January 6, 2013 at 7:01 pm #606157
i posted a legitimate topic on State taxes and then provided the back up data. WSB then closed the subject WHY?
i also posted concerns regarding High Fructose Corn Syrup and this topic is now gone WHY?January 6, 2013 at 7:26 pm #781864
my guess is that it had nothing to do with the topic and everything to do with how the topic was or wasn’t addressedJanuary 6, 2013 at 7:51 pm #781865
i know many do not agree with my comments; but i try not to personalize any.
at the end of the day i think everyone wants things to be better for our children; the debate is about how to get from here to thereJanuary 6, 2013 at 8:33 pm #781866
maybe you should ask the editor.
Also, check to make sure that you don’t have someone on “ignore”. If they posted last , you will not see the post.
Also if you tied HFCS in with obesity in your post, if you were beating up on persons of size, that will get it axed quickly. It’s definitely an unwritten rule here.January 6, 2013 at 9:21 pm #781867January 6, 2013 at 11:24 pm #781868January 6, 2013 at 11:57 pm #781869
info about high fructose corn syrup… ok
blaming people for being fat because they ingest high fructose corn syrup.. not okJanuary 7, 2013 at 12:55 am #781870
i never blamed anyone for being obese for ingesting HFCS; it is in so many products everyone ends up ingesting it (personally i read labels and try to avoid it).
i had stated initial studies are indicating HFCS could be a culprit in obesity with no blame on anyone. it simply is a product that may be deserving of being taxed like cigarettes if indeed a link is determinedJanuary 7, 2013 at 2:12 am #781871
SueParticipantJanuary 7, 2013 at 2:22 am #781872January 7, 2013 at 2:28 am #781873January 7, 2013 at 2:30 am #781874
i’m sure she will post with feedback at some point.
btw how are you doing these day’s Jan?January 7, 2013 at 5:41 am #781875
I’m hanging in there. Not everyone knows I had a skin graft on my foot in October. It’s still healing, and I can’t use my foot very much until it does. It prevents me from working, which means at least an hour on my feet. Have had no income since early July…life is getting interesting.
I have recovered from the heart surgery in Sept., still get tired. It’s been a roller coaster , for sure. I’m looking for a better year in 2013. Will speak with the transplant clinic on 1/18. Hopefully, I’ll get the go ahead for doing a transplant.
Thanks for asking. While it’s not been easy, I know there are others far worse than me…:)January 7, 2013 at 2:02 pm #781876
the hoop: if you’re against HFCS as a food additive, you should understand the history of the american farm subsidy.
you’re not going to get rid of HFCS without taking away agribusinesses’ monetary incentives to grow corn and export it.
and obesity may not be the only result of an increase in HFCS in the american diet. studies have also suggested that a spike in type 2 diabetes may be related.
you know why i think it’s true? because the corn industry is fighting it, and they’re throwing ad dollars in an attempt to push back.
and the same thing goes for wheat, which may have a direct correlation to higher incidence of celiac disease and gluten intolerance.
like others have said, don’t blame people for choosing food that is cheap and subsidized over that which is healthy and expensive. blame the folks who are making the crappy food cheap and easily-available. there’s no need for it.
and as others have pointed out, obesity can also be congenital. be careful how you make your arguments about food choices.January 7, 2013 at 4:57 pm #781877
tobacco fought the studies linking smoking to cancer for years. now cigarettes are taxed accordingly. if the link is established HFCS also should be taxed heavilyJanuary 7, 2013 at 6:23 pm #781878
There is a crucial difference between tobacco and HCFS in terms of risk and benefit.
Tobacco has no health benefit of any kind. Moreover, it is inherently risky, and there’s plenty of good science to support that.
HFCS, on the other hand, is considered food. It might not be great food, but it’s still food. Unlike tobacco, it is not inherently unhealthy, and there is no hard science to support the claim that it is. However, if you can find some, I’ll be happy to look at it.
