowledge about sugars", my Lemon Sugar Cookies are great.

[Thor_MN]

90. I hear Cooking and Baking is a good forum.

The study in the OP has nothing to do with what you just professed. It was a study on how fructose (and only fructose) affects mammals. It said nothing about HFCS, processed foods, salt, preservatives, added chemicals or sweeteners.

[procon]

94. Don't act like the forum police and try to tell me where I can post and what I can write about.

If you don't like what I write, SOB, use ignore if it really sticks in your craw that much. I don't know what your purpose is in arguing over an incidental comment about food ingredients, but maybe your real issues lay elsewhere, yeah?

[Thor_MN]

95. You are actually calling me a son of a bitch?

Wow, you must not have anything to say but personal attacks.

Don't try to act like the forum police and try to tell me where I can post and write about comments that have nothing to do with the OP.

See how that works? We both get opinions.

Mine are based in facts, you seem to have comments unrelated to the topic at hand or personal insults.

[procon]

96. LOL - SOB is just Internet jargon for Scroll On By

OMG... that was great! Thanks for the laugh, even if it did startle my poor cat.

[Thor_MN]

97. OK, but you do see how it works. We both get opinions.

[womanofthehills]

121. You are really projecting

You only like the personal attacks when you are doing them.

[Thor_MN]

154. Do you have anything constructive to contribute or are you just here to insult?

Feel free to jump in with any facts.

As for personal attacks, I don't care for them, but will call out idiots who don't have a fact to stand on and resort to insults.

[womanofthehills]

120. Well it's in the headline of this study

Seems like putting people down is your thing. Isn't that a sign of the personality disordered?

[Thor_MN]

158. No, it is not, you are 100% wrong. Please try reading it again.

"Fructose alters hundreds of brain genes, which can lead to a wide range of diseases" is the title of the article. The title of the study was not in the article.

The subject of the study was fructose, and only fructose. HFCS was not in the study.

It was in the title of the OP, not the study. And it being in the OP is, as I stated anti-HFCS woo mongers misinterpreting the study.

The study compared water, fructose in water, fructose in water with an Omega3 fatty acid. No HFCS. No sucrose.

One really needs to read before one starts making claims that fructose is HFCS.

[Scootaloo]

228. Other countries don't have enormous corn subsidies, either

HFCS, like most corn products in the US, is essentially cost-free to produce.

[Fast Walker 52]

35. fructose has long been known to be toxic, this isn't really new. ALSO, most sugar has fructose

Common granulated sugar is half fructose.

HFCS is only somewhat worse because is processed differently and more fructose is broken away from the sucrose molecule.

[GaYellowDawg]

69. Wrong on almost all counts.

First, fructose has not "long been known to be toxic." Fructose is actually present in most fruits. Like anything else, excessive fructose intake has consequences. In smaller amounts, it generally is split into two 3-carbon chemicals by the liver that can either help replenish glycogen or build triglycerides. In larger amounts, after glycogen is replenished, the excess will mainly be converted to triglycerides, which are the body's method of fat storage. It's no surprise, then, that excessive amounts of HFCS can readily cause obesity, but fructose is not toxic.

Second, many sugars - and many carbohydrates - don't have fructose as a subunit. Table sugar (sucrose) does. Maltose does not. Lactose does not. Starch does not. Soluble fiber does not.

Common granulated sugar is half fructose. It's a disaccharide, meaning that each sucrose molecule is made up of one glucose and one fructose. So you got that one right.

HCFS is a little worse than sucrose, but not for the reason you described. HFCS contains glucose and fructose separately, not combined into a disaccharide. Therefore, in HFCS, no fructose "is broken away from the sucrose molecule." The only difference in processing is that sucrose requires an additional step which involves splitting it into glucose and fructose by using the enzyme sucrase. However, the metabolic cost for that is negligible. The reason why HCFS is worse is because its fructose content is 5% higher than sucrose. Therefore, someone who consumes a lot of sweet stuff will tend to gain adipose tissue slightly faster. Of course, this effect becomes more pronounced as someone consumes more HFCS.

