Hi Fructose Corn Syrup

[false_Aest]

Ya'll probably stay away from this stuff anyways . . . BUT . . . .

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091029211521.htm

A diet high in fructose increases the risk of developing high blood pressure (hypertension), according to a paper being presented at the American Society of Nephrology's 42nd Annual Meeting and Scientific Exposition in San Diego, California. The findings suggest that cutting back on processed foods and beverages that contain high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) may help prevent hypertension.

Over the last 200 years, the rate of fructose intake has directly paralleled the increasing rate of obesity, which has increased sharply in the last 20 years since the introduction of HFCS. Today, Americans consume 30% more fructose than 20 years ago and up to four times more than 100 years ago, when obesity rates were less than 5%. While this increase mirrors the dramatic rise in the prevalence of hypertension, studies have been inconsistent in linking excess fructose in the diet to hypertension.

Diana Jalal, MD (University of Colorado Denver Health Sciences Center), and her colleagues studied the issue in a large representative population of US adults. They examined 4,528 adults 18 years of age or older with no prior history of hypertension. Fructose intake was calculated based on a dietary questionnaire, and foods such as fruit juices, soft drinks, bakery products, and candy were included. Dr. Jalal's team found that people who ate or drank more than 74 grams per day of fructose (2.5 sugary soft drinks per day) increased their risk of developing hypertension. Specifically, a diet of more than 74 grams per day of fructose led to a 28%, 36%, and 87% higher risk for blood pressure levels of 135/85, 140/90, and 160/100 mmHg, respectively. (A normal blood pressure reading is below 120/80 mmHg.)

"These results indicate that high fructose intake in the form of added sugars is significantly and independently associated with higher blood pressure levels in the US adult population with no previous history of hypertension," the authors concluded. Additional studies are needed to see if low fructose diets can normalize blood pressure and prevent the development of hypertension.

Study co-authors include Richard Johnson, MD, Gerard Smits, PhD, and Michel Chonchol, MD (University of Colorado Denver Health Sciences Center). Dr. Richard Johnson reports a conflict of interest as the author of "The Sugar Fix." The authors report no other financial disclosures.

The study abstract, "Increased Fructose Intake is Independently Associated with Elevated Blood Pressure. Findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2006)," (TH-FC037) was presented as part of a Free Communications Session during the American Society of Nephrology's 42nd Annual Meeting and Scientific Exposition on Oct. 29 at the San Diego Convention Center in San Diego, CA.

[buck-50]

someone with a better knowledge of science help me out here- is this study saying that HFCS is especially bad for you, or just that it's overly abundant in food today, or both?

[Ahneida Ride]

Coke used to have SUGAR !!!! and it tasted great ...

Now its HFCS and it tastes like a Sergio Walmarto Huffy. :crap:

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

and now New York State wants to tax me if I buy a soda !

[R2D2]

Coke used to have SUGAR !!!! and it tasted great ...

Now its HFCS and it tastes like a Sergio Walmarto Huffy. :crap:

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

and now New York State wants to tax me if I buy a soda !
Coke from Mexico still has sugar. And sells in some grocery stores now.

[Ozz]

Coke from Mexico still has sugar. And sells in some grocery stores now.
you can get it at Costco...

I'm guessing that a person with a diet high in HFCS does not manage their diet very well overall....poor foods, overeating, etc. This could also mean they don't care much about their phyical condition, which then means they probably don't get enough exercise.

Targeting one food ingredient as having a "cause-effect" relationship on overall health sounds pretty iffy....but it makes a nice sound-bite as a teaser for the 11:00 "news". :rolleyes:

Cheers.

[dogdriver]

Coke from Mexico still has sugar. And sells in some grocery stores now.

Yeah-- we're lucky enough to have a Latin grocery in town. Real Coke (with sugar) and the best street tacos this side of Guadalajara...

[Pete Serotta]

HFCS is worse for you but better for the manufacturers for it is CHEAPER!!!

[toaster]

The food industry uses it way too much because it is cheap. Consumers end up with heavily marketed food items that are nothing more than artificial color, flavor, and HFCS.

What these items do to hormone response (mainly insulin and cortisol) in humans is of concern even with an otherwise "good diet", IMHO.

[zott28]

I highly recommend reading In Defense of Food, it'll change the way to think about things you eat. It talks about how the food industry bought off the Government to change the meaning of artificial food. And how every where the Western diet has goes it starts to kill groups off, and gives them health problem that they never had before.


http://www.michaelpollan.com/indefense.php

[Ray]

I highly recommend reading In Defense of Food, it'll change the way to think about things you eat. It talks about how the food industry bought off the Government to change the meaning of artificial food. And how every where the Western diet has goes it starts to kill groups off, and gives them health problem that they never had before.


http://www.michaelpollan.com/indefense.php
And for a better understanding of how our whole food production and distribution system works (and doesn't), "An Omnivore's Dilemna", also by Pollen, is a fascinating read. Bottom line, stay out of the middle of the supermarket - stick to the edges when you need something you can't get from a local farmer. HFCS is bad stuff, but so is the vast majority of beef, which comes from cows raised on corn, which they're genetically unable to process! Its a really frucked up mess of a system that results in cheap food, but lousy food. And the milk that comes from corn fed cows, etc etc etc. Corn is in EVERYthing in one form or another and is best avoided to the extent possible. An occasional ear of corn on the cob is nice in the summer, but we eat the stuff in almost every bite of food and its not good.

-Ray

[sg8357]

HFCS is worse for you but better for the manufacturers for it is CHEAPER!!!

'Cause you as a taxpayer subsidize ADM with tax credits and there are tariffs on cane sugar imports. Plus we can't import Evil Commie Sugar from Cuba.

gory details here.....
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Sugar/Policy.htm

[RPS]

I'm guessing that a person with a diet high in HFCS does not manage their diet very well overall....poor foods, overeating, etc. This could also mean they don't care much about their phyical condition, which then means they probably don't get enough exercise.

Targeting one food ingredient as having a "cause-effect" relationship on overall health sounds pretty iffy....but it makes a nice sound-bite as a teaser for the 11:00 "news". :rolleyes:

You nailed it.

We know people who eat more get fatter, and we also know that people who eat more generally also eat more HFCS.
We also know people who are fatter are more likely to have hypertension. The fact that we eat more HFCS than ever before -- along with a lot of other stuff -- doesn't mean much unless it is studied properly.

That HFCS consumption is the primary cause of high blood pressure has not been supported by scientific data. That’s why the article says “MAY help prevent hypertension”. On that basis anyone can conclude that eating apples or drinking tea “MAY” lead to hypertension.

[buck-50]

'Cause you as a taxpayer subsidize ADM with tax credits and there are tariffs on cane sugar imports. Plus we can't import Evil Commie Sugar from Cuba.

gory details here.....
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Sugar/Policy.htm
To be fair to ADM, almost everything grown for consumption in the United States is subsidized with taxpayer dollars. I have a friend who receives a small check every year from the federal government as reimbursement for the tobacco he's not growing (and never plans to grow).

Apparently, this kind of socialism is A OK with the hard right.

But basically, agricultural policy in the US is a mess.

[malcolm]

Omnivore's dilemma should be read by every person able to read a book in the country. In defense of food probably wouldn't hurt either.

HFCS is not inherently evil and probably no worse than consuming a similar amount of other sweetner, calorically speaking. It is just the engineering and manufacture of it and the fact that it appears in virtually everything coming from a box or package which is where a large part of our country gets the preponderance of their calories.

[RPS]

An occasional ear of corn on the cob is nice in the summer, but we eat the stuff in almost every bite of food and its not good.

-RayYet we live longer than ever before. ;)

Could be for other reasons in spite of HFCS, like advances in health care. If that were the case, do we want people to live even longer, and at what cost?

[nicrump]

put this one in your netflix queue

http://www.kingcorn.net/

[McQueen]

Of course one of the other sides of the debate between the two (which I also picked up from 'Omnivores Dilemma') is the problem with the environment/sustainability of sugar cane if we were to try and replace everything with cane sugar. I think the production of sugar cane ends up wiping out tropical rainforest/leads to runoff in the oceans, etc. (trying to remember what all the issues were) Point is, we need less sugar period, in whatever form it comes in..

Best quote I heard in the last couple of months (in regards to eating healthy vs junk food)..

If you aren't hungry enough to eat an apple, then you arent' hungry.

[Hardlyrob]

RPS is right - correlation does not equal causality...

99% of cancer patients watch color television...coincidence - I don't think so! It's all a government plot!

I've posted on the HFCS discussions before, and as an industry insider (in BIG food since 1985 on both the technical and marketing sides), there is nothing inherently wrong with HFCS - it was developed in the 1960's to meet a need - cheaper sweeteners.

Cane sugar is protected as a "strategic" commodity by import tariffs that put the price in the US at about $0.30/lb. The "world" price is about $0.19/lb. HFCS has two advantages as a sweetener - one it is cheaper than the "world" price of sugar at about $0.16 per equivalent pound, and two it is a liquid - which is much easier to handle in a food processing plant (yes you can get "liquid sugar" which is made from cane or beet sugar, but you start at $0.30/lb and add processing cost from there).

We would use a lot more cane sugar in the US if we could grow it here. We do produce a lot of beet sugar from sugar beets in the upper midwest. However, the US is almost uniquely suited to growing corn, which is also beautifully suited to making animal feed - chickens and cows mostly, and for what is called "wet milling" In wet milling we take the corn apart into fibers, oils and starches. Some of the starches are used for industrial processing - strangely the major use is oil drilling followed by textile production - food is a distant third - and finally some starch is taken apart into its components and turned into HFCS.

HFCS isn't the problem with US obesity, eating too many calories and expending too few is the problem. HFCS was widely used in the 1960's and 1970's when the obesity incidence was much lower.

Coke is still made with sugar in the US. HFCS is kosher, but not kosher for passover. Before passover Coke and Pepsi convert back to using sugar so as not to alienate their observant Jewish consumers. The products taste the same whether with sugar or HFCS. The sugar products have a slightly lighter mouthfeel, but consumers don't notice the difference in a statistically significant way - this from a friend who works in Coke product development. I don't know whether Mexican Coke uses the same formula as US coke or not. Lots of products in Mexico differ from their US counterparts for lots of reasons.

Flame away...

Rob

[Ray]

Yet we live longer than ever before. ;)

Could be for other reasons in spite of HFCS, like advances in health care. If that were the case, do we want people to live even longer, and at what cost?
I'm not sure the evidence is in on life expectancy yet. We didn't start subsidizing corn so heavily until the 70's and 80's. It was Earl Butz who really jump started it under Nixon and it took a while to really take hold. We're seeing the first generation of morbidly obese kids coming through the teenage years and into adulthood now - the obesity numbers are pretty staggering. I wouldn't bet the ranch on this generation living as long as past generations, let alone longer. And, no, its not that HFCS is inherently bad, but like Malcolm says, its getting so hard to avoid that an unwary consumer almost can't help but eat waaaaay too much of it.

-Ray

[Ray]

RPS is right - correlation does not equal causality...

