Skip to main content

What's really in high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and how dangerous is it to your health?
 While in the School of Art, Media and Technology at Parsons the New School for Design Maya Weinstein pulled back the curtain on the product more American than Apple Pie. She dissected the recipe for HFCS and created it on her own.


Recipe

High Fructose Corn Syrup: Ingredients

    8 cups water
    1 drop Sulfuric Acid
    2 cups ground corn (Yellow Dent #2)
    1 teaspoon Alpha Amylase
    1 teaspoon Glucose Amylase
    1 teaspoon Xylose
    2 droppers Glucose Isomerase

The ground corn used is Yellow dent corn. Yellow Dent #2 refers to a type of corn known for its high starch content and heavy outer skin making it inedible to humans without extensive cooking and processing. Also known as field corn, Yellow Dent #2 is primarily grown as a feed for cattle, a base for ethanol and biodegradable plastics, as well as for processing into prepared foods.

Glucose Isomerase

Glucose Isomerase  is a genetically engineered enzyme (Streptomyces) produced through the fermentation of microorganisms using a variety of bacteria. Glucose Isomerase converts starches into sugars by changing glucose into fructose. Glucose Isomerase was developed for the process of making high fructose corn syrup.

Sulfuric Acid

Sulfuric Acid  A highly corrosive, strong mineral acid. A component in battery acid, drain cleaner, and lead batteries. Sulfuric Acid functions as a preservative in the procedure for making high fructose corn syrup.

Alpha Amylase

Alpha Amylase  is a bacterial enzyme similar to what our saliva produces to break down starches. Alpha Amylase is a starch-splitting enzyme used to separate sugar from starch and seperate sugar into shorter chain oligosaccharides.

Glucose Amylase

Glucose Amylase  is an industrial enzyme derived from a yeast or fungi. Glucose Amylase further catalyzes the breakdown of malto-oligosaccharides to glucose.

Xylose

Xylose  D Xylose is a five carbon sugar. Xylose is converted into D xylulose through the isomerization process of making high fructose corn syrup.

Is it dangerous to your health? Check out this graph from The American Journal on Clinical Nutrition on the prevalence of obesity as it follows the introduction of HFCS in Americans diets.
How easy is it to eliminate HFCS from your diet?  Notice the list of common supermarket foods which contain HFCS at the end of Maya's video above.

Originally posted to beach babe in fl on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 02:37 PM PDT.

Also republished by DK GreenRoots.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Ok. Next: are oranges ok? (8+ / 0-)

    Chemical composition of an orange:

    In addition to a volatile oil (1–2.5%), bitter orange peel contains appreciable quantities of neohesperidin (up to ca. 14% in unripe peel, usually 2.4–2.8% in ripe peel), naringin (0.9–4%), rhoifolin, lonicerin, hesperidin, and other polymethoxyflavonoids (tangeretin, nobiletin, sinensetin, auranetin, rutin, etc.); vitamins (A, B1, and C); coumarins (e.g., 6,7-dimethoxycoumarin and umbelliferone); carotenoid pigments (citraurin, violaxanthin, and cryptoxanthin); pectin, citrantin; and others. High levels of the alkaloid synephrine (six isomers) are also present in bitter orange peel.

    The volatile oil (bitter orange oil) contains more than 90% monoterpenes (main d-limonene, also myrcene, campherr pinene, ocimene, p-cymene, etc.); small amounts of alcohols (linalool, terpinene nerol, farnesol, nerolidol, octanol, etc. usually 0.5–1% aldehydes (mainly decanal also nonanal, dodecanal, citronellal, neral acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, etc.), and ketones (carvone, α-ionone, and jasmine); free acids (octadecadienoic, pelargonic, cinnamic, acetic, etc.); about 2.4% esters (linalyl acetate, decyl pelargonate, octyl acetate, geranyl acetate, etc.); coumarins (osthole and auraptenol); and others.

