PDA

View Full Version : High Fructose corn syrup type sugar



elipson
21st April 09, 12:36 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/04/20/fructose-glucose-drinks.html


Fructose worse than glucose when it comes to sweetened drinks: study
Last Updated: Monday, April 20, 2009 | 6:08 PM ET Comments70Recommend72CBC News
All sugars are not created equal when it comes to how our bodies metabolize the sweeteners, a new study suggests. People who drank beverages sweetened with fructose, but not glucose, showed an increase in intra-abdominal fat and blood lipid levels and decreased sensitivity to the hormone insulin, researchers reported in this week's issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

The findings suggest that fructose-sweetened beverages can interfere with how the body handles fat, leading to medical conditions that increase susceptibility to heart attacks and strokes.

The results could be important given that in 2005, the average American consumed 64 kilograms of added sugar, a sizeable proportion of which came through drinking soft drinks, said study author Peter Havel of the University of California at Davis and his colleagues.

Consumption of sugars and sweeteners in the U.S. went up by 19 per cent between 1970 and 2005, according to a commentary accompanying the study.

Increased use of high-fructose corn syrup as a sweetener in pop in the last few decades has been proposed as one dietary change fueling obesity in developed countries, Matthias Tschöp and Susanna Hofmann of the University of Cincinnati-College of Medicine noted in their commentary.

The most common form of the syrup contains five per cent more fructose than glucose and is perceived as sweeter, according to food and drink manufacturers.

Metabolic changes
In the 10-week study, 17 subjects consumed a quarter of their calories from fructose-sweetened beverages and another 15 subjects drank the equivalent amount in glucose-sweetened beverages. Participants had an average age of 50 and a body mass index of 29, which is considered overweight.

Both groups put on the same amount of weight, but only the fructose group showed the other differences.

People drinking the equivalent of about six cans of soft drinks a day in fructose became less sensitive to insulin, which helps control glucose levels in the blood, and showed signs of dyslipidemia such as high cholesterol.

Fructose is no worse than glucose if taken in moderation, said Dr. David Jenkins, who holds the Canada Research Chair in nutrition and metabolism at the University of Toronto.

"We're talking about excess in people who are gaining weight, people who are overweight to begin with and people who are not exercising to begin with," Jenkins said.

The long-term effects of fructose remain unknown, but it's clear that chronic overconsumption of dietary sugars in general is harmful to health, the commentators said.

"For our part, we will continue to aim for moderation of balanced caloric ingestion without excluding the occasional sweet soda," they concluded.

Some manufacturers have released sugar-free versions of soft drinks, and the corn industry has responded with ads suggesting high-fructose corn sweeteners have "the same natural sweeteners as table sugar."


Never really learned much about this stuff before so this pique my interest. I've heard its a money pit for government subsidies so I always disliked it for that reason.

EuropIan
21st April 09, 01:02 PM
High fructose corn syrup is in most mass produced American food.

EEbRxTOyGf0

KVsgXPt564Q

7BJJGzbN3fg

elipson
21st April 09, 01:07 PM
Mexican pop is much better than other pop.

Ian, seen those before. But it's still interesting to watch how a massive marketing machine can spin anything.

EuropIan
21st April 09, 01:13 PM
Ian, seen those before. But it's still interesting to watch how a massive marketing machine can spin anything.
Yeah I've posted them before I am just dumbfounded by the appeal to ignorance apparant in those adds.

partyboy
21st April 09, 01:53 PM
Mexican pop is much better than other pop.

???

yyFmn9YVLy8

Kiko
21st April 09, 01:59 PM
See, this is why I drink scotch....

jubei33
21st April 09, 03:28 PM
YOU LIED TO ME FRUCTOSE LADY!!!! HULK SMASH YOU WITH BRICK!

I never drink that shit anyway. I prefer rocket fuel.

KO'd N DOA
21st April 09, 04:51 PM
Good Calories Bad Calories... Taubs. Is proven right again.

socratic
24th April 09, 09:41 AM
For those who don't know, the answer the anti-fructose people in the ads should have said is the following:

High fructose corn syrup is linked with heard disease and insulin resistance, which can very easily lead to diabetes and obesity, and thus more heart disease. It is not anything like sugar at all [sugar is 1 sucrose plus 1 fructose, if memory serves] because it is so heavily processed and modified it has no remaining nutritional value. It's lower in GI than glucose but that is hardly impressive. Exposure to it is addictive and it is overrepresented in foodstuffs everywhere, from icecream to cereal to baked goods to drinks. It's the silent killer, because you'll consume tons of it before you realise it. HFCS is the reason why America is fat; it's what makes shit junkfood taste great and it keeps huge sums of ill-gotten money in the hands of corn growers across America.