99% of cancer patients watch color television...coincidence - I don't think so! It's all a government plot!

Agreed - its not the substance, its the overuse of it. Your analogy reminds me of all of the people who argue against decriminalizing pot by pointing out that its a gateway drug - ie, almost every heroin addict smoked pot before they tried heroin. But of course even MORE of them started off on milk as babies so maybe THAT's the gateway.

-Ray

[Hardlyrob]

Not to wade too heavily into ag policy - as another poster noted it is truly a mess.

The basis of the subsidies on the major crops is not to prop up ADM, Cargil or Bunge's profits - it is to keep US exports competitive with the heavily subsidized major crops (wheat, soy, corn, rice) produced in other parts of the world. Particularly to keep the US farmer competitive with European producers - who are ALSO heavily subsidized.

It's a pi**ing match between producing and consuming countries - and nobody has really blinked in 60 years.

There is a lot more to the ag policy mess, but the short version is they do it, so we do it. If they stop, then we'll stop - maybe.

Rob

[malcolm]

RPS is right - correlation does not equal causality...

99% of cancer patients watch color television...coincidence - I don't think so! It's all a government plot!

I've posted on the HFCS discussions before, and as an industry insider (in BIG food since 1985 on both the technical and marketing sides), there is nothing inherently wrong with HFCS - it was developed in the 1960's to meet a need - cheaper sweeteners.

Cane sugar is protected as a "strategic" commodity by import tariffs that put the price in the US at about $0.30/lb. The "world" price is about $0.19/lb. HFCS has two advantages as a sweetener - one it is cheaper than the "world" price of sugar at about $0.16 per equivalent pound, and two it is a liquid - which is much easier to handle in a food processing plant (yes you can get "liquid sugar" which is made from cane or beet sugar, but you start at $0.30/lb and add processing cost from there).

We would use a lot more cane sugar in the US if we could grow it here. We do produce a lot of beet sugar from sugar beets in the upper midwest. However, the US is almost uniquely suited to growing corn, which is also beautifully suited to making animal feed - chickens and cows mostly, and for what is called "wet milling" In wet milling we take the corn apart into fibers, oils and starches. Some of the starches are used for industrial processing - strangely the major use is oil drilling followed by textile production - food is a distant third - and finally some starch is taken apart into its components and turned into HFCS.

HFCS isn't the problem with US obesity, eating too many calories and expending too few is the problem. HFCS was widely used in the 1960's and 1970's when the obesity incidence was much lower.

Coke is still made with sugar in the US. HFCS is kosher, but not kosher for passover. Before passover Coke and Pepsi convert back to using sugar so as not to alienate their observant Jewish consumers. The products taste the same whether with sugar or HFCS. The sugar products have a slightly lighter mouthfeel, but consumers don't notice the difference in a statistically significant way - this from a friend who works in Coke product development. I don't know whether Mexican Coke uses the same formula as US coke or not. Lots of products in Mexico differ from their US counterparts for lots of reasons.

Flame away...

Rob

I think as I've said before HFCS isn't inherently evil, but it is everywhere and in everything and it is probably too good at what it is supposed to do, sweeten things. It influences our palates, fruits and things that are supposed to be sweet to us no longer are because everything that goes in our mouth has the much sweeter HFCS in it. We now have a generation as adults that have gotten the majority of their calories from a box/laboratory, most of the things folks eat in no way resemble food, they are corporate science projects,a chemical facsimile of food and we are reaping the harvest of high blood pressure, diabetes and soaring health costs associated with eating the products of food science and not farmers.

[RPS]

We're seeing the first generation of morbidly obese kids coming through the teenage years and into adulthood now - the obesity numbers are pretty staggering. I wouldn't bet the ranch on this generation living as long as past generations, let alone longer. I sadly agree.

But we get back to the question: Is HFCS that bad for us? Are 100 calories of HFCS worse than 100 calories of Coors light? Or anything else that doesn’t contribute significantly to nourishment?

If we want to correlate variables to obesity and poor health, how about television and the amount of time kids spend in front of one? And now video games, computers, and the internet. Mothers who drive kids to school instead of walking or riding a bike, etc…. The number of changes in society over the last 30 to 50 years is huge, and to pick on HFCS as the cause of obesity doesn’t make sense to me.

I know the more liberal amongst us want to apply a sin tax to sugary drinks but that’s crazy in my opinion. We should educate and then step aside to let each person decide for themselves what they want to eat – and how they are going to pay for the subsequent medical bills. :rolleyes:

[Hardlyrob]

I think this is really the problem behind all the health / wellness / nutrition / obesity arguments...food is too cheap today, and continues to get cheaper on a relative basis.

[malcolm]

Very true. It is much easier and far cheaper to eat something assembled in a factory and placed in a package or box than to cook something from the ground and if you really look at it from an efficiency perspective you get a lot more calories/energy for your buck from the package and there lies the problem way more energy than you'll ever use.

[buck-50]

I sadly agree.

But we get back to the question: Is HFCS that bad for us? Are 100 calories of HFCS worse than 100 calories of Coors light? Or anything else that doesn’t contribute significantly to nourishment?

If we want to correlate variables to obesity and poor health, how about television and the amount of time kids spend in front of one? And now video games, computers, and the internet. Mothers who drive kids to school instead of walking or riding a bike, etc…. The number of changes in society over the last 30 to 50 years is huge, and to pick on HFCS as the cause of obesity doesn’t make sense to me.

I know the more liberal amongst us want to apply a sin tax to sugary drinks but that’s crazy in my opinion. We should educate and then step aside to let each person decide for themselves what they want to eat – and how they are going to pay for the subsequent medical bills. :rolleyes:

We done screwed up.

We built suburbs further and further out, we increased our dependency on automobiles, we shot down any funding for better public transportation options.

We bought the bigger house in the suburbs and then discovered we had to spend more time at work to pay for it on top of the longer drive to and from. We bought cell phones to stay connected to the office and we talk and drive and text, making us menaces to the kids that live in our suburbs.

We remodeled with professional grade appliances but most of the time we end up thawing something in the microwave because we're too tired to cook something healthy after a long day at work.

We got paranoid watching more and more 24hour news coverage of missing kids and convinced ourselves that even letting our kids out of the house would leave them at the mercy of every kidnapper in the state, despite the fact that the actual incidence of child kidnapping hasnt actually changed that much.

We bought our kids computers because they needed to learn, and so now they sit around surfing the web, and we encourage it because we think it's helping them learn and besides, if they go outside they'll get kidnapped or run over or worse.

Seems like HFCS is the least of our problems. Maybe that's why we focus on it- it's the one that doesn't push the blame for our expanding waistlines back on us, where it belongs.

And if we've learned anything in the last 20 years, it's that the American consumer/voter/citizen can never be blamed for anything, nor should they ever have to confront the mess they've made, nor have to clean it up.

We can just push it off on the kids.

[drewski]

I think High Fructose Corn Syrup and other processed foods
of this ilk are poison. I try to go the farmers market at least 1 a month.
The food quality is so much better and it helps to have a relationship
with the person you get are getting your food from.

Teach your kids to read labels closely. High Fructose is in everything.

The Church says: the body is a sin.
Science says: the body is a machine.
Advertising says: The body is a business.
The Body says: I am a fiesta."
— Eduardo Galeano

[Don49]

I highly recommend reading In Defense of Food, it'll change the way to think about things you eat. It talks about how the food industry bought off the Government to change the meaning of artificial food. And how every where the Western diet has goes it starts to kill groups off, and gives them health problem that they never had before.


http://www.michaelpollan.com/indefense.php

I would also add "The China Study" as a highly recommended read.

http://www.amazon.com/China-Study-Comprehensive-Nutrition-Implications/dp/1932100660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258058993&sr=8-1

[McQueen]

RPS is right - correlation does not equal causality...

However, the US is almost uniquely suited to growing corn, which is also beautifully suited to making animal feed - chickens and cows mostly, and for what is called "wet milling"
Rob


Well, if there's one thing that was pretty much made clear by 'The Omnivores Dillema' - it's that corn is not beautifully suited to making animal feed, unless you meant that corn is beautifully suited to making cheap food for factory farms. Farms that can keep the animals medicated and deal with the bovine health problems that arise from such a diet.. (not to mention the methane/greenhouse gas emissions from factory farms)

[Climb01742]

there are many reasons why america's healthcare system is FUBAR, but the one reason no politician has the courage to say is: far too many americans eat far too much, eat far too much crap and exercise far too little. we have seen the enemy and the enemy is our behavior.

[palincss]

HFCS is worse for you but better for the manufacturers for it is CHEAPER!!!

The press release about the study is unclear -- did they actually establish that the stuff is worse for you than an equivalent amount of sugar? Or could a diet as high in sugar be as bad?

No argument regarding it being cheaper. That's clear.

[Hardlyrob]

Well, if there's one thing that was pretty much made clear by 'The Omnivores Dillema' - it's that corn is not beautifully suited to making animal feed, unless you meant that corn is beautifully suited to making cheap food for factory farms. Farms that can keep the animals medicated and deal with the bovine health problems that arise from such a diet.. (not to mention the methane/greenhouse gas emissions from factory farms)


I really have to disagree with you here. Michael Pollan picks half truths to make his point that all commercial food production is inherently evil - the numbers don't back his contentions. The fact that 60% of corn is used for animal feed means either Michael Pollan got some facts seriously wrong, or that the animal nutritionists don't know what they're doing.

Beef in particular is not grown on corn for most of their lives. They are "finished" on corn in feed lots immediately prior to slaughter - because we consumers like the taste of corn fed beef better than grass fed, and that they will put on weight quickly in the feedlots, and be more valuable at slaughter. Most of the time cattle are grazing on grass - many of them for free on federal lands. There are no "factory farms" for beef.

Corn is a near ideal chicken feed as well. Hogs tend to be fed soy more often, but can do very well on corn. Yes both are raised in CAFO's (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations), and the waste issues - if not handled according to state and federal laws, can be problematic - like any industry.

Methane production is because cattle are ruminants. It doesn't matter what they eat, they will produce methane. It is not a symptom of disease, it is a function of their metabolism.

Which gets me to another pet peeve. There is an assumption in the popular press that all animals produced for food - cattle, chickens, hogs, salmon, tilapia - are all horribly sick and diseased. Life simply doesn't work that way. Animals only gain weight when they are healthy. Sick animals will eat and not gain weight (think of how much weight you lost last time you had the flu). Farmers only make money when the animals gain weight efficiently - it is called the feed conversion ratio. One pound of properly formulated feed (with the right amino acid balance, minerals and vitamins) + healthy animal = 0.X new pounds of animal - it is different for different species, and sometimes for different breeds within a species.

If animals are stressed or sick, they don't gain weight and the farmer loses money. It really is that simple in the macro sense - abused, stressed animals will cost you money, regardless of the species. Does this mean that workers are not abusive on occasion, and stupidly caught on video my PETA - no. But the industry would not be viable if all production livestock were deathly ill and on life support. This has also led to the certified responsible producer audits - third part audits of production from milk and eggs to livestock (I don't think for fish yet, but it can't be far behind) that ensures the production practices meet a specified set of guidelines - USDA, Humane Society, McDonald's etc - there are no federal guidelines today.