    Neroli oil is reported to contain linalool (ca. 34%); linalyl acetate (6–17%), limonene (15%), β-pinene (11%), nerolidol (6%), geraniol, nerol, methyl anthranilate; indole, and jasmone as well a small amounts of other compounds including citral, nonanal, cis-8-heptadecene, 2,5- dimethyl-2-vinyl-4-hexenal, neryl acetate, and valeric acid, among others.

    Petitgrain oil contains large amounts of esters (40–80%, depending on sources; composed mainly of linalyl acetate, with lesser quantity of geranyl acetate). Other compounds present include linalool, nerol, α-terpineol, geraniol, nerolidol, farnesol, and limonene.

    Sweet orange peel contains 1.5–2% volatile oil, numerous flavonoids including polymethoxyflavones, O- and C-glycosylated flavones (neohesperidin, hesperidin, naringin, tangeretir auranetin, nobiletin, etc.), vitamins (e.g., C and E), limonin, coumarins (e.g., 6,7-dimethoxycoumarin), phenolic acids, for example, hydroxycinnamic acid, carotenoids, pectin, citrantin, and other similar constituents present in bitter orange peel. The juices of different varieties of Sicilian sweet orange were also found to contain many of the flavonoids, carotenoids, and vitamins present in the peel.

    Sweet orange oil is very similar to bitter orange oil in chemical composition, containing about 90% or more of d-limonene and normally 1.2–2.5% aldehydes (mostly decanal, octanal, etc.). The cold-expressed oil also contains coumarins (e.g., bergapten and auraptenol), acids (octadecadienoic, etc.), valencene, α-ylangene, and other compounds present in bitter orange oil. A study on the use of absorbents for cold-pressed orange oil found that silica gel produced the best results, reducing monoterpene hydrocarbons, while maintaining high oxygenated component content, especially decanal.

    Sweet orange oil does not taste bitter as bitter orange oil. Important flavor contributors reported in sweet orange essence include octanol, ethyl butyrate, and acetaldehyde, while α-terpineol and trans-2-hexenal contribute to the off flavor of the oil.

    Certain flavonoid glycosides (e.g., naringin and neohesperidin) are intensely bitter; the specific linkages in the sugars present are reported to be the determining factors for their bitterness.

    http://www.answers.com/...

    Best Scientist Ever Predicts Bacon Will Be Element 119 On The Periodic Table

    by dov12348 on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 02:46:23 PM PDT

  •  I've cut as much of that shit as I can from my (10+ / 0-)

    diet and I feel much better for it.

    Hillary does not have the benefit of a glib tongue.

    by The Dead Man on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 03:11:15 PM PDT

  •  Part of the problem is (10+ / 0-)

    that the increased consumption of HFCS is also correlated with the more general increase in consumption of processed and refined foods.

    Studies today seem to think that it's refined and processed sugars and simple carbs that are the problem, not just HFCS, which makes some sense because the chemical composition of HFCS is only slightly different than normal table sugar.

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/...

    One misconception about HFCS stems from its name. In fact, HFCS isn't that much different than standard, processed white sugar. A commonly used form of HFCS contains 45 percent glucose and 55 percent fructose [source: Warner]. White sugar is split 50-50 between glucose and fructose. HFCS is higher in fructose than conventional corn syrup, which is 100 percent glucose. But other types of HFCS, especially those used in non-soda products like certain breads, are 58 percent glucose and only 42 percent fructose
    My suggestion would be to cut down on processed foods and refined sugar products in general.
    •  Health effects from HFCS as compared to sugar (6+ / 0-)

      would seem unlikely given the highly similar chemical composition, and yet there  is credible research that hints it may be worse.   Personally, I try to avoid it, because, while the evidence of it being harmful is low, so is the benefit.