"In moderation" for high fructose corn syrup is none. It is a whole food minus the whole. It has no nutritional value beyond pure energy, and there are much better energy sources.

Cane sugar is a moderately good sugar [I think it's lower in GI than regular sugar but probably not as low as honey] but there's a million alternatives to explore.

WarPhalange
24th April 09, 10:30 AM
For those who don't know, the answer the anti-fructose people in the ads should have said is the following:

High fructose corn syrup is linked with heard disease and insulin resistance, which can very easily lead to diabetes and obesity, and thus more heart disease. It is not anything like sugar at all [sugar is 1 sucrose plus 1 fructose, if memory serves] because it is so heavily processed and modified it has no remaining nutritional value. It's lower in GI than glucose but that is hardly impressive. Exposure to it is addictive and it is overrepresented in foodstuffs everywhere, from icecream to cereal to baked goods to drinks. It's the silent killer, because you'll consume tons of it before you realise it. HFCS is the reason why America is fat; it's what makes shit junkfood taste great and it keeps huge sums of ill-gotten money in the hands of corn growers across America.

"In moderation" for high fructose corn syrup is none. It is a whole food minus the whole. It has no nutritional value beyond pure energy, and there are much better energy sources.

Cane sugar is a moderately good sugar [I think it's lower in GI than regular sugar but probably not as low as honey] but there's a million alternatives to explore.

Give this man some rep and a bite of your ice cream.

HappyOldGuy
24th April 09, 12:02 PM
For those who don't know, the answer the anti-fructose people in the ads should have said is the following:

High fructose corn syrup is linked with heard disease and insulin resistance, which can very easily lead to diabetes and obesity, and thus more heart disease. It is not anything like sugar at all [sugar is 1 sucrose plus 1 fructose, if memory serves] because it is so heavily processed and modified it has no remaining nutritional value. It's lower in GI than glucose but that is hardly impressive. Exposure to it is addictive and it is overrepresented in foodstuffs everywhere, from icecream to cereal to baked goods to drinks. It's the silent killer, because you'll consume tons of it before you realise it. HFCS is the reason why America is fat; it's what makes shit junkfood taste great and it keeps huge sums of ill-gotten money in the hands of corn growers across America.

"In moderation" for high fructose corn syrup is none. It is a whole food minus the whole. It has no nutritional value beyond pure energy, and there are much better energy sources.

Cane sugar is a moderately good sugar [I think it's lower in GI than regular sugar but probably not as low as honey] but there's a million alternatives to explore.
There is still tons of disagreement about the cause and effect relationship between HFCS and obesity et al. HFCS is so pervasive in junk food that it's almost impossible to seperate the effect of HFCS from the effect of eating a shitty diet in general, and most of the attempts to find a mechanism particular to HFCS haven't stood up. The best connections seem to be with excessive soda etc comsumption, which is HFCS by definition in the US, but not other places that have the same obesity problems.

So bottom line. Don't sweat the HFCS. That's just more moronic searching for a magic be thin pill. Just cut out the junkfood and sodas and get some fucking exercise you pathetic lardass.

partyboy
24th April 09, 12:18 PM
the problem with HFCS is that it's in goddamn-near EVERYTHING:

pickles
maple syrup
junk food
fast food
white bread
eggos
sodas
juice drinks
stove top stuffing
cereals (incl. raisin bran crunch, wtf??)
powerbars
ketchup
miracle whip
cough syrup
crackers
wheat thins
yogurt
cottage cheese
bloody mary & margarita mix
baked beans
apple sauce
cranberry sauce
relish
salad dressing
bbq sauce
some soups

et fucking cetera...

it's hard to even tailor a diet around NOT eating HFCS

elipson
24th April 09, 02:30 PM
...and that it is heavily reliant on government subsidies of the corn industry in order to compete with third world sugar producers. This both robs the tax payers (god I sound like Cullion) in order to support a shitty product produced by a shrinking segment of thepopulation, and it prevents third world countries from developing an export market for their cheaper, better, sugar products.