Prophylactic antibiotics are a double edged sword. The industry found out a long time ago that if you put a sub-clinical dose of antibiotics into feed that the animals gain weight faster, and fewer are sick. This of course led to the over use of antibiotics in feed, and all the unseen implications of antibiotic resistance, not to mention the public relations furor. The use of prophylactic antibiotics today is a whisper of what it was a few years ago. Some do use them, but the majority of producers do not - treating only the sick animals with antibiotics as needed.

I'm not saying it is a perfect industry by any measure. The animal production industry got pulled into the 21st century by having a small number of producers end up on TV. Which resulted in their end customers (McDonald's, Safeway, Kroger, KFC, WalMart etc.) demanding certification and documentation that their production practices are meeting a standard so that THEIR brand is not at risk. It is still a VERY fragmented industry with thousands of farmers in every state producing milk, eggs and meat.

Unfortunately too many journalists and writers are deeply conflicted about raising animals simply to kill and eat them, and too many cattle ranchers and pig farmers don't have access to the media (or don't want it) to make the point from their perspective.

Flame on...

Rob

[Hardlyrob]

The press release about the study is unclear -- did they actually establish that the stuff is worse for you than an equivalent amount of sugar? Or could a diet as high in sugar be as bad?

No argument regarding it being cheaper. That's clear.

Reading the press release, it appears to be a simple correlation: Those with a diet high in HFCS tended to have higher blood pressure. On the other hand, those with a diet high in HFCS would tend to have a higher body mass index, which leads to diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and stroke risk. It is not clear from the release that they corrected for other factors like this.

HTH

Rob

[Hardlyrob]

Ummm - yeah, one of the authors has a conflict of interest...Link (http://www.amazon.com/Sugar-Fix-High-Fructose-Fallout-Making/dp/1594866651)

[1centaur]

hardlyrob wrote:"Animals only gain weight when they are healthy."

There's something wonderfully ironic about that sentence in the context of this thread.

I think I might be inclined to amend that to:"...healthy enough to gain weight." That may make it seem meaningless, but I kind of think of modern farming as like Morgan Spurlock in Supersize Me. He got fatter and unhealthier at the same time, which is how we generally perceive a fatness problem in people. Animals only have to be healthy enough to weigh the right amount at the slaughter house as soon as possible.

As for HFCS vs. sugar, I think we're a long way from widely grasping that a calorie is not just a calorie. Calories are just one characteristic of any set of molecules that we throw down the hatch.

[malcolm]

Rob, I got to disagree at least a little. I think animals can in fact be unhealthy and gain weight. If they are fed calorie dense food stuffs they will gain weight and the illness described in cafo's is not like the flu an acute illness in which you have no appetite it is a more insidious generalized lack of well being or illness. I don't think any of the animals commonly used for our sources of protein were designed to eat corn, certainly not ruminates. I don't think anyone can argue it changes the physiology of their rumen an not for the better. I'm sure Pollan like most are trying to make a point and use data to best support their cause, but unless you argue efficiency I see no other valid argument to support the production of food animals in our society. The industry via corn can certainly make protein in huge quantities and do it cheaply. God knows what we are creating as byproducts and doing to ourselves eating that crap.

[steelrider]

HFCS is worse for you but better for the manufacturers for it is CHEAPER!!!

That is it in a nutshell, pure unadulterated greed. The big corporations, ie. agribusiness placing profits before people.

[chuckroast]

This is an interesting thread and thoughtful so thanks to all.

But here's a confession.....one of the reasons I ride bikes is so that I can eat nasty good tasting processed food.

Now, I'm going to get some ice cream. I don't plan to read the label.

[oldmill]

“...and the waste issues - if not handled according to state and federal laws, can be problematic - like any industry.”

Ah, but there’s the rub, no? Compared with many other industries that create toxic byproducts (chemical, oil refining), factory farms’ waste processes are lightly regulated. So what qualifies as `handling according to state and federal laws’ for factory farms would probably warrant a shutdown (or at least a stiff fine) for DuPont, Dow Chemical etc.

But Pollan’s larger point is indisputable: that the “cheap” agricultural products we’re consuming have huge societal costs, in the form of pollution, obesity and resource depletion. I live in DC, where fish in the Potomac are increasingly found with abnormal sex organs and crabs in the Chesapeake have been decimated. Life simply doesn't work that way? Indeed it doesn’t.

And by the way, most of what I read in the newspapers on the issue isn’t berating meat, but its environmental and medical byproducts. Pollan himself, for example, gives a lengthy-bordering-on-monotonous defense in Omnivore’s Dilemma of his decision to remain a carnivore. Go to the NY Times Dining section online and you'll find several good-looking brisket recipes.

[KeithS]

Great discussion thanks for all sides. One of the reasons I like this place - good insightful reasoned dialog. HardlyRob and his industry expertise provided an added dimension to the conversation.

I have lived in farm country all my life, maybe instead of a sweetener we should make something we can drive our cars with. I was pheasant hunting in South Dakota last fall the day the largest US ethanol producer declared bankruptcy. The floor dropped out of the market - oh another subsidized agriculture endeavor lost it's subsidy and all the victims cry foul. Subsidies don't work, I've seen them not work on dairy, corn, soybeans, sugar beets. My in-laws in Iowa get paid pretty good money to not grow a crop on several hundred acres of farm land, hunting is pretty good though.

When I was a kid in the 60's there were 4 dairy farms per section, now there are 4 sections per farm. I worked in food processing when I was in high school and college (I still can't eat cream style corn). I think our food is safer today than ever before. I remember the chemicals my dad used on crops and critters back then, a wonder why my liver still works. I still worry about the antibiotics used in meat production. I also wonder why the guy down the road from our family farm who produces over 30,000 hogs per year doesn't have a more effective waste treatment facility than spreading it on cropland.

Geez Rob, I wish I'd been born an Andreas, well except maybe not Michael. I think he's still in jail on the messy price fixing deal.

There was an earlier reference to ADM, if you want to know who they are go google "Dwayne Andreas ADM". They operate under the notion that once you buy a polititician he should have the good sense to stay bought.

We want our food fast, easy, convenient, abundant and cheap. Nutritious is way down the list.

[William]

We want our food fast, easy, convenient, abundant and cheap. Nutritious is way down the list.


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2279/2324711133_a0b0fd07e6.jpg

[WadePatton]

Great discussion thanks for all sides. ...

We want our food fast, easy, convenient, abundant and cheap. Nutritious is way down the list.

yup. when i began eating for a purpose (providing my body with proper nutrition), i became lighter and stronger.

[RPS]

That is it in a nutshell, pure unadulterated greed. The big corporations, ie. agribusiness placing profits before people.
How can this work in our system of free markets? Wouldn’t competition take care of this problem very quickly?

If we as consumers want healthier foods that cost more (say with sucrose versus HFCS), what’s keeping us from buying them? If consumers were willing to pay extra for Coke with cane sugar wouldn’t The Coca-Cola Company manufacture old-style Coke and make even more money? How is that greed? :confused:

IMHO if it is about greed it is on our part, not corporations. We always want more for less. We decide what we are willing to buy at a given price and corporations struggle to make a profit providing those goods to us. Coke will battle Pepsi for our purchases whether they make soft drinks with HFCS or cane sugar. The last thing they want to make is something we won't buy.

[fiamme red]

How can this work in our system of free markets? Wouldn’t competition take care of this problem very quickly?.What free markets? The corn agribusiness is heavily subsidized by the government.

http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/PB09-01SweeteningPotFeb09.pdf

We decide what we are willing to buy at a given price and corporations struggle to make a profit providing those goods to us.That's not all they do. They also spend obscene amounts of money on marketing (i.e., convincing us that we need to buy their products) and in lobbying the government.

[Karin Kirk]

This topic is one I've become quite interested in. I'm a big fan of Michael Pollan (btw, PBS recently aired a terrific documentary of one of his earlier books, the Botany of Desire) and reading his two most recent books prompted me to make dramatic changes in the way we eat - and we were already very healthy eaters.

And this ties into RPS's last post - the thing I like about this problem is that it has a really easy solution. If you don't want to eat crap, then don't! If you don't like the notion of cows living in feedlots eating corn, don't buy corn-fed beef. It's becoming increasingly easier to eat well. We've got great labels, an upswing in farmer's markets and CSAs, and Whole Foods/Trader Joe's/ co-ops in most areas. Even regular grocery stores carry natural foods.

So unlike many other concerns in today's society, at least this one you can easily solve for yourself. That's not to say that there still aren't health and environmental impacts from industrial food production, but at least on the most basic level the solution is completely simple.

So, thanks to Michael Pollan, we have a greenhouse, we've converted much of my flower garden space to food production, and Dave just built us a root cellar to hold our precious root veggies for the winter. I've spent the summer canning, dehydrating and pickling and we make everything from scratch and we have a great time doing it. The only downside is that going out to eat is not so much fun anymore as few meals can compete with the ones that are pulled directly from our garden.

One last thing - last month I got to attend a talk by the CEO of ADM. The topic was energy, corn and carbon sequestration. The next day I attended a talk by Yvon Choinard, founder of Patagonia, who spoke about their business philosophy, particularly the environmental aspects. Each talk was very interesting in its own right. But hearing the two back-to-back was totally enriching. The contrast between the two companies and their approaches could not have been more apparent.

[ss-jimbo]

In response to rob, I believe in evolution and cows have not evolved to eat corn. You cannot argue that any animal forced fed something they have not evolved to eat is good for that animal. And since the cows have only corn to eat in the feed lots, they are essentially force fed.

As for the fact that consumers prefer the taste of corn fed beef, I think that is more the result of marketing telling us how wonderful corn fed, marbled beef is. It is in the best interest of agribusiness to convince us that the thing that is cheapest and provides the most profits for them and what we prefer are one and the same.

[R2D2]

...........
As for the fact that consumers prefer the taste of corn fed beef, I think that is more the result of marketing telling us how wonderful corn fed, marbled beef is. It is in the best interest of agribusiness to convince us that the thing that is cheapest and provides the most profits for them and what we prefer are one and the same.

Some grass fed beef taste awful. The feed lot at least makes it palatable.
Altough not beef, try some venison from Indiana that has been munching on corn versus some from the hills of Virginia that's been munching on acorns and twigs. A world of difference.

[Ray]

Some grass fed beef taste awful. The feed lot at least makes it palatable.
Altough not beef, try some venison from Indiana that has been munching on corn versus some from the hills of Virginia that's been munching on acorns and twigs. A world of difference.
I've been eating almost exclusively grass fed beef for a couple of years now. I don't think it tastes bad at all. A bit less fat, not quite as tender, but it tastes just fine to me. I almost never order beef in restaurants anymore because you just never know where that stuff's been!

-Ray

[R2D2]

I've been eating almost exclusively grass fed beef for a couple of years now. I don't think it tastes bad at all. A bit less fat, not quite as tender, but it tastes just fine to me. I almost never order beef in restaurants anymore because you just never know where that stuff's been!

