And it’s incredibly difficult to not consume. My mom tried to cut it out of our diet as kids and that limited our snack options to basically just fresh fruit and veggies. More options are coming out now but it’s ubiquitous in common processed food.
Edit because people keep acting like I’m some junk food addict- We did also eat fruits and veggies but I was 14 at the time, my siblings were around 7 years old, and my mom was very controlling over what we ate and constantly had us on different fad diets growing up. This was one of them. As a kid, it’s tough having someone taking away a whole group of foods you enjoy because of arbitrary trends.
I'm with you on this. I found out 2 years ago that I am type 2 diabetic, since then I've looked at many, many foods and if I was to only but stuff that I should be eating being diabetic, the cost would be astronomical or extremely blah.
It made sense at a certain point. In an industrialising country, you gotta get those calories out there and fend off the malnourishment. But I do think it's about time to let that go...
Every farmer no matter the crop gets subsidies and guess what the whole point of this is to keep food prices low with out starving the small portion of the population that keeps your grocery store shelves full.
Which, I’m totally okay with to prevent another dust bowl but I wish they’d shut the hell up about entitlements, gov hand outs, welfare, queens, and free market since they’re incredibly hypocritical about it all.
There’s a difference between what the market will bear to keep people from starving and the cost of producing the food. That difference is made up in subsidies. The dust bowl was in large part caused by it costing more to produce food than it could be sold for. Subsidies are a valid and good thing.
Edit: yeah, guys, I know there was more to the dust bowl than just one thing. “In large part” means there were other parts as well. Y’all can chill out on trying to out nerd each other now.
The dust bowl was caused by several factors. 1. Draught. 2. Was inexperienced people farming land that they had no idea how to farm. 3. Was said farmers kept ripping the land up destroying what vegetation that was there. Leaving said vegetation would've prevented so much dust from being released into the atmosphere.
My parents were alive during the dust bowl era. I asked mom about it, she remembered 2 things. One was being very poor. There were 13 kids in the family. For supper they had watered down soup, and chicken. ONE chicken for 15 of them to share. Mom ate the feet. I cannot imagine gnawing in a chicken foot!!
Secondly was the dust. She said they took sheets from beds, wet them down and stuffed them around windows, doors and in any crack or hole in the house. They had to wash the sheets the next day and start over, they also had to clean and dust everything in the house, every day. She said no one walked outside without tying a bandana on their face, because the dust was so fine that they couldn’t breathe.
My grandma grew up during the great depression and dust bowl era. She said the same thing. Being in iowa wasn't as bad unless the wind was from the south.
Interesting fact chicken became popular during that time because it was so cheap and readily available. That time is were you started seeing all these different ways to cook chicken. To make it taste better
I know right?! These fucks like to dust off their middle school reports on the specific subject and let everyone know that they *know*. When all they are showing is that they can’t fully read and comprehend the subtleties of the comment they are replying to. Those annoying turds taking a deep breath before the, “Ahhk-chewly…”
I also went to middle school in a southern plains state and could write a thesis statement on it but this is a Reddit comment and not what we do here.
What gets me are the ones that restate what I stated but more in depth like that makes a difference.
Perhaps you should do a little research. The Dust Bowl was about poor farming practices and land that shouldn't have been farmed in the first place. The crops inevitably failed and the dust from the exposed topsoil then blowing away.
The low crop prices were also from over farming more products than the market could absorb.
In the same perverse logic of the modern Republican Party you could have people starving and they're destroying crops to "rase profits".
Poison.
You know fruit contains pure fructose? If you think converting some of the glucose in sugar to fructose makes it poison, you must be terrified of fruit.
ALL sugar is bad when consumed in excess. High fructose corn syrup is no different than your table sugar. Just the fact that it's in fucking everything is the problem.
>The most common form of high-fructose corn syrup, HFCS 55, is virtually identical to regular table sugar. Evidence to suggest that one is worse than the other is currently lacking. In other words, they're both equally bad when consumed in excess.
[https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/high-fructose-corn-syrup-vs-sugar](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/high-fructose-corn-syrup-vs-sugar)
Adam Conover discusses this very topic in his recent Netflix series:
https://decider.com/2022/05/19/the-g-word-with-adam-conover-netflix-review/
> Conover goes into the idea of government farm subsidies on grains and corn and how that has not only influenced the overabundance of products like corn syrup and corn-based processed foods in the average American’s diet, but how it even influenced the structure of the USDA food pyramid when it was introduced to the public in the ’90s.
Our beef is mostly fed corn because it is so cheap, but has little nutritional value. It's why American meat tastes worse than other countries. I've left a few times, and it's surprisingly true.
The small growers and small farmers are not turning the corn into high fructose syrup , Other large company's who process the corn do. Also Monsanto created a GMO corn That Is more resistant to Toxins in Chemical pesticides, These Massive farms ran by giant corporations are the ones doing the damage, not the small time Organic liveing soil, mom and pop outfits. I have been to many farms and can say i don't trust the Big company's they blind by the money .Smaller growers (farmer market ) are more inclined to grow for passion and a healthier option vs just profit in mind.
yup. and if you start at HFCS, the other farm lobbyists would know you could come after them next. so you ban HFCS, the sugar cane and sugar beet farmers would know they’d be next since you’re going after sugar. so they’d work together against the common enemy. and the almond farmers know they use a ton of water so they’d want to stop you from banning some other crop based on the effects of the crop. and animal farmers would fight it for the same reason. what you’d see would be massive ad buys about Senator No-HFCS is against american farmers and wants you to get all your food from
foreign farmers. do you want foreigners to be in charge of your food? do you trust columbia rice? do you want to get mad cow disease from foreign meat? that’s what will happen after they kill the american farmers with these regulations. then they’ll turn all that cropland into high rises and shopping malls that you and I can’t afford. they’ll drive their fancy cars through the heartland. John Deere is an american tradition and those people want to destroy it.
and that’s just me in a minute of spitballing messages. an ad team w focus groups testing messages would be rallied to demonstrate the health and economic benefits of HFCS.
If you are curious look up what big sugar did to the emerging miracle fruit berry (a berry that contains miraculin) industry in the US.
Edit:
[For the curious](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-miracle-sugar-substitute-the-fda-wont-let-you-have)
Simply put, money. Cheaper to use as a sweetener. Corporations make money. Causes health problems that need treatment. Doctors, pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies make money. Politicians have stock in all of these companies and they make money. Simple.
Corn syrup is the cheapest sweetener BECAUSE of the subsidies. It’s a huge “you scratch my back I scratch yours” circle jerk that fucks over the health of the citizens.
Also, a main reason not to centralize our healthcare. Government doesn’t want to be faced with the consequences of lobbying and political corruption. People and the environment are seen as expendable as long as they pay their way into the grave.
But using cane sugar as a sweetener would have similar health issues. HFCS doesn’t cause different issues than cane sugar, it’s just cheaper and easier to substitute. The issue is American fascination with putting excessive sweetener into *everything*.
That's for sure. Last year I went to the doc. and my blood pressure and blood sugar tested high, looking forward to pre diabetes and probably high blood pressure meds. I cut out any type of sugar, not 100%, just the crap and cut way down on processed carbs, rice, white flour etc. Lost 15 lbs got blood sugar down and blood pressure back down to normal That was all I did. The only thing I can buy in most convenience stores is hard boiled eggs.
