Thread: Child diabetes blamed on food sweetener

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6954603.ece

In article <jQyWm.96712$Wf2.91168@newsfe23.iad>,
lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote:

> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6954603.ece

Yet another reason why Uncle Sam should tax high fructose corn syrup the
same way that cain sugar is taxed.

In news:stan-F14F1B.18504117122009@news.newsguy.com Stan Horwitz
<stan@temple.edu> wrote:

> In article <jQyWm.96712$Wf2.91168@newsfe23.iad>,
> lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote:
>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6954603.ece
>
> Yet another reason why Uncle Sam should tax high fructose corn syrup
> the same way that cain sugar is taxed.

That's funny!

Imported sugar is taxed to protect the sugar beet farmers.

Corn syrup will never be taxed so long as corn is grown in the US.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:50:41 -0500, Stan Horwitz <stan@temple.edu>
wrote:

>In article <jQyWm.96712$Wf2.91168@newsfe23.iad>,
> lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote:
>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6954603.ece
>
>Yet another reason why Uncle Sam should tax high fructose corn syrup the
>same way that cain sugar is taxed.

You want HFCS price supports?

"krw" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:tkjli5lalmr57ki2f6q0t9825oa7ftlch8@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:50:41 -0500, Stan Horwitz <stan@temple.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <jQyWm.96712$Wf2.91168@newsfe23.iad>,
>> lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6954603.ece
>>
>>Yet another reason why Uncle Sam should tax high fructose corn syrup the
>>same way that cain sugar is taxed.
>
> You want HFCS price supports?

The price support for sugar acts as a price support for HFCS.

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:27:51 -0500, "terrable" <terrable@terrable.net>
wrote:

>
>"krw" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
>news:tkjli5lalmr57ki2f6q0t9825oa7ftlch8@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:50:41 -0500, Stan Horwitz <stan@temple.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <jQyWm.96712$Wf2.91168@newsfe23.iad>,
>>> lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6954603.ece
>>>
>>>Yet another reason why Uncle Sam should tax high fructose corn syrup the
>>>same way that cain sugar is taxed.
>>
>> You want HFCS price supports?
>
>The price support for sugar acts as a price support for HFCS.

That wasn't my point.

In article <tkjli5lalmr57ki2f6q0t9825oa7ftlch8@4ax.com>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:50:41 -0500, Stan Horwitz <stan@temple.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <jQyWm.96712$Wf2.91168@newsfe23.iad>,
> > lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6954603.ece
> >
> >Yet another reason why Uncle Sam should tax high fructose corn syrup the
> >same way that cain sugar is taxed.
>
> You want HFCS price supports?

No, the other way around. I want price supports removed. Taxing HFCS
achieves that just like it does with regular sugar.

In article <Xns9CE4BA73EE297VeebleFetzer@216.250.188.141>,
Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

> In news:stan-F14F1B.18504117122009@news.newsguy.com Stan Horwitz
> <stan@temple.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article <jQyWm.96712$Wf2.91168@newsfe23.iad>,
> > lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6954603.ece
> >
> > Yet another reason why Uncle Sam should tax high fructose corn syrup
> > the same way that cain sugar is taxed.
>
> That's funny!
>
> Imported sugar is taxed to protect the sugar beet farmers.
>
> Corn syrup will never be taxed so long as corn is grown in the US.

You are probably correct, but HFCS should indeed be taxed and at the
very least, those foods containing a high proportion of HFCS to other
ingredients such as soda pop and candy should not be eligible for
purchase on food stamps.

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:10:17 -0500, Stan Horwitz <stan@temple.edu>
wrote:

>In article <Xns9CE4BA73EE297VeebleFetzer@216.250.188.141>,
> Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>> In news:stan-F14F1B.18504117122009@news.newsguy.com Stan Horwitz
>> <stan@temple.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <jQyWm.96712$Wf2.91168@newsfe23.iad>,
>> > lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6954603.ece
>> >
>> > Yet another reason why Uncle Sam should tax high fructose corn syrup
>> > the same way that cain sugar is taxed.
>>
>> That's funny!
>>
>> Imported sugar is taxed to protect the sugar beet farmers.
>>
>> Corn syrup will never be taxed so long as corn is grown in the US.
>
>You are probably correct, but HFCS should indeed be taxed and at the
>very least, those foods containing a high proportion of HFCS to other
>ingredients such as soda pop and candy should not be eligible for
>purchase on food stamps.

No luxuries (soda pop or candy) should be eligible for food stamp
purchase, whether they have "healthy" cane sugar or "nasty" HFCS.

