We don't need a soda/juice tax - we need a high-fructose corn syrup tax

[derby378]

I know some people are gonna have a hard time with this, but most sodas on the market today don't even have any sugar in them anymore - it's all HFCS.

Sucrose is natural. You grow it, you harvest it, you use it in food. HFCS, on the other hand, does not occur in nature - you have to manufacture it in a laboratory, and the manufacturing process is bad for the environment. And it doesn't taste as good as sucrose, either.

I have no problem with natural corn syrup. Or honey. Or fructose in general. But artificial sweeteners masquerading as sugar and possibly causing more problems with childhood obesity and diabetes than sugar? Yeah, I've got problems.

If we can't ban HFCS, then let's tax to the point we're growing and using more sugar again.

[aquart]

1. Okay.

If you promise to unionize the sugar plantations.

[derby378]

3. Can we turn Louisiana into a union state?

That there is fertile ground for some new sugar plantation, IIRC.

[imdjh]

13. Are high fructose corn syrup plantations unionized?

[NYC_SKP]

2. Yes, a tax and/or prominent labeling!

It takes a magnifying glass to check many ingredients and HFCS is often buried as some sub-ingredient.

I'd add a requirement to post genetically modified seed ingredients if possible.

:patriot:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. HFCS is sugar. It's sugar that comes from corn.

You've probably got some in your kitchen.



Articial sweeteners, like nutrasweet or splenda, are something else entirely.

[Critters2]

6. Exactly. It's just sugar. Nothing more, nothing less.

I do not understand the panic about this form of sugar.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. It's like chemtrails, I guess.

They're worried about their precious bodily fluids.

[handmade34]

46. not so simple

see #45

[baldguy]

11. HFCS is *NOT* sugar.

Real sugar is made of sucrose - disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose bonded together. HFCS is just glucose and fructose - monosaccharides floating around seperatly, unbonded in water.

It tastes different, it looks different, and the body handles it differently.

edit:

And I don't have any of that "Karo Syrup" shit in my cupboard.

[derby378]

12. Exactly, which is one reason why we need...

...better schools, better teachers, and better science education.

I have to play the Carl Sagan card, here. We need more scientifically-literate politicians and lawmakers in DC if we want to keep our nation's head above water.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. I was just thinking the same thing.

Why do people get so passionate about subjects they refuse to learn anything about?

[imdjh]

18. Have you seen the "corn fights back" commercials? No mention of how HFCS is made.

And curiously they say, "is perfectly safe in average consumption". I wonder what it is at high consumption?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Too much could lead to diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay.

Just like any other sugar.

[handmade34]

47. produced by the Corn Refiners Assn

[Critters2]

59. As opposed to pro-sugar propaganda produced by *gasp* sugar producers.

It's time we fought the mighty sugar beet conglomerates, before they take over!! :eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. table sugar is made of sucrose, a sugar.

Glucose and fructose are both other examples of real sugars.

[D23MIURG23]

30. Sucrose is one kind of sugar, glucose and fructose are another.

HFCS is sugar, hence monosaccharides being called saccharides. Aside from glucose and fructose being processed more rapidly by the body, there really isn't going to be much of a difference in metabolism.

I agree that sucrose tastes better, but I'm not sure what your beef is.

[Kajsa]

77. Me neither,

I wouldn't touch that crap with a ten foot pole.

HFCS tastes like crap because it IS crap!

[armyowalgreens]

17. I didn't learn a lot from science classes...But I know you are wrong.

HFCS is not sugar.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Maybe you should go back to science class.

[armyowalgreens]

26. I am. But you're still wrong.

Simply because something says "corn syrup" does not mean it is HFCS. And HFCS is not sugar.

On edit: When you say HFCS is "sugar" are you referring to the commonly held idea of sugar or the technical term?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. You think so?

Because I DID learn a lot in science classes, and I've already looked this up.

[armyowalgreens]

29. Re-read my post.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. I'd call it the correct term.

Especially since sucrose breaks down into the exact same sugars when you eat it- fructose and glucose.

I guess some people would consider that too "technical" though.

[baldguy]

35. Chemical bonds *DO* make a difference, you know.

Or do you think mixing sodium and chlorine in solution is the same as having sodium chloride in solution?