      •  What I was told (2+ / 0-)

        by a person who I consider reputable on health issues, is that Fructose poorly signals the full response compared to other common sugars. This weakened and delayed response leads to overconsumption. That is the primary risk associated with excess use of it. Fructose is typically in combination with other sugars in natural foods that contain it, which mitigates this risk.

        To be first in the soil, which erupts in the coil, of trees veins and grasses all brought to a boil. -- The Maxx

        by notrouble on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 06:59:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is the same cause... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          notrouble

          that many are citing as to why aspartame-containing beverages and foods don't seem to work as well as they should for those attempting to lose weight. I think this is very interesting and will probably prove out, but more work needs to be done in all these areas to tease out what the real story is.

    •  Other contributing factors (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thanatokephaloides, Ahianne, Sylv

      might be:

      the spread of cable television --> more couch potatoes

      microwave ovens along with 2 paycheck households --> decline in cooking from scratch

      computer games --> more sedentary kids.

      All of these also roughly match the time/obesity curves above.

      There was only one joker in L.A. sensitive enough to wear that scent...and I had to find out who he was!

      by virginislandsguy on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 04:45:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  White sugar is 100% sucrose. (8+ / 0-)

      A sucrose molecule is a disaccharide, composed of a fructose molecule bound to a glucose molecule, so in that sense you can say that "White sugar" is 50-50 glucose/fructose.

      The larger point you make is reasonable -- the real problem with HFCS is likely not that it is worse for you than sucrose; rather the problem is that it is so damnably inexpensive that they pour enormous quantities of it into everything. Our processed foods have gotten so sweet it is ridiculous.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 04:47:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yup. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ahianne

        Dr. Ancel Keys said "Fat is bad." So food producers take out the fat. But food without fat tastes like cardboard. So the producers put in sweeteners. And HFCS is very cheap, so they put it in everything.

        According to Dr. Lustig in this video,

        if you go to McDonalds, for example, there are only 7 foodstuff that do not contain HFCS or sucrose:
        1. French Fries
        2. Hash Browns
        3. Chicken McNuggets (salt, starch, fat)
        4. Sausage
        5. Diet Coke
        6. Coffee
        7. Diet Coke

  •  High fructose corn syrup is poison. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero, RMForbes

    Plain and simple.

    It is easy enough to avoid as long as you stick to whole foods.

    Tell Warner Brothers Pictures that Rooney Mara is #NotYourTigerLily.

    by ExpatGirl on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 03:20:31 PM PDT

  •  Glucose Isomerase is a naturally occurring enzyme (6+ / 0-)

    that your cells depend upon for glycolysis, the core pathway for breaking down all sugars. By "genetically engineered" they probably mean that the enzyme is produced in microorganisms like Streptomyces that have been slightly modified to produce higher levels of it. The enzyme itself is harmless.

    I was totally stunned to discover that one of the other enzymes in glycolysis, phosphofructokinase, a key regulatory enzyme, is actually dispensable! People who lack it only have an intolerance for strenuous exercise. I would have thought that they would be dead, but I guess the pentose phosphate shunt is pretty slick.



    Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

    by Wee Mama on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 03:37:11 PM PDT

  •  So...High Fructose Corn Syrup is NOT merely (0+ / 0-)

    a cheaper form of sugar(sweetner).

    Notice: This Comment © 2014 ROGNM UID 2547

    by ROGNM on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 03:49:54 PM PDT

  •  What do actual scientists say about it? (nt) (2+ / 0-)

    warning: snark probably above

    by NE2 on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 03:53:02 PM PDT

  •  And sugar is bad enough (6+ / 0-)

    on its own.  The WHO recently reduced the recommended amount of sugar to less than what you find in one can of soda per day.

    Here are some of the things sugar has been linked to: Alzheimer's, obesity, diabetes, irritable bowel syndrome, eye trouble, depression, heart disease, cancer, and the list goes on and on

    www.tapestryofbronze.com

    by chloris creator on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 03:55:47 PM PDT

  •  It's important to stick to facts. (12+ / 0-)

    The facts about HFCS are its demonstrable effect on the body in terms of increasing obesity and causing diabetes.