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:08:40 -0500, Stan Horwitz <stan@temple.edu>
wrote:

>In article <tkjli5lalmr57ki2f6q0t9825oa7ftlch8@4ax.com>,
> krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:50:41 -0500, Stan Horwitz <stan@temple.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <jQyWm.96712$Wf2.91168@newsfe23.iad>,
>> > lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6954603.ece
>> >
>> >Yet another reason why Uncle Sam should tax high fructose corn syrup the
>> >same way that cain sugar is taxed.
>>
>> You want HFCS price supports?
>
>No, the other way around. I want price supports removed. Taxing HFCS
>achieves that just like it does with regular sugar.

Cane sugar is supported, not taxed. If you simply dropped all price
supports (and tariffs) for sugar HFCS would disappear and food costs
would decrease.

lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote:

>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6954603.ece

Like, duh. We already knew this. Fructose is EVIL!!!!

Steve

On Dec 17, 3:07*pm, lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6954603.ece

"Fructose, a sweetener derived from corn, can cause dangerous growths
of fat cells around vital organs and is able to trigger the early
stages of diabetes and heart disease."

So, now it's fructose that is blamed for obesity? OK, let's ban fruits
and replace fruits in our diet with cane sugar.

Well, let The Times editors do this to their children. I will continue
to feed my children with fresh fruits.

Beans and rice only for people like Krw. How do you like them apples,
eh?

Steve Pope wrote:
> lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote:
>
> >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6954603.ece
>
> Like, duh. We already knew this. Fructose is EVIL!!!!
So is those evil carbz!!!!!11!!!!one!!
> Steve

On Dec 17, 8:16*pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:10:17 -0500, Stan Horwitz <s...@temple.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <Xns9CE4BA73EE297VeebleFet...@216.250.188.141>,
> > Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> >> Innews:stan-F14F1B.18504117122009@news.newsguy.comStan Horwitz
> >> <s...@temple.edu> wrote:
>
> >> > In article <jQyWm.96712$Wf2.91...@newsfe23.iad>,
> >> > *lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote:
>
> >> >>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6954603.ece
>
> >> > Yet another reason why Uncle Sam should tax high fructose corn syrup
> >> > the same way that cain sugar is taxed.
>
> >> That's funny!
>
> >> Imported sugar is taxed to protect the sugar beet farmers.
>
> >> Corn syrup will never be taxed so long as corn is grown in the US.
>
> >You are probably correct, but HFCS should indeed be taxed and at the
> >very least, those foods containing a high proportion of HFCS to other
> >ingredients such as soda pop and candy should not be eligible for
> >purchase on food stamps.
>
> No luxuries (soda pop or candy) should be eligible for food stamp
> purchase, whether they have "healthy" cane sugar or "nasty" HFCS.

I agree 100%, and I'm a political progressive who believes strongly in
the idea of food stamps. I'd like to see a huge change in what's
eligible. I don't mind at all subsidizing poor folks purchases of
vegetables, dairy, beans, rice, pasta, eggs, nuts, bread, and some
fruits and meats that fall within certain cost parameters. People
should not be using food stamps for cookies, pies, highly processed
heat-and-serve foods, and patently unhealthy things like hydrogenated
oils. The WIC program has very strict eligibility requirements for
foods.
Cane sugar is not healthy either, only slightly less bad than HFCS.

--Bryan

Bryan wrote:
> krw wrote:
>> Stan Horwitz wrote:
>>> Bert wrote:
>> >> Stan Horwitz wrote:
>> >>> *lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote:
>> >> >>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6954603.ece
>>
>> >> > Yet another reason why Uncle Sam should tax high fructose corn syrup
>> >> > the same way that cain sugar is taxed.
>>
>> >> That's funny!
>>
>> >> Imported sugar is taxed to protect the sugar beet farmers.
>>
>> >> Corn syrup will never be taxed so long as corn is grown in the US.
>>
>> >You are probably correct, but HFCS should indeed be taxed and at the
>> >very least, those foods containing a high proportion of HFCS to other
>> >ingredients such as soda pop and candy should not be eligible for
>> >purchase on food stamps.
>>
>> No luxuries (soda pop or candy) should be eligible for food stamp
>> purchase, whether they have "healthy" cane sugar or "nasty" HFCS.
>
>I agree 100%, and I'm a political progressive who believes strongly in
>the idea of food stamps. I'd like to see a huge change in what's
>eligible. I don't mind at all subsidizing poor folks purchases of
>vegetables, dairy, beans, rice, pasta, eggs, nuts, bread, and some
>fruits and meats that fall within certain cost parameters. People
>should not be using food stamps for cookies, pies, highly processed
>heat-and-serve foods, and patently unhealthy things like hydrogenated
>oils. The WIC program has very strict eligibility requirements for
>foods.
>Cane sugar is not healthy either, only slightly less bad than HFCS.
>
>--Bryan