jubei33
24th April 09, 03:08 PM
the problem with HFCS is that it's in goddamn-near EVERYTHING:

pickles
maple syrup
junk food
fast food
white bread
eggos
sodas
juice drinks
stove top stuffing
cereals (incl. raisin bran crunch, wtf??)
powerbars
ketchup
miracle whip
cough syrup
crackers
wheat thins
yogurt
cottage cheese
bloody mary & margarita mix
baked beans
apple sauce
cranberry sauce
relish
salad dressing
bbq sauce
some soups

et fucking cetera...

it's hard to even tailor a diet around NOT eating HFCS

Out of that entire list there were only two that took some thought for me: yogurt and cottage cheese. Then I realized you probably eat the fruit on the bottom yogurt, don't you? The cheese is still a mystery to me, though.

I know a 'sandwich isn't a sandwich', but you can still party without miraclewhip and cough syrup

Kiko
24th April 09, 03:35 PM
What Jubei said, and he KNOWS about poison!

My take on the list, even though your point is a good one, partyboy.
Condiments
relish
salad dressing
bbq sauce
ketchup
miracle whip
pickles
or.. How much of it are you going to eat/drink/take?
cough syrup
cranberry sauce

Avoidable
junk food
fast food
white bread
eggos
sodas
juice drinks

Could be made from scratch
stove top stuffing
bloody mary & margarita mix
some soups

Could find a healthier version OR make ‘em yourself
maple syrup (REAL maple syrup?)
yogurt
cottage cheese
crackers
wheat thins
cereals (incl. raisin bran crunch, wtf??)
powerbars

Dunno about these. They clearly need sugar, but, again, how much of 'em do you eat to make it worth it to make 'em yourself?
baked beans
apple sauce

I guess that's what healthfood stores are for, right?

jubei33
24th April 09, 04:06 PM
ah, on the cooking note you could also make your own pickles. That's just putting stuff in a jar for a while. The best thing is you can make them as spicy as you want. Its about pickle season too. I'll make some and post some pics for you guys.

partyboy
24th April 09, 04:16 PM
I'm not saying it's impossible to avoid it... i'm just saying that it's annoying and most ordinary people probably take in a lot more HFCS than they think they do

jubei33
24th April 09, 04:28 PM
Answer the question: do you or do you not eat fruit on the bottom yogurt!

socratic
24th April 09, 07:44 PM
There is still tons of disagreement about the cause and effect relationship between HFCS and obesity et al. HFCS is so pervasive in junk food that it's almost impossible to seperate the effect of HFCS from the effect of eating a shitty diet in general, and most of the attempts to find a mechanism particular to HFCS haven't stood up. The best connections seem to be with excessive soda etc comsumption, which is HFCS by definition in the US, but not other places that have the same obesity problems.

So bottom line. Don't sweat the HFCS. That's just more moronic searching for a magic be thin pill. Just cut out the junkfood and sodas and get some fucking exercise you pathetic lardass.

I was of the impression HFCS had been linked pretty conclusively to insulin resistance. I'll admit I haven't read any studies, just commentaries, so maybe that's the problem. I don't think worrying about HFCS is a magic pill, I think it's about analysing your diet and removing the most stupid, dangerous, unhealthy things you can find from it. Seriously. Maybe not eating HFCS won't make you thin, but it sure as hell won't make you more fat and more unhealthy, which eating more HFCS/HFCS products will.

Yo Jubei, here's why I think HFCS is addictive: It's sweet. Very, very sweet. Anything it goes into tastes nice. You eat something with HFCS that tastes damn fine and you are sure to remember it. You can easily gain access to more of it, and when you have one lot of anything, you're bound to want more, because it tastes damn fine. And more, and more. That's why you see people habitually drinking 25 cans of coke a day [aside from the caffeine, which is also addictive...] or often deliberately, habitually eating high-HFCS foods; twinkies, pastries, shitty cereals, etc. I'm sure the industry knows just how excellent HFCS is as a marketing tool for your food products and they use it accordingly.