    I don't like use of SCARYSCIENCEWORDS sprinkled with AGRIBUSINESSGMOSCORPORATION in lieu of arguments that stick to actual science and actual fact. The reality-based community needs to stick to - reality.

    And the reality about HFCS, grounded in science, is enough to encourage anyone to avoid it, and to encourage our government to stop the hell subsidizing it.

    Let's avoid factless fear tactics which mislead: For example, glucose amylase, "industrial" indeed, has been an essential part of making leavened bread since antiquity. For further example: Corn as originally introduced to European diets was similarly indigestible. As maize, the natives from the Americas who used it as a staple starch processed it with lime (the mineral, not the fruit) in order to render it edible -- Europeans who consumed it not knowing how to process it are the origin of the phrase "Montezuma's revenge."

    Reality-based community. Let's keep it that way.

    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

    by raptavio on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 03:59:09 PM PDT

    •  I don't strongly disagree with your general (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ahianne

      point, but I'm going to rap you on the knuckles for simultaneously incorporating an apocryphal etymology into a plea for fact-based content.

      In this case, you are almost certainly mistaken. Nobody seems to honestly believe this phrase had ever been uttered prior to the mid-20th century. In fact, the earliest citation you can find is the play Night of the Iguana. I cannot confirm whether it appears in Williams' original short story, published in 1948.

      Most explanations you hear for most colloquialisms are bogus, and I consider it generally wise to refrain from passing them along.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 05:04:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As you say -- (0+ / 0-)

        however, regardless of the recent advent of the term, the referent is still that phenomenon, at least as related by one nutritional anthrophologist...

        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

        by raptavio on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 05:38:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  actually, the history of maize in MesoAmerica (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        thanatokephaloides

        is that it needed to be made into hominy then ground for use.

        LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

        by BlackSheep1 on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 08:48:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That has absolutely nothing to do with the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          thanatokephaloides

          etymology of "Montezuma's Revenge".

          I've been told -- but I cannot vouch -- that during the Great Hunger, Americans shipped maize to Ireland, but that the Irish did not know how to prepare it so as to make it digestible, so much of it went to waste. You'd hope some of it at least went to animal feed, but at that point of course the only people who had uneaten animals were the same people who were busily starving the peasants to death in the name of Property and Rent.

          To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

          by UntimelyRippd on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 08:53:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  wider reading might be helpful. (3+ / 0-)

            Today's monocrop and big-ag methods are much akin to the absentee landlords whose profiteering doomed the cottiers.

            http://www.fee.org/...

            In economic terms, the case against protection is simple enough: It benefits the few at the expense of the many. The protected domestic interest benefits from the fact that foreign products are excluded or can only compete at a significant disadvantage. Less competition means the domestic interest can raise the price and lessen the quality of its product, leaving domestic consumers (that is, the vast majority of the population) with the choice of paying more for an inferior product or doing without. In the case of basic food products like grain, of course, this is a Hobson’s choice, since everyone must eat.
            It is no surprise, then, that the corn laws were from the outset vigorously supported by landowners, who grew domestic grain, and vigorously opposed by non-landowners, who had to pay more for their bread, and by classical liberal theorists. The case against protection had been made eloquently by Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations as far back as 1776, but the depression of 1838 to 1842 caused a new generation of free trade proponents to rise to the fore. An Anti-Corn Law League was founded and expressed its views through meetings, petitions, pamphlets, and speakers. Two great orators, Richard Cobden and John Bright, contributed mightily toward enlisting popular sympathy in the free trade cause.
            There's  more here:
            http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/...
            (This has already been discussed in The Famine 1: Potato Blight.) The Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, offered to give away free any chemical that would cure the blight, but the commission failed to find one.