-Ray

I've had some that was out of this world. I can still taste it.
Others that were awful
Depends on terroir.
My only point was the fed lot and flushing wasn't invented solely to maximize profit.

[Ray]

I've had some that was out of this world. I can still taste it.
Others that were awful
Depends on terroir.
My only point was the fed lot and flushing wasn't invented solely to maximize profit.
Agreed. I think the key with grass fed beef (and most veggies as well) is to find a farmer or handful of farmers who produce and sell the stuff, get to know them and their products, and stick with them. We get all of our beef, pork, lamb, chicken, and eggs from the same farm and a good chunk of our produce from the same 2-3 farms. The meat isn't uniformly great - there's gonna be some variation in animals after all, but its generally very good and only occasionally bad. The bad is usually not related to taste, but we've had a few steaks and chops that were too full of gristle to be able to eat much of it.

-Ray

[Hardlyrob]

In response to rob, I believe in evolution and cows have not evolved to eat corn. You cannot argue that any animal forced fed something they have not evolved to eat is good for that animal. And since the cows have only corn to eat in the feed lots, they are essentially force fed.

As for the fact that consumers prefer the taste of corn fed beef, I think that is more the result of marketing telling us how wonderful corn fed, marbled beef is. It is in the best interest of agribusiness to convince us that the thing that is cheapest and provides the most profits for them and what we prefer are one and the same.


Two comments ss-Jimbo:

First, by the time an animal makes it to the feedlot, we really aren't very concerned with the long term implications of its diet. Feedlots were started in the 19th century to even out the flavor and quality of the meat - who knows what the cow was eating before, and as R2D2 observed some of that stuff (wild onions anyone?) can make meat taste awful.

Second, whatever happened to free will? Because a company markets something to you means you have to accept it?

As Karin Kirk said - if you don't like it don't buy it. It is really easy to shift your food purchases away from things you don't like today. The companies will listen, but you have to talk first.

Rob

[malcolm]

Two comments ss-Jimbo:

First, by the time an animal makes it to the feedlot, we really aren't very concerned with the long term implications of its diet. Feedlots were started in the 19th century to even out the flavor and quality of the meat - who knows what the cow was eating before, and as R2D2 observed some of that stuff (wild onions anyone?) can make meat taste awful.

Second, whatever happened to free will? Because a company markets something to you means you have to accept it?

As Karin Kirk said - if you don't like it don't buy it. It is really easy to shift your food purchases away from things you don't like today. The companies will listen, but you have to talk first.

Rob


Rob,
I think lots of folks that have the economic means are exercising their free will and no longer buying/eating this stuff. I know my family has cut way back we eat more local grown stuff and pastured meats. I have two young children and breaking them from chicken nuggets is difficult but occuring.

The problem is us. We want what we want, when we want it and for cheap. Industry has just risen up to deliver what we in a round about way asked for. Now as often occurs did we really want/need what we asked for. Or I guess in another way is the price really that cheap when you look at the big overall picture.

[OtayBW]

Two comments ss-Jimbo:

First, by the time an animal makes it to the feedlot, we really aren't very concerned with the long term implications of its diet. Feedlots were started in the 19th century to even out the flavor and quality of the meat - who knows what the cow was eating before, and as R2D2 observed some of that stuff (wild onions anyone?) can make meat taste awful.

Second, whatever happened to free will? Because a company markets something to you means you have to accept it?

As Karin Kirk said - if you don't like it don't buy it. It is really easy to shift your food purchases away from things you don't like today. The companies will listen, but you have to talk first.
Rob
Don't like it, don't buy it: Yes.
Companies will listen: I doubt it, in any practical sense. It's like trying to turn the Titanic. HFCS is pervasive. You'll have to be talking to a lot of companies, and in the case of Coke, I'm not so sure that it's not easier to maintain the status quo, where you have some measure of control of your market, than it is to rely on greater unknown (greater??) demand for a 'higher quality' - i.e., sugar-based - product. People have shown that they will consume tanker loads of Coke just as it is. Additionally, they (Pepsi/Coke) have already stuck their toe into water of 'Pepsi Throwback', Passover Coke, etc. and I guess the marketing numbers just haven't added up.

Most people in the 'fast food generation' want sweeter and cheaper, and that's exactly what they got.

[Hardlyrob]

Actually some of the shifts are happening in the beverage world. There are a number of new tea drinks that shout the fact that they are made with sugar.

The companies DO listen - I spent Wednesday talking to consumers about pretzels in Baltimore. Big Food spends a LOT of money on consumer research and product testing. While I don't think that HFCS will disappear any time soon, other options are appearing in the categories that use sweeteners the most - mainly beverages.

Great and thoughtful discussion - thanks for the courtesy all.

Rob

[Karin Kirk]

There are many pieces of evidence to suggest that consumer demand for better food is making an impact.

-Organic foods are the largest growing segment of the food market and even walmart carries organic foods and makes a big deal about it (the actual implications of that are another topic).

-McDonald's now requires better living conditions for the hens that provide their eggs.

-Sugar is reappearing in many mainstream products.

-Menus are boasting about local, natural and organic ingredients.

-I'd have to believe that the upswing in farmer's markets and CSAs is allowing many more small farmers to make a go at this type of living.

Some of these changes are more marketing than substance, but the shift is undeniable. Does ADM feel the pinch? Doubtful. But the fact that changes are happening and consumers have more healthy choices is clearly a positive development on many levels.

[SEABREEZE]

And for a better understanding of how our whole food production and distribution system works (and doesn't), "An Omnivore's Dilemna", also by Pollen, is a fascinating read. Bottom line, stay out of the middle of the supermarket - stick to the edges when you need something you can't get from a local farmer. HFCS is bad stuff, but so is the vast majority of beef, which comes from cows raised on corn, which they're genetically unable to process! Its a really frucked up mess of a system that results in cheap food, but lousy food. And the milk that comes from corn fed cows, etc etc etc. Corn is in EVERYthing in one form or another and is best avoided to the extent possible. An occasional ear of corn on the cob is nice in the summer, but we eat the stuff in almost every bite of food and its not good.

-Ray
RAY YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.

I've been a grassfed organic farmer, when it wasn't known or popular.

Now adays the blinders are coming off the masses and we are seeing more and more of the general public seeking out our farm fresh whole foods.

When you eat gmo corn, and you move your bowels , you never fully digest the corn, however eat heirloom corn, and you will not see any in the bowels. The body doesnt know how to break down gmo corn, and cant.

If you must have sweets use unheated honey, key workd being unheated, as thats where you will find all the enzymes. Honey that has been heated is just like usuing sugar. Which is the worse thing in the world for the body. It weakens the Immune system.

Stay away from processed foods. Many have preservatives in them to sustain shelf life. I can go and on. Did you know ice cream and tooth paste both have anti freeze in it. Over continuse use and time, these are the things that build up in the system and cause damage. Something to consider.

I will leave everyone with Jack La Lane 's words. If man makes it, I dont eat it.

[RPS]

Did you know ice cream and tooth paste both have anti freeze in it.
There are two different types of glycols – one is a poison and the other isn’t. The common antifreeze is a poison and is not used in food manufacture.

That’s not to say we should consume either as a food substitute, but each has its place. :beer:

[OtayBW]

There are many pieces of evidence to suggest that consumer demand for better food is making an impact.

-Organic foods are the largest growing segment of the food market and even walmart carries organic foods and makes a big deal about it (the actual implications of that are another topic).

-McDonald's now requires better living conditions for the hens that provide their eggs.

-Sugar is reappearing in many mainstream products.

-Menus are boasting about local, natural and organic ingredients.

-I'd have to believe that the upswing in farmer's markets and CSAs is allowing many more small farmers to make a go at this type of living.

Some of these changes are more marketing than substance, but the shift is undeniable. Does ADM feel the pinch? Doubtful. But the fact that changes are happening and consumers have more healthy choices is clearly a positive development on many levels.
I certainly welcome the local produce/CSA movement and there are no doubt many cool things happening as you mention. I, unfortunately, still see it like chopping away at an iceburg with a teaspoon. At some level, I view even these positive things as kind of being restricted to the more 'enlightened few' (I know I will take a hit for that one...). The CSAs, the local restaurants, etc. are doing a lot of these things - at least partially - for altruistic reasons I think. They often make lifestyle choices that balance quality-of-life and ethical issues that works for them with (often) reduced income. I don't see it that way so much for McDs (who are extremely 'image-driven'; I doubt they are as concerned about the hens as they are people who are thinking about the hens) and certainly not ADM who are - I think - strictly 'bottom line' driven.

In the end, it's kind of like making a fuel efficent vehicle: you can't do it until people will buy it; the 'enlightened ones' have been hollering for this for years, but most people won't buy it until they have to...

And that's our 'HFCS society'...

[JeffS]

HFCS is worse for you but better for the manufacturers for it is CHEAPER!!!


Sure, because it's heavily subsidized by the government.

Farm policy encourages companies to try to feed us this crap. That we're subsidizing twinkies but not green beans is absolutely insane.

[SEABREEZE]

Some grass fed beef taste awful. The feed lot at least makes it palatable.
Altough not beef, try some venison from Indiana that has been munching on corn versus some from the hills of Virginia that's been munching on acorns and twigs. A world of difference.


Grassfed doesnt have to be, if proprely aged dry box, and the right breed is selected, It will equal what you are use to.

Seek out Devon, Limousin, Sailer, Charolais

I beleive you are referring to Water Buffalo from India.

[wildboar]

Coke is still made with sugar in the US. HFCS is kosher, but not kosher for passover. Before passover Coke and Pepsi convert back to using sugar so as not to alienate their observant Jewish consumers. The products taste the same whether with sugar or HFCS. The sugar products have a slightly lighter mouthfeel, but consumers don't notice the difference in a statistically significant way - this from a friend who works in Coke product development. I don't know whether Mexican Coke uses the same formula as US coke or not. Lots of products in Mexico differ from their US counterparts for lots of reasons.Rob


That is the same old corporate yes-man argument they have been spouting for the last few decades. Perhaps your friend is not old enough to remember what original coke tasted like? They kept "original" formula off the market just long enough to condition people with the sickly sweet taste of NEW coke. Once the "original" was brought back it was such a refreshing return to something that was close enough to the old formula that people were happy.

Get yourself a case of the Mexican or Australian stuff and you should be able to tell a huge difference in the taste.

And if you don't think HFCS is nasty stuff, do a bunch of reading on Advanced Glycation Endproducts and the resulting effect on the bodys organs and, in turn, diabetes, then get back to us.

When the body trys to metabolize HFCS it is not a pretty outcome.

[Tobias]

Water will kill anyone if they drink enough of it. To simply say HFCS is harmful is incomplete. Harmful at what level?

We have a black and white mentality about too many things which often leads to intolerance of ideas.

My opinion: A little is fine and taste good, too much will kill you or make you fat. Not that I worry about becoming overweight.

[Hardlyrob]

Actually the New Coke / Coke Classic story is a great example of how not to do consumer research.