As for avoiding some of the foods that contain HFCS- eat more whole foods you get raw [veggies, fruits, etc, that aren't canned], grow and make more of your own food, and when possible buy from organic/healthier sources such as the Farmers Markets. Deliberately look for foods with the least number of addititives. My old man [who's become a health nut as he's aged] came home one day with what he called the best yoghurt on earth. You know what the ingredients list said? Milk solids, cultures. No HFCS, no flavouring, no sugar, no nothin'. Look for more of this.

jubei33
24th April 09, 08:17 PM
I agree with most of what you said earlier, but as point just because something tastes yummy, isn't what I would define as physically addictive. Most people would describe at least the criteria of creating a physical need to function regularly. It could be argued in the same context, but i don't think that it has factual evidence to back it up. My disagreement is one of specificity, rather than on merit.

edit: as another point, there are quite a few things classified as sweeter than sucrose. take nutrasweet/aspartame (supposedly like 150x as sweet as sucrose), for example, is thought to be very much more sweeter. would you suggest that this is also an addictive chemical? Some proteins and plant glycosides have well over 1000x the sweetness as sucrose.

EuropIan
25th April 09, 05:18 AM
Answer the question: do you or do you not eat fruit on the bottom yogurt!
That's a trick question because it isn't yogurt

Kiko
25th April 09, 05:30 AM
It's also a matter of conditioning, isn't it? This may be anecdotal and there's probably HFCS in both, but I decided to eat wheat bread (probably somewhere in my 20s) and have only given that to my kids (with the exception of things like rolls and Italian type breads occasionally) They LIKE wheat bread better.

'Addiction' to this stuff may not be so much in the taste of it being better, just that it's in so many things, that people grow accustomed to it and prefer it as familiar. Just a thought...

socratic
25th April 09, 07:44 AM
I agree with most of what you said earlier, but as point just because something tastes yummy, isn't what I would define as physically addictive. Most people would describe at least the criteria of creating a physical need to function regularly. It could be argued in the same context, but i don't think that it has factual evidence to back it up. My disagreement is one of specificity, rather than on merit.

That's true. I think the main point I was trying to get across is that it's largely tool to ensure people keep eating your shitty food by blanketing it with fructose-laden deliciousness. It builds preference and whatnot.


edit: as another point, there are quite a few things classified as sweeter than sucrose. take nutrasweet/aspartame (supposedly like 150x as sweet as sucrose), for example, is thought to be very much more sweeter. would you suggest that this is also an addictive chemical? Some proteins and plant glycosides have well over 1000x the sweetness as sucrose.

No doubt. I've heard Luo Han is about 200x regular sugar. They vary in nutritional profile though and their expense means they're less widely used.

Cullion
26th April 09, 04:49 AM
Everything I've read on the subject in the UK suggests that corn syrup is the cause of much of the US obesity epidemic and a range of other 'lifestyle' diseases which are more prevalent there.

Just stop subsidising corn production.

Kiko
26th April 09, 05:47 AM
Or use it for fuel instead of sweetener and cat/dog food filler and other stupid things?

We still need it to feed cows for BEEF!

socratic
26th April 09, 08:00 AM
Or use it for fuel instead of sweetener and cat/dog food filler and other stupid things?

We still need it to feed cows for BEEF!

Only if you like eating the shittiest beef on the market. At least grass-fed beef has omega-3s.

Dark Helmet
26th April 09, 08:25 AM
Just for the uniformed. The US used to import all it's sugar cane from the biggest exported, Cuba. That stopped when economic sanctions set in in the '60s. Then americans turned to corn syrup.

Dark Helmet
26th April 09, 08:26 AM
Question:

If most things today are made from corn syrup does that include those little packets of sugar for coffee?

Cullion
26th April 09, 08:28 AM
Or use it for fuel instead of sweetener and cat/dog food filler and other stupid things?

We still need it to feed cows for BEEF!

I still don't understand why any of those things would mean you want to subsidise it's production.

EuropIan
26th April 09, 08:35 AM
Just for the uniformed. The US used to import all it's sugar cane from the biggest exported, Cuba. That stopped when economic sanctions set in in the '60s. Then americans turned to corn syrup.
Inadvertantly undone by communism.

Kiko
26th April 09, 08:56 AM
I don't want it subsidized. Is it realistic to think it won't be grown?

If I want omega 3, I'll eat fish or take fish/flax oil.

Yes, I haven't done research. Enlighten me, please.

socratic
26th April 09, 09:11 AM
I don't want it subsidized. Is it realistic to think it won't be grown?

If I want omega 3, I'll eat fish or take fish/flax oil.

Yes, I haven't done research. Enlighten me, please.

Corn-fed beef is like eating rubber. It has all the bad things [trans fats, cholesterol, etc], less of the good things. Grass-fed beef is very good for you; omega threes, less/no trans fats, better macronutrients.

As for the bold, most fit freaks and even amateur nutritionalists would blow a gasket if you said that. The Omega fats are the ones you really can't get enough of and probably don't get enough of.