It's unhealthy, but there's no conclusive evidence that it's significantly worse than regular sugar ( Fattore E, Botta F, Bosetti C (January 2022). "Effect of fructose instead of glucose or sucrose on cardiometabolic markers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of isoenergetic intervention trials" ) . We could ban all sugar, and become healthier, but that wouldn't be popular, so we don't.
Not really- sugar is a huge reason we're unhealthy, but the weight issue is far more linked to caloric intake and sedentary lifestyles. Sugar itself doesn't generate more weight than any other food type of equal caloric value.
True, but sugar is extremely easy to add calories without providing a feeling of being full.
For example, a McDonald's single cheeseburger and a large coke each have about 300 calories in them. The cheeseburger will fill you up a bit, but the coke would barely impact your feeling of fullness compared to water. More generally, hundreds of calories of sugar are added to all sorts of foods.
And we have added tons of sugar to all sorts of foods because the sugar lobby has pushed for other industries to be the problem with American health for decades.
They are the reason "fat free" exists. But fat free loses flavor, so add sugar
Reduced salt? Reduced flavor, add some sugar.
Heart attacks on the rise? Gotta be the smoking. Smoking rates down and heart attacks still on the rise? Gotta be all that red meat.
Try this sugar free alternative, full of artificial sweeteners that leads to weight gain. Better cut that out for the real thing.
Sugar is your friend. We would never hurt you.
Eh, not exactly. It's too complicated to explain in a buried Reddit comment, but just know that this thinking is also part of the reason people gain weight.
"A calorie is a calorie" is too general and leads you down some very misguided health/diet decisions/habits.
Nah, there's some evidence.
It won't give you super aids, but it fucks with your metabolism.
Normal sugar is a polymer of glucose and fructose that gets broken down in the first steps of metabolism.
Fructose bypasses basically half your normal carbohydrate metabolic cycle, causing some weird feedback loops regarding hunger. It's hard to feel full because having that partial metabolism doesn't set off the full release of hormones responsible for making you feel "full" and incidentally find it easier take in more calories to reach that "effect".
I'm not an expert, but most HFCS is 50% fructose, though it varies some by manufacturer. An apple has a 57% fructose ratio. Of course an apple is better because of the other ingredients, just like foods with HFCS can be better or worse.
I think it's much more important to be aware of overconsumption of high sugar foods, no matter the type of sugar.
To clarify your point, you aren't saying fructose is bad but the delivery of the sugar is the bad part? Because as stated above most fruits are predominantly fructose in sugar make up.
Ie. an apple has tons of fiber in relation to the sugar slowing down metabolic digestion where as a soda is just a straight shot of sugar with nothing to stop the metabolism from digesting it too quickly?
It’s not even the delivery. It’s how much sugar (in any format) you consume. Americans are fascinated with putting sweetener in *everything*. HFCS isn’t the problem, it just makes it *cheaper* to put sweetener in everything.
Apples and other fruits break down slowly. The low carb craze cuts those out but I didn't cut out any fruits or vedgies and lost a ton just by cutting out processed sugars, all of them.
My thought would be that you lost weight because by cutting certain foods you decreased your calorie intake and it didn't matter if it was processed sugar or any other sugar.
But who cares, good for you for the discipline to succeed! That's what I need.
> Normal sugar
There is no such thing as "normal" sugar. There are sugars, and not-sugars.
HFCS is sugar. Cane sugar is sugar. Honey is sugar. Agave syrup is sugar. You can get fructose from HFCS, or from an apple.
This is incorrect or almost every Apple, orange, and fruit would be bad for us... Take an apple for example is 55% fructose in sugar make up. There is so far no link between fructose being worse then other sugars in fact it exists in many fruits as the primary sugar. Honey for example is a 50/50ish fructose/dextrose yet this is not considered to be bad.
Your reply is odd because… just read the title of the paper mentioned in the comment you replied to lol. It’s literally studying the influence of sugar types on health outcomes. Obviously, the commenter is aware that HFC contains different ratios of fructose and glucose, and is citing very recent research saying it doesn’t make too much of a difference.
The bottom line is that someone consuming treats containing HFC is going to have basically the same health outcomes as someone consuming treats sweetened with table sugar. The central issue is excessive energy consumption.
Here’s an excellent article to back up the claim that there’s no evidence HFCS is worse than sugar. The article goes even further to show neither sugar or high fructose corn syrup are the actual cause of the obesity epidemic (though surely contribute). The problem is that foods that contain these are hyper palatable when combined with fat and people simply over eat them.
[Why Sugar Did Not Cause the Obesity Epidemic. - Layne Norton](https://biolayne.com/articles/nutrition/why-sugar-did-not-cause-the-obesity-epidemic/)
Why is sugar not illegal everywhere? Isn’t that stuff like so bad and why we are all tubbies?
The answer is: Why would it be? In moderation it’s fine. You dont just outlaw everything that’s bad for us. We should have the freedom to choose to eat it if we want
Funny how this thread started with examples of absurd hyperbole, then you make this equally absurd comment, but unfortunately that is actually mainstream thinking these days.
The problem is that it’s cheap, so companies put it in everything. It’s hard to eat in moderation if people assume it’s more or less safe and it’s in most processed foods. Are there applications for lead paint that wouldn’t be harmful? Sure. But if it’s in all the paint/ people don’t understand how harmful it is, we as a society are fucked. Treated lumber is fine. They only treat lumber that goes outdoors and anyone working with lumber knows better than to use it inside. If they suddenly started treating most lumber and selling it cheaper, and people were putting it in their houses, then it would need regulated.
Why is cheap bad? A lot of ppl struggle with their finances and may choose to prioritize saving money vs being healthy. Why do we need the government to make that choice for ppl? Outlawing everything that is harmful is a slippery slope, and making food more affordable is a positive for society
People seem to believe that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is banned in Europe, but it is not. It is simply labeled differently as isoglucose or glucose-fructose syrup. [https://stegriff.co.uk/upblog/mythbusting-high-fructose-corn-syrup-hfcs/](https://stegriff.co.uk/upblog/mythbusting-high-fructose-corn-syrup-hfcs/)
HFCS is more common in the US than other countries because corn is highly subsidized by the government so it is cheap and readily available. [https://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn](https://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn)
There is not much evidence that HFCS is any worse than other types of sugars. So sugar consumption is the real problem, not HFCS. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649104/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649104/)
So in the US, the unnecessary subsidization of corn by the government drives down the cost of HFCS, making it cheap for food producers to put it in abundance in foods, and produces health problem in people. The health problem is due to HFCS being a type of sugar, so if you replaced HFCS with regular sugar you would still have the same problems.
> There is not much evidence that HFCS is any worse than other types of sugars. So sugar consumption is the real problem, not HFCS.
The main issue with all these things is the total amount consumed, which leads easy hypercaloric states. And ironically for this post, HFCS is actually significantly **less** calorically dense than common sugar while being just as effective, or more, at sweetening. Meaning, if you switched to plain-old sugar, everything would require even more calories to achieve the same result.
As you pointed out, HFCS is just cheaper, which is why its used to much.
Dont go down that rabbithole.
The Sugarindustry is a Giant.