As you can imagine, Coke researched the new formula to death - don't screw up an American icon. The problem is they wanted to get a read on the product itself, not the influence of the brand, so all the testing was "blind". Just the product in a cup that the consumers scored on a number of attributes. In this environment, New Coke won time and time again. The research was repeated across the country, and across all relevant demographic groups, and they got the same results. At the end of the taste test they asked consumers whether they would buy the beverage if it was Coke - most said yes. Based on all of that, they went forward with New Coke.

Huge mistake - once consumers responded to the combination of the product and the brand, New Coke was dead, and Coke Classic - the old formula - was back on the market in a matter of 3 months. New Coke dies an ignoble death about seven years later in 1992. Of course this whole debacle led to cries of conspiracy and manipulation. I think it was really just a mistake in methodology. The big branded companies DO make big stupid mistakes from time to time. My personal favorite was Kraft developing and manufacturing a drink mix branded as Snow-Lite based on a pending approval of what is now Nutra-Sweet that got delayed for 2 years by the FDA. Oops!

Rob

[Hardlyrob]

And if you don't think HFCS is nasty stuff, do a bunch of reading on Advanced Glycation Endproducts and the resulting effect on the bodys organs and, in turn, diabetes, then get back to us.

When the body tries to metabolize HFCS it is not a pretty outcome.

The AGE metabolites are typically the result of sugar amine reaction products - Mailllard, much less so from fructose consumed directly. If you're worried about Maillard reaction products, stop eating toast.

If you are concerned about AGE production, then cane or beet sugar aren't the answer either as sucrose = glucose + fructose

Rob

[benb]

Nobody would eat HFCS if the chemical-food industry freely explained how it's made..

Everyone should watch "King Korn" and see how hard it was for the filmmakers to find out exactly what goes into making HFCS... then you might take big food apologist's points of view a little differently. They really didn't want this info getting out.

Not that I've gone and tried to cook either up in my own kitchen but it reminded me more of what someone in a meth lab would do then something a cook should be doing.

[Karin Kirk]

I certainly welcome the local produce/CSA movement and there are no doubt many cool things happening as you mention. I, unfortunately, still see it like chopping away at an iceburg with a teaspoon. At some level, I view even these positive things as kind of being restricted to the more 'enlightened few' (I know I will take a hit for that one...). The CSAs, the local restaurants, etc. are doing a lot of these things - at least partially - for altruistic reasons I think. They often make lifestyle choices that balance quality-of-life and ethical issues that works for them with (often) reduced income. I don't see it that way so much for McDs (who are extremely 'image-driven'; I doubt they are as concerned about the hens as they are people who are thinking about the hens) and certainly not ADM who are - I think - strictly 'bottom line' driven.

In the end, it's kind of like making a fuel efficent vehicle: you can't do it until people will buy it; the 'enlightened ones' have been hollering for this for years, but most people won't buy it until they have to...

And that's our 'HFCS society'...

For me, the notion that healthier food is coming around for both the elitists and the wal-marts tells me it's a little more than the iceberg/teaspoon analogy. Of course the two extremes have completely different motives, but all the same, they are making the market shift. In fact, I think the varying motives (such as creating a healthy brand image in hopes that this will win over some customers) is probably a good thing. The movement certainly can't get very far with only the altruistic co-ops driving it.

That said, the mainstream food is still awful and way too many people are blind to this. But the same can be said for many aspects of the "mainstream."

[Honey]

on the note of burritos and coke and sugar. For any of you in Chicago hit up Asadero after a ride (Montrose and Lincoln) the burritos are some of the best post ride food I've ever had, the coke is real and there are some great wrenches that frequent the place if I haven't given you enough good reasons to go.

[Karin Kirk]

This summer I discovered a forum that is all about growing and preserving your own food. It's a treasure trove of info about what to grow, how to harvest it and what to do with it after that. A funny thing is happening to that forum. It used to be a "lunchtable" crowd (couldn't resist that one) and with the upsurge in interest for growing one's own food the forum has been deluged with newbies wanting to know how to get started, how to make pickles, if their home-canned tomatoes will kill their family, etc. Some of the old-timers are entirely fed up with all the repeated questions from the masses and this has caused a huge rift in the forum cabal.

So, this is just another anecdote that there is indeed a resurgence in interest in healthier, less-processed food. Maybe there needs to be a canning salon or something. :p

[SEABREEZE]

This summer I discovered a forum that is all about growing and preserving your own food. It's a treasure trove of info about what to grow, how to harvest it and what to do with it after that. A funny thing is happening to that forum. It used to be a "lunchtable" crowd (couldn't resist that one) and with the upsurge in interest for growing one's own food the forum has been deluged with newbies wanting to know how to get started, how to make pickles, if their home-canned tomatoes will kill their family, etc. Some of the old-timers are entirely fed up with all the repeated questions from the masses and this has caused a huge rift in the forum cabal.

So, this is just another anecdote that there is indeed a resurgence in interest in healthier, less-processed food. Maybe there needs to be a canning salon or something. :p

KARIN,

Check out WESTONAPRICE.ORG

[OtayBW]

This summer I discovered a forum that is all about growing and preserving your own food. It's a treasure trove of info about what to grow, how to harvest it and what to do with it after that. A funny thing is happening to that forum. It used to be a "lunchtable" crowd (couldn't resist that one) and with the upsurge in interest for growing one's own food the forum has been deluged with newbies wanting to know how to get started, how to make pickles, if their home-canned tomatoes will kill their family, etc. Some of the old-timers are entirely fed up with all the repeated questions from the masses and this has caused a huge rift in the forum cabal.

So, this is just another anecdote that there is indeed a resurgence in interest in healthier, less-processed food. Maybe there needs to be a canning salon or something. :p
Well - I guess I'll just say that you're more optimistic than me, but all this is definately a step (of whatever size...) in the right direction.

I remember years ago planting dang near 1/2 AC of garden and then being sequestered for the next several months, canning, freezing, drying....you name it. I ate well that winter, but in hindsight, all this was probably not the healthiest thing I ever did (too intense). I had friends about ready to call the cops and put out an APB on me....and that was before HFCS made it into the big time...

Cheers.

[Ti Designs]

Hey, if we're going to have a thread about HFCS, can we also have one titled "Fat" and another one called "lazy"?

[Lifelover]

RPS is right - correlation does not equal causality...

99% of cancer patients watch color television...coincidence - I don't think so! It's all a government plot!

I've posted on the HFCS discussions before, and as an industry insider (in BIG food since 1985 on both the technical and marketing sides), there is nothing inherently wrong with HFCS - it was developed in the 1960's to meet a need - cheaper sweeteners.

Cane sugar is protected as a "strategic" commodity by import tariffs that put the price in the US at about $0.30/lb. The "world" price is about $0.19/lb. HFCS has two advantages as a sweetener - one it is cheaper than the "world" price of sugar at about $0.16 per equivalent pound, and two it is a liquid - which is much easier to handle in a food processing plant (yes you can get "liquid sugar" which is made from cane or beet sugar, but you start at $0.30/lb and add processing cost from there).

We would use a lot more cane sugar in the US if we could grow it here. We do produce a lot of beet sugar from sugar beets in the upper midwest. However, the US is almost uniquely suited to growing corn, which is also beautifully suited to making animal feed - chickens and cows mostly, and for what is called "wet milling" In wet milling we take the corn apart into fibers, oils and starches. Some of the starches are used for industrial processing - strangely the major use is oil drilling followed by textile production - food is a distant third - and finally some starch is taken apart into its components and turned into HFCS.

HFCS isn't the problem with US obesity, eating too many calories and expending too few is the problem. HFCS was widely used in the 1960's and 1970's when the obesity incidence was much lower.

Coke is still made with sugar in the US. HFCS is kosher, but not kosher for passover. Before passover Coke and Pepsi convert back to using sugar so as not to alienate their observant Jewish consumers. The products taste the same whether with sugar or HFCS. The sugar products have a slightly lighter mouthfeel, but consumers don't notice the difference in a statistically significant way - this from a friend who works in Coke product development. I don't know whether Mexican Coke uses the same formula as US coke or not. Lots of products in Mexico differ from their US counterparts for lots of reasons.

Flame away...

Rob

Rob For President! I'd vote for you even if RPS was your running mate :banana:

[wildboar]

Here's a good watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

[207 cm]

:banana: I love candy corn...... :banana:

[tylercheung]

the problem isn't that HCFS is worse than sugar, it's that there so much of it mixed into the drinks. a bottle of sugary drinks is 2.5 servings of 13 to 20g's of sugariness per serving per the nutrition labels, so there's a whopping 50-75g of sugar per bottle. if you weigh that out on the scale, that's a mountain of sugar....and high glycemic index generally equals bad metabolic syndrome/cardiovascular disease....

[tylercheung]

on the note of burritos and coke and sugar. For any of you in Chicago hit up Asadero after a ride (Montrose and Lincoln) the burritos are some of the best post ride food I've ever had, the coke is real and there are some great wrenches that frequent the place if I haven't given you enough good reasons to go.

wenches?

[dziehr]

Here's a good watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

+1000

Take it from a reputable endocrinologist that presents the biochemistry of the issue. The metabolism of glucose and fructose (sucrose and HFCS are glucose-fructose disaccharides) in humans is completely different and, by definition, fructose is a poison. This video is phenomenal.

[jscottyk]

In addition to the film that nicrump recommends, King Corn, add Food Inc. (http://www.foodincmovie.com/) to your Netflix queue.

Hardlyrob presented an interesting graph in this post (http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=724191&postcount=24).

Here a few more to that highlight the issue further.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1260023/percent_on_food.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1260023/percent_of_GDP_on_healthcare.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1260023/comparison.jpg

[goonster]

Coke is still made with sugar in the US. HFCS is kosher, but not kosher for passover. Before passover Coke and Pepsi convert back to using sugar so as not to alienate their observant Jewish consumers.
You make it sound like they convert all of their production, and that is not the case. AFAIK, Pepsi doesn't do this at all, and only a few Coke bottling plants do a limited production run for select markets. I've been to bev stores in Brooklyn where they keep they passover stash under a blanket in the back, and I have hunted unsuccessfully for sugar Coke in Philadelphia's most Jewish suburb.

The products taste the same whether with sugar or HFCS. The sugar products have a slightly lighter mouthfeel, but consumers don't notice the difference in a statistically significant way - this from a friend who works in Coke product development. I don't know whether Mexican Coke uses the same formula as US coke or not. Lots of products in Mexico differ from their US counterparts for lots of reasons.
Coke delivers flavoring syrup to its bottling plants around the world. Sweeteners (which can be a mixture of several products) and water differ at each plant, and this accounts for a variance of flavor.

I'll bet you that I can tell the difference in a statiscally significant way. Let us also consider that it is very much in Coke's, and every other soft drink manufacturer's, interest to consolidate manufacturing and distribution economies of scale for a single product that has the lowest possible production costs.

