[quote]honkie wrote:
Bill I think he just can’t admit when he is wrong. As I posted earlier there are big difference on a chemical level between the two Here they are again just incase he missed them.
Sucrose is made up of 50/50 fructose/glucose where as HFCS is around 55% fructose and 45% glucose.
Sucrose is made from cane sugar or beet sugar where as HFCS is a combination of corn syrup that has undergone enzymatic processing and pure corn syrup.
Fructose molecules in high-fructose corn syrup are free and unbound where as fructose molecule in sucrose is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule.
No we have that settled.
I a very interested how a dietitian does not know anything about GMO when their patients may be consuming them. Should they not know about what people are eating. Just seems like someone is just too lazy to do their homework.[/quote]
Again, I’ve covered this also!
Yep 5% difference, hardly enough to blame an epidemic on.
Don’t see the relevance when the carbohydrates appear the same in the small intestine!
Sucrose is broken by sucrase enzyme in stomach to constituent glucose and fructose - thus when they both get to the small intestine THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME![/quote]
I doubt you have any science background at all. To state they are exactly the same is proof of this. They are not the same as already pointed it out and if you even bothered to read even one of the biochemistry books you say you have you would know this. Maybe you should go back to your university and ask for a refund. [/quote]
Just like afong on another forum (amybe it is you??), you say you have references, you say to read the books and can’t deliver the evidence - it’s just there you go and find it.
You said that you would provide the references - have I called your bluff?
[/quote]
Try reading - Food chemistry edited by Owen R. Fennema. 3rd ed.
This will be a good base for you to start with. Once you have read it come back and we will discuss further and I will provide you with the next reference book.
[quote]honkie wrote:
Why is no one addressing the GMO issue???
Looks like those pro HFCS are avoiding this key issue.[/quote]
GMO foods are 100% safe. Most GMO foods have one or two extra genes taken from other organisms. They help plants survive colder temperatures or resistant to insects. If you eat fish (frost resistance) or breathe (bacterial toxins specific to insects), you’ve already been exposed to these genes a thousand times over. The whole “frankenfood” nonsense is overhyped.
GMO foods have been in the US for over 10 years now. Just about every level of the food industry draws on GMO crops.
[quote]honkie wrote:
Why is no one addressing the GMO issue???
Looks like those pro HFCS are avoiding this key issue.[/quote]
GMO foods are 100% safe. Most GMO foods have one or two extra genes taken from other organisms. They help plants survive colder temperatures or resistant to insects. If you eat fish (frost resistance) or breathe (bacterial toxins specific to insects), you’ve already been exposed to these genes a thousand times over. The whole “frankenfood” nonsense is overhyped.
GMO foods have been in the US for over 10 years now. Just about every level of the food industry draws on GMO crops.[/quote]
Really? What pre market safety tests have you read that validate your claims that GMO is 100% safe?
You need to do your homework before saying things like that, read up the story on D.R Pusztai the scientist that blew the whistle on GMO safety.
Are you aware of the 2002 study that was dubbed "the worlds first known trial of GM foods on human volunteers and the results that were found? Have a read up of the ARM gene used in BT corn, it might help clarify a few things for you.
[quote]honkie wrote:
Why is no one addressing the GMO issue???
Looks like those pro HFCS are avoiding this key issue.[/quote]
GMO foods are 100% safe. Most GMO foods have one or two extra genes taken from other organisms. They help plants survive colder temperatures or resistant to insects. If you eat fish (frost resistance) or breathe (bacterial toxins specific to insects), you’ve already been exposed to these genes a thousand times over. The whole “frankenfood” nonsense is overhyped.
GMO foods have been in the US for over 10 years now. Just about every level of the food industry draws on GMO crops.[/quote]
I can’t believe the level of stupidity on this form especially when I hear comments like this.
There is not ONE study that has shown them to be safe - their own studies (performed and controlled by monsanto) demonstrated the dangers but they failed to not only report these results but they falsified them - how do we know this, because they were caught.
[quote]Mikael LS wrote:
Can you people post the studies supporting your claims? It is considered bad argumentaion to talk about studies without actually referencing them. [/quote]
You’re kidding right? Have you not even read “Seeds of Deception”? There are a ton of studies and references in that book alone.