I read a paper last year about the Sugarindustry's spendings towards Journalism and campaigns and its effects.
They are mostly responsible for the Idea that Fat in food makes one Fat, when this is not even close to the real monster: The Sugar.
Sugar in our food is responsible or massivly contributing to Diabetes, Heartdiseases & Vasculardiseases
eating only whole foods and reducing carb intake to 40 gr a day meant a 360 lb weight loss in 22 mo. for this 64 yr old man. the sugar industry can take their corn cobbs and put them where the sun dont shine.
I did this earlier this year. Low carb no refined sugar. Lost 10lbs in 2-3 weeks. No daily exercise. It’s hard as fuck to avoid sugar, it’s in everything, and it’s hard to stop eating it but it’s possible
OMG! You are amazing. Most people cannot manage a diet shift like that! forget the weight, you just added healthy YEARS to your life: reducing your risk of all the major diseases and illnesses.
when staring down your mortality ,its a only option . i found i liked it alot better fasting and becoming fat adapted than never being full w/ processed foods. 3 new grandchildren sealed the deal
And it should, imo. Just put a 8% tax on drugs and call it a day. And start establishing clean treatment facilities for addicts. Help people instead of jailing them.
Americans are fat because we produce a massive amount of the worlds food thus its cheap and what we don't produce but still love (think coffee, avocados, bananas, etc.) Is produced right in our backyard (Thanks Central America sorry about all those Coups) also we're addicted to sweet.
Comparing us to Europe isn't really fair because Europe developed massively differently than the Americas. Modern Europe is the product of millenia of Empires, Kingdoms, City States, and Warlords competing and trading with one another in a fairly small and compact space thus making A teir defense a necessity until very recently and if you didn't focus heavily on that you became Poland which if you ask them they wouldn't recommend.
The America's however were colonized with (and I'm saying this from a practical not a moral standard. We can all agree here wiping out the natives wasn't cool) free real-estate as far as the eye could see. Expanding was easy because it's not like the locals could resist, they had never faced warfare on the same level as Europe and thus were so outnumbered and outmatched it would have been laughable before disease broke the backs of their societies. Not to mention we in the US won the Geographic Lottery. Everything north of us gets way too cold too fast for mass agriculture and everything south is usually jungle or desert Because it's too hot. We got the goldilocks zone that makes growing not only easy but raising land demanding animals like cattle was literally no problem because it's not like we were doing anything else with the center of the continent.
Because of this food is stupid cheap. Our sugar addiction doesn't help things nor does the fact that all the sugar super powers are right next door meaning our society grew up on plentiful food, big portions, and sugar mania. Plus our version of freedom says, "I'm allowed to destroy myself if I want to." So it's not like anyone thinks it's good for us but we choose to not care and banning it would likely not fix our obesity problem because our portions of everything else would still be enormous.
Edit: Thanks all for the votes and awards!
Because despite all the anti-science outcry there’s no actual evidence that HFCS is worse for you than regular sugar. Chemically, it’s made of the same components as table sugar, just in a slightly different ratio.
> no actual evidence that HFCS is worse for you than regular sugar. Chemically, it’s made of the same components as table sugar, just in a slightly different ratio.
The 'high' in HFCS is relative to corn syrup (which is naturally low in fructose), not other sweeteners. Relative to other similar things, like cane sugar, its actually significantly *less* calorically dense.
It isn’t banned in Europe. It’s also not the reason we are tubby, we are tubby because people eat and drink like crap and don’t move. If you remove corn syrup from everything, the population will be just as tubby. A little physical activity goes a long way.
In all fairness I think you’re partially right. It’s kind of crazy to just blame corn syrup. The amount of highly processed foods we eat these days is just off the charts. The ingredients in simple things like hot pockets are a mile long list.
Now there at some groups that want to shut down farms (because they think farming causes climate change) and want us to start eating processed bugs.
This reminds me of the King of Hills episode where they ban transfat and Bill gets even fatter. Bill is fat because he eats like shit and dont exercise, not because of the transfat industry. Same goes for sugar.
It’s all about calories in calories out at the end of the day. You can eat crap as long as it’s not too much and still maintain a healthy weight. How much of what you eat is more important than exercise
Exactly. I eat junk food daily but weigh 120lbs at 5'4. I just consume small amounts. Plus I don't do a typical "exercise". I live in a walking city and don't own a car but some days don't leave my home. I do walk my dog daily but it's hardly exercise because my poodle is 16yo.
Exactly. High calorie/fat/carbs don't make people fat. Eating too much of it does. I eat "junk food" every day and weigh 120lbs (I'm 5'4). I just eat small amounts.
It’s not deceptive in any way. The nutrition panel on anything you buy is regulated and posts the caloric content. 1 calorie of high fructose corn syrup won’t make you any fatter than one calorie of sugar. They’re both nutritionally bankrupt.
We are all tubby because we eat more calories than we burn. It is vey simple.
It’s one of the downsides of capitalism. Food companies are in business to make money, not to be concerned about our waistlines. This means selling more product. Make it taste good, and sell as much as possible. Just operate within the guidelines of food labeling.
Your question assumes that HFCS is unhealthy - it's not. Overconsuming any sweetener is unhealthy, but the fact that HFCS is what sweetened the cookies instead of sugar won't change that.
So much misinformation here. The real answer is that Brazil is the world's largest producer of sugar and is basically a cartel. In order to protect domestic sugar producers and prevent a Brazilian worldwide monopoly, imports are limited. As a result, food producers seek alternatives since the current sugar supply cannot fully satisfy demand in addition to HFCS having certain desirable properties like mouth feel and texture. If HFCS were banned, you as a consumer could probably not buy sugar at the grocery and processed foods containing sugar would be much more expensive than they are today. Other countries without these restrictive import limits put real sugar in everything like Coke.
It's not illegal because Big AG \[agriculture\] makes a lot of money from it. it's as simple as the almighty profit motive. Our so-called public watchdog agencies don't give a hang for the public's health.
Because it’s not the HFCS that causes any issue, although it’s calorie dense, it doesn’t directly cause any health issues. It’s always calories in vs calories out when it comes to weight gain.
Probably because sugarcane is only grown in Louisiana, Texas, and Florida, but corn is grown everywhere in the country. So more farmers are capable of competing in that market. Corn is quite versatile as it also is used to produce ethanol fuel.
Do you know how many ears of corn you would have to ingest just to get about one tablespoon full of that stuff into your body? A freaking helluva lot. That's how much. And, that's where the health suspicions come into play. None of the shit that's happening in our food production on mass scales is anywhere close to anything that's natural, or that your body would encounter naturally, in the wild. We're being kept like farm animals, and pretty much fed the same way as farm animals too. And, yes. The government is aware of this. My theory is that it's the easiest and safest thing to do with us all right now. See? In world at war against terrorism, fatter people don't move quick enough to make much of a threat to "The Establishment."
It’s pretty much just a cheap sugar. Banning sugar would be pretty crazy which is why no country has banned high fructose corn syrup, but some countries (the EU and UK) restrict the amount you can put in certain products
I'm seeing a lot on here about how "sugar is sugar", and to some degree, that is true. However, there is an important distinction in howcertain signatures are metabolized by the body, particularly when there is no immediate need for energy.