            The government soon realised that more food was needed from somewhere to make up the shortfall. Peel had two options. The first was to stop exports. The landlords of Leinster, many of whom cultivated grain, often sold to the large markets in Britain. In 1844 there was a net export of grain of 294,000 tons and 485,000 in 1845. Private individuals in Ireland met the Lord Lieutentant of Ireland in Dublin to push for this solution.

            The other solution was to import more food. There were two problems with this. Firstly, many other European countries were also fearing famines and had banned exports of food, reducing the markets from which to buy. Secondly, there was a law called the 'Corn Law' which sought to protect local farmers by banning cheap foreign imports of food. The Corn Law was a key Tory policy, so by considering removing it Peel was going to invite the wrath of his party.

            That wrath led to the overthrow of his government in 1846.

            For a penny a pound the maize Peel imported was resold in Ireland -- a cost that was ruinous to many of the tenant farmers, who were truly peons in financial terms; but nobody bothered to include the directions for how to use the stuff.
            http://www.fao.org/...

             (Full disclosure: soy Tejano, so tortillas y tamales y enchiladas, all of which are based on masa -- corn flour -- are part of my heritage. Not to mention comfort food.)

            Absent the knowledge to make nixtamal, or masa, the corn had to be ground twice and cooked much longer than, say, oats, to be digestible; at the time "corn" was still the general term for "small grain" in the UK (wheat, barley, rye, and oats are small grains, as is mullein and as is maize. Please note: where I live you must specify what you mean by "Maize," as it may refer to either corn, or grain sorghum).  Wikipedia has a good article on Maize aka Corn, the starchy grain we associate with corn on the cob:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/....

            LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

            by BlackSheep1 on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 09:38:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Further reading? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              thanatokephaloides

              Perhaps. I am pretty well-read on the subject, although most of that was 30 years ago. In fact, my instructor with respect to the "Irish Question" was writing his dissertation on the Anti-Corn Law League.

              I've reached a point in my life where I'm reluctant to assert as fact things I "learned" in college, because too often I have discovered that -- comparable with the droll anthropologist's folk-tale that the phrase "Montezuma's Revenge" has its origin 400 years ago in indigestible maize, rather than 50 years ago in intestinal flora -- much historical scholarship abounds with folk-tales. So, am I confident that maize (which I refer to as maize in this context exactly to avoid confusion with the more general British usage of "corn") really went uneaten in Ireland, because the people could not figure out how to make it digestible? Or, just as bad, did they eat it any way, and suffer the consequences? Or is this "fact" based on one report in one newspaper in one city somewhere in Ireland? No, I am not, and I'm not up for doing the serious research that would be required.

              And so, instead, I offer the information as I came by it: Something I was told, but for which I cannot vouch.

              As for heritage ... well, my family too has its history with corn. One of my not-too-distant relatives (though only by marriage) was a key player in the development of the first super sweet hybrids at UIUC.

              To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

              by UntimelyRippd on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 10:14:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  well, since the winners decide what's history, (0+ / 0-)

                some of that folk-tale bias is inevitable. discounting all history, though, makes 1984 the de facto truth.

                That's not what we need, I think.

                LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

                by BlackSheep1 on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 07:52:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, but recognizing that our history is confounded (0+ / 0-)

                  by fables and myths is one of two or three key steps on the path of political wisdom. For one thing, too often we use these myths in order to build up an undeserved confidence in the moral superiority of our tribe -- a confidence that then enables new atrocities.

                  Americans of a certain age grew up "knowing" that we kicked Hitler's ass through a combination of the great American virtues: Our ingenuity, our stick-to-itiveness, our superior technology/engineering, our free-market system, and so on. In fact, we kicked Hitler's ass primarily through an overwhelming supply of materiel and several million dead Russians. The Germans outmatched us in almost every technical category -- they built better fighters (with the possible exception of the P-51), better tanks, better anti-tank guns, better machine guns, better just about everything. For that matter, the Russians had better tanks than we did (and more of them). Our overwhelming supply of materiel depended, not on our free market system, but on a command economy in which the government directed the allocation of resources, ordered corporations to license their patents to competitors, and dictated the terms of labor agreements. (I have a copy of the Chicago Tribune with a photo in which the CEO of Montgomery Ward, in his executive chair, is being carried by federal marshals down the steps of MW HQ, due to his refusal to manage his business according to the dictates of the federal government.)