[Fast Walker 52]

92. wow, you basically just rewrote everything I said, but I'm glad we agree overall

As far as fructose being toxic, what I meant is that there have been papers in the literature for a long time that excess fructose can cause metabolic disorders such as insulin insensitivity.

[Ferd Berfel]

36. There is plenty of Science out there that corborates this.

I have been actively eliminating HFCS from my diet for 5 years or so. It's poison. I read labels on everything I can. It wipe out my Hot Fudge sundaes until I found trader Joes (I hope they arent' lying on the label )

Problem is that this shit is everywhere.

But again I"ve had to argue with Clintonistas who don't need to know what's in our food.

[GaYellowDawg]

70. It's not poison.

HFCS is not toxic unless someone's body has difficulty clearing glucose from the bloodstream. It is harmful in excess. It is not harmful in small amounts. Not at all. Its main risk for Americans as compared to sucrose comes from increased fat deposition. However, the difference between consuming sucrose and consuming HFCS isn't massive. The main problem is that HFCS is, as you said, everywhere and that people don't read food labels, thereby taking in more sugars than they think they are. It's better to read labels and try to reduce all sugar intake and reduce calories than anything else. Obviously, you've been smart about it! I've lost 105 pounds in the last couple of years with just diet modification, and the most dramatic change came when I really cut back on all refined sugars - HFCS, sucrose, and starch. The thing is, though, I think that expressing positions on something like this becomes a lot more accurate when terms are properly used, and HFCS isn't a poison. It's bad for you in excess, but hell, so is water.

[Ferd Berfel]

71. Suggest you read up on HFCS a little more.

You're a Clinton Supporter aren't you?

[GaYellowDawg]

73. LOL...

What I am is a college human anatomy and physiology professor, and I teach an entire chapter on carbohydrate, protein, and lipid anabolism and catabolism. I can give you the specific metabolic pathways in which fructose and glucose are metabolized. I know exactly what HFCS is, and exactly how it differs from sucrose. I suggest you consider that people who correct you are more highly educated and not necessarily political opponents.

[HuckleB]

78. +1

[Maedhros]

334. Ah, GaYellowdawg, facts are meaningless!

You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.

[TexasProgresive]

37. Of course our bodies don't metabolize fructose and glucose in the same way.

from an article at Diabetic Connect web site on the differences in sugars and how the body treats them.
Understanding Glucose, Fructose, and Sucrose
http://www.diabeticconnect.com/diabetes-information-articles/general/1566-understanding-glucose-fructose-and-sucrose
snip of the part on fructose:

Fructose is another carbohydrate, but it does not result in the same spikes in blood sugar or insulin as glucose consumption. This carbohydrate is a natural sugar found in many fruits, vegetables and honey. It is the sweetest of the naturally occurring caloric sweeteners. Many people think of high fructose corn syrup when they hear fructose, but HFCS actually resembles sucrose more than fructose.

Fructose differs from other sugars because it has a separate metabolic pathway and is not the preferred energy source for the brain or muscles. It is only metabolized in the liver, depending on an enzyme called fructokinase to kick-start metabolism. The biggest difference between glucose and fructose: Fructose does not cause insulin to be released or stimulate the production of leptin, an important hormone for balancing energy levels.

There is some connection between high regular consumption of fructose and elevated triglycerides. Triglycerides are a fat made up of 3 sugar molecules. When drug companies want to test if a drug will reduce triglycerides on rats they give the rats water with 10% fructose. Triglycerides ramp right up. There are indications that high triglycerides can contribute to type2 diabetes, fatty liver disease and other complications.

An anecdotal case: myself, I was running triglycerides of 550+ when they should be below 150. After a few years of this I developed type 2 diabetes. Does one thing have to do with the other? I really don't know, but I have strong suspicions. Was there a behavior contributing to my high triglyceride levels? Again I don't know but I was consuming up to a 6 pack of CocaCola daily sweetened with HFCS.

[GaYellowDawg]

72. A little correction...

Triglycerides are a fat molecule made up of one glycerol and three fatty acids. However, what you said about fructose elevating triglycerides is absolutely correct. You can also add coronary heart disease to the list that high triglycerides can contribute to.