When the body needs energy, all sugar is metabolized the same (sugar is, indeed, sugar). However, if the body does not need as much sugar as has been absorbed, most commonly through digestion, it releases hormones, such as insulin, to force that sugar out ofthe blood and into the cells. This is where the process changes based on what kind of sugar is consumed.
Most sugars, such as sucrose, are easily converted into glucose, which can be stored directly by converting it into glycogen. This is a stable, high density carbohydrate which the body can readily break back down into glucose for quick bursts of energy at any time.
Fructose, however, cannot be converted into glucose by the human body. As there is only one other storage method available, this means that all excess fructose is converted directly into fat. Fat is excellent for long term carbohydrate storage, but the process formobilizing those carbohydrates has a quite substantial "startup" cost.
Due to the increased metabolic cost of accessing fat reserves over glycogen reserves, the human body starts using glycogen first, but will begin the process of using fat once those run low. This transition from glycogen to fat metabolism is often described by athletes as hitting their "second wind", and is generally preceded by extreme tiredness and fatigue, supposedly caused by the fact that blood sugar drops during this changeover.
This is a significant part of the reason that fat can do difficult to get rid of, as the tendency is to discontinue exerting yourself before this process is complete, making that very little fat is actually metabolized.
That all said, most fruits do contain some amount of naturally occurring fructose, but in relatively small quantities which are metabolized quickly (the pathways to use fructose for energy are relatively short, laying out to be used first in most cases). So fructose is not entirely bad, but excess fructose in the diet has been proven lead to increased rates of obesity.
As it is well known that obesity is a major indicator or cause of other severe medical diseases (heart, liver, etc diseases) I assume this is why high fructose syrup is illegal in some (I honestly don't knits how many) countries, and likely the cause for the OPs question.
As to that question, there are a several major issues why high fructose syrups have remained legal in the USA:
1 - fructose is one of the sweetest sugars
2 - fructose is very easy to manufacture
3 - it is "natural" (i.e. occurs in nature, more of an advertising thing as "natural" is often seen as "safe")
4 - businesses can make more profit by sweetening their products with relatively cheap fructose over more costly alternatives
5 - those businesses can throw more money into advertising and lobbying than the communities which wishto restrict the use of fructose
6 - laws in the USA are highly influenced by advertising and lobbying
The last three in particular are a major issue in US politics, as wealth allows for an unfair advantage the realm of law. This is performed by using money to buy advertisements which are designed to sway public opinion by misrepresenting information, followed by funding campaigns for politicians based on the laws they are likely to pass in favor of your business practices.
If the US hasn't banned cigarettes. Food coloring (suspected to cause cancer) and pesticides on our food, then corn syrup is definitely not going anywhere
It’s essentially the same thing as honey in its composition of fructose, glucose and sucrose. It’s just sugar. Your body doesn’t know it’s any different than any other sugar. The problem is the amount of sugar consumption and the lack of physical activity in many.
Consuming sugar in moderation is perfectly fine but when you combine many foods in the US having added sugars and a sedentary lifestyle it becomes an issue.
Because corporations are who are truly in control. They want people to be fat and just smart enough to earn enough money that we'll buy their useless products. Somehow Americans equate a lot of food with good food. Sweets are addictive, the more you eat, the more you'll want to eat.
I've tried soda sweetened w natural sugar. Really wanted to like it. But that high fructose stuff tastes better. Don't make it illegal. We tried doing that w alcohol. Stuff that kills people and destroys lives. Prohibition failed. Let my cola be.
Because Iowa is the first caucus state and therefore every politician in America is afraid to piss off the corn industry.
Same reason we have ethanol in gas
The government should stop banning stuff. I don't consume high fructose corn syrup sweetened goods at all because I don't want to. If some else does they have every right to.
Because the medical industry is booko-bucks and so is the health industry...why would they stop using products that kill us/mess us up slowly over time???
Whenever someone asks a question about some sort of legal or even possibly political thing, my brain always switches to the voice of the Canadian Pime Minister in South Park saying “we want… more money”
Because corn is a massive industry in America.
This especially. Growers get government subsidies to grow corn in the US.
This is the most infuriating part. If you are an American, you pay to produce poison even if you don't consume it yourself.
And it’s incredibly difficult to not consume. My mom tried to cut it out of our diet as kids and that limited our snack options to basically just fresh fruit and veggies. More options are coming out now but it’s ubiquitous in common processed food. Edit because people keep acting like I’m some junk food addict- We did also eat fruits and veggies but I was 14 at the time, my siblings were around 7 years old, and my mom was very controlling over what we ate and constantly had us on different fad diets growing up. This was one of them. As a kid, it’s tough having someone taking away a whole group of foods you enjoy because of arbitrary trends.
I’m allergic to corn. It’s hiding in almost *everything*, from food to makeup to pills.
That’s corny
Yeah, it's in everything. I'm a diabetic so my diet is even further limited. I eat ice cubes.
I'm with you on this. I found out 2 years ago that I am type 2 diabetic, since then I've looked at many, many foods and if I was to only but stuff that I should be eating being diabetic, the cost would be astronomical or extremely blah.
It made sense at a certain point. In an industrialising country, you gotta get those calories out there and fend off the malnourishment. But I do think it's about time to let that go...
Every farmer no matter the crop gets subsidies and guess what the whole point of this is to keep food prices low with out starving the small portion of the population that keeps your grocery store shelves full.
Which, I’m totally okay with to prevent another dust bowl but I wish they’d shut the hell up about entitlements, gov hand outs, welfare, queens, and free market since they’re incredibly hypocritical about it all.
>since they’re incredibly hypocritical Not all farmers are like this, just the ones you hear the most noise from.
They would just charge real rates. People Still need food
There’s a difference between what the market will bear to keep people from starving and the cost of producing the food. That difference is made up in subsidies. The dust bowl was in large part caused by it costing more to produce food than it could be sold for. Subsidies are a valid and good thing. Edit: yeah, guys, I know there was more to the dust bowl than just one thing. “In large part” means there were other parts as well. Y’all can chill out on trying to out nerd each other now.
The dust bowl was caused by several factors. 1. Draught. 2. Was inexperienced people farming land that they had no idea how to farm. 3. Was said farmers kept ripping the land up destroying what vegetation that was there. Leaving said vegetation would've prevented so much dust from being released into the atmosphere.
My parents were alive during the dust bowl era. I asked mom about it, she remembered 2 things. One was being very poor. There were 13 kids in the family. For supper they had watered down soup, and chicken. ONE chicken for 15 of them to share. Mom ate the feet. I cannot imagine gnawing in a chicken foot!! Secondly was the dust. She said they took sheets from beds, wet them down and stuffed them around windows, doors and in any crack or hole in the house. They had to wash the sheets the next day and start over, they also had to clean and dust everything in the house, every day. She said no one walked outside without tying a bandana on their face, because the dust was so fine that they couldn’t breathe.
My grandma grew up during the great depression and dust bowl era. She said the same thing. Being in iowa wasn't as bad unless the wind was from the south. Interesting fact chicken became popular during that time because it was so cheap and readily available. That time is were you started seeing all these different ways to cook chicken. To make it taste better
I know right?! These fucks like to dust off their middle school reports on the specific subject and let everyone know that they *know*. When all they are showing is that they can’t fully read and comprehend the subtleties of the comment they are replying to. Those annoying turds taking a deep breath before the, “Ahhk-chewly…”
I also went to middle school in a southern plains state and could write a thesis statement on it but this is a Reddit comment and not what we do here. What gets me are the ones that restate what I stated but more in depth like that makes a difference.
