The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Propaganda Wars: The High Fructose Corn Syrup Lobby Strikes Back
Schrodinger
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
From http://sweetsurprise.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEbRxTOyGf0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVsgXPt564Q
I probably a dozen or so ads for this company while watching the "House" marathon last night.
Honestly, if you're going to market a product that a lot of people are actively trying to avoid, then does it really help to bring attention to the fact that people are actively trying to avoid it?
Also, wouldn't it be better if you could present a better argument to refute than "..."? Or a better counter argument than "nuh uh!" Don't you think that people will start googling that shit to see if there really is a legitimate reason that people are trying to avoid it, rather than just taking the ad's word for it that there isn't?
And seriously, why are they running these ads in the first place? Are they hoping that people will start buying HFCS off the shelf? Are they scared that food companies will stop putting profits ahead of customers and switch back to sugar? Are they worried that in an economy where food prices are skyrocketing due to corn ethanol production, that demand for corn is going to suddenly disappear?
Truly a bizarre ad. It really doesn't make me want to buy HFCS. At all.
What's next? Ads from the insulin producers of America on why diabetes isn't as bad as we all think?
- HFCS, table sugar, honey, and several fruit juices all contain the same simple sugars.
- HFCS is safe and no different from other common sweeteners like table sugar and honey.
- HFCS has the same number of calories as table sugar.
- HFCS is equal in sweetness to table sugar.
- HFCS keeps foods fresh. It enhances fruit and spice flavors. It retains moisture in bran cereals and helps keep breakfast bars moist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEbRxTOyGf0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVsgXPt564Q
I probably a dozen or so ads for this company while watching the "House" marathon last night.
Honestly, if you're going to market a product that a lot of people are actively trying to avoid, then does it really help to bring attention to the fact that people are actively trying to avoid it?
Also, wouldn't it be better if you could present a better argument to refute than "..."? Or a better counter argument than "nuh uh!" Don't you think that people will start googling that shit to see if there really is a legitimate reason that people are trying to avoid it, rather than just taking the ad's word for it that there isn't?
And seriously, why are they running these ads in the first place? Are they hoping that people will start buying HFCS off the shelf? Are they scared that food companies will stop putting profits ahead of customers and switch back to sugar? Are they worried that in an economy where food prices are skyrocketing due to corn ethanol production, that demand for corn is going to suddenly disappear?
Truly a bizarre ad. It really doesn't make me want to buy HFCS. At all.
What's next? Ads from the insulin producers of America on why diabetes isn't as bad as we all think?
Schrodinger on
0
Posts
They're hoping people Google it. It's not a company, it's a corn-industry lobbying group. And my guess as to the reason they're running it is that HFCS has been a serious enough issue in the past few years that their marketing research is starting to show more and more people are avoiding it. They're betting (and they pay people a lot of money to do the statistical analysis on this stuff) that the positives from the advertising are greater than the negatives from increased analysis.
Recently, science has caught up and PHSO turns out to be maybe, perhaps, really, really bad. And a lot of people who pay attention to labels have naturally but perhaps illogically jumped to the conclusion that the other four-word chemical that is in everything must also be bad.
At least that's what me and my wife did. However, if it really is just a cheap sugar alternative that isn't worse for you, then it's good to know that.
I remember a few years ago, when the egg council said that people were avoiding eggs because eggs were high in cholesterol, but recent studies showed that eggs don't really raise cholesterol at all in normal diets. That was an informative ad.
The HFCS ad is more along the lines of, "Uh... I don't know why HFCS is bad for me." "Well, that's because you're an idiot. So suck on this!" "All right!" That, to me, is suspicious.
*The popsicle is her penis.
Having just finished a Pepsi, I gotta say I feel dirty and a little hypocritical, since I really don't like the idea of HFCS at all- but it's freakin' everywhere and in all the crappy stuff I like...
Not that I couldn't stand to lay off the soda or something. Ugh.
I felt a lot better to know all these things. Now my guilt about my eating habits has disolved! I mean, it's all-natural, right?
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
The preference for high-fructose corn syrup over cane sugar among the vast majority of American food and beverage manufacturers is largely due to U.S. import quotas and tariffs on sugar.
Other countries, including Mexico typically use sugar in soft drinks. Some Americans seek out Mexican Coke in ethnic groceries, because they feel it tastes better or is healthier than Coke made with HFCS.
Sucrose is broken down during digestion into fructose and glucose through hydrolysis by the enzyme sucrase, by which the body regulates the rate of sucrose breakdown. Without this regulation mechanism, the body has less control over the rate of sugar absorption into the bloodstream.
I would think rational people would read that and come to suspect that just maybe their government and a certain big industry are pushing something on them that is unhealthy.
Yeah, the biggest issue is that HFCS allows food manufacturers to pack in god-awful amounts of calories in a beverage, thereby masking the taste of the cheap ingredients they use. Coke is basically a big can of sugar, benzoic acid, phosphoric acid, and carbonation. Whee.
A secondary issue is the potential health effects of HFCS. They aren't well-supported as of yet. My primary concern is that HFCS has a lower glycemic index than natural sugars, and therefore might contribute more to insulin resistance. But I haven't seen any specific studies that link HFCS to obesity or diabetes more than other sugars.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah, but what does that say except that we use too much of it in our products? All that says is that Coke has an unhealthy amount of sweetener.