(hint: if you mix sodium and chlorine in solution, it burns & explodes.)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. The chemical bond between fructose and glucose that makes up sucrose...

is broken the instant you put it in your mouth.

Try to keep up.

[baldguy]

40. No, it doesn't.

Sucrose will only decompose in the presence of acid. Saliva isn't strong enough. Otherwise it would decompose with the much higher acidity of a carbonated soft drink. It doesn't.

HFCS is really closer to pre-digested cane sugar. Maybe that's how it should be labeled.

[D23MIURG23]

41. Sucrose decomposes in the presence of the enzyme sucrase...

which your body has.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. Enzymes, baldguy, saliva contains enzymes.

Enzymes specifically designed to hydrolyse that glycosidic bond. And then of course, there are other enzymes in the stomach and small intestine, and the low pH of the stomach, all of which ensure table sugar is fructose and glucose before it enters the blood stream, which is what's relevant for diet and nutrition.

[baldguy]

44. Sucrase is produced in the intestines - not in saliva.

[D23MIURG23]

50. Its called sophistry.

You've already lost the argument and you know it, so you keep disputing minor points using knowledge you probably didn't have at the beginning of the discussion.

Enlighten me Baldguy, what happens to the sucrose once sucrase has transformed it into fructose and glucose in the intestine? Could it be exactly same thing that happens to glucose and fructose that you eat as monosaccharides?

[baldguy]

60. The other stooge says "sucrose is broken the instant you put it in your mouth." - It isn't.

Sucrose survives through the mouth, through the stomach & is broken down with sucrase in the small intestine. I think most people would be able to tell the difference between those body parts - in spite of the prevarications of the giant "food" manufacturers.

The entire aim of the multi-million dollar corporate propaganda campaign is to get the American consumer to believe that HFCS is completely natural and is exactly the same as sucrose. This is a lie. It tastes different, it looks different, its produced differently, its different chemically & the body metabolizes it differently. But none of that matters - nor does the probable public health problems created by it. The only thing that matters is that HFCS costs a small fraction of a cent less per serving than real sugar.

[D23MIURG23]

64. "Real sugar" still causes diabetes. Ask a doctor. n/t

[baldguy]

67. Now, that's an entirely different discussion - isn't it?

[D23MIURG23]

76. I'm still waiting for a response as to why it is different to eat glucose and fructose

as opposed to sucrose, which is broken down into glucose and fructose anyway.

But no, its the same discussion, namely that various people on this thread are hyping a distinction (one they seem to have little understanding of) without difference.

[Critters2]

68. Exactly. If you eat too much of ANY sugar, you're going to get fat and diabetic.

And that's not the fault of the food. It's the fault of the person eating it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. Well, you're almost right.

Most sucrase is in the small intestine, sure, but there's some in the saliva too.

So my statement stands.

As for the stomach, why yes, the stomach is acidic enough to hydrolyze sucrose. It's not like there's some magic voodoo pH cutoff. Would pH affect reaction rates? Sure. Equilibrium constant? Maybe, but there's still hydrolysis. I mean that's basic acid/base chemistry. High school stuff.

So why no hydrolysis in soda? Oh, there's hydrolysis of sucrose in soda to. They MAKE soda with sucrose, but by they time you pop that Mexican coke bottle, some proportion has already turned into glucose and, god forbid, fructose.

Just another reason why the overwhelming scientific consensus is that HFCS is just fucking sugar.

[D23MIURG23]

38. You are talking about two completely different cases.

Sodium chloride is an ionic substance, and in solution sodium and chloride ions do disassociate from one another. The difference is that the Chloride keeps the electron it got from the sodium, rendering both species relatively stable. Elemental sodium has one too many electrions in its outer valence shell, and Chlorine has one too few, and they react feverishly until that situation is remedied.

The bond holding sucrose together is covalent (electron sharing) and when it is broken by the body during metabolism (by adding a water molecule to the bond) the result is a glucose molecule and a fructose molecule exactly like the ones found in a banana or corn syrup or whatever. Yes, that bond does matter, but the way in which it matters is completely different from the way you seem to think it matters.

For your viewing pleasure here is a diagram of what your very own body does to sucrose once you have eaten it.

[baldguy]

43. Sucrose is not digested through hydrolysis - the reaction is too slow.

The intestines produce sucrase the catalyze the reaction - in the intestines.