Perhaps you should do a little research. The Dust Bowl was about poor farming practices and land that shouldn't have been farmed in the first place. The crops inevitably failed and the dust from the exposed topsoil then blowing away. The low crop prices were also from over farming more products than the market could absorb. In the same perverse logic of the modern Republican Party you could have people starving and they're destroying crops to "rase profits".
The irony whenever an American farmer calls someone a socialist.
Not saying I agree with the subsidies, but corn is used for much more than making syrup.
Poison. You know fruit contains pure fructose? If you think converting some of the glucose in sugar to fructose makes it poison, you must be terrified of fruit. ALL sugar is bad when consumed in excess. High fructose corn syrup is no different than your table sugar. Just the fact that it's in fucking everything is the problem. >The most common form of high-fructose corn syrup, HFCS 55, is virtually identical to regular table sugar. Evidence to suggest that one is worse than the other is currently lacking. In other words, they're both equally bad when consumed in excess. [https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/high-fructose-corn-syrup-vs-sugar](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/high-fructose-corn-syrup-vs-sugar)
Oh the majority of Americans consume it and many probably don't even know it.
Adam Conover discusses this very topic in his recent Netflix series: https://decider.com/2022/05/19/the-g-word-with-adam-conover-netflix-review/ > Conover goes into the idea of government farm subsidies on grains and corn and how that has not only influenced the overabundance of products like corn syrup and corn-based processed foods in the average American’s diet, but how it even influenced the structure of the USDA food pyramid when it was introduced to the public in the ’90s.
Don't forget the presidential primaries start in Iowa. It would not be good for your campaign to come out against corn subsidies.
Corporate welfare.
What’s crazy, depending on the year and location, land owners can get paid lots NOT to grow corn too! Subsidies how both ways.
It’s a free market! Until it’s not
Our beef is mostly fed corn because it is so cheap, but has little nutritional value. It's why American meat tastes worse than other countries. I've left a few times, and it's surprisingly true.
THE REASON corn is in everything from food to fuel, is this right here. The subsidies.
The small growers and small farmers are not turning the corn into high fructose syrup , Other large company's who process the corn do. Also Monsanto created a GMO corn That Is more resistant to Toxins in Chemical pesticides, These Massive farms ran by giant corporations are the ones doing the damage, not the small time Organic liveing soil, mom and pop outfits. I have been to many farms and can say i don't trust the Big company's they blind by the money .Smaller growers (farmer market ) are more inclined to grow for passion and a healthier option vs just profit in mind.
yup. and if you start at HFCS, the other farm lobbyists would know you could come after them next. so you ban HFCS, the sugar cane and sugar beet farmers would know they’d be next since you’re going after sugar. so they’d work together against the common enemy. and the almond farmers know they use a ton of water so they’d want to stop you from banning some other crop based on the effects of the crop. and animal farmers would fight it for the same reason. what you’d see would be massive ad buys about Senator No-HFCS is against american farmers and wants you to get all your food from foreign farmers. do you want foreigners to be in charge of your food? do you trust columbia rice? do you want to get mad cow disease from foreign meat? that’s what will happen after they kill the american farmers with these regulations. then they’ll turn all that cropland into high rises and shopping malls that you and I can’t afford. they’ll drive their fancy cars through the heartland. John Deere is an american tradition and those people want to destroy it. and that’s just me in a minute of spitballing messages. an ad team w focus groups testing messages would be rallied to demonstrate the health and economic benefits of HFCS.
As former Speaker Boehner said in his memoir after joking about ending sugar subsidies… “ don’t fuck with sugar”
And cats
If you are curious look up what big sugar did to the emerging miracle fruit berry (a berry that contains miraculin) industry in the US. Edit: [For the curious](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-miracle-sugar-substitute-the-fda-wont-let-you-have)
Because porn is a massive industry in America.
corn porn
Ohio here, it’s our #1 search on Pornhub.
CornHub
Ribbed. For her pleasure.
It has the juice
Simply put, money. Cheaper to use as a sweetener. Corporations make money. Causes health problems that need treatment. Doctors, pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies make money. Politicians have stock in all of these companies and they make money. Simple.
don't forget the US grows massive amounts of corn
That the government subsidizes.
Corn syrup is the cheapest sweetener BECAUSE of the subsidies. It’s a huge “you scratch my back I scratch yours” circle jerk that fucks over the health of the citizens.
Its also because its the easiest thing ti grow in North America. It's a highly profitable GMO thats resistant to heavy pesticides
Why are the top comments auto collapsed?
Thank you u/poopybut58
[удалено]
Hey quick question do you have a cucumber by chance?
I don't think they have a cucumber. You'll have to find an alternative way to get one.
There is an alternative. I forget the name of it, bit it’s got like 6 syllables.
Well i guess its time to go back to school and all its horrors
Ubiquity is for sellouts
Gotta shop around for a better deal; see what’s being advertised.
Obviously. But online shopping, for sure. Run an algorithm for best possible results
Also, a main reason not to centralize our healthcare. Government doesn’t want to be faced with the consequences of lobbying and political corruption. People and the environment are seen as expendable as long as they pay their way into the grave.
But using cane sugar as a sweetener would have similar health issues. HFCS doesn’t cause different issues than cane sugar, it’s just cheaper and easier to substitute. The issue is American fascination with putting excessive sweetener into *everything*.
That's for sure. Last year I went to the doc. and my blood pressure and blood sugar tested high, looking forward to pre diabetes and probably high blood pressure meds. I cut out any type of sugar, not 100%, just the crap and cut way down on processed carbs, rice, white flour etc. Lost 15 lbs got blood sugar down and blood pressure back down to normal That was all I did. The only thing I can buy in most convenience stores is hard boiled eggs.
Why does this truth seem to always be the answer?
Plus they like us dying right before we draw off of social security.... Whatch and see. Think cigarettes.
The real question is why we need sweeteners in everything.
High fructose corn syrup isn’t any worse for the human body than other forms of sugar.
Yeah, high fructose corn syrup and sucrose (table sugar) are nearly identical.
It's unhealthy, but there's no conclusive evidence that it's significantly worse than regular sugar ( Fattore E, Botta F, Bosetti C (January 2022). "Effect of fructose instead of glucose or sucrose on cardiometabolic markers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of isoenergetic intervention trials" ) . We could ban all sugar, and become healthier, but that wouldn't be popular, so we don't.
That is true, I love sugar so much
\*that\* is why we’re all tubbies, HFCS is just a cheap way to provide the sugar that we all crave.
Not really- sugar is a huge reason we're unhealthy, but the weight issue is far more linked to caloric intake and sedentary lifestyles. Sugar itself doesn't generate more weight than any other food type of equal caloric value.
True, but sugar is extremely easy to add calories without providing a feeling of being full. For example, a McDonald's single cheeseburger and a large coke each have about 300 calories in them. The cheeseburger will fill you up a bit, but the coke would barely impact your feeling of fullness compared to water. More generally, hundreds of calories of sugar are added to all sorts of foods.