I don't really know anything about HFCS except that apparently your body is unable to stop absorbing it, unlike cane sugar. I'm not sure how bad that is, but it sounds pretty bad.
As far as things go, all of these statements are technically accurate; what's important, though, is what they're not telling you. There are two different kinds of sugars (well, there are a lot of different kinds, depending on what classification system you're using), "glucose" and "fructose." Table sugar and honey contain pretty much the same sugars as HFCS, but they contain more glucose than HFCS. Glucose tends to be more filling than fructose, and also takes more energy for your body to break down (it tends to be more complex). Glucose tends to be better for you than fructose (though, the more complex a sugar is, the better it is for you). And yes, HFCS is a slightly better preservative than pure cane sugar (the primary alternative of HFCS). But you should note (as those of you who have converted to Mexi-Coke already have) that pure cane sugar both tastes better, and is better for you.
The other thing that this group ignores completely are the political implications of HFCS. Pretty much every other country in the world (there might be a small handful of exceptions) uses pure cane sugar, because it's more economical. The only reason we in the U.S. use HFCS is because the subsidies which the corn lobby receives (which are unbelievably massive) keep the price down so that it's cheaper than sugar. Of course, this also makes it cheaper than food grown in other countries, which forces farmers in those other countries (which we export to) to grow drugs instead of food. They then sell these drugs to terrorist groups, which sell them to people in developed countries, like the U.S. So, we're spending money fighting on the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, at the same time as we're spending money on de facto subsidies for drugs and terrorists.
And if you want a citation, here you go. Note the amount received by Midwest corn states. Note that California has by far the largest agricultural sector in the country, yet is number ten on the list of recipients of farm subsidies. Note that Iowa is number two by a smidge, and that the size of their agriculture sector is dwarfed by both Texas' and California's.
Oh god, Doc. I think I'm gonna puke. That right there has me really seriously against buying sodas ever again.
Even the way the woman is like " and like sugar itsfineinmoderation"....she says it so fast and with so little inflection, it reminds me of the disclaimers before and after car dealer ads.
I haven't had soft drinks in over a decade.
I don't see the point.
It's when you're drinking a six-pack a day that it starts to become a problem. Jones Soda and Mexi-Coke are a good solution to this, because they're both expensive (Mexi-Coke you can get at Costco for a little more than $1 a bottle) and are made with pure cane sugar instead of HFCS.
I care about the volume used more than it being less healthy than normal sugar. If a reasonable amount of it was used, it wouldn't be nearly the problem it is now.
OT, but my friend recently wrote an article on Jones Soda.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/365675_jonessoda04.html
Thirst for relevance
At Jones headquarters, "relevant" is a buzzword. "Having Jones in the refrigerator is a way to tell your family that you're relevant as a mom," said Ricci, 40, a father of children ages 9 and 7.
True enough, but then the problem isn't the substance itself so much as the manner in which it is used. If we substituted cane sugar for HFCS, it wouldn't really solve the problem.
Then why is fruit so good for you?
I might just switch to making my own Arnold Palmers pitchers like my stepmom.
I think they did a study a while back suggesting that sugar substitutes might actually be an appetite stimulant.
Because fruit doesn't have nearly as much sugar in it, fructose or otherwise, as any given HFCS product, and it also contains various nutrients that are actually good for you.
I hate to say it, but that sounds slightly delicious... maybe not so much now, but when I was a kid I would have WOLFED through three spoonfulls of chocolate frosting.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
Does that mean that dried dates and pineapple are better than with glucose?
And where does sucrose fit into all this?
As you can see, I've forgotten a lot of what I learned in chem and bio.
The other advantage of fruit is that it has a bunch of things in it (vitamins, minerals) that are good for you in addition to the sugar; junk food (including sodas) are pretty much entirely nutritionally void.
If I'm understanding things right, HFCS doesn't trigger the usual "you've eaten enough" hormones that regular sugar does. This allows you to eat more of it, of course, but the bigger issue is that your body can think you're starving to death and slow down your metabolism to save energy while in reality you're gorging yourself on ungodly amounts of sugar.
Edit: I'm pretty sure sucrose is a combination of fructose and glucose.
Well, A.) Other nutrients and B.) I'm pretty sure it isn't. But almost no one eats 15 peaches a day.
Not that it makes it any better for you, but your estimate just seems a little high.
(Unless of course I'm missing something here)
I thought fruit contained fructose. Is the start of the name "fructose" just a coincidence, then?
For comparison, the Jones Lemonade I'm drinking right now says 190 calories, 47g sugar.
It does, but if I recall right (from a freshman (highschool) biology class 10 years ago) it's attached to all sorts of other stuff. Also, it isn't in the same concentrations. Besides, fruit has other avenues to tasting swell.
I know that if I have a can of diet coke on an empty stomach I start to feel the effects of my blood sugar dropping (shaky hands, light-headed, etc.) after about 30-45 minutes.
Sucrose is what's naturally found in fruits, I believe. Sucrose is a complex sugar made up partly by fructose and partly by glucose. Glucose can be used by any part of the body without trouble, but fructose, apparently, can only be used by the liver. Too high concentrations of fructose can thus cause trouble, and that's precisely the problem with HFCS. Not just that it's "high fructose" but also the quantities of it that are used in nearly everything.
Also, from that interview I linked a few posts up
I mean, three tablespoons of chocolate frosting isn't even as much as what you get on a piece of cake.