[D23MIURG23]

48. Its called hydrolosis when an ether is opened by addition of a water molecule.

The fact that the process is facilitated by a catalyst is irrelevant to the identity of the process. See the diagram above.

[baldguy]

51. But not "once you have eaten it." Its not broken down with saliva in the mouth.

Its broken down & metabolized in the intestine.

[D23MIURG23]

53. "Once you have eaten it" also covers the intestine unless you do it way differently than I do.

[Critters2]

58. LOL! nt

[armyowalgreens]

52. Okay let me explain.

Whether or not two similar compounds have the capability of breaking down into the same compound is irrelevant.

The human body processes certain compounds differently. Even if two compounds seem structurally similar, the body can react in wildly different ways to them.

You can understand that simply by studying isotopes of elements.

So to say that HFCS is sugar, and therefore no more harmful than common granulated sugar, is being a bit disingenuous.

[D23MIURG23]

61. The point is that "common granulated sugar" isn't harmless.

It can give you diabetes or make you overweight just like HFCS can. The fact is that both are sugars and one molecule of sucrose yields one molecule of glucose and fructose which yield the same metabolic products. That isn't disingenuous, its just a fact you won't accept; apparently owing to preconceived notions of what HFCS is.

Finally, you apparently don't know anything about sugars or you wouldn't be telling me that a parent sugar might behave differently than its monosaccharide components based on isotopes, which are atomic nuclei of the same element with different masses. Complex carbohydrates (polysaccharides) are broken into monosaccharides which are ultimately used to produce ATP. Its better to eat starches than glucose or sucrose because the latter two will spike your blood sugar in a way that starch won't. Thats it. Otherwise they are the same.

Or if you want to talk isotopes, any carbohydrate constructed from atoms of carbon-14 will kill you, but that is really way beside the point (and not what HFCS is - believe me).

[armyowalgreens]

69. ...

My point with the isotope comment was to show how very similarly structured materials can have wildly different reactions. I do not think that isotopes of certain elements are the same as differently structured sugar compounds. You must think I'm incredibly dumb. Thanks.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

72. You're welcome.

Nevertheless, fructose and glucose are still sugar.

Since sucrose is broken down to fructose and glucose before it enters the blood stream, i.e. before any of this becames relevant, it doesn't really matter if it's sucrose or not.

Oh, and you're also operating under the myth that sucrose is some how the most natural sugar humans can get.

As if our primitive ancestors wandered the serengeti hunting down wooly sugar cane.

In fact, for most of human history if humans got any concentrated sugar it'd be in the form of honey. And what's honey? Well it's about 55% fructose and 45% glucose. Sound familiar? That's right, HFCS.

Of couse, most don't use concentrated sugar but just get the sugar from their foods.

There are fruit, fruit has lots of sugar.

Apples, for instance. Fructose and glucose. A little more fructose than glucose. And oranges, same deal.

And of course there are starchy foods. Like, I don't know, corn starch.

And then there's meat. Mostly glucose.

[D23MIURG23]

74. Isotopes of the same element undergo exactly the same reactions.

The issue is that some of them are radioactive, which is a whole different animal. Radiolabled compouds are actually valuable to chemists and biologists because they are traceable, and you can trust a radiolabled compound to behave in almost exactly the same way as the normal one. There can be differences with reaction rates, but that is a discussion I don't want at this point.

So yes, fructose and glucose that enter the body at the mouth undergo the same reactions as fructose and glucose derived from the metabolism of sucrose.

I don't think you are incredibly dumb; I think you are fairly ignorant of chemistry, which just happens to be my expertise. If I sound adversarial or condescending, its because you and other people keep insisting that certain kinds of sugar aren't really sugar based on arguments that don't make any sense.

[Chemisse]

88. Are the molecules the same exactly or are they stereoisomers?

Obviously they are not different isotopes, but when glucose breaks into its products, are those 2 monosaccharides exactly the same as the single glucose and fructose in the corn syrup? Or are they left handed or right handed?

And I am not arguing a side, I am trying to understand why the outcry over the fructose corn syrup.

[baldguy]

62. Just a bit.

[Sebastian Doyle]

32. MonSatan propaganda training sessions

do not qualify as "science classes"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. Ad hominems don't qualify as an argument.