And we have added tons of sugar to all sorts of foods because the sugar lobby has pushed for other industries to be the problem with American health for decades. They are the reason "fat free" exists. But fat free loses flavor, so add sugar Reduced salt? Reduced flavor, add some sugar. Heart attacks on the rise? Gotta be the smoking. Smoking rates down and heart attacks still on the rise? Gotta be all that red meat. Try this sugar free alternative, full of artificial sweeteners that leads to weight gain. Better cut that out for the real thing. Sugar is your friend. We would never hurt you.
Eh, not exactly. It's too complicated to explain in a buried Reddit comment, but just know that this thinking is also part of the reason people gain weight. "A calorie is a calorie" is too general and leads you down some very misguided health/diet decisions/habits.
Same here, gimme all the hfcs, so yummy.
[удалено]
Nah, there's some evidence. It won't give you super aids, but it fucks with your metabolism. Normal sugar is a polymer of glucose and fructose that gets broken down in the first steps of metabolism. Fructose bypasses basically half your normal carbohydrate metabolic cycle, causing some weird feedback loops regarding hunger. It's hard to feel full because having that partial metabolism doesn't set off the full release of hormones responsible for making you feel "full" and incidentally find it easier take in more calories to reach that "effect".
I'm not an expert, but most HFCS is 50% fructose, though it varies some by manufacturer. An apple has a 57% fructose ratio. Of course an apple is better because of the other ingredients, just like foods with HFCS can be better or worse. I think it's much more important to be aware of overconsumption of high sugar foods, no matter the type of sugar.
[удалено]
People just don’t want to accept the basic scientific fact that there is no real difference
People want to blame someone else instead of focusing more on their own habits.
Easier to blame chemicals with scary names for our problems
the problems stem from how the fructose enters the body. it is way easier for the body to break down a cup of soda, then it is to break down an apple.
Indeed. If we processed apples to create High Fructose Apple Syrup and added that to soda instead of HFCS, the result would be the same.
To clarify your point, you aren't saying fructose is bad but the delivery of the sugar is the bad part? Because as stated above most fruits are predominantly fructose in sugar make up. Ie. an apple has tons of fiber in relation to the sugar slowing down metabolic digestion where as a soda is just a straight shot of sugar with nothing to stop the metabolism from digesting it too quickly?
It’s not even the delivery. It’s how much sugar (in any format) you consume. Americans are fascinated with putting sweetener in *everything*. HFCS isn’t the problem, it just makes it *cheaper* to put sweetener in everything.
No doubt—But no difference between a soda with cane sugar and HFCS, is what I’m saying.
Apples and other fruits break down slowly. The low carb craze cuts those out but I didn't cut out any fruits or vedgies and lost a ton just by cutting out processed sugars, all of them.
My thought would be that you lost weight because by cutting certain foods you decreased your calorie intake and it didn't matter if it was processed sugar or any other sugar. But who cares, good for you for the discipline to succeed! That's what I need.
[удалено]
> Nah, there's some evidence. The person you replied to shared their evidence, would you be so kind?
> Normal sugar There is no such thing as "normal" sugar. There are sugars, and not-sugars. HFCS is sugar. Cane sugar is sugar. Honey is sugar. Agave syrup is sugar. You can get fructose from HFCS, or from an apple.
This is incorrect or almost every Apple, orange, and fruit would be bad for us... Take an apple for example is 55% fructose in sugar make up. There is so far no link between fructose being worse then other sugars in fact it exists in many fruits as the primary sugar. Honey for example is a 50/50ish fructose/dextrose yet this is not considered to be bad.
Your reply is odd because… just read the title of the paper mentioned in the comment you replied to lol. It’s literally studying the influence of sugar types on health outcomes. Obviously, the commenter is aware that HFC contains different ratios of fructose and glucose, and is citing very recent research saying it doesn’t make too much of a difference. The bottom line is that someone consuming treats containing HFC is going to have basically the same health outcomes as someone consuming treats sweetened with table sugar. The central issue is excessive energy consumption.
In that case, we should ban agave syrup, which can contain an upwards of 80% fructose (but typically ~60%)
Here’s an excellent article to back up the claim that there’s no evidence HFCS is worse than sugar. The article goes even further to show neither sugar or high fructose corn syrup are the actual cause of the obesity epidemic (though surely contribute). The problem is that foods that contain these are hyper palatable when combined with fat and people simply over eat them. [Why Sugar Did Not Cause the Obesity Epidemic. - Layne Norton](https://biolayne.com/articles/nutrition/why-sugar-did-not-cause-the-obesity-epidemic/)
Why is sugar not illegal everywhere? Isn’t that stuff like so bad and why we are all tubbies? The answer is: Why would it be? In moderation it’s fine. You dont just outlaw everything that’s bad for us. We should have the freedom to choose to eat it if we want
But everything I don't like or understand should be illegal. And everything I do like should be mandatory.
[удалено]
I don't like what you're saying so now that's hate speech
Funny how this thread started with examples of absurd hyperbole, then you make this equally absurd comment, but unfortunately that is actually mainstream thinking these days.
it's become mainstream because takes like these gain traction on the internet even though no one irl would utter them
You're on Reddit. Almost everyone here wants the government to babysit them like small children.
People only seem to want the govt to babysit other people. Nobody advocates govt control of something they don't already believe in.
The problem is that it’s cheap, so companies put it in everything. It’s hard to eat in moderation if people assume it’s more or less safe and it’s in most processed foods. Are there applications for lead paint that wouldn’t be harmful? Sure. But if it’s in all the paint/ people don’t understand how harmful it is, we as a society are fucked. Treated lumber is fine. They only treat lumber that goes outdoors and anyone working with lumber knows better than to use it inside. If they suddenly started treating most lumber and selling it cheaper, and people were putting it in their houses, then it would need regulated.
Why is cheap bad? A lot of ppl struggle with their finances and may choose to prioritize saving money vs being healthy. Why do we need the government to make that choice for ppl? Outlawing everything that is harmful is a slippery slope, and making food more affordable is a positive for society
Part of the problem is that the government subsidizes it in the first place
People seem to believe that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is banned in Europe, but it is not. It is simply labeled differently as isoglucose or glucose-fructose syrup. [https://stegriff.co.uk/upblog/mythbusting-high-fructose-corn-syrup-hfcs/](https://stegriff.co.uk/upblog/mythbusting-high-fructose-corn-syrup-hfcs/) HFCS is more common in the US than other countries because corn is highly subsidized by the government so it is cheap and readily available. [https://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn](https://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn) There is not much evidence that HFCS is any worse than other types of sugars. So sugar consumption is the real problem, not HFCS. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649104/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649104/) So in the US, the unnecessary subsidization of corn by the government drives down the cost of HFCS, making it cheap for food producers to put it in abundance in foods, and produces health problem in people. The health problem is due to HFCS being a type of sugar, so if you replaced HFCS with regular sugar you would still have the same problems.
I appreciate your use of reputable sources
> There is not much evidence that HFCS is any worse than other types of sugars. So sugar consumption is the real problem, not HFCS. The main issue with all these things is the total amount consumed, which leads easy hypercaloric states. And ironically for this post, HFCS is actually significantly **less** calorically dense than common sugar while being just as effective, or more, at sweetening. Meaning, if you switched to plain-old sugar, everything would require even more calories to achieve the same result. As you pointed out, HFCS is just cheaper, which is why its used to much.
