Sunday, August 23, 2015
On the Fact that (According to Coppin and High's, "The Politics of Purity") Cane Sugar Didn't Have to Be Placed as an Ingredient on Food Labels Until 30 Years After Corn Syrup Had to Be Listed
Pure cronyism, folks; the fact that Harvey Washington Wiley, the chief chemist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture under TR, had a close relationship with wealthy Louisiana sugar producers, and had even encouraged citizens to consume more sugar.......And you all wonder why I so distrust government science/scientists.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
True enough. Now the corn syrup lobby is lobbying away. The corn stuff is mostly
fructose, while cane sugar is 50/50 glucose/fructose, so it is sort of a horse of the same color. We note:
"While the sweeteners themselves are not very different, the individual sugars they contain behave differently in your body Glucose raises blood sugar, stimulates the release of insulin and is metabolized in cells throughout your body. Fructose doesn’t directly boost blood sugar because it’s only metabolized in your liver, where it’s converted into fat. As a result, it can boost your blood lipid levels -- consuming more than 100 grams of fructose daily may increase the levels of triglyceride in your bloodstream, according to an article in the April 2011 issue of “Circulation.” Since cane sugar and high-fructose corn syrup have about the same proportion of glucose and fructose, the American Heart Association does not acknowledge one as more damaging to your health than the other." Of course the politics of the issue have their own 'flavor', but basically too much is bad. Me,
I take real sugar in my coffee; the splendas, aspartames and synthetics bring their
own unique problems. Considering we evolved sugar-short (maybe knock down a bee's
nest a couple times in a lifetime), overdosing on the stuff is an insult to our
physiology, while being a treat to our tastebuds.
The after-taste on Splenda (end the other phonies) is noxious, I think.
Post a Comment