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

[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]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Says what exactly? That HFCS and corn syrup are two separate things? Uhh...okay. That's not in question.

Many scientific studies are finding links to HFCS and diabetes and obesity. It's good for people to know when big agriculture is trying to hide something.

There is nothing magical about corn syrup that is causing diabetes and obesity. Those fatties could be eating regular sugar and they'd still be fat (which contributes to diabetes).

They are fat and diabetic because they drink and eat too many empty calories. Doesn't matter what the sugar is. Look at the AMOUNTS consumed, not just the change from sugar to HFCS.

This is lazy people looking for someone to blame, IMO, and they are not willing to look at their moon-faced reflection in the mirror.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by tater

There is nothing magical about corn syrup that is causing diabetes and obesity. Those fatties could be eating regular sugar and they'd still be fat (which contributes to diabetes).

They are fat and diabetic because they drink and eat too many empty calories. Doesn't matter what the sugar is. Look at the AMOUNTS consumed, not just the change from sugar to HFCS.

This is lazy people looking for someone to blame, IMO, and they are not willing to look at their moon-faced reflection in the mirror.

I agree with that also, but I still want to know if the product contains HFCS, just as I want to know what preservatives are used, the fat content, and the total calories. Changing the name because it is associated with obesity and Type 2 diabetes is deceptive. The term was fine until it started getting bad press.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

There is nothing magical about corn syrup that is causing diabetes and obesity. Those fatties could be eating regular sugar and they'd still be fat (which contributes to diabetes).

They are fat and diabetic because they drink and eat too many empty calories. Doesn't matter what the sugar is. Look at the AMOUNTS consumed, not just the change from sugar to HFCS.

This is lazy people looking for someone to blame, IMO, and they are not willing to look at their moon-faced reflection in the mirror.

The science isn't conclusive either way. Until it is, I'd just as soon avoid it.

[tater]

True, but it's getting bad press. Articles written by writers who don't even know what a sugar is, read by people who don;t know what a sugar is. The same press that continues to present patent nonsense like the (utter non-existent, and in fact fraudulent) claim that mercury was related to autism.

The guys making the stuff of course are perfectly happy with the average person consuming 10s of gallons of soda a year (hundreds?), mind you, but I don't blame them, I blame the people drinking the stuff.

Having the name change on the label is not a problem, because people who know what the different sugars actually are, and how they work, will not have a problem, and the others are not well enough informed for me to care much about them getting "tricked" by a change. Again, if they cannot explain the difference extemporaneously (and saying, "HFCS is bad, m'kay" is not explaining the difference), the label is meaningless anyway.

[tater]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

The science isn't conclusive either way. Until it is, I'd just as soon avoid it.

It's not conclusive either way. Right, so you don't use cane sugar, either, right?

Like anything else, it's fine in moderation. Anyone drinking any of that crap to excess, regardless of what is in it, is going to have trouble.

[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.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by tater

True, but it's getting bad press. Articles written by writers who don't even know what a sugar is, read by people who don;t know what a sugar is. The same press that continues to present patent nonsense like the (utter non-existent, and in fact fraudulent) claim that mercury was related to autism.

The guys making the stuff of course are perfectly happy with the average person consuming 10s of gallons of soda a year (hundreds?), mind you, but I don't blame them, I blame the people drinking the stuff.

Having the name change on the label is not a problem, because people who know what the different sugars actually are, and how they work, will not have a problem, and the others are not well enough informed for me to care much about them getting "tricked" by a change. Again, if they cannot explain the difference extemporaneously (and saying, "HFCS is bad, m'kay" is not explaining the difference), the label is meaningless anyway.

Fair enough. And it is certainly true that I would be staying away from it with the name change. It is also true that others will not regardless of the change. I also agree with your point that one's health really boils down to lifestyle.

[gimpy117]

If the studies are true, then the product has dangers; and them trying to change the term is an unscrupulous attempt to pull one over on consumers.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

It's not conclusive either way. Right, so you don't use cane sugar, either, right?

Like anything else, it's fine in moderation. Anyone drinking any of that crap to excess, regardless of what is in it, is going to have trouble.

You're twisting my words around. I said that the science is inconclusive either way that HFCS is worse for you in terms of causing negative health effects to a greater degree than other sweeteners, such as beet sugar or cane sugar. So I will err on the side of caution and avoid it in favor of other sweeteners. Yes, I use and prefer cane or beet sugar. No, I'm not a hippie that wants to see it banned. No, I don't blame the HFCS if someone gets fat drinking a six pack of soda a day. I choose to avoid it and I believe that the push for renaming it is deceptive. Have I spelled everything out clear enough so that I've headed off any other strawmans?

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

The science isn't conclusive either way.

That is the montra of the left and makes it easier to hold one position today and another tomorrow. LOL.

Some would call it being a hypocrit. Not me mind you.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

That is the montra of the left and makes it easier to hold one position today and another tomorrow. LOL.

Some would call it being a hypocrit. Not me mind you.

Ok.

[tater]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

You're twisting my words around. I said that the science is inconclusive either way that HFCS is worse for you in terms of causing negative health effects to a greater degree than other sweeteners, such as beet sugar or cane sugar. So I will err on the side of caution and avoid it in favor of other sweeteners. Yes, I use and prefer cane or beet sugar. No, I'm not a hippie that wants to see it banned. No, I don't blame the HFCS if someone gets fat drinking a six pack of soda a day. I choose to avoid it and I believe that the push for renaming it is deceptive. Have I spelled everything out clear enough so that I've headed off any other strawmans?

How can you make a decision one way or another with inconclusive proof?

A might be worse than B, but B might be worse than A. Decision: Only drink B. Might s well pick randomly, or drink both. I think either or both in moderation is fine.

The hippie comment was generalized, it wasn't pointed at you.

I don;t think renaming it is the least deceptive. Seems like the name is already arbitrary.

It's funny, actually, HFCS is used in the US because it is cheap. It;s cheap because of idiotic subsidy. So the government pays money to make HFCS cheap, then might very well spend a fortune trying to gt people not to use HFCS by scaring them.

Step one, eliminate all farm subsidy, lol.

[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.

[nikimcbee]

On a side note, the dairy industry is upset with the soy industry for the use of the term "milk". Calling soy-milk "milk", when it's not really milk.

(everybody knows it's called printer ink)