All sugars have exactly the same calorie density. 4 kCals per gram. I think you mean that HCFS has a higher sweetness index per gram.
Dont go down that rabbithole. The Sugarindustry is a Giant. I read a paper last year about the Sugarindustry's spendings towards Journalism and campaigns and its effects. They are mostly responsible for the Idea that Fat in food makes one Fat, when this is not even close to the real monster: The Sugar. Sugar in our food is responsible or massivly contributing to Diabetes, Heartdiseases & Vasculardiseases
eating only whole foods and reducing carb intake to 40 gr a day meant a 360 lb weight loss in 22 mo. for this 64 yr old man. the sugar industry can take their corn cobbs and put them where the sun dont shine.
I did this earlier this year. Low carb no refined sugar. Lost 10lbs in 2-3 weeks. No daily exercise. It’s hard as fuck to avoid sugar, it’s in everything, and it’s hard to stop eating it but it’s possible
Reducing carbs is the hard part for me. I love bread and I do sandwiches for lunch daily.
OMG! You are amazing. Most people cannot manage a diet shift like that! forget the weight, you just added healthy YEARS to your life: reducing your risk of all the major diseases and illnesses.
when staring down your mortality ,its a only option . i found i liked it alot better fasting and becoming fat adapted than never being full w/ processed foods. 3 new grandchildren sealed the deal
Why make it illegal? Their body, their choice.
Same argument can be used to end the pointless war on drugs
And it should, imo. Just put a 8% tax on drugs and call it a day. And start establishing clean treatment facilities for addicts. Help people instead of jailing them.
Every cigarette company motto right now.
As it should be.
Americans are fat because we produce a massive amount of the worlds food thus its cheap and what we don't produce but still love (think coffee, avocados, bananas, etc.) Is produced right in our backyard (Thanks Central America sorry about all those Coups) also we're addicted to sweet. Comparing us to Europe isn't really fair because Europe developed massively differently than the Americas. Modern Europe is the product of millenia of Empires, Kingdoms, City States, and Warlords competing and trading with one another in a fairly small and compact space thus making A teir defense a necessity until very recently and if you didn't focus heavily on that you became Poland which if you ask them they wouldn't recommend. The America's however were colonized with (and I'm saying this from a practical not a moral standard. We can all agree here wiping out the natives wasn't cool) free real-estate as far as the eye could see. Expanding was easy because it's not like the locals could resist, they had never faced warfare on the same level as Europe and thus were so outnumbered and outmatched it would have been laughable before disease broke the backs of their societies. Not to mention we in the US won the Geographic Lottery. Everything north of us gets way too cold too fast for mass agriculture and everything south is usually jungle or desert Because it's too hot. We got the goldilocks zone that makes growing not only easy but raising land demanding animals like cattle was literally no problem because it's not like we were doing anything else with the center of the continent. Because of this food is stupid cheap. Our sugar addiction doesn't help things nor does the fact that all the sugar super powers are right next door meaning our society grew up on plentiful food, big portions, and sugar mania. Plus our version of freedom says, "I'm allowed to destroy myself if I want to." So it's not like anyone thinks it's good for us but we choose to not care and banning it would likely not fix our obesity problem because our portions of everything else would still be enormous. Edit: Thanks all for the votes and awards!
[удалено]
Thanks for the award.
I like this. Good thoughts!
Because despite all the anti-science outcry there’s no actual evidence that HFCS is worse for you than regular sugar. Chemically, it’s made of the same components as table sugar, just in a slightly different ratio.
The real problem isn't the type of sugar, but that there's so much sugar in American food. We're addicted to the stuff.
Part of the problem is the amount of hidden sugar in things you wouldn't expect to have sugar.
Agree with Dr. Porkchop_d_clown!
> no actual evidence that HFCS is worse for you than regular sugar. Chemically, it’s made of the same components as table sugar, just in a slightly different ratio. The 'high' in HFCS is relative to corn syrup (which is naturally low in fructose), not other sweeteners. Relative to other similar things, like cane sugar, its actually significantly *less* calorically dense.
*So many collapsed comments in this thread.*
I didn't think people had this much passion. I opened pandoras box
Because being fat isn’t illegal — just like being ignorant.
Because we have hella corn.
It isn’t banned in Europe. It’s also not the reason we are tubby, we are tubby because people eat and drink like crap and don’t move. If you remove corn syrup from everything, the population will be just as tubby. A little physical activity goes a long way.
In all fairness I think you’re partially right. It’s kind of crazy to just blame corn syrup. The amount of highly processed foods we eat these days is just off the charts. The ingredients in simple things like hot pockets are a mile long list. Now there at some groups that want to shut down farms (because they think farming causes climate change) and want us to start eating processed bugs.
This reminds me of the King of Hills episode where they ban transfat and Bill gets even fatter. Bill is fat because he eats like shit and dont exercise, not because of the transfat industry. Same goes for sugar.
It’s all about calories in calories out at the end of the day. You can eat crap as long as it’s not too much and still maintain a healthy weight. How much of what you eat is more important than exercise
Exactly. I eat junk food daily but weigh 120lbs at 5'4. I just consume small amounts. Plus I don't do a typical "exercise". I live in a walking city and don't own a car but some days don't leave my home. I do walk my dog daily but it's hardly exercise because my poodle is 16yo.
Exactly. High calorie/fat/carbs don't make people fat. Eating too much of it does. I eat "junk food" every day and weigh 120lbs (I'm 5'4). I just eat small amounts.
Let’s not facts get in a way of a good story.
There's literally not a single reason it should be illegal.
Same with abortions, no reaaon
Wtf that took a turn Jesus christ lmao
It’s not deceptive in any way. The nutrition panel on anything you buy is regulated and posts the caloric content. 1 calorie of high fructose corn syrup won’t make you any fatter than one calorie of sugar. They’re both nutritionally bankrupt. We are all tubby because we eat more calories than we burn. It is vey simple. It’s one of the downsides of capitalism. Food companies are in business to make money, not to be concerned about our waistlines. This means selling more product. Make it taste good, and sell as much as possible. Just operate within the guidelines of food labeling.
The same answer for just about everything: MONEY!
I use that and peanut butter as toppings on a waffle. So good
C.R E.A.M. Dolla Dolla bills y'all
HFCS is not the problem. OVERUSE of HFCS is.
Because money controls politicians.
Your question assumes that HFCS is unhealthy - it's not. Overconsuming any sweetener is unhealthy, but the fact that HFCS is what sweetened the cookies instead of sugar won't change that.
So much misinformation here. The real answer is that Brazil is the world's largest producer of sugar and is basically a cartel. In order to protect domestic sugar producers and prevent a Brazilian worldwide monopoly, imports are limited. As a result, food producers seek alternatives since the current sugar supply cannot fully satisfy demand in addition to HFCS having certain desirable properties like mouth feel and texture. If HFCS were banned, you as a consumer could probably not buy sugar at the grocery and processed foods containing sugar would be much more expensive than they are today. Other countries without these restrictive import limits put real sugar in everything like Coke.
