Corn Refiners want to rename "High Fructose Corn Syrup" to "Corn Sugar"

[mookiemookie]

I don't disagree. But what you're seeing is the market making it's preference known, and the corn refiners are trying to pull a fast one.

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I don't disagree. But what you're seeing is the market making it's preference known, and the corn refiners are trying to pull a fast one.

It's called marketing. And every one, including yourself does it.

Big AG, Big Oil, Big Auto, Big Tech, Big Tobacco, Big Military Industrial, is there any industry which you like? Remember Big Gov't isn't an industry.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

is there any industry which you like?

No. Look up how the Founding Fathers wanted corporations dealt with. I agree with them.

[SteamWake]

Meh whats in a name. Personally I detest the stuff. They now sell sodas made with 'gasp' sugar. You can really tell the difference.

But hey I thought the 'war' was on salt

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...ant-menus.html

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Meh whats in a name. Personally I detest the stuff. They now sell sodas made with 'gasp' sugar. You can really tell the difference.

But hey I thought the 'war' was on salt

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...ant-menus.html

True. Crap by any other name....

Less sugar in general is a good idea.

[Bubblehead1980]

For once I agree with mookie.HFCS has been linked to diabetes and obesity and problem is, it's in so many things.Big AG is attempting to change the name to pull a fast one.The product should not be banned but name should remain the same and food/drink makers should try to use a less harmful substitute.Big Tobacco tried for years to pull some of the same crap and finally, they lost but then again they still make billions of off hopelessly addicted weak minded cig addicts.The same drink makers like Coke will continue to make money off suckers like me, I love the stuff.HATE Pepsi though

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

For once I agree with mookie.HFCS has been linked to diabetes and obesity and problem is, it's in so many things.Big AG is attempting to change the name to pull a fast one.The product should not be banned but name should remain the same and food/drink makers should try to use a less harmful substitute.Big Tobacco tried for years to pull some of the same crap and finally, they lost but then again they still make billions of off hopelessly addicted weak minded cig addicts.The same drink makers like Coke will continue to make money off suckers like me, I love the stuff.HATE Pepsi though

I'm with you there. The name should remain the same so that the consumer can make the choice as to whether or not he or she use it in the face of the fact that HFSC is really, really bad for you.

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

No. Look up how the Founding Fathers wanted corporations dealt with. I agree with them.

Not to ofend, but unless you don't work; you work, or dirive your livelyhood, in an industry. By your previous post it is 'Big' something.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

No. Look up how the Founding Fathers wanted corporations dealt with. I agree with them.

Come again? Jefferson hated merchants, but he also hated the government. Franklin started the nation's first franchise. Madison saw the need for both. Hamilton was a big-government man.

Which Founders are you quoting on this? With quotes, please.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Come again? Jefferson hated merchants, but he also hated the government. Franklin started the nation's first franchise. Madison saw the need for both. Hamilton was a big-government man.

Which Founders are you quoting on this? With quotes, please.

I'm referring to the state laws of the time (forgive me if I can't remember where I read it.) that limited the lifespan of corporate charters and severely limited their rights, as in contracts and ownership of assets.

Will have to Google for concrete evidence of it.

"I hope we shall take warning from the example of England and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our Government to trial, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Jefferson

"There is an evil, which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by … corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses." - Madison

On Europe: "economic power became concentrated in a few hands, then political power flowed to those possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny." - Adams

EDIT: Corrected quote attribution

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I'm referring to the state laws of the time (forgive me if I can't remember where I read it.) that limited the lifespan of corporate charters and severely limited their rights, as in contracts and ownership of assets.

Will have to Google for concrete evidence of it.

Don't worry too much about it. I'm certain there were such, even if I haven't seen them. There were state laws on just about everything else under the sun. I thought you were referring to some writings of the 'majors' I had missed. It's cool.

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

It's called marketing. And every one, including yourself does it.

Big AG, Big Oil, Big Auto, Big Tech, Big Tobacco, Big Military Industrial, is there any industry which you like? Remember Big Gov't isn't an industry.

What about Big Homeopathy, Big Organic, Big Natural, Big Local and Big Altmed? Oh, wait, those don't count for some reason.

I'm with you there. The name should remain the same so that the consumer can make the choice as to whether or not he or she use it in the face of the fact that HFSC is really, really bad for you.

Then I assume you're also in favour of regulations on the marketing label "organic", since there's such a huge variety in practices and consumers should have "freedom of choice".

If you want a more rational and nuanced view on "High Fructose" corn syrup than "OMG Corporations r evil!!!", check out this podcast.

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

What about Big Homeopathy, Big Organic, Big Natural, Big Local and Big Altmed? Oh, wait, those don't count for some reason.

Then I assume you're also in favour of regulations on the marketing label "organic", since there's such a huge variety in practices and consumers should have "freedom of choice".

If you want a more rational and nuanced view on "High Fructose" corn syrup than "OMG Corporations r evil!!!", check out this podcast.

Big Green

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Then I assume you're also in favour of regulations on the marketing label "organic", since there's such a huge variety in practices and consumers should have "freedom of choice".

Absolutely. I've been burned by organic labeled produce in the past. Still, no amount of polemics is going to change the fact that the product in question is bad for you. As a consumer, I am entitled to transparency regarding the product for which I pay.

EDIT: I'm a vegitarian, but also think it is important that consumers are informed where their meat came from, how it lived and what is was fed. People have a basic right to know what they are putting in their bodies.

[tater]

HFCS guys "big business" are "bad," so if they want a "misleading" label, that's bad. Meanwhile, hippies want things removed for completely unproven reasons, but are "good."

I hate the double standard.

Proof in properly controlled studies for any claims that something is better. That includes so-called "organic" foods.