EuropIan
26th April 09, 09:41 AM
I don't want it subsidized. Is it realistic to think it won't be grown?


No it isn't realistic.

Problem superficially and vaguely presented.: 1. Corn farmers receive lots of money to make corn -> Corn farmers produce lots of corn, so much in fact, that they can't sell it through normal channels -> HFCS gets sold as a good alternative to sugar -> subsidy justified -> see 1.

Cullion
26th April 09, 09:50 AM
I don't want it subsidized. Is it realistic to think it won't be grown?

If it wasn't subsidised, it would cost more.

The reason we don't have corn syrup as an additive in almost everything in Europe isn't because of any special moral intentions to keep the population healthy, it's because corn syrup isn't artificially cheap here so there's no financial incentive to use it as a filler in everything.

Maybe if you stop giving corn farmers money to grow stuff that people don't really need they'd grow other things? Just a thought.

HappyOldGuy
26th April 09, 12:36 PM
If it wasn't subsidised, it would cost more.

The reason we don't have corn syrup as an additive in almost everything in Europe isn't because of any special moral intentions to keep the population healthy, it's because corn syrup isn't artificially cheap here so there's no financial incentive to use it as a filler in everything.

Maybe if you stop giving corn farmers money to grow stuff that people don't really need they'd grow other things? Just a thought.

Even without the subsidy, we will still have shitloads more corn than we know what to do with. But killing the subsidy will help.

Cullion
26th April 09, 12:40 PM
How much did Corn subsidies cost the US taxpayer last year ?

I'm unsure how the subsidy came about and why the subsidies favour that crop in particular.

Is this being done because too much of the farmland currently being used to grow corn wouldn't be very suitable for other crops or livestock ?

EuropIan
26th April 09, 12:47 PM
How much did Corn subsidies cost the US taxpayer last year ?


I can only find stats for 95-06 (http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn)

Cullion
26th April 09, 12:55 PM
That's a lot of money.

EuropIan
26th April 09, 12:57 PM
yeah but think about the jobs created, and saving the economy, and the war on ter....WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA!?

EuropIan
26th April 09, 01:05 PM
That's a lot of money.
I believe big cotton receives more money.

Cullion
26th April 09, 01:19 PM
I assume this is being done to protect American farms from cheaper imports, and whilst I disagree with it, that's kind of a separate argument.

What I don't understand is why the subsidy is targeted at particular crops.
Is this farmland somehow unsuitable for growing other crops like wheat, cabbage, courgettes, pasture for livestock etc..?

EuropIan
26th April 09, 01:38 PM
All crops receives subsidies as far as I know.

But the interesting thing is how some areas are more equal than others and how some of these subsidies are artifacts from world wars.

Now. subsidies are inadvertantly used to keep 3rd world nations down under the pretext of "job security"and "stimulating the economy" but what is really bothering them (the gubment) is that these people have votes and they don't like big government coming in and messing with their money .

On the flip side sibsidies aren't always evil schemes of trying to bleed the government dry under the pretext of job and market security, because sometimes mother nature throws a giant "fuck you" curveball and this is where the "rah rah let the chips fall where they may" line of thinking needs to get its head of of their ass and realize that sometimes, just sometimes, it's nice to lend a giant taxfed hand.

Unfortunately a consequence of this bullshit is a national health crisis. which, ironically enough, could potentially cost the taxpayer more than the subsidies themselves

[/incoherent rant]

Cullion
26th April 09, 01:56 PM
That's why I asked about crop balance. Leaving aside the broader question of protectionism and subsidy, why have these subsidies produced such an oversupply of corn that they're using it as a cheap filler in so many processed foods ?

Doesn't that suggest that its production costs are being somewhat more subsidised than other crops ?

elipson
26th April 09, 06:53 PM
Or use it for fuel instead of sweetener and cat/dog food filler and other stupid things?

For the fuel thing corn looses to regular sugar cane once again.


Cullion I don't think the other available crops would translate well into other food products. I may be wrong, but I suspect a cabbage based sweetener would be.... unappealing....

There is also likely a sunk cost with all this shit, with farms growing corn for the past million years and not wanting to change all their equipment a learn how to grow/use another crop. Huge corn fields I think are easier to grow in large quantities.