The free market has failed me, because I'm not able to buy sugared Coke in the U.S. through standard distribution channels for a modest upcharge to cover the higher raw material cost of the sweetener. :butt:

OK, the correlation and causality between HFCS and hypertension has not been established. Yet. I still think that if more people understood what HFCS is, that it comes from corn you cannot eat, what chemicals are used in its production . . . a lot more folks would change their eating habits.

[hairylegs]

I love Dr Pepper too much unfortunately....

However DP with pure cane sugar = AMAZING

dublindrpepper.com

INSANE. Seriously. :D

[SEABREEZE]

+1000

Take it from a reputable endocrinologist that presents the biochemistry of the issue. The metabolism of glucose and fructose (sucrose and HFCS are glucose-fructose disaccharides) in humans is completely different and, by definition, fructose is a poison. This video is phenomenal.

Thats exactly why I suggested to use in a earlier post Unheated Honey.
All enzymes in tact. Key word being Unheated not Raw.

Another imporant no no in our diet to consider is processed salt from salt mines. Seek out Sea Salt. If your diet comes from highly mineralized soil, your veggies will have all the sodium needed to sustain you.

The problem is most soil is depleated and the average american buying vegiies in supermarkets could never acheive there needed sodium levels.

When one fertilizes with perto chemicals, they reap what they sow.

If the average customer understood Brix, they would pay according to the brix level. The higher the brix level, the more sugar and mineral content in that given fruit or veggie. The more life given properties it will have.

Take a high Brix veggie, and a undermineralized veggie from poor soil, you will see, if you put them in a frig the unmineralized will wilt in less than a week, while the high brix will last for two weeks, and appear it was just pulled from the garden.Thats those life giving properties I am talking about.

If you have a refractometer, you can test for brix levels.

So I ask you, do you want to run on low test or high test. Especially, If you are a highly competeitive cyclist.

[bozman]

And for a better understanding of how our whole food production and distribution system works (and doesn't), "An Omnivore's Dilemna", also by Pollen, is a fascinating read. Bottom line, stay out of the middle of the supermarket - stick to the edges when you need something you can't get from a local farmer. HFCS is bad stuff, but so is the vast majority of beef, which comes from cows raised on corn, which they're genetically unable to process! Its a really frucked up mess of a system that results in cheap food, but lousy food. And the milk that comes from corn fed cows, etc etc etc. Corn is in EVERYthing in one form or another and is best avoided to the extent possible. An occasional ear of corn on the cob is nice in the summer, but we eat the stuff in almost every bite of food and its not good.

-Ray

+1
It is a great read and very sobering.

[RPS]

Here a few more to that highlight the issue further.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1260023/percent_on_food.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1260023/percent_of_GDP_on_healthcare.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1260023/comparison.jpg
I don’t see a connection with HFCS. What issue does it highlight? :confused:

I know incomes are up; hence food cost less as a percent. That probably leads to greater consumption, which means we are more likely to become overweight.

I also know that people live longer, in part due to advances in medical care. Those advances can come at a very high price, so we spend more to avoid death. Go figure. :rolleyes:

HFCS shouldn’t be promoted as a health food, but these kinds of graphs and similar data to attack HFCS don’t make a direct connection between cause and effect that I can follow. I personally prefer sucrose over HFCS in most things due to taste, but that’s not very healthy either. Can't the data be applied to regular sugar also? Or just about anything that we may consume more of today than in 1960? I don't follow the science. :confused:

[Kirk Pacenti]

Not sure if this has been posted yet...

http://www.foodincmovie.com/

Cheers,

KP

[goonster]

I know incomes are up; hence food cost less as a percent. That probably leads to greater consumption, which means we are more likely to become overweight.
The opposite is true. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040105071229.htm) Poor people are far more likely to be obese than wealthy people. We've all seen photos of rail-thin, gaunt people from the Depression, but today's poor subsist on cheap, calorie-laden processed foods, such as those high in HFCS. To me, that looks like a public health crisis affecting those who have little to no choice about what they eat.

[MattTuck]

To me, that looks like a public health crisis affecting those who have little to no choice about what they eat.

In my experience, that is not correct. Without getting into the details, people (poor or not) who are not informed about food, make purchase choices based on taste and ease of preparation. I know plenty of very poor people who spend their money on things I would consider extravagant (such as TVs or video games as they try to keep up with society), instead of a balanced diet. To say that they have "no choice" is fallacious. They DO have a choice, they just choose poorly.

[RPS]

The opposite is true. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040105071229.htm) Poor people are far more likely to be obese than wealthy people. We've all seen photos of rail-thin, gaunt people from the Depression, but today's poor subsist on cheap, calorie-laden processed foods, such as those high in HFCS. To me, that looks like a public health crisis affecting those who have little to no choice about what they eat.
I disagree with the fundamental premise of this statement from the link you provided; at least in the context you suggest:

“It is the opposite of choice,” Drewnowski said. “People are not poor by choice and they become obese primarily because they are poor.”

The poor indeed eat less nutritional foods but no one is making them eat more of it. Again, I get back to cause and effect. The poor are generally also less educated than the rich, so how do we know that their eating habits – including quantity – is not driven in large part by lack of education? Or intelligence? Or discipline? Or just simple despair? I don’t know the right answer, but won’t jump to conclusions without first knowing how these human traits and circumstances affect our choices.

As a political refugee I was very poor for years and didn’t become fat because I survived on incredibly unhealthy food (like eating canned spam for lunch and dinner on a regular basis). And it wasn’t just me, my brother and cousins were all skinny too. At some point people need to take responsibility for not eating too much just because it’s available. Granted in my case more spam wasn’t available so my food supply was rationed similar to what one would expect in a concentration camp. It’s not just the quality but the quantity. The poor could eat one burger instead of two and save more.

[goonster]

At some point people need to take responsibility for not eating too much just because it’s available. [ . . . ] It’s not just the quality but the quantity. The poor could eat one burger instead of two and save more.
I'm not suggesting that "The Poor" are all helpless victims of a terrible, unfair fate who can do nothing to improve their lot. I also don't think that we can just tell them to eat less, for the similar reasons that "Just Say No" is not a viable public health policy for substance abuse.

This is a thread about food, not about whether Americans are virtuous or dumb/lazy/uneducated. It seems the best we can say about HFCS is that it is a) cheap b) not necessarily identified as a direct cause of terrible health problems. A ringing endorsement, if I ever heard one . . .

[wc1934]

[QUOTE=Ahneida Ride]Coke used to have SUGAR !!!! and it tasted great ...

Now its HFCS and it tastes like a Sergio Walmarto Huffy. :crap:

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

I think Pepsi is re-introducing sugar into their product line - wonder why?

[Tobias]

This is a thread about food, not about whether Americans are virtuous or dumb/lazy/uneducated. It seems the best we can say about HFCS is that it is a) cheap b) not necessarily identified as a direct cause of terrible health problems. A ringing endorsement, if I ever heard one . . .
What is this thread really about? :rolleyes:

Assuming HFCS were linked to some health concerns, why should so many of us care what others eat? I don’t get the obsession with diet as if it had the ability to provide eternal life. It won’t.

Eating a poor diet or eating too much is a controllable choice for the most part; unless we are tricked with misleading information. That’s why I feel the government’s role should be limited to ensuring that relatively-accurate diet information is available, and that the food supply is free of hidden dangers. But when it comes to making food choices (good or bad) the government should stay out of our kitchens.

I comprehend the argument some make that since the government is partly responsible for the high cost of treating us when we make poor choices, then they have an obligation to discourage us from making them. However, I see that as the reason the government should not be involved directly in taking care of us. I don’t see much difference between a person taking a health risk by eating poorly and another taking an injury risk by descending on his bike at 40 MPH. Both are choices we make that “could” result in high costs to other tax payers. And if we start down the road of discouraging poor eating by taxing “unhealthy” foods, can taxing “dangerous” activities be far behind?

[JeffS]

The govt. has supposedly taken on the job of ensuring a safe food supply. They are failing. Not only are they failing, but they are paying corporations to make it happen.

Nothing new here...

[gasman]

Thats exactly why I suggested to use in a earlier post Unheated Honey.
All enzymes in tact. Key word being Unheated not Raw.

Another imporant no no in our diet to consider is processed salt from salt mines. Seek out Sea Salt. If your diet comes from highly mineralized soil, your veggies will have all the sodium needed to sustain you.

The problem is most soil is depleated and the average american buying vegiies in supermarkets could never acheive there needed sodium levels.

When one fertilizes with perto chemicals, they reap what they sow.

If the average customer understood Brix, they would pay according to the brix level. The higher the brix level, the more sugar and mineral content in that given fruit or veggie. The more life given properties it will have.
Take a high Brix veggie, and a undermineralized veggie from poor soil, you will see, if you put them in a frig the unmineralized will wilt in less than a week, while the high brix will last for two weeks, and appear it was just pulled from the garden.Thats those life giving properties I am talking about.

If you have a refractometer, you can test for brix levels.
So I ask you, do you want to run on low test or high test. Especially, If you are a highly competeitive cyclist.



Wikipedia says that the brix level is a measure of the sugar content of a food or liquid by using a refractometer.I can't imagine the mineral content would vary enough that a refractometer could tell the differnce in mineral content of any like food. Something like a grape will have way more sugar than minerals and hench as it ripens will have a higher brix level.Would a carrot be the same ?
I would agree that fresh fruit and veggies are the best for you but I'm not so clear that a higher brix level would be able to distinguish between a food grown in rich soil or food grown in a pooer soil but with fertilizers added to the soil. certainly in the long run organically grown food will help preserve the soil fertility.

[dannyg1]

In my experience, that is not correct. Without getting into the details, people (poor or not) who are not informed about food, make purchase choices based on taste and ease of preparation. I know plenty of very poor people who spend their money on things I would consider extravagant (such as TVs or video games as they try to keep up with society), instead of a balanced diet. To say that they have "no choice" is fallacious. They DO have a choice, they just choose poorly.

I can tell you from personal experience that you're generalizing to an extent that you're losing the basic logic behind your assertion. If, as you've said, the plenty of poor people you know spend their money on TV and videogames, then the most likely explanation is that you dont have truly poor friends/acquaintances.

I know that if I'm forced to limit my food costs to $10/day or less, the choices I have become stark, and I mean stark.

The recent prices of items that over the last couple of years, used to be 'go-to' options have mostly doubled in price here in NYC over the last year and perishable items are impossible to buy cheaply, because they're perishable and you'll lose the money if you dont eat them all before they're rotten. Smaller quantities and you pay through the nose. One way or another, money gets thrown away.

I'd suggest that you try to limit the total of what you consume in a day. both food and beverage, to below $10/day for a week just so you might understand why a Cheeseburger happy meal is such a common choice.

[MattTuck]

I can tell you from personal experience that you're generalizing to an extent that you're losing the basic logic behind your assertion. If, as you've said, the plenty of poor people you know spend their money on TV and videogames, then the most likely explanation is that you dont have truly poor friends/acquaintances.

I know that if I'm forced to limit my food costs to $10/day or less, the choices I have become stark, and I mean stark.