If you think you science is better than my science- let's dance, Raggedy Man.

[D23MIURG23]

34. Here we go:

Scientific

Scientifically, sugar refers to any monosaccharide or disaccharide. Monosaccharides (also called "simple sugars"), such as glucose, store chemical energy which biological cells convert to other types of energy.

In a list of ingredients, any word that ends with "-ose" (such as "glucose", "dextrose", "fructose", etc.) will likely denote a sugar. Sometimes such words may also refer to any types of carbohydrates soluble in water.

Glucose (a type of sugar found in human blood plasma) has the molecular formula C6 H12 O6.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar

[Maru Kitteh]

54. I want everybody to take a time out and imagine this level of dialogue on FR

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Yeah, like THAT would ever happen!


Freeper 1: I heard them High Fructose Corn fields was all picked by illegal brown Mexicans. They could be Muslins you know. I don't like that stuff.

Freeper 2: If High Fructose Corn was good enough for Adam and Eve, it's good enough for me.

Freeper 3: I want to drink High Fructose Corn Syrup out of Sayruh Paylin's dirty shoe.

[baldguy]

65. Freepers buy Karo syrup in gallon jugs.

:rofl:

[Maru Kitteh]

71. You're right about that. I think about that when I see that crap in the breakfast aisle.

Perfectly good flapjack + Karo Syrup = projectile vomit.

[TheMightyFavog]

79. Who puts Karo on pancakes?

It's maple syrup for me. The real stuff, not that mass-produced Mrs. Buttersworth or Aunt Jemima shit.

[armyowalgreens]

55. Thanks for the lesson teacher. But that is was completely wasted.

I know about sugars. I at first confused prons usage of the word "sugar" with a more commonly held idea of sugar.

[Gormy Cuss]

19. Karo syrups are HFCS-free.

They reformulated the syrups again to remove it as an ingredient.

[baldguy]

21. They didn't reformulate it to make it less sickening.

[juno jones]

22. As a baker I use it in pecan pie.

There are some sweet breads and frostings that use it as well. If you have ever bought from a fine bakery, odds are you've had it in food. Frankly, I'm more worried about the genetic modification of the corn than the Karo.

My grandma used to put that stuff straight on pancakes, and I will agree with you there, as a pancake syrup it's a freakin' ipecac.

[Critters2]

57. My grandfather used to use it on pancakes. Said that, since he grew corn,

he wasn't putting anything from Vermont on his pancakes...until my dad pointed out that Log Cabin was mostly corn syrup.

[juno jones]

83. LOL!

:hi:

Sounds like my paternal family!

[handmade34]

45. not so simple... HFCS is highly processed

There is much conflicting information... much of the yah, HFCS is just sugar is diseminated by the Corn Refiners Association. My research weighs much heavier on '..this stuff is hyper processed, bad for you and me and bad for the environment and just not good for much of anything (and HFCS is not Karo syrup).

"Cornstarch is first treated with a purified enzyme, alpha-amylase, to produce shorter chains of sugars called polysaccharides. . . . The polysaccharides (short chains of sugar) are then broken down even further by adding a second enzyme called glucoamylase. . . . The addition of glucoamylase to the polysaccharides yields the simple sugar glucose."

"While the consumption of table sugar triggers the secretion of insulin and leptin, which signal your body that you are full, HFCS does not. Consumption of foods containing HFCS could contribute to increased caloric intake and weight gain. Consumption of HFCS can elevate triglyceride levels, which can increase the risk of heart disease. HFCS can upset the magnesium, copper, chromium, and zinc levels in the body, which could lead to deficiency diseases like bone loss"

Natural is relative, so think of it this way: high fructose corn syrup would not exist without the aid of humans. (Of course, neither would table sugar.) "You don't just squeeze it out of a kernel of corn," explains Jacobson. The sweetener is made from cornstarch via a process that alters corn's naturally occurring starch molecules. For that reason, Jacobson and CSPI protested an early version of the Corn Refiners Association ads that used the term natural in reference to high fructose corn syrup. Eventually, he says, they took out the word "because it's not natural--it's highly processed."

http://www.kingcorn.net/
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/1/19/what-happens-to-your-body-within-an-hour-of-drinking-a-coke.aspx###
http://www.examiner.com/x-12988-SF-Mind-and-Body-Examiner~y2009m7d14-Dangers-of-high-fructose-corn-syrup
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/4/537
http://www.cspinet.org/new/200806231.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/corn-syrup-producers-advertise.php
http://drinkvivi.com/the-truth-about-hfcs

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. So is table sugar.