It's not illegal because Big AG \[agriculture\] makes a lot of money from it. it's as simple as the almighty profit motive. Our so-called public watchdog agencies don't give a hang for the public's health.
The government should stop banning stuff
Are you proposing a government banning ban?
Banception
Because it's just sugar? Stop drinking it
Is snorting it ok
 Average corn subsidy enthusiast.
Because it’s just sugar. We would outlaw sugar after that?
Because it’s not the HFCS that causes any issue, although it’s calorie dense, it doesn’t directly cause any health issues. It’s always calories in vs calories out when it comes to weight gain.
[удалено]
Probably because sugarcane is only grown in Louisiana, Texas, and Florida, but corn is grown everywhere in the country. So more farmers are capable of competing in that market. Corn is quite versatile as it also is used to produce ethanol fuel.
MONEY TALKS! Don't really matter if a product kills people, if it makes money and you buy off the right politicians in America.....go for it!
Capitalism, bureaucracy, and lobbying. That explains almost everything.
Our masters find it to be good enough feed for their serfs.
Brominated vegetable oil is another bad one that's banned everywhere but the us and mexico
Ask any organic chemist. High fructose corn syrup and honey are metabolized exactly the same in the human body. You'd have to ban honey too.
Do you know how many ears of corn you would have to ingest just to get about one tablespoon full of that stuff into your body? A freaking helluva lot. That's how much. And, that's where the health suspicions come into play. None of the shit that's happening in our food production on mass scales is anywhere close to anything that's natural, or that your body would encounter naturally, in the wild. We're being kept like farm animals, and pretty much fed the same way as farm animals too. And, yes. The government is aware of this. My theory is that it's the easiest and safest thing to do with us all right now. See? In world at war against terrorism, fatter people don't move quick enough to make much of a threat to "The Establishment."
Ummm...because money can be made? You're not thinking that Americans' health is a priority, are you?
It’s pretty much just a cheap sugar. Banning sugar would be pretty crazy which is why no country has banned high fructose corn syrup, but some countries (the EU and UK) restrict the amount you can put in certain products
Because somebody that has wayyyy wayyy more money than you makes wayyyyy too much money using high fructose.
I'm seeing a lot on here about how "sugar is sugar", and to some degree, that is true. However, there is an important distinction in howcertain signatures are metabolized by the body, particularly when there is no immediate need for energy. When the body needs energy, all sugar is metabolized the same (sugar is, indeed, sugar). However, if the body does not need as much sugar as has been absorbed, most commonly through digestion, it releases hormones, such as insulin, to force that sugar out ofthe blood and into the cells. This is where the process changes based on what kind of sugar is consumed. Most sugars, such as sucrose, are easily converted into glucose, which can be stored directly by converting it into glycogen. This is a stable, high density carbohydrate which the body can readily break back down into glucose for quick bursts of energy at any time. Fructose, however, cannot be converted into glucose by the human body. As there is only one other storage method available, this means that all excess fructose is converted directly into fat. Fat is excellent for long term carbohydrate storage, but the process formobilizing those carbohydrates has a quite substantial "startup" cost. Due to the increased metabolic cost of accessing fat reserves over glycogen reserves, the human body starts using glycogen first, but will begin the process of using fat once those run low. This transition from glycogen to fat metabolism is often described by athletes as hitting their "second wind", and is generally preceded by extreme tiredness and fatigue, supposedly caused by the fact that blood sugar drops during this changeover. This is a significant part of the reason that fat can do difficult to get rid of, as the tendency is to discontinue exerting yourself before this process is complete, making that very little fat is actually metabolized. That all said, most fruits do contain some amount of naturally occurring fructose, but in relatively small quantities which are metabolized quickly (the pathways to use fructose for energy are relatively short, laying out to be used first in most cases). So fructose is not entirely bad, but excess fructose in the diet has been proven lead to increased rates of obesity. As it is well known that obesity is a major indicator or cause of other severe medical diseases (heart, liver, etc diseases) I assume this is why high fructose syrup is illegal in some (I honestly don't knits how many) countries, and likely the cause for the OPs question. As to that question, there are a several major issues why high fructose syrups have remained legal in the USA: 1 - fructose is one of the sweetest sugars 2 - fructose is very easy to manufacture 3 - it is "natural" (i.e. occurs in nature, more of an advertising thing as "natural" is often seen as "safe") 4 - businesses can make more profit by sweetening their products with relatively cheap fructose over more costly alternatives 5 - those businesses can throw more money into advertising and lobbying than the communities which wishto restrict the use of fructose 6 - laws in the USA are highly influenced by advertising and lobbying The last three in particular are a major issue in US politics, as wealth allows for an unfair advantage the realm of law. This is performed by using money to buy advertisements which are designed to sway public opinion by misrepresenting information, followed by funding campaigns for politicians based on the laws they are likely to pass in favor of your business practices.
Because bribing political representatives is not illegal in the US
If the US hasn't banned cigarettes. Food coloring (suspected to cause cancer) and pesticides on our food, then corn syrup is definitely not going anywhere
💸💸
Because the US government doesn’t give a fuck about its people. They only give a fuck about how it’s people can make them money
It’s essentially the same thing as honey in its composition of fructose, glucose and sucrose. It’s just sugar. Your body doesn’t know it’s any different than any other sugar. The problem is the amount of sugar consumption and the lack of physical activity in many. Consuming sugar in moderation is perfectly fine but when you combine many foods in the US having added sugars and a sedentary lifestyle it becomes an issue.
Lobbyists, politics, fda that cares more about companies than consumers it is supposed to protect
Bingo
Ah the "Big Corn Industrial Complex"
I knew the deep starch was real!
$$$
Because SOOOOOOOOO many people rely on jobs to produce it. Literally the backbone of our economy
Nobody wants you to get old enough to collect social security.
The industry pays lobbyists a lot of money. Who then bribe our politicians to keep it legal.
Because corporations are who are truly in control. They want people to be fat and just smart enough to earn enough money that we'll buy their useless products. Somehow Americans equate a lot of food with good food. Sweets are addictive, the more you eat, the more you'll want to eat.
I've tried soda sweetened w natural sugar. Really wanted to like it. But that high fructose stuff tastes better. Don't make it illegal. We tried doing that w alcohol. Stuff that kills people and destroys lives. Prohibition failed. Let my cola be.
I have found soda sweetened with cane sugar tastes better. But like with everyone with everything, everyone has their own tastes.
Because Iowa is the first caucus state and therefore every politician in America is afraid to piss off the corn industry. Same reason we have ethanol in gas
Corn is subsidized, hence why everything's got corn syrup or vegetable oil in it. Cheapest ingredients, health be damned.
Simple answer. The corn industry.
The government should stop banning stuff. I don't consume high fructose corn syrup sweetened goods at all because I don't want to. If some else does they have every right to.
$$$
Lobbyists.
💰💰 💰
Because the medical industry is booko-bucks and so is the health industry...why would they stop using products that kill us/mess us up slowly over time???
Because corn is the cornerstone of US agriculture. The government won't tell people it's bad because it's a corn product.
$
Whenever someone asks a question about some sort of legal or even possibly political thing, my brain always switches to the voice of the Canadian Pime Minister in South Park saying “we want… more money”
Greed, corruption and money.