The recent prices of items that over the last couple of years, used to be 'go-to' options have mostly doubled in price here in NYC over the last year and perishable items are impossible to buy cheaply, because they're perishable and you'll lose the money if you dont eat them all before they're rotten. Smaller quantities and you pay through the nose. One way or another, money gets thrown away.

I'd suggest that you try to limit the total of what you consume in a day. both food and beverage, to below $10/day for a week just so you might understand why a Cheeseburger happy meal is such a common choice.

Upon reflection, I see your point. The people that I referred to knowing make about 18 - 22K per year. ~11k is the poverty line in the US (which I just looked up on wikipedia, and was surprised it was so low). So perhaps what I thought were poor people, were not as poor as I thought.

That said, I don't think the obesity problem is limited to just people below the poverty line. I think that for the vast majority of obese people, a PRIMARY reason for their condition has to do with the choices they make, not the fact that they have NO choices when it comes to what they eat.

If you are truly destitute, there are soup kitchens and other sources of semi nutritious food beyond the drive-up window.

I am curious though, about the challenge to limit food to $10/day. I haven't eaten at fast food in a long time, but maybe this experiment will force me to rethink my beliefs.

[JeffS]

It's not just the drive-thru.

Stop by the grocery store and price a pound of broccoli, an apple, and some fresh green beans.

Now see how many cans of Boyardee, boxes of Mac'n cheese, and little debbie's that will buy you. Even the eggs that used to be dirt cheap have increased several hundred percent - largely due to, of all things, ethanol production.



It has been shown that people only have so much will power. We are being constantly bombarded with bad food. Resisting that food deprives you of will power that you could be using for something else.

I know it's infinitely easier to shop "right" when I go to Whole Foods vs the corner grocery - and for a lot of people (most?) that's not an option.

----------

Even then, your vegetables aren't necessarily safe and nutritious anymore. You have to go out of your way to find something other than the vegetable-looking things sold at most stores.

[SEABREEZE]

Wikipedia says that the brix level is a measure of the sugar content of a food or liquid by using a refractometer.I can't imagine the mineral content would vary enough that a refractometer could tell the differnce in mineral content of any like food. Something like a grape will have way more sugar than minerals and hench as it ripens will have a higher brix level.Would a carrot be the same ?
I would agree that fresh fruit and veggies are the best for you but I'm not so clear that a higher brix level would be able to distinguish between a food grown in rich soil or food grown in a pooer soil but with fertilizers added to the soil. certainly in the long run organically grown food will help preserve the soil fertility.

The point is you wont get a high brix from poor soil. Its mineral deficcient. Its the live soil that gives the plant the uptake of minerals.

Another example would be the Indian River citrus of Florida. they say its the best in the world. Why, because its so close to the coast, where its being feed from a foliar standpoint the minerals from the sea.

[dannyg1]

I am curious though, about the challenge to limit food to $10/day. I haven't eaten at fast food in a long time, but maybe this experiment will force me to rethink my beliefs.

There are ways to make the cut without fast food and I'd suggest you go that route, they're just not that convenient or easily portable. Apples and oranges are key, as is, weird as this may sound, certain inexpensive pita breads (It's the only inexpensive bread that isn't truly bad for you) and day old bagels.
Ground, natural peanut butter is a good source of protein and grape juice seems to be the least processed of the juices that can be found 'on markdown' often.

On the subject of coffee, find the best price on your favorite bean coffee and get it from there when you need it. There's no point in skimping on the quality of what you eat if you're already making things hard for yourself.

The most surprising thing you'll likely find in this exercise is that your top ten items will have wild price variations at different stores and a truly successful shopping trip will have you buying ten items from ten different stores in order to meet the budget.

The internet and Ebay are great resources for coupons and good prices on things like coffee (that you can buy in bulk to make shipping costs less budget busting).

I'd enjoy hearing things you all do to save as well.

[jscottyk]

I don’t see a connection with HFCS. What issue does it highlight? :confused:


RPS, if you read my post (http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=741884&postcount=78) carefully you'll see that I provided the graphs as further insight to one of Hardlyrob's post (http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=724191&postcount=24).

It wasn't intended to draw a connection specifically to HFCS but further illuminate the fact that Americans spend less (as a percentage) of their income of food. AND, more one healthcare.

I think there are potentially some interesting correlations here. IMO, the drop in percentage cannot be attributed solely to the fact that our incomes have risen. Food is cheaper, by and large, because currently more of what we eat comes from a modern manufacturing facilities using cheaper ingredients. We are just now beginning to understand the impact of this cheaper food on our health and consequently the our healthcare system.

[toaster]

Welcome to the world of industrialized food and behold the sickness and disease yet to overwhelm the health care capabilities of a rotting society.

How's that for happy new year?

[Karin Kirk]

I like this thread. This is a subject I put a lot of thought into. Michael Pollan is one of my heroes.

I like the $10/day challenge too. It's perfectly easy if you happen to have a garden. I know that's not an option for many urban poor folks, but for many it is a possibility and in fact we're seeing a huge upswing in seed sales and interest in canning.

Amazing what a $2.50 investment in a packet of tomato seeds will get you. Not to mention seed potatoes, the world's finest food investment (last year $3.50 of seed potatoes yielded 45 lbs of potatoes!). Granted there are other expenses to have a garden and I know this is not realistic for the truly poor folks. But for lots of obese, unhealthy middle class folks, it is a possibility that is truly eye opening.

JeffS, I find it interesting what you said about a finite amount of willpower. I'd like to read more about that. Do you know where that came from?

As for the relationship between cheap food and health care costs, the point I take away is that having cheap food has become a priority or a point of pride even among people who can easily afford to chose much better quality products. And there are huge costs, on many levels, behind ground beef that is 99 cents a pound. Products like that have a huge toll on public health, animal welfare, the environment, etc. I wonder what proportion of people who buy stuff like that are doing so because they truly can't afford anything else, or because we are conditioned to just buy the cheapest thing on the shelf.

If I were able to change anything in the food business it would be modern beef production. Truly horrifying.

[Ray]

If I were able to change anything in the food business it would be modern beef production. Truly horrifying.
Yep. And yet there's one school of thought (a school that I attend) that eating mostly plants and animals is the healthiest approach to eating. Plants more than animals, but plenty of animals too. I'm fortunate to be able to buy just about all of my animals products (beef, pork, poultry, and eggs) from a local farmer who does it right. But its a lot more expensive than a lot of people can afford. And probably couldn't be done efficiently enough to feed the whole population even if all beef were produced that way.

A true conundrum. Among many.

-Ray

[SEABREEZE]

Welcome to the world of industrialized food and behold the sickness and disease yet to overwhelm the health care capabilities of a rotting society.

How's that for happy new year?

Both you and jscottyk said a mouth ful.

Being a Grassfed farmer, I see every day more and more of mainstream coming on board, they are starting to get it.

All one has to do is look back to there grandmother, or great grandmother, depending on there generation, they didnt have processed foods,.Everything they didnt use from the garden got canned for the winter, to hold them over till next spring, when they could replant there garden.

[rugbysecondrow]

I like this thread. This is a subject I put a lot of thought into. Michael Pollan is one of my heroes.

I like the $10/day challenge too. It's perfectly easy if you happen to have a garden. I know that's not an option for many urban poor folks, but for many it is a possibility and in fact we're seeing a huge upswing in seed sales and interest in canning.

Amazing what a $2.50 investment in a packet of tomato seeds will get you. Not to mention seed potatoes, the world's finest food investment (last year $3.50 of seed potatoes yielded 45 lbs of potatoes!). Granted there are other expenses to have a garden and I know this is not realistic for the truly poor folks. But for lots of obese, unhealthy middle class folks, it is a possibility that is truly eye opening.

JeffS, I find it interesting what you said about a finite amount of willpower. I'd like to read more about that. Do you know where that came from?

As for the relationship between cheap food and health care costs, the point I take away is that having cheap food has become a priority or a point of pride even among people who can easily afford to chose much better quality products. And there are huge costs, on many levels, behind ground beef that is 99 cents a pound. Products like that have a huge toll on public health, animal welfare, the environment, etc. I wonder what proportion of people who buy stuff like that are doing so because they truly can't afford anything else, or because we are conditioned to just buy the cheapest thing on the shelf.

If I were able to change anything in the food business it would be modern beef production. Truly horrifying.

I read Pollen's book In Defense of Food. It was alright, but became fairly redundant and most likely could have been about 1/3 as long as it was. In my opinion, Pollen proposes ideas that are near impossible for most people to adapt. Frankly, if I can incorporate some of his ideas into my life (whole foods that my ancestors would recognize for instance) I am doing well. I will always fall short though as I eat cereal, sandwiches made from grocery store bread, non-homemade pasta etc. I know he is focusing on nutrition, diet and its impact, but he conveniently sidesteps the reality of available time. He references eating traditional recipies, but forgets the reality that women didn't work back in the day and now, with two people working, there is little opportunity to cook and shop like they did. In addition, in my area, most of the farmers markets are on weekdays...again, working people have issues with that.

I think even to Karin's point about gardening, it is zero sum when time is concerned and people who think they don't have time to make a meal (in lieu of eating out) certainly will not think they have time to garden. It is not necesarily a poor or rich issue, it is a time and value issue. For me, I can garden, I can go for a bike ride, I can take my kids to the play ground, mow the grass, vacuum etc...too many competing tasks and I can tell you the two things that rise to the top (kids, ride).

Anyway, I find sweeping solutions silly. I look for and shoot for the 85% solution as I think it allows more reasonable application and I can incorporate more diversity. Exercising, work, housecleaning, cooking, socializing, etc...everything except parenting and being a husband as I try to do that 100% (but often end up near 85% as well ).

I think the most important point that somebody made before was eating out. Just by making your own dinner, you become vested in the process. You are more cognizant of what you feed your family and its importance. In addition, if people cut out daily habits of candy, soda, vending machines, crappy Starbucks drinks etc and replace them with a daily walk and glasses of water, huge improvements would be had. It is not terribly complicated and water and walking is about as cheap as it gets.

[JeffS]

And probably couldn't be done efficiently enough to feed the whole population even if all beef were produced that way.

A true conundrum. Among many.

-Ray


Yea, this is a frequent argument of the corporate food network. They use it as a reason we need them, or to argue against the organic movement.

Instead, I think it's just proof that we have too many people. I am at a loss as to how to deal with that though. The last thing the coporate world wants is fewer people.

------

Karin, I will have to look for the willpower reference. Lately, it has been taken over by all of the weight-loss people so finding the more legitimate sources is harder.

[jscottyk]

Yea, this is a frequent argument of the corporate food network. They use it as a reason we need them, or to argue against the organic movement.

Instead, I think it's just proof that we have too many people. I am at a loss as to how to deal with that though. The last thing the coporate world wants is fewer people.


Or, conversely, that the US population eats too much beef. The corporate food network you are referring is predicating their argument on a status quo of the current consumption level of beef. Our currently level of consumption is not sustainable through any other means than industrial "farming".

An alternative answer is eat less beef. When you do make sure it's grass feed (thanks to SEABREEZE for using "grass feed" techniques), raised, slaughtered, and butchered locally.