HFCS doesn't really resemble sucrose more than fructose unless you're talking about the proportions of glucose and fructose. Sucrose is a disaccharide composed of one glucose and one fructose bound together; therefore, sucrose is very quickly metabolized to 50% glucose and 50% fructose. HFCS is 55% fructose, 45% glucose, unbound. The body does not have to separate the two.

[Thor_MN]

85. You were consuming up to 60 cubes of sugar a day.

It wouldn't matter if you were eating cubes of "pure cane sugar" or drinking HFCS Coke, you were consuming a lot of sugar.

Glucose is "blood sugar", it does not need to be metabolized for the body to use it. As soon as you consume glucose it's being absorbed and used. Fructose has to go to the liver, where it is converted for use. Up to half of fructose is converted to glucose, a quarter to lactate and 15% to glycogen. Fructose can be used in the liver, to make a substance that the mitochondria can use to make triglyceride.

There doesn't need to be any suspicions, eat enough sugars and your body will make TG with the excess.

[TexasProgresive]

91. Maybe, if so why do they feed the Wistar fatty rats fructose to elevate TGs?

Why not use sucrose or dextrose or glucose. They always use fructose. About my case, I drank that many cokes for years without high Triglycerides; they came with the move by Coke to sweeten with HFCS and not sucrose. Probably doesn't mean anything but that's my experience.

[Thor_MN]

93. Because fructose is processed in the liver and used to create TGs.

Your question boils down to why don't they use half fructose, half glucose; glucose or glucose?

Sucrose is only half fructose, so could be used, but not as effective. The other half is glucose, not processed in the liver, so useless in studying TG. Dextrose is simply one form of glucose, so again useless in studying TG. Glucose has two mirror image forms, dextrose is the "right handed" form.

Your age probably is involved, Coke's use of HFCS is probably not. Your triglycerides were probably high for years.

the HFCS55 that is used in soda does contain a bit more fructose than sucrose does - 55% vs. 50%. Granulated table sugar is a disaccharide, one molecule of glucose, one molecule of fructose, joined together. Almost immediately when placed in water, the two sugar molecules separate as the sugar dissolves. Coke with sucrose has about 19.5 g of fructose, with HFC, about 21.5 g of fructose. Your daily consumption probably varied more than the difference between sucrose and HFCS. So while you did get more fructose with HFCS Coke and it probably did raise your triglyceride levels slightly, but it certainly did not put your TGs at 550+ from under 150...

[TexasProgresive]

132. I did not test out of normal until after the switch to HFCS.

[Thor_MN]

150. Did you not age before the switch to HFCS?

Did you test high the day after you drank your first coke with HFCS and tested normal the day before?

You are assigning blame, just like the anti-vax parents blaming their child's autism on vaccines.

You started getting a bit more fructose with HFCS, but it did not raise your TG levels to 550+ from under 150. Your diet, age and genetics did that.

[TexasProgresive]

165. I guess you have to be right

I told of my experience. Regardless of the cause of high triglycerides it happened as I said. I don't consume either HFCS or sucrose as I am now type 2 diabetic. My triglycerides are 98 now. So if it makes you feel good, you win.

[Thor_MN]

168. Guess what? I am taking Metformin for Type 2 diabetes as of 4 months ago.

I don't drink soda in general. If I do, it's diet soda. I know that the reason is my age, my diet, exercise level and genetics.

Neither of us are winners in that regard.

[mdbl]

38. Good lecture on fructose

[link:

|

[greymattermom]

42. I know the author of this work

and it's first rate. He has done a lot of interesting studies of effects of nutrition on brain function and recovery from brain injury.

[trotsky]

45. Sugar is half fructose.

You know that, right?

[AxionExcel]

68. Corn Syrup Has Nastier Effects Than Sugar On Female Mice - Reuters

"Reuters) - Corn syrup was found to be more toxic to female mice than table sugar, shortening their lives and cutting their rate of reproduction, according to a study by University of Utah researchers published online in a scientific journal on Monday.

