Latest News From The Anti-HFCS Jihad
Still more inconclusive evidence in the jihad against high-fructose corn syrup seems to have prompted manufacturers to take it out of more stuff. Because, see, lots and lots of inconclusive evidence = good evidence.
Right now, the smart money is on the conclusion that HFCS is no worse than regular sugar. But there's no excess of objectivity or rationality in the loony nutrition wars. It's downright bizarre how ideological some of this "science" is.
Still more inconclusive evidence in the jihad against high-fructose corn syrup seems to have prompted manufacturers to take it out of more stuff. Because, see, lots and lots of inconclusive evidence = good evidence.
Right now, the smart money is on the conclusion that HFCS is no worse than regular sugar. But there's no excess of objectivity or rationality in the loony nutrition wars. It's downright bizarre how ideological some of this "science" is.
posted by Winston Smith at
3:37 PM
4 Comments:
Well, it depends upon how you want to define "worse than."
From a nutritional standpoint, sucrose is sucrose is sucrose, and it doesn't matter if it's HFCS or sugar or honey.
But from an environmental standpoint, corn is a problematic at the very least.
And I think the case can actually be made for HFCS causing health problems--just not in the manner claimed. There is so much corn grown in the US (and so little of it for consumption as, you know, corn on the cob or frozen corn or canned corn) corn is ridiculously cheap.
This pricing is in large part subsidized by the US government, so since corn is so much cheaper than anything else around, making HFCS is cheap, which makes products made with HFCS cheap, which means soda and products made with HFCS are half as expensive as healthier beverages.
You want people to be healthier, stop them from drinking sweetened beverages. Full stop.
And I don't drink soda made from HSCF, but that's because I don't drink soda. I'm a freak and I drink either milk or unsweetened iced tea.
Michelle,
I agree with most of what you said, with the exception of the fact that you would drink unsweetened iced tea, that is not iced tea, in order for tea to be iced tea it must be 1) sweetened 2) cold
=)
I've wondered about that...but that would still involve falsifying the science, which is indefensible, no?
Falsifying science is 100% indefensible. No argument there.
Just arguing that there are, in fact, grounds for being against HFCS, and one can even make that argument on health grounds.
But high intake of any kind of sugar (and I mean sucrose here, and not fructose) isn't healthy.
And no, artificial sweeteners are NOT the answer to that particular problem. :D
And unsweetened iced tea is my favorite cold water beverage. Mmmm! Calorie free flavor! Mmmm!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home