Corn Syrup is the Debil!

Deornwulf

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
153
Reaction score
28
Points
16
HFCS may be cheap and easy to use in products but I think it's made Coke and other products taste like crap. If it is so good and overall a much better replacement for sugar, why don't candymakers exclusively use it in chocolate and other fine candies? Because it is crap!

Unfortunately, my boycott of Coke and pleas to Coca Cola have gone unanswered and unnoticed. Is there an economic solution to get HFCS out of my favorite foods? Am I doomed to only getting good tasting Coke in the UK?
 

Hobbit

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
5,099
Reaction score
421
Points
48
Location
Near Atlanta, GA
Demand that the federal government lift the tariffs on foreign sugar. That's the only reason they use HFCS (which is unhealthy and likely contributes to obesity and diabetes) is used instead of sugar here.
 

BaronVonBigmeat

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
1,185
Reaction score
163
Points
48
I remember when I was a kid, they came out with "new Coke". Then they went back. My dad swore something wasn't right about the supposedly original formula after that. He found a dusty old flat of bottled coke in his office and sure enough, it was different. His theory was that they introduced new coke to distract from the switchover to corn syrup. Turns out he was right.

It's because of our sugar tariff basically. In Mexico, they have coke bottled with sugar, and it's led to a gray market sort of situation where stores in Mexican parts of cities will sometimes carry coke shipped in from Mexico, because I guess even Mexicans can't drink that shit, lol. So find a dumpy store in a Mexican part of town and look for Coke in glass bottles. However if it doesn't explicitly say "sugar", or whatever the spanish word is, it's just regular corn syrup coke.

You can also buy them online. Or, some parts of central Texas sell Dublin Dr. Pepper, there is still one bottler making Dr. Pepper with sugar. It tastes quite a bit different.
 

MtnBiker

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Messages
4,327
Reaction score
236
Points
48
Location
Rocky Mountains
There are other place in the world that can produce sugar much more economically than here in the US make it cheaper to import sugar. However the sugar producers have lobbied congress to place tarriffs on import sugar. Does this make sense?
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
There are other place in the world that can produce sugar much more economically than here in the US make it cheaper to import sugar. However the sugar producers have lobbied congress to place tarriffs on import sugar. Does this make sense?
No, but we're talking about the government, soooo.....
 

BaronVonBigmeat

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
1,185
Reaction score
163
Points
48
On the other hand, what if corn sweetener is not just as good as sugar from cane? Well, Houston, then we have a problem! According to experts such as Mehmet Oz and Michael Roisen, high-fructose corn syrup is a horrible sweetener. In their landmark book, "You: The Owner’s Manual…," they state:

"One of the biggest evil influences on our diet is the presence of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a sugar substitute that itself is a sugar found in soft drinks and many other sweet, processed foods. The problem is that HCFS inhibits leptin secretion, so you never get the message that you’re full. And it never shuts off gherin, so, even though you have food in your stomach, you constantly get the message that you’re hungry." (See page 192.)

Those of us who are "into" health know all about stevia. This is a very powerful natural sweetener, extracted from South American plants much as sugar is extracted from cane. One can find stevia in health food stores, but it is not allowed as an ingredient in processed foods. Why not? The typical statist would say "because it is not shown to be proven safe and effective" which is FDA-speak for "because we didn’t say you could use it." Call me a conspiracy realist, but I doubt that "safe and effective" had much to do with the FDA deciding to ban stevia. Nothing drives this point home better than this little tidbit: the FDA initially labeled stevia as an "unsafe food additive" after an anonymous complaint. (Yes, an anonymous complaint!) You simply cannot make this stuff up.

But stevia has been used by other cultures for thousands of years with no ill effects. Yes, thousands of years. If it’s so dangerous, why are we in the U.S. alone on Earth in recognizing the danger? In Japan the government will not allow artificial sweeteners in soft drinks, so they use stevia instead. In fact, it accounts for 40% of the Japanese sweetener market. In the U.S. the government won’t allow stevia, but we get a heaping helping of Aspartame, Sucralose, and all manner of other chemical junk. Where is the logic? (Maybe I should just follow the money.) Interestingly, many of the sweetening chemicals we're allowed to have as additives come with warning labels, by the way, so the government considers it established that there are health problems with those.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/alston/alston13.html

Everytime the government and the swarming Health Nazis - who use government to their advantage - determine that something is evil, or "not good for you," they of course manage to distort the market, and their edicts to rid us of "evil" bring rise to an even more dangerous product. Such is the case with high-fructose corn syrup and trans fats, as I explained here.

Stevia is another great product that has been, yes, demonized in order to benefit the hugely-powerful artificial sweetener indiustry. As Wilt notes, Stevia is a natural sweetener, not artifical, and it has been around for a very long time. So what does our corporatist state give us in place of Stevia? Why that great ant killer known as Aspartame. Dr. Mercola calls it "the most dangerous substance on the market that is added to foods." Aspartame is a chemical poison. The whole case behind the FDA passage of aspartame is very interesting.

In short: The FDA, in its Decision of the Public Board of Inquiry in 1980, originally denied approval for aspartame after large numbers of laboratory animals grew tumors (and had other assorted health problems) as a result of being fed aspartame. The report notes (p. 51) that "the Board has not been presented with proof of a reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive under its intended conditions of use." Approval for aspartame was then immediately withdrawn. You can read it in the FDA decision for yourself. This ended about 15 years of deceptiveness and hokum on the part of the drug company G.D. Searle (later acquired by Monsanto), the maker of Nutrasweet.

In 1981, suddenly, aspartame was approved....and how so? Well, you see, at the time Donald Rumsfeld was CEO, President, and Chairman of G.D. Searle (check my facts). When Reagan was elected in 1980, he joined the transition team, and immediately, a Defense Department guy - Arthur Hull Hayes - was appointed the commissioner of the FDA the exact day that Reagan took office. Remember, Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense just prior to his appointment at G.D. Searle. Rumsfeld was known to have explicity said that he would find an FDA commissioner that would approve aspartame. Also -- Donald Kendal, Rumsfeld's close friend, was the chairman of Pepsi, a company that would make zillions on the sale of its aspartame-sweetened soda.

Almost immediately, aspartame was approved - by Hayes - for use in dry goods, and later, it was approved for use in soft drinks. This is in spite of the fact that his internal FDA advisors (all doctors) had warned against its approval. The NSDA (National Soft Drink Association) also warned that aspartame was not safe in liquid form, especially when it warms up beyond room temperature. Rumsfeld later received "pharmaceutical industry leader" awards, and also received millions in bonuses post-aspartame passage.

Once again, the feds, in the name of "protecting you," are killing you. Yet they will oppress an entire populace for eating Big Macs and storm the school vending machines containing non-diet, sugar-laden soda.
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/012110.html
 

KarlMarx

Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2004
Messages
3,231
Reaction score
492
Points
48
Location
...
Demand that the federal government lift the tariffs on foreign sugar. That's the only reason they use HFCS (which is unhealthy and likely contributes to obesity and diabetes) is used instead of sugar here.
If something is f---ed up, you can bet that the government has a hand in it.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top