Kiko
26th April 09, 08:45 PM
Cabbage based.... Now that would be a whole other source of fuel!

socratic
27th April 09, 08:01 AM
This is now off topic, but I thought I might also add for (maybe) Kiko's benefit that corn-fed beef tends to be the kind riddled with antibiotics; eating an unnatural diet [one based on corn or grains] makes the animal sickly and to keep it alive and moderately healthy they're pumped full of antibiotics, amongst other things. You might think eating a whole bunch of antibiotics is fine, but remember that your entire digestive tract is jam packed full of microbes that are entirely necessary for your health and can be killed by antibiotic exposure. That's of course why probiotic supplements are hot shit amongst t3h h1pp13s.

Kiko
27th April 09, 08:49 AM
So how do I know what my steak/burger was eating?

Activia is just good for normal folks, too. You don't have to be a hippie to like yogurt!

jubei33
27th April 09, 03:49 PM
yeah, speaking of, Japan has a whole bunch of those products. sometime I have one if i have indigestion or something. they have this one called yakult. a biochemist wanted to design a probiotic digestive for children, so he engineered a bacteria to survive in the acidic environment of the stomach. They also have just plain yogurt drinks and such, very tasty. Once we tried to make our own yogurt, came our decent, but kind of clumpy.

http://www.wefarm4u.co.cc/files/2900015/uploaded/yakult.jpg

socratic
27th April 09, 04:57 PM
So how do I know what my steak/burger was eating?

Activia is just good for normal folks, too. You don't have to be a hippie to like yogurt!

"Grass fed beef" is what to look for. Ask your butcher/local grocer/health food store/anywhere that might sell meat.


yeah, speaking of, Japan has a whole bunch of those products. sometime I have one if i have indigestion or something. they have this one called yakult. a biochemist wanted to design a probiotic digestive for children, so he engineered a bacteria to survive in the acidic environment of the stomach. They also have just plain yogurt drinks and such, very tasty. Once we tried to make our own yogurt, came our decent, but kind of clumpy.

Yakults have been a delicious Australian mainstay for aaaaaages.

Cullion
27th April 09, 05:29 PM
Cullion I don't think the other available crops would translate well into other food products. I may be wrong, but I suspect a cabbage based sweetener would be.... unappealing....

I can understand why they would want to subsidise farmers. But why pick a particular crop.

I don't understand why a gummermint would want to subsidise sweeteners.

Are you suggesting that there's a high-level conspiracy to make 'merkins fat and unhealthy ?



There is also likely a sunk cost with all this shit, with farms growing corn for the past million years and not wanting to change all their equipment a learn how to grow/use another crop. Huge corn fields I think are easier to grow in large quantities.

That's the kind of thing I was curious about. Anybody with farming experience here able to quantify it ?

Harpy
27th April 09, 07:24 PM
The US government are scared to take away the subsidies from gun-totin', corn-growin' hillbillies.

One of my majors at uni was Agricultural Economics and I recall a few US exchange students we had who just did not want to understand or acknowledge the negative impact of US subsidisation of local agricultural produce.

May you all enjoy your corn-syrup laden meals.

KO'd N DOA
28th April 09, 11:46 AM
My points....

Yogurts and probiotics need a food stuff, it is almost always starch. I have only found two brands that use lactose and unpasturised milk as the agents, as selling unpasturized milk products will cause legal concerns, and do not have the shelf live that we are use to.

Beets are the vegtable that has always been a wonderful sweetner, but in WWII they were relied upon to the point that people still don't want to eat them much...similar to the aversion to eating Rabbits.

Corn is a wonderful monoculture, where all aspects from Genetic Engineering and fertilizer and Pesti/fungi/herbi cides can all be copyrighted and profited from.

NAFTA encouraged trade with Mexico, but a good portion of the corn is scheduled for bio-fuels, so the locals starve and corn chips are now very expensive.

elipson
28th April 09, 09:42 PM
I don't understand why a gummermint would want to subsidise sweeteners.


Because at least then you can use them. Subsidizing a product that you can't move just gives you a huge surplus. Think of the EU CAP. By mixing HFCS with EVERYTHING, they avoid this.

The fact that it is useable likely motivates farmers to farm it. Farmers wouldn't make the choice to farm something they can't move, subsidized or not. Even at cheap prices, cabbage still tastes like cabbage.

Carriage before the Horse. A useable product will have a larger producer base, and therefore be more influencial to the political scene, and this will bring on the subsidies.

WarPhalange
28th April 09, 10:13 PM
I, for one, like carrots.