Absolutely... and all those eligible need to queue up at specially
designated and clearly signed warehouses that provide only the
mandated items... and they need to be put to work even if only as
street sweepers and litter pickers... of course there are hundred of
meaningful jobs these um, "unfortunates" can do as pay back to the
communitty for feeding/clothing/housing them... for starters they can
work in those warehouses, and I'm sure they can wash and wax school
buses (to transport their rugrats), mop hospital floors (to pay for
their free medical services), janitorial duty at public libraries (for
schooling their different daddy babies), muck out dairy barns (for
their free milk n' cheese), even the handicapped (a legless person can
drive an information desk at a VA hospital), etc, etc. No one should
go hungry but no able bodied should mooch on the backs of the tax
payers free for nothing. It just ain't fit and it ain't fittin' to
encourage/reward folks to be losers... give em dignity, make em work.

Some 45 years ago I found this printed on the paper place mat at an
Amish eatery in PA.

"THE MODERN DAY LITTLE RED HEN"
(AKA: The Obomination "Share The Weath" Mantra)

Once Upon A Time, there was a little red hen who scratched about
the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her
neighbors and said, "If we plant this wheat we shall have bread to
eat. Who will help me plant it?" "Not I," said the cow, the duck,
the pig and the goose. "Then I will," said the little red hen; and
she did.

The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will
help me reap the wheat?" asked the little red hen. "Not I," said the
duck, "Out of my classification," said the pig. "I'd lose my
seniority," said the cow. "I'd lose my unemployment compensation,"
said the goose. "Then I will," said the little red hen; and she did.

At last it came time to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake
the bread?" asked the little red hen. "That would be overtime for me"
said the cow. "I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.
"Discrimination." screamed the goose. "Then I will." said the little
red hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for her neighbors to see.
They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little
red hen said "No I can eat the five loaves myself." "Excess profits!"
cried the cow. "I demand equal rights!" yelled the goose. The pig
just grunted. And they painted "unfair" picket signs and marched
around and around the little red hen.

When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen,
"You must not be greedy." "But I earned the bread," said the little
red hen. "Exactly," said the agent. "That is the wonderful free
enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he
wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive
workers must divide their product with the idle. So be grateful that
you're permitted to keep a small part of what you produced."

And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red
hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful. I am grateful." But her
neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread.

THE END!

On Dec 18, 11:19*am, brooklyn1 <gravesen...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Bryan wrote:
> > krw wrote:
> >> Stan Horwitz wrote:
> >>> Bert wrote:
> >> >> Stan Horwitz wrote:
> >> >>> **lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote:
> >> >> >>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6954603.ece
>
> >> >> > Yet another reason why Uncle Sam should tax high fructose corn syrup
> >> >> > the same way that cain sugar is taxed.
>
> >> >> That's funny!
>
> >> >> Imported sugar is taxed to protect the sugar beet farmers.
>
> >> >> Corn syrup will never be taxed so long as corn is grown in the US.
>
> >> >You are probably correct, but HFCS should indeed be taxed and at the
> >> >very least, those foods containing a high proportion of HFCS to other
> >> >ingredients such as soda pop and candy should not be eligible for
> >> >purchase on food stamps.
>
> >> No luxuries (soda pop or candy) should be eligible for food stamp
> >> purchase, whether they have "healthy" cane sugar or "nasty" HFCS.
>
> >I agree 100%, and I'm a political progressive who believes strongly in
> >the idea of food stamps. *I'd like to see a huge change in what's
> >eligible. *I don't mind at all subsidizing poor folks purchases of
> >vegetables, dairy, beans, rice, pasta, eggs, nuts, bread, and some
> >fruits and meats that fall within certain cost parameters. *People
> >should not be using food stamps for cookies, pies, highly processed
> >heat-and-serve foods, and patently unhealthy things like hydrogenated
> >oils. *The WIC program has very strict eligibility requirements for
> >foods.
> >Cane sugar is not healthy either, only slightly less bad than HFCS.
>
> >--Bryan
>
> Absolutely... and all those eligible need to queue up at specially
> designated and clearly signed warehouses that provide only the
> mandated items... and they need to be put to work even if only as
> street sweepers and litter pickers... of course there are hundred of
> meaningful jobs these um, "unfortunates" can do as pay back to the
> communitty for feeding/clothing/housing them... for starters they can
> work in those warehouses, and I'm sure they can wash and wax school
> buses (to transport their rugrats), mop hospital floors (to pay for
> their free medical services), janitorial duty at public libraries (for
> schooling their different daddy babies), muck out dairy barns (for
> their free milk n' cheese), even the handicapped (a legless person can
> drive an information desk at a VA hospital), etc, etc. *No one should
> go hungry but no able bodied should mooch on the backs of the tax
> payers free for nothing. *It just ain't fit and it ain't fittin' to
> encourage/reward folks to be losers... give em dignity, make em work.
>
> Some 45 years ago I found this printed on the paper place mat at an
> Amish eatery in PA.
>
> * * * * "THE MODERN DAY LITTLE RED HEN"
> * (AKA: The Obomination "Share The Weath" Mantra)
>
> * * *Once Upon A Time, there was a little red hen who scratched about
> the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. *She called her
> neighbors and said, "If we plant this wheat we shall have bread to
> eat. *Who will help me plant it?" *"Not I," said the cow, the duck,
> the pig and the goose. *"Then I will," said the little red hen; and
> she did.
>
> * * *The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. *"Who will
> help me reap the wheat?" asked the little red hen. *"Not I," said the
> duck, "Out of my classification," said the pig. *"I'd lose my
> seniority," said the cow. *"I'd lose my unemployment compensation,"
> said the goose. *"Then I will," said the little red hen; and she did.
>
> * * *At last it came time to bake the bread. *"Who will help me bake
> the bread?" asked the little red hen. *"That would be overtime for me"
> said the cow. *"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.
> "Discrimination." screamed the goose. *"Then I will." said the little
> red hen.
>
> * * *She baked five loaves and held them up for her neighbors to see.
> They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. *But the little
> red hen said "No I can eat the five loaves myself." *"Excess profits!"
> cried the cow. *"I demand equal rights!" yelled the goose. *The pig
> just grunted. *And they painted "unfair" picket signs and marched
> around and around the little red hen.
>
> * * *When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen,
> "You must not be greedy." *"But I earned the bread," said the little
> red hen. *"Exactly," said the agent. *"That is the wonderful free
> enterprise system. *Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he
> wants. *But under our modern government regulations, the productive
> workers must divide their product with the idle. *So be grateful that
> you're permitted to keep a small part of what you produced."
>
> * * *And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red
> hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful. *I am grateful." *But her
> neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread.
>
> THE END!