You could just use honey, of course. But then again that's fructose and glucose.

[Statistical]

75. +1. HFCS is crap and it is in everything.

Our bodies don't react properly to it because it is unnatural. The lack of insulin increase (which sends a full signal) until AFTER it has broken down (i.e. you have kept eating 30-60 minutes after were already full) is just one problem with it.

[Chemisse]

91. So if the corn syrup is made of the same monosaccharides

But just broken up ahead of time - before you even it it - while the table sugar will be broken up just before it is absorbed in the intestine, why does eating HFCS fail to trigger insulin and leptin secretion in the way that sucrose does?

Are they triggered before the absorption in the intestines? Is it the intact sucrose molecule that triggers their release and the monosaccharides are just not capable of doing it?

If that is the case, it would explain how HFCS could be more hazardous than sucrose, so would lend credence to the claims that the corn syrup is dangerous.

[anonymous171]

5. Actually, we just need a soak the rich tax. nt

[cpamomfromtexas]

8. I agree, HFCS is made in a lab and is terrible for your health

For those that question it, google HFCS and the effect on hormones.

[Laelth]

9. I would support that. k&r n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[baldguy]

10. K&R

[csziggy]

14. Why not tax food for each processing step after it is harvested?

So fresh raw potatoes would cost less than potato chips which would cost less than extruded potato products, etc. White rice would cost more than brown rice, parboiled rice (think Uncle Ben's) would cost more than regular white rice.

I'm not sure how much I buy into the evils of high fructose corn syrup - I have not done the research to have an informed opinion. But I do believe that the less processing that food gets, the better it is for us and the true costs of processing are not being passed along.

Just putting this out off the top of my head.

[handmade34]

49. I vote your tax plan

actually that is a very good idea... overprocessing is most certainly at the root of many problems

[Sentath]

82. I LOVE your tax scheme, and

good or bad HFCS would be as expensive as gas under this regime.

In King Corn they made HFCS by hand. Took many many steps.

[otohara]

15. Agree, But Drinking Gobs of Sugar Free Sodas

is just as unhealthy, especially for the bones.

"Soft drinks also contain large quantities of phosphorus, which when
excreted pulls calcium out of the bones. Heavy users of soft drinks will
have osteoporosis along with their damaged arteries.http://www.organicconsumers.org/school/cocacola021605.cfm

I say tax them all, drink water, save money.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. Would you that organic milk is a good way to prevent osteoporosis, Otohara?

I'm asking, because organic milk has a hell of lot more phosphorous in it than soda. And poulty and fish and legumes.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that human blood stream, naturally, has a higher inorganic phosphorous concentration than soda. It's pretty important for all living things.

But thanks for that link, I've been seeing that myth pop up more and more recently. I was wondering where people were getting that shit from.

[PHIMG]

16. Yes same thing with Transfat.

Although I support an outright ban.

No more Frankenfoods.

We should subsidize fresh whole foods too. Its too expensive to eat healthy.

[Jkid]

20. I agree with this.

n/t

[SoCalDem]

33. We need a moratorium on the usage of it, entirely

say.. 5 years..and after 5 years, there could be a comprehensive study to see if the Diabetes II and obesity rates in kids had leveled out or decreased.

It would not hurt to tax the hell out of soda pop too.

Many people drink soda instead of water..There was a time when a 6oz Coke , chilled icy-cold was plenty for people. I see people carrying around their super-mega 64oz giganto-gulps and cannot imagine how on earth they could drink that much ..

[4lbs]

56. I'm looking at a 12 oz Pepsi can right now.

The ingredients listed on products are usually in order of most abundant to least abundant.

Ingredients of Pepsi: Carbonated water, HFCS, caramel color, sugar, phosphoric acid, and then some others.

So, HFCS is the second most abundant ingredient in Pepsi, and even with HFCS, Pepsi still contains "regular" sugar!

12 oz of Pepsi contain 150 calories, and 41 grams of sugar.