[Karin Kirk]

But its a lot more expensive than a lot of people can afford. And probably couldn't be done efficiently enough to feed the whole population even if all beef were produced that way.

A true conundrum. Among many.

-Ray

My answer to this is why not change the expectation that we must eat meat at every meal? I think better production methods could work, or at least come a lot closer to working, if we ate less meat. We all know that the production of beef consumes 10x the water and resources than the production of a food crop. This means that we could produce 10x the food per acre if we cut out the beef altogether. I know that that's not a reasonable solution, but a reduction in meat consumption would help.

We used to buy frozen chicken breasts at Costco, and they were the basis for many of our meals. Upon reading Omnivore's Dilemma I stopped buying that (it was our last holdout of industrial meat) and switched to ungodly expensive local chicken. Because it costs a lot, we simply don't cook with chicken as often. Our total chicken budget is probably the same, but we just consume less of it.

Hey Rugby, I like your going for a daily walk idea. However instead of just walking around the block, how about walking out to your garden and spending the same amount of time getting gentle exercise while tending your sweet peas? :) The two are probably equally unrealistic for people who place a low priority on health and welfare, sadly. But I agree that steps like this can have large positive impacts.

[rugbysecondrow]

Hey Rugby, I like your going for a daily walk idea. However instead of just walking around the block, how about walking out to your garden and spending the same amount of time getting gentle exercise while tending your sweet peas? :) The two are probably equally unrealistic for people who place a low priority on health and welfare, sadly. But I agree that steps like this can have large positive impacts.

I agree with the idea, but I think in most households where both parents work, there isn't time for the garden or other extras. Skip the breakroom where people eat donuts and drink a coke and instead go for a walk. Instead of eating out for lunch, again, pack a sandwich and some veggies and take a stroll. It is cheaper for most people (more money available for quality dinners), walking is free and it is better for you. Get some friends to join and you maintain your social needs.

For most people, High fructose discussions, sustainable gardening, ag policy as it relates to corn production and consumption is not a fruitful conversation. For most non-active people (majority of Americans), it is the simple changes that can have the largest and most immediate impact. Walks, veggies, not eating out, less or no soda, more water, less or no chips or candy, homemade meals...these are pretty easy fixes that can yield benefits in a few weeks time. For you, cutting out chicken breasts in lieu of other options is an improvement, for others, just making the chicken at home is an improvement. I am just trying to calibrate the perspective. I don't disagree with some of the more lofty ideas, I just think they are very applicable to most families.

[avalonracing]

Coke from Mexico still has sugar. And sells in some grocery stores now.


The downside is that it has Mexican water.

[Ray]

My answer to this is why not change the expectation that we must eat meat at every meal? I think better production methods could work, or at least come a lot closer to working, if we ate less meat.
I used to eat VERY little meat, a bit more poultry, and even more fish. I had some health problems associated with too many carbs (even carbs from whole grains and such). I tried a few things and the type of eating that seems to work best for my weight control and generally feeling good is the paleo or 'caveman' type where I eat a lot of fruits and veggies and a fair amount of meat/poultry/fish and some dairy. Practically ZERO grains (no breads, cereals, pasta, etc) and only a very occasional potato. I still probably eat less meat than some people, but I'd say I have some sort of meat on average once per day (not once per meal) which is way more than I ever have. This works really well for me. After a year of it, I feel better than I have in many years. I buy all local meat, all grass fed on a relatively small farm. We try to get as many of our veggies locally as we can as well, in season. I can afford to and make it a priority. But I really don't know if everyone ate a similar amount of meat if we could raise it efficiently enough.

There's a side of me that wishes I could get back to a primarily carb-based diet, but the health problems I was having (that seemed to all but magically disappear when I cut the carbs way down) are not something I care to go back to.

-Ray

[Hardlyrob]

The point is you wont get a high brix from poor soil. Its mineral deficcient. Its the live soil that gives the plant the uptake of minerals.

Another example would be the Indian River citrus of Florida. they say its the best in the world. Why, because its so close to the coast, where its being feed from a foliar standpoint the minerals from the sea.

The mineral content of any of these fruits and veggies is miniscule - it would never show up as even a variation of a tenth of a degree brix. A processing tomato is about 4.5 to 5 degrees brix - which measures total soluble solids, sugars, salts, pectins, citric acid and other carbohydrates. It can be approximated for flavor purposes as 1 degree brix = 1 percent sugar - but that is a VERY rough guide.

The USDA nutrition database shows tomatoes as having 7mg sodium per 149 grams, vs 4 GRAMS of sugars per 149 grams. These are fresh market tomatoes which are lower in solids than processing tomatoes (different varieties developed for different reasons). Genetics trumps soil composition, and modern fertilizing programs take into account all of the required micronutrients.

When I was formulating low sodium products for Campbell's years ago, the rule of thumb was that the vegetables would contribute about 50mg of sodium per serving in a condensed soup format (10.5 ounce, or 300g). That is WAY less than anything that would register on a hand held refractometer.

Cheers!

Rob

[rugbysecondrow]

I love Dr Pepper too much unfortunately....

However DP with pure cane sugar = AMAZING

dublindrpepper.com

INSANE. Seriously. :D


The new throw back Dr. Pepper has all sugar. I bought some tonight and I am looking forward to taking a pull shortly.

[1centaur]

Somebody move this to OT - when are calories not just calories? More often than you hear on forums.


http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-oh-crap-scientists-discover-that-high-fructose-corn-syrup-makes-you-really-fat-2010-3?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[retrogrouchy]

Coke from Mexico still has sugar. And sells in some grocery stores now.
And Pepsi has a version called 'throwback' that some stores are carrying. It's made with sugar, not HFCS, and even is packaged in the old-school-graphics cans.
Just like at Grandma's house when I was a kid (although it was in Raymond Loewy-inspired bottles back then).

[toaster]

Give up soda...for your health!

[SEABREEZE]

I've said this before in other posts, if you want to sweeten anything , use Unheated Honey.

The KEY word is unheated. When you have honey that says raw, but doesnt include Unheated, You are having sugar.

Unheated honey is alive with all the enzymes. If you used it with a protein meal, it would help break down the protein. Not to mention all the other atributes real raw unheated honey can do for you. Research it, you will see I sent you down the correct bike trail.

Simply put, sugar destroys the body. In any of its names on the back of many product ingredient lists.


Thats a fact Jack

[JeffS]

Give up soda...for your health!


yea, that's the easy place to point a finger, but it's much larger than that.

Yea, there's the obvious junk foods, but let's say you buy whipped cream instead of cool whip... HFCS. What about some ketchup to go on your burger? HFCS. And the hamburger buns? HFCS. Baked beans? HFCS

I used to eat a ton of Claussen pickles. Then I realized they contained HFCS too, so I stopped. I should have known... owned by kraft, so I should have known.

And yes, I can buy canned whipped cream, ketchup and hamburger buns without HFCS, but probably not at a standard grocery store.

[JeffS]

Simply put, sugar destroys the body. In any of its names on the back of many product ingredient lists.


On a vaguely related note... did you know that most "sugar" does not come from sugar cane anymore? Unless it specifically says cane sugar it likely came from a genetically modified, roundup-ready sugar beet.

[SEABREEZE]

Omnivore's dilemma should be read by every person able to read a book in the country. In defense of food probably wouldn't hurt either.

HFCS is not inherently evil and probably no worse than consuming a similar amount of other sweetner, calorically speaking. It is just the engineering and manufacture of it and the fact that it appears in virtually everything coming from a box or package which is where a large part of our country gets the preponderance of their calories.

I'll go you one better, and raise you five chips,

http://www.foodincmovie.com/

[1happygirl]

This is a great example of an OT thread that got me thinking and lookin' up all the resources.

Can anyone still tell me about how long the threads will stay in the OT area? I refer to some threads more than once and some threads in the Images gallery and the rides section seem to disappear over time

[fiamme red]

Can anyone still tell me about how long the threads will stay in the OT area? I refer to some threads more than once and some threads in the Images gallery and the rides section seem to disappear over timeThey don't disappear, you just need to change your settings.

Go to User CP --> Edit Options --> in "Default Thread Age Cut Off," choose "Show all threads."

[1happygirl]

Thanks!

[OtayBW]

On a vaguely related note... did you know that most "sugar" does not come from sugar cane anymore? Unless it specifically says cane sugar it likely came from a genetically modified, roundup-ready sugar beet.
Beet sugar is widely used in Europe and is noticably - to me - less sweet than cane. Regarding your post above, I make a conscious effort to avoid foods with HFCS. Might be hard to do in a restaurant, but not hard at all in the supermarket.

[SEABREEZE]

The mineral content of any of these fruits and veggies is miniscule - it would never show up as even a variation of a tenth of a degree brix. A processing tomato is about 4.5 to 5 degrees brix - which measures total soluble solids, sugars, salts, pectins, citric acid and other carbohydrates. It can be approximated for flavor purposes as 1 degree brix = 1 percent sugar - but that is a VERY rough guide.

The USDA nutrition database shows tomatoes as having 7mg sodium per 149 grams, vs 4 GRAMS of sugars per 149 grams. These are fresh market tomatoes which are lower in solids than processing tomatoes (different varieties developed for different reasons). Genetics trumps soil composition, and modern fertilizing programs take into account all of the required micronutrients.

When I was formulating low sodium products for Campbell's years ago, the rule of thumb was that the vegetables would contribute about 50mg of sodium per serving in a condensed soup format (10.5 ounce, or 300g). That is WAY less than anything that would register on a hand held refractometer.

Cheers!

Rob

I think you need to look into Dr Bedoes work, before commenting on mineral content.

What kind of Modern fertilizing program are we talking about, Petrol base fertilizers or Liquid sea immulsion and Seaweed.

When you formulate for whomever you formulate, remember one thing, when a heating process occurs, it kills many of the life giving properties of that food. Enzymes are lost.

There are many times I like a hot fresh bowl of homemade soup, but at the same time I know if I have those tomatoes in a salad, I will reap far more nutrional valve from the freshly cut up organic heirloom tomato in a salad than I would from the heated soup. I used organic heirloom as a example to emphasize what you mentioned above, genetics trumps soil composition.
In my case you have both, great geneics, and mineral rich organic soil.

In a couple of other posts you requested to flame away, There is no reason to do so, you are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that.

Karen wrote so gracefully, there is choice.

I dont have to prove it to you, nor you to me,

There is gerat argument from both sides

Now,,, lets take a ride together.

[fiamme red]

Give up soda...for your health!No, soda is good for you. Especially for your child. ;)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3126/2848793719_d4bbdc2f16_o.jpg

[goonster]

Just checking into this thread to say that I recently scored a small stash of kosher-for-Passover sugared Coke at my local Wegman's. It was cheaper than the HFCS Coke too, so I will happily give some props to the free market retail channels in this case.

[retrogrouchy]

Sweet! Can I get Cherry Coke that was made w/sugar? I'm primarily a "Pepsi throwback" guy now, but I kinda like Cherry Coke once in a while.....