"The research, funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, is among the first to differentiate between the effects of the fructose-glucose mixture found in corn syrup and sucrose, or table sugar, said University of Utah biology professor Wayne Potts, senior author of the paper.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/06/corn-syrup-mice_n_6420390.html

[trotsky]

87. Did you know sugar is half fructose?

Did you know apples contain fructose?

Will you refrain from eating apples?

[AxionExcel]

134. Yes. I also know that apples aren't manufactured from GMO corn raised in glyphosate-soaked fields

...and then concentrated into slimey, syrupy goop in manufacturing plants, goop that is then surreptitiously injected into all kinds of corporate industrial substances marketed as food.

Please pass me a nice, fresh, crisp, juicy organic apple, and hold the crappy, sickening artificial High Fructose Corn Syrup (HCFS) with glyphosate residue.

[trotsky]

136. Could you demonstrate the chemical difference between fructose in HFCS...

and fructose in an apple? There must be a huge one given what you are saying here.

[AxionExcel]

138. Please hire a lab to conduct the experiment you require

Last edited Wed Apr 27, 2016, 03:51 PM - Edit history (1)

I - and many millions of others - already know quite enough to cause us to avoid the industrial HFCS goop.

[trotsky]

143. It's already been done.

Fructose in HFCS and fructose in an apple are chemically identical.

I realize that you won't accept this.

[Major Nikon]

161. And yet he accepts chemtrails

Very telling that.

[AxionExcel]

221. Warning Warning Warning

You have mentioned a FORBIDDEN TOPIC.

Such a 'thing' may not be spoken of. Not to be discussed. Some pea-brained jerkhole living in his mother's basement may very well ALERT on you for having mentioned a FORBIDDEN TOPIC.

Please be careful. Lots of small-minded wankers out there on the intertoobs.

[Major Nikon]

222. I see you're still butthurt over getting banned for pushing chemtrail nonsense

So you just reappear in zombie form and move on to other crazytalk.

[trotsky]

253. OHHHHHH

That's who he is.

Thanks. Explains a lot.

[Pastiche423]

200. +1

Whoop, whoop, whoop!

[tonyt53]

52. Remember "New Coke"

Remember when Coke changed their formula several years back? The "old" Coke was sweetened with cane sugar, the new Coke, well, who knows. People hated the New Coke, so Coke changed the formula back to the old blend. EXCEPT, instead of using sugar, they used high fructose corn syrup. Pepsi switched a few month later and nobody cared.

[Major Nikon]

60. ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke#Conspiracy_theories

[HuckleB]

75. +1

[womanofthehills]

119. Mexican coke in bottles still has sugar

If I have a coke, it's the only kind I will drink.

[Thor_MN]

307. Yeah... About that. A study done in California showed no real difference in Mexican coke.

http://goranlab.com/pdf/Ventura%20Obesity%202010-sugary%20beverages.pdf

It showed that Mexican coke (at least in the sample they bought retail) has essentially the same mixture of fructose and glucose as American coke. Two possibilities:

1. HFCS was used in Mexico and their labeling laws don't care.

2. The phosphoric acid in Coke hydrolyzed the sucrose (disaccharide) into the constituent monosaccharides, glucose and fructose.

Either way, drinking Mexican coke (made with pure cane sugar) is the same as far as your body is concerned.

I wish they had added "Throwback" sodas - American made, with sugar instead of HFCS.

About the only advantage to Mexican coke was that it has a little less total sugar.

[Scootaloo]

76. No one has ever said "all sugars are the same"

For instance, here's a big stack of sugar right here:



Cellulose, from top to bottom. Pure sugar. I could tell you about my problems with lactose (another sugar) if you like?


However, the cellulose in those books is the same as the cellulose in the celery you find in your tuna salad. Lactose from cow milk is the same as lactose from ferret milk. Fructose from corn is the same as fructose from raw honey. This is because sugars are chemical compounds like any other, with a defined, regular molecular structure.

And of course rats fed pure fructose are going to have impaired thinking and heightened insulin levels. That's what happens when you ram any living thing full of fructose. The rat's on a sugar high and its pancreas is whipping out insulin to break down all the fructose you fed it. These aren't dire revelations, they're physiology 101a.