That assumes that The Little Red Hen (in this case, the USA economy)
offers everyone jobs. Right now there are 10% of Americans who are
seeking work, but cannot find it. I wrote a paper in college on that
exact subject, and I used a quote from The Little Red Hen. Are you
suggesting that the USA prioritize full employment? If so, we agree
more than you think, but maybe you haven't really thought about the
implications of full employment. That's what we Lefties want, full
employment.

--Bryan

On 18 Dec 2009 00:19:44 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

> In news:stan-F14F1B.18504117122009@news.newsguy.com Stan Horwitz
> <stan@temple.edu> wrote:
>
>> In article <jQyWm.96712$Wf2.91168@newsfe23.iad>,
>> lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6954603.ece
>>
>> Yet another reason why Uncle Sam should tax high fructose corn syrup
>> the same way that cain sugar is taxed.
>
> That's funny!
>
> Imported sugar is taxed to protect the sugar beet farmers.
>
> Corn syrup will never be taxed so long as corn is grown in the US.

you are probably correct.

it would be nice if they stopped the protectionist sugar tariffs, and let
people (and companies) use what's best for the job.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:16:36 -0600, krw wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:10:17 -0500, Stan Horwitz <stan@temple.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <Xns9CE4BA73EE297VeebleFetzer@216.250.188.141>,
>> Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In news:stan-F14F1B.18504117122009@news.newsguy.com Stan Horwitz
>>> <stan@temple.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article <jQyWm.96712$Wf2.91168@newsfe23.iad>,
>>> > lil abner <@daisey.mae> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6954603.ece
>>> >
>>> > Yet another reason why Uncle Sam should tax high fructose corn syrup
>>> > the same way that cain sugar is taxed.
>>>
>>> That's funny!
>>>
>>> Imported sugar is taxed to protect the sugar beet farmers.
>>>
>>> Corn syrup will never be taxed so long as corn is grown in the US.
>>
>>You are probably correct, but HFCS should indeed be taxed and at the
>>very least, those foods containing a high proportion of HFCS to other
>>ingredients such as soda pop and candy should not be eligible for
>>purchase on food stamps.
>
> No luxuries (soda pop or candy) should be eligible for food stamp
> purchase, whether they have "healthy" cane sugar or "nasty" HFCS.

yes, because poor people should suffer, or else what good is it to be
not-poor?

blake

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:19:42 -0500, brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> Some 45 years ago I found this printed on the paper place mat at an
> Amish eatery in PA.
>
> "THE MODERN DAY LITTLE RED HEN"
> (AKA: The Obomination "Share The Weath" Mantra)

forty-five years ago the amish knew obama would turn the u.s. into an
islamocommunist gulag? wow, even without electricity.

blake