                  We need to recognize that George III was mystified at the colonists' response to his clever scheme for allowing the East India Company to directly ship tea from the Indies to the Americas. The plan would lower the price of tea for the colonists, while increasing the tax revenue he needed to pay off the bills Britain ran up during the 7 Years' War. 250 years after the fact, American mythology still pretends (nowadays, by simply ignoring the matter entirely) that the colonies didn't owe something to the Imperial coffers in return for what was spent driving the French out of the midwest and the northeast.

                  Etc.

                  To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                  by UntimelyRippd on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 08:14:35 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I won't try to argue with you (0+ / 0-)

                    The UK perspective on how WW2 was won (hint: they liked Josef a lot more than Franklin) is undeniable.

                    But the notion that George III was some kind of benevolent ... yeah, no.

                    Sorry. Don't buy it.

                    LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

                    by BlackSheep1 on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 09:09:48 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It isn't that he was benevolent. (0+ / 0-)

                      He just thought it was a win-win. Your disinclination to "buy it" suggests, I'm sorry to say, that you have yourself bought into the American mythology.

                      The French and Indian war was expensive. It also resulted in a spectacular increase in the general security of the colonies. In its aftermath, the colonists, no longer worried about the threat from France and her native allies, basically flipped Britain the bird when the bill came due.

                      One of the things that pissed the colonists off was that they were forbidden to expand westward. The British parliament at the time wanted to avoid anything that would require more military expenditure in North America -- which would surely be the result if the colonists headed west of the mountains and encroached on the native populations there. In other words, the colonists were simultaneously refusing to pay for their security, while chafing at the bit to add to the cost of their security. That wasn't a matter of the Rights of Man, it was a matter of greed, pure and simple.

                      The UK perspective on WWII is not at issue -- it isn't even of interest, though your assertion that "they" "liked" Josef more than FDR is more than a little bizarre. Churchill certainly didn't -- his military strategy revolved around the objective of beating the Russians to strategically significant places, something FDR found more than a little tiresome.

                      I know of no serious student of the war who denies that the Russians, aided to some extent by American materiel, bore the brunt of defeating the Wehrmacht. The superiority at the time of German engineering vs American engineering is recognized by anyone who knows anything about WWII military hardware. I have never seen anybody assert that the US had any tank that compared favorably to the Russian T34, nevermind the German Tigers. We had no gun that compared with the German 88. The Thompson submachine gun looks really boss in those commando comics, but was inferior to the Schmeisser in almost every respect other than its enormous caliber. The fighters with which we fought most of the European war -- P-38, P-43, P-47 -- were fundamentally inferior to their contemporary German counterparts in most aspects of aerial combat. Etc. etc. etc. The best that can be said about American weapons in general is that, being simpler and engineered and manufactured to looser tolerances, they sometimes held up better in the field, or were easier to jury-rig when they failed. And also, the B-17 rocked it.

                      To believe otherwise -- to believe that American troops enjoyed some sort of essential superiority in virtue, derived from a superiority of American culture -- is to substitute tribal myth for evidence-based understanding.

                      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                      by UntimelyRippd on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 10:28:37 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  a long time ago I helped restore a B-17 (0+ / 0-)

                        Did you know that early on they were cut to doll rags by the German defensive fighters?

                        Germany owned the skies of Europe from the end of the Spanish Civil War until roughly 1943.

                        LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

                        by BlackSheep1 on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:47:00 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Daylight bombing was a bad idea. (0+ / 0-)

                          The Yanks should have taken the Brits' word for it. Sending in those B-17s beyond the range of their close-escort fighters was folly of WWI caliber.