Although I don’t think HCFS should be taxed, I don’t think it should be subsidized either.January 7, 2013 at 6:54 pm #781879
all i said is that if a link is determined it ought to be taxed accordingly.
i agree that it should not be subsidized.January 7, 2013 at 7:04 pm #781880
The rules against size-ism (I forget the term that TR uses in the post) are written explicitly. I don’t understand why people come on here to ask about threads being deleted. Instead of passive-agressively calling out the editor, why isn’t your first instinct to contact her directly? These threads always come off as going and yelling on TR’s lawn instead of just wanting an answer.January 8, 2013 at 3:33 am #781881
“HFCS, on the other hand, is considered food. It might not be great food, but it’s still food. Unlike tobacco, it is not inherently unhealthy, and there is no hard science to support the claim that it is. However, if you can find some, I’ll be happy to look at it.”
DBP – check out this article for some history of how evidence of toxicity from the start has been stunningly suppressed:January 9, 2013 at 12:13 am #781882
Thanks, meg. Now we’re getting somewhere. (Pay attention, hooper.)
The Mother Jones piece suggests that sugar and other sweeteners are inherently bad. What it actually demonstrates, however, is something like this:
► Eating LOTS of sweets is unhealthy.
► The sugar industry wants you to consume more of their product, and they’re willing to spend lots of money to make that happen.
Any surprises there?
So . . . just how much sugar/HFCS can you consume before it becomes unhealthy anyway? No one knows, of course, because there are so many variables involved. If you exercise a lot, you can probably eat more sweets – and more of everything else, too – without a health impact. Conversely, if you’re sedentary, or prone to diabetes, you should eat less.
But how much is ok for the average person? None? That can’t be right. “None” might be the right answer for tobacco, but not for sugar. And that’s why the two substances need to be treated differently.
Do we really want to see sugar regulated, too, though, as the MJ piece recommends it should be? Do we really want the government guilt-tripping us every time we have a soft drink or a piece of birthday cake? I don’t. Besides that, I worry about what’s next. Eating too much butter, bacon, and cheese is also unhealthy. So shall we tax, ration, and ban them, too? Or can we can let them off with a warning label?
Imagine yourself strolling through the brave new world of regulated sugar when you happen upon a slack-jawed adolescent lolling about with a cigarette in his mouth.
You say: Hey! Don’t you know that stuff can kill you?
What’s your hang-up, man? comes the retort. It’s not like it was CANDY!January 9, 2013 at 1:05 am #781883
You’re welcome DBP.
Dr. Lustig, pediatric endocronologist, has a video lecture on line, called “Sugar the Bitter Truth”. It’s very science-y, and explains some of the intricate biochemistry of sugar metabolism.
He also did a great video series out of UCSF, along with fellow researchers called “The Skinny on Obesity” Check it out, too. It’s in about 8 parts.
Unfortunately DBP, the exercise thesis doesn’t pan out well as the reason for obesity. As Dr. Lustig points out, we now have an epidemic of obese six-month olds. Six-month olds have never worked out, they have never intentionally exercised or balanced their calories-in with their calories-out. So, why *Now* do we have an epidemic of obese infants?
The slippery slope of govt. regulation. Yup.January 9, 2013 at 1:58 am #781884
IDK, perhaps we could have govt. put a limitation on HFCS production, right now, you know like Europe does? Not totally outlawed, but a quota that sufficiently limits production thus curtailing its availability and presence.
Why…in this country, why why why do we decide to wait for a huge health epidemic, before digging the decades of industry suppressed evidence out of the closet? Why do other countries, but not USA, first make producers *prove* safety — with independent tests — before allowing substances a GRAS seal of approval and an unlimited presence in their food environment? We were their laboratory rats on this, while at the same time filling their pockets – and their DC pets’ pockets – with wealth. No thanks, it has NOT been proven safe. USA needs to go back to the old reports, find & study them, then set up a completely independent research. No more industry-sponsored research.January 9, 2013 at 6:33 pm #781885
The MJ article noted that HFCS was chemically nearly identical to sugar. I might add that the authors weren’t singling out any one sweetener for blame. Rather, they seemed to think that all sweeteners were bad. Except artificial ones. (!)