[uriel1972]

86. How dare you bring reason to an emotional debate...

[Ilsa]

82. Roughly 10 years ago, there was research indicating that

HFCS turned off (or on) an enzyme in the brain which is supposed to help regulate our sensation of having had enough dessert or other sweets. HFCS tended to cause a positive feedback loop, IIRC, meaning you'd want more and more, instead of feeling sated and "done".

Of course this research was buried. And then the ads claiming HFCS was the same as sugar were introduced on TV.

[HuckleB]

110. Links?

[Ilsa]

126. I've tried to find them. My apologies. Nt

[BuddhaGirl]

139. The studies were about the hormone leptin, which signals the feeling of satiety.

It isn't activated when eating the crap sweetener like HFCS.

[HuckleB]

142. It's related to fructose, which is in table sugar at the same basic amount as HFCS.

And it's a much greater portion of agave.

Your post is not accurate, yet again. You have to know that, so why do you post inaccuracies, anyway?

[BuddhaGirl]

146. Then don't pay any attention to it

Maybe you can stick to complaining about such posts in your other forum

[HuckleB]

152. Why would you promote misinformation?

And why should anyone simply ignore it?

[Major Nikon]

160. Nobody does

The claim that it was "buried" is laughable. If it were relevant, then it would be cited by other research and meta-analysis. The fact that it isn't should be telling you something.

[Ilsa]

144. Thank you! nt

[BuddhaGirl]

145. You're welcome!

[Humanist_Activist]

141. Uhm, fructose is a sugar, are you claiming ohterwise? Table sugar is about half fructose...

as has been pointed out.

[milestogo]

88. Eat. Real. Food.

[yellowcanine]

100. I don't know what that means. Honey is real food with as much fructose as HFCS.

So is honey better than HFCS since it occurs naturally but HFCS is manufactured? You tell me.

[HuckleB]

109. Don't. Post. Derp.

[womanofthehills]

122. Rude as usual

[HuckleB]

130. Get a mirror.

Last edited Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Why do you continually promote scam corporations? That's no ok.

And what's rude is making baseless assertions in an OP, having them debunked, and then ignoring the OP completely. That's what happened here, and it's not ok, either.

[felix_numinous]

114. Olive Garden is having a special

Pit of bull salad with corn flake chicken and a Diet Coke, for Mother's Day, nursing mothers get in for free

[womanofthehills]

123. And lucky children - all you can eat!

I bet that pit bull ate GMO dog food with glyphosate to make him taste especially good!

[nadinbrzezinski]

162. Well DUH! And we have sort of the proof in the pudding

in this major non voluntary human study we have been running,

[HuckleB]

170. What are you talking about?

[nadinbrzezinski]

171. IN case you have not heard

Adult metabolic syndrome rates are up

Diabetes is way up

Chrons is up

Celiac is up.

So is obesity (Leptein cycle)

Many doctors are starting to connect the dots and some of the studies have been posted. Suffice to say, I expect this to go the way of big tobacco. Perhaps even with hearings and everything. You might want to look into spokesperson for the association though, you do it well.

But at one point speaking heresy against the health benefits of tobacco was well career ending too

[HuckleB]

172. So...?

The OP still has nothing to do with that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

173. Ok

[HuckleB]

174. So you think it's cool to spread misinformation.

Got it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

191. Nah, just that science is not a religion

And research is starting to show those connections.

Trust me, they need you as spokesperson, so we can be shamed, but particularly doctors who are connecting those dots and starting to speak about it.

[Humanist_Activist]

208. What dots, what connections? What are you talking about? n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

218. Read tje thread. And tobacco's downfall started the same way

[Humanist_Activist]

260. Uhm, tobacco's downfall started at attempting to cover up the health effects of tobacco...

A product that is unhealthy at any dose. Fructose is a naturally occuring sugar that we eat too much of, as far as I'm aware of, this is true of all refined sugar. Doctor's and nutritionists have been talking about it for decades. There is no secret conspiracy or collusion involved. But we can't avoid ingesting it entirely, the key is moderation in eating.