                          Also, the earlier models of the B-17 were both undergunned compared to the later ones, and less robust. The later models had important structural improvements.

                          To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

                          by UntimelyRippd on Sat Apr 26, 2014 at 12:52:21 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

    •  I'm getting tired of people using science to (3+ / 0-)

      spread disinformation. People have used naturally occurring yeasts to leaven bread for hundreds of years and not the chemically isolated and genetically modified enzymes that those natural yeasts produce. That's a modern experiment and we are the guinea pigs.

      Our bodies have developed over thousands of years to live off of the food provided by our natural environment. These processed, chemically isolated and genetically altered foods lack the bulk (dietary fiber) and some of the basic nutrition we need in a healthy diet. While it may be scientifically accurate that these concentrated factory produced foods can provide some form of nutrition, it is not really healthy like the whole foods provided by nature.  

      Personally, I believe in the scientific method but too many people here think that isolated chemicals added together somehow makes the same thing as we find in nature. That's just not the case.

      Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT. I may make you feel but I can't make you think..Jethro Tull

      by RMForbes on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 05:09:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You know something else science says (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ahianne

        that you might consider disinformation?

        Enzymes cannot be "genetically modified." They have no genes, with a very few exceptions (a couple are based on RNA). The rest are proteins, the enzymes mentioned above included, which are large molecules, chemically identical whether the organism which produces them is "genetically modified" or not.  BTW dimple corn is not genetically modified either, unless you consider "genetic modification" selective breeding, in which case every dog and cat we own is "genetically modified". Dimple corn's been around since the 1800s.

        One can use science to spread disinformation. One can also use pseudoscience to spread disinformation, or simply speak untruths, as you have done.

        There are valid arguments to be made about nutritional balance, and the fact that science is not yet 100% on every nutrient we consume and what's ideal for our health -- and of course nothing I said above contradicts that. But what you're talking about "isolated chemicals added together somehow makes the same thing as we find in nature" is the stuff of science fiction.

        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

        by raptavio on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 05:50:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There you go again (0+ / 0-)

          You used the fact that I used the word modified where I should have said engineered to invalidate my entire statement.

          Glucose Isomerase

          Glucose Isomerase  is a genetically engineered enzyme (Streptomyces) produced through the fermentation of microorganisms using a variety of bacteria. Glucose Isomerase converts starches into sugars by changing glucose into fructose. Glucose Isomerase was developed for the process of making high fructose corn syrup.

          For me science reveals the natural interdependent universe for us and when these so called scientists try to manipulate or control the natural environment by isolating individual components, they are not really doing science anymore. They are just doing commercial production and they are selling out real science. But that's just my point of view as an organic gardener and herbalist.  

          Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT. I may make you feel but I can't make you think..Jethro Tull

          by RMForbes on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 06:41:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And that's fine. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ahianne

            I've done my share of organic gardening too (container gardening, square foot technique), and I think it's dandy to do.

            Your choice of words doesn't alter the inaccuracy, however. Glucose Isomerase is not a genetically engineered enzyme. One of the several methods of producing the enzyme involves a genetically modified yeast, which makes the enzyme (which is, again, a protein) in greater quantity than non-engineered varieties of yeast. The end result -- the enzyme -- is the exact same molecule of protein in either case.

            Science is used to learn about our universe, and science is applied to modify that universe. Applied science is as simple as using a lever to lift an object too heavy to lift by hand, or lighting a fire, or building a wheel. It's also as complex as chemotherapy, particle acceleration, or genetic modification. You don't have to like applied science, but no matter what you call it, it's still science, unless you seek to redefine the word.

            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

            by raptavio on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 07:15:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There is a difference between the applied (0+ / 0-)

              sciences and gross bastardization to produce a more profitable product. At least in my mind. Products like HFCS, GMO's and herbicides like Roundup exploit and poison our environment and our bodies. I just don't see the real science in that?