I will readily admit that there’s a problem with our consumption levels of sweets and fatty foods. I also agree that we should be doing more about the problem. (And when I say “we” I mean both government and individuals.) However, I don’t think it’s right to put all the blame for obesity on fat and sugar, because if you do that, you’re minimizing the personal attitudes and behaviors that also contribute so heavily (!) to the problem. As I see it, blaming the food lets individuals off the hook for their own bad food choices.
(Ptweeet! Hey, look hoop! I’m agreeing with you.)
Although I don’t think taxing food is the right way to go, I’d gladly compromise on that, with some conditions (see below).
Anyway, here’s what I propose . . .
► Education. Government, schools, and health advocacy groups should ramp up education around healthy eating and exercise. Schools can take the added step (many already have) of reducing or banning sales of high-fat/sugar snacks on campus.
► Taxation. If people feel that “unhealthy” food should be taxed, so be it. But let’s not single out sugar or HFCS, because that’s misleading. Let all kinds of unhealthy foods be taxed, and let the taxes be dedicated to evidence-based programs aimed at reducing consumption and encouraging healthy lifestyles.
► Behavior modification. As hooper and others have pointed out, food stamp usage is at an all-time high. Although this is bad in some ways, in other ways it’s good. We can use food stamps as a way to encourage Americans to eat healthier, by taking certain foods (soda, sugary or salty snacks) off the list of buyable items. Now I know that some people will whine about this, calling it “patronizing,” but I’m ok with that. I’m willing to be people’s daddy. Just not their sugar daddy.
I’ve gotta tell you that I’m chary – not just wary, I say, but chary – of any so-called sin tax whose proceeds aren’t devoted entirely to eliminating the sin in question. Take tobacco taxes, por ejemplo. With every tobacco-tax dollar that gets dumped into the general fund, we are encouraging the government to become addicted to the very sin we are trying to eliminate in the citizenry. And I gotta tell you that when it comes to sin . . . I’m agin’.
–Why? ‘Cuz it’s EVIL. (Duh!)January 9, 2013 at 7:29 pm #781886
DBP – i fully agree food stamps should not be allowed to be used for any junk food.January 10, 2013 at 2:26 am #781887
‘nearly’ identical? OK, in the laboratory under a microscope. But where it matters – in the body – our biochemical processes know the difference. True, the microscope only sees a slight difference, but the body uses its own primal lens. So, my response to the shrug of ‘nearly identical’ is: What are we doing here? Are we sketching these sugars, or metabolizing them?
In post #21 above, the first video (StBT) goes through some of the biochemical detail of sucrose/fructose/glucose metabolism, and what happens to the liver and within cells. Well worth the 1-1/2 hour watch. I had to watch more than once to understand some of it.
Regarding the HFCS tax, tho. I think we already have enough, accumulated and recent, non-industry-supported studies and research to implicate HFCS as Junk substance, harmful to health. So, if HFCS must persist in the food environment, then I say tax the hell out of it.
If we want to spread the fairness & also tax other so-called junk food (salt, trans-fats, saturated fat) those substances should undergo their own rigorous non-industry supported studies and if enough solid research emerges to show any of these significantly harmful to human health, then tax it, too.
Key to the kind of junk food research needed are: 1) keeping the industry-sponsor industry-interests out of the research and publications, 2) developing high-quality tests and using proven scientific methodologies so the results can withstand professional scientific scrutiny. I think the problems in getting that kind of research done are: 1) Good research, esp. on human populations, costs LOTS and LOTS of $$ and the question is “Who’s gonna benefit, therefore who’s gonna fund it?”, 2) US govt. constantly turns to the industry ‘experts’ for scientific evidence, 3) not to speak of the industry/government revolving door………Got Bias?
Here’s more on this:
Your body can tell the difference:
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.