[HuckleB]

213. Science is not a religion, but your connections claim is unsupported.

[nadinbrzezinski]

219. You'll see

Tobacco's downfall started this way

[HuckleB]

224. You really are just making it up. WOW!

Anti-GMO activists are the ones practicing “tobacco science”.
http://fafdl.org/blog/2015/05/19/anti-gmo-activists-are-the-ones-practicing-tobacco-science/

Actual science understood the issues with tobacco long before the tobacco companies admitted it. Actual science understands the issues with the lies that the anti-GMO industry spreads, and yet you think that some magic will change that.

[villager]

187. That would have been just as "lunatic" as claiming global warming was coming, in the 70's and 80's

"Skeptics" would have doubted you -- backed by corporate-provided science....

[nadinbrzezinski]

190. I remember a course at San Diego State in 1986 that mentioned it

It did stick a sense of curiosity in my mind

[villager]

193. I wrote a play about it in the 80's! Even among "edgy" theater folk, they thought it was kind of

..."charmingly" far-out, and certainly not something they'd ever see in their own lifetimes...

[nadinbrzezinski]

194. Some here still call it dystopia

Never, ever gonna happen. Except it is. Year round fire seasons, long droughts, year round tornadoes...nothing to see here

[villager]

195. Certainly not at Titanic Underground

...where character assassination is much more important in the run-up to a Presidency which will be a disregarded historical footnote... if climate change remains ignored...

[nadinbrzezinski]

220. True

The chairs are being rearranged on the deck as we speak.

[Humanist_Activist]

207. Its a long assed study, how long have we been refining sugar? Few hundred years at least...

I mean, if you want to put the blame on those nefarious, "hidden" HFCS, that's fine, but generally speaking pouring honey into your coffee in the morning is not any better for you.

Too much refined sugar is bad for you, BREAKING FUCKING NEWS!!!!!!!

Problem is too many damned people are apathetic about their health, and the biggest issue is they don't care, they drink their sodas and eat a lot of processed food with far too much fat, carbs and sugar in them, and they become obese, some become diabetic, etc. This isn't a big secret, doctors and other health professionals have been harping on this for decades.

[northernsouthern]

178. Lies!!!!

This post was paid for by the loving and benevolent High-Fructose Corn Syrup Board...now shut up and drink your corn!

[HuckleB]

181. So you don't know anything about the topic.

Got it.

[northernsouthern]

185. I do actually...

My lady is a very educated nurse that loves to talk about this and several PHDs in our families that are all in Genetics bio medical fields. You however may not know what over the top sarcasm is. :p You did notice the text of my thread right? This is something that many of us knew, and it has been painful to watch the arguments go round and round on it because they have money involved in the studies. Many Diabetics also know about it because they are finding how it makes it worse. https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Research/Research-round-up/Behind-the-headlines/High-fructose-corn-syrup-fuelling-diabetes/

[HuckleB]

211. If you know so much, why are you pushing propaganda?

HDCS and table sugar do the same things. Pretending otherwise is promoting scientific ignorance.

[Act_of_Reparation]

240. So, in other words, no you don't.

You know people you think are knowledgeable about this stuff, but you yourself are not.

[Zorra]

234. Never touch the stuff, never fed it to the kids, and the kids never feed it to the

grandkids.

Everyone is very healthy, and we ain't gonna fix it if it ain't broke.

[HuckleB]

244. None of you have ever had fructose?

Really? Ever?

[Act_of_Reparation]

264. What, you don't believe them?

Lots of people have never consumed fruit, berries, honey, flowers, or root vegetables.

Like this guy:

[HuckleB]

265. Hey, wait a second.

Isn't that guy related to the snake in the apple tree?

[Humanist_Activist]

261. You know, I'll be honest, it is much healthier to avoid refined sugar, no joke...

You don't need to add sweeteners to your food if you don't want to. If more people did that, type 2 diabetes would disappear.

[ananda]

236. Bad carbs are bad carbs.

The Zone diet really works.

[Rex]

397. I think the quotation marks and the asterisk kinda cancel each other out.

[HuckleB]

400. And the fact that the OP failed to defend his claims is odd.