              The inaccuracy which I block quoted came from the diary and not from me. You were less than accurate as well when you said that people have been using these particular enzymes for hundreds of years. Using yeast that produce these enzymes is not the same thing as using the enzyme. People have known about yeast and how to use it for a very long time but the knowledge of enzymes and proteins is a far more recent discovery.  

              I lived on my brother's organic farm when I was going to college back in the late 70's and early 80's. We never used petrochemicals to produce our food much less sulfuric acid. I guess it's just a different way to see how we relate to our environment and how to produce our food.

              Really don't mind if you sit this one out. My words but a whisper -- your deafness a SHOUT. I may make you feel but I can't make you think..Jethro Tull

              by RMForbes on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 07:50:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  A couple responses (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ahianne

                and then I tire of this because I'm getting impatient.

                "There is a difference between the applied sciences and gross bastardization to produce a more profitable product. At least in my mind."

                "In your mind" is irrelevant. A tool is a tool, and it can be used for good or for evil. Science has no agenda, as a friend of mine is prone to say. But the tools science gives us can be used for purposes both benevolent, benign and malevolent. It'd be nice if science was a tool only for good, as you seem to want it to be, and I think your idealism is laudable, but words mean what they mean no matter what we'd like them to mean.

                "You were less than accurate as well when you said that people have been using these particular enzymes for hundreds of years. Using yeast that produce these enzymes is not the same thing as using the enzyme."

                No, that's untrue. It's the enzyme itself which leavens the bread, and produces the alcohol through beer brewing and winemaking. The only difference between now and antiquity is that in modern times we've learned how to isolate the enzyme after the yeast produces it, meaning we can now use the enzyme in foodmaking without also incorporating the yeast itself. (Which I'd never want to do for breadmaking; I keep sourdough starter because it makes much more delicious bread with both local yeast and lactobacillus cultures.)

                Okay?

                "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                by raptavio on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 08:22:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Chemo-phobic BS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    badger

    The problem with High fructose corn syrup is the amount ingested, not the preparation.  The fructose from fruit is the same as in HFCS, the concentration is just lower.  Fructose is fructose, regardless the source.

    The sun's not yellow, it's chicken. B. Dylan

    by bgblcklab1 on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 05:02:09 PM PDT

  •  The diarist may want to rephrase this a bit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne, Sylv

    The graph presented fails to support the conclusion that the availability of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and increases in the rate of obesity are correlated.

    Consider the plot of HFCS over time: one sees an exponential curve from about 1970 to around 1985, followed by a sharp inflection to a roughly linear, but only slightly increasing curve, from 1985 to 2000.

    By contrast, the curve depicting the prevalence of obesity shows a slightly increasing curve -- almost linear -- from 1961 to about 1983 or 1984. At that point, there's an inflection and then a substantially greater rate of increase is depicted that continued at least until 2000.

    In other words, within a year or two of when the rate of change of HFCS sharply decreased, the rate of change in the prevalence of obesity clearly increased.

    As I read it, the diary appears to be trying to imply the opposite is true.

    Don't get me wrong: I'm not implying HFCS is some kind of diet aid that reduces obesity.  That's nonsense. I'm simply pointing out that these data, as presented in the graph provided, fail to make the case that HFCS availability is correlated directly with the prevalence of obesity.

  •  First I've heard that field corn is inedible (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ahianne

    When I used to visit my relatives who grew it, we all ate it just fine. Sweet corn was tastier, but field corn was fine, too.

    Yes, DailyKos DOES have puzzles! Visit us here Saturday nights @ 5:00 PDT (easier puzzles) and Sunday nights @ 5:00 PDT (more challenging) for a group solving. Even if you just pop in and comment while watching the fun, everybody is welcome. uid:21352

    by pucklady on Fri Apr 25, 2014 at 05:02:49 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site