So, anybody dragging around a 64-oz Big Gulp of Pepsi and drinks it all has just consumed 800 calories and more than 200 grams of sugar!


Now, attach that 64-oz of soda (like in a Super-Sized meal) to a Big Mac, and add another 1000 calories and even more sugar.

Thus, a Big Mac + 64 oz of soda is 1800 calories and well over 200 grams of sugar. Just those two items alone is all the calories an average person needs a day. People eat that for lunch.

Add in what they eat for breakfast, and then dinner, and you can easily see people consuming 3000 calories a day. Unless they are extremely active, and exercise an hour a day, I doubt they'll be able to burn through even 2000 calories a day.

Now, where does that extra 1000 calories that isn't burnt each day go? Towards fat storage on the body.

[TheMightyFavog]

80. If you like Pepsi.

They're still selling the throwback stuff made with cane sugar.

That's good soda. :9

That and my local grocery store started selling Mexican Coke in glass bottles. Nothing like it in the world.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

81. The acidic ph of soda and available water will

allow the sucrose (cane sugar) to break down into a mixtrue of glucose and fructose (HFCS). It might happen immediately, but rest assured, by the time you crack the tab on your "natural" soda... it might as well have some HFCS in it.

[4lbs]

87. Oh, yeah. The times I regularly visited Tijuana, I would buy Coca-Cola in real classic glass bottle

I immediately tasted the difference, since the Coca-Cola in Mexico at the time used almost no HFCS. It was the regular cane sugar I think.

Tasted much better.

[flvegan]

63. Why then not just a "Shitty Body Intake Tax?"

Cigs? Tax.

Booze? Tax.

Fast food? Tax.

HFCS? Tax.

Packaged garbage? Tax.

Dairy? Tax.

Candy? Tax.

Energy drink/soda/carbonated crap? Tax.

Let's get outrageous and not compartmentalize the blame.

This should be good... :evilgrin:

[Quantess]

66. I only drink diet soda, so I wouldn't mind a HCFS tax.

;)

[sez me]

78. Whatever gets in the revenue and is junk, I am for...

Soda with real sugar is still bad for you. Juice is pasteurized and most fiber separated.

[Lorien]

84. The main reason most corporations use HFCS now is subsidies

they switch from sugar and honey after Nixon created the corn subsidies program. That's why bottled water often costs more than a bottle of Coke or Pepsi.

[cascadiance]

90. And ag subsidies to big corporations is a big reason for immigration/outsourcing problems!

With big subsidies going to big agribusiness, it allows them to dump products like those infested with HFCS in places like South America, and force many local farmers out of business there.

Then the elites in those country take advantage of this by buying up the land from these struggling farmes on the cheap and turn around and build up outsourcing factories to companies looking to move jobs there for cheaper labor, and they turn around and hire these out of work farmers at cheap labor rates.

Then, if these companies can find other situations that are even cheaper in places like Southeast Asia, they pack up their bags and leave there, and those workers go where for work? HERE!

It's ALL by design! One more reason to tax HFCS to help shut down this cycle! Perhaps a tariff would be in order, though that might get us in trouble with the WTO...

Perhaps we should really look at our ag subsidies process with this, which as some note, might hit the problem at the source for some of these issues, and give the Ben Nelson's of the world even more problems to think about if he wants to continue this WAR of the corporations on the American people!

Ag subsidies should be rewritten so that ONLY small farmers should get them, and none at all should go to big ag business, who don't need them and only get them because they've bought off congress to get them.

[eppur_se_muova]

85. Try googling "fructose and obesity" to get more background -- including published scientific studies

and, of course, wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hfcs#Health_effects which cites some of the same studies.

PS: Don't forget we have a Health forum -- lots of stories on fructose and HFCS posted there!

[Vinca]

86. They even put the crap in canned vegetables.

There's nothing worse than a canned kidney bean that's been stewing in high fructose corn syrup for 6 months.

[bobbolink]

89. WHY are "progressives" so stuck on REGRESSIVE taxes???

You do know this is regressive, right?

Are you thinking this through?

Do you consider that this is in the cheapest food, and poor folk can't afford the same kind of food that you can?

Could you consider, instead, a campaign to GET RID OF HFCS???????

Why is this so difficult to understand?