Then there is “Genetic Roulette” That goes through many of the studies and breaks them down more simply.
There are just too many to put them up here but all it takes is 5 minutes of research to find them. I recommend you get the books and read them.
[quote]Mikael LS wrote:
Can you people post the studies supporting your claims? It is considered bad argumentaion to talk about studies without actually referencing them. [/quote]
GM genes found in human gut:
Biotech industries have lied to us assuring the public that ARM genes cannot be transferred between food and bacteria in the human gut, yet again they’ve been proven wrong.
This is but one referenced study taken from “Seeds Of Deception” I haven’t got the time to break down the remaining 318.
You need to read about Dr Arpad Pusztai to give you an idea of how corrupt the biotech industry is in keeping the dangers of GMO suppressed.You just have no idea.
No i am not kidding. I am just implying that there are to many variations of the claim “according to research, i am right” being thrown out there. I am in no way doubting that GMO is less than optimal to eat, I just dont like the way things are debated - there is a need for accurate references and sources for this kind of discussion not to turn into a flamewar.
The sources you cited are all from heavily biased websites. I am just as convinced that Monsanto is pure coorporate evil as you are, but citing a biased website is not really seeking the truth, is it?
I am aware of one study showing clear detrimental effects of GMO foods (it is descriped in one of your links) but this is mediated through the pesticide used on the crops, and not through the plant itself. It seems that everyone in here is convinced GMO is bad, so lets see the studies that convinced you. It should, by the way, be clear by now that i am not denying any of the claims - I would just like to see some proper documentation
Wow, this is like the third thread i posted this kind of post in this last week.
[quote]Mikael LS wrote:
No i am not kidding. I am just implying that there are to many variations of the claim “according to research, i am right” being thrown out there. I am in no way doubting that GMO is less than optimal to eat, I just dont like the way things are debated - there is a need for accurate references and sources for this kind of discussion not to turn into a flamewar.
The sources you cited are all from heavily biased websites. I am just as convinced that Monsanto is pure coorporate evil as you are, but citing a biased website is not really seeking the truth, is it?
I am aware of one study showing clear detrimental effects of GMO foods (it is descriped in one of your links) but this is mediated through the pesticide used on the crops, and not through the plant itself. It seems that everyone in here is convinced GMO is bad, so lets see the studies that convinced you. It should, by the way, be clear by now that i am not denying any of the claims - I would just like to see some proper documentation
Wow, this is like the third thread i posted this kind of post in this last week.[/quote]
So you have read the books i mentioned? There are all the references you want in there - most people are just too lazy to read to get smarter (no saying that is you)
You say they are biased - please explain? What do they get out of it if they write stuff on GMO or Monsanto. Some were mainstream media links.
How about Fox News killing a story after being pressured by Monsanto
If I see the ingredient list of a product and I see it contains HFCS, I immediately know it is very low quality.
This alone is enough for most to avoid stuff that contains HFCS
[quote]honkie wrote:
The entire book covers the subject. Try starting with page 1. Studies included in book. The book is better than any single study. [/quote]
You don’t have the studies that you claimed in other words?!
So the whole 1100+ page book is where the answer is for such a simple question??? - Even the chapters on protein and fat? I have a few books by CRC Press and I guess that this one would have well over 1000 references - should I read ALL of them too?
I won’t be wasting anymore time with you if you can’t deliver what you promise and then try to bury me under a mountain of reading, when I call your bluff on providing the research! I’m happy to share ideas and research, but so far it has all been one way!
You could have at least pretended you had read the book and quoted the two chapters from the Amazon Review - “Impact of Biotechnology on Food Supply and Quality Plus Physical and Chemical Interactions of Components in Food Systems (formerly â??Summary: Integrative Conceptsâ??) and Bioactive Substances: Nutraceuticals and Toxicants (formerly â??Toxic Substancesâ??)”. It would have kept up your “image” of knowing the science!
Reading a book with references (and not following them up) or watching a video with scientists in it isn’t the same as reading or being aware the science. I’d be happy to read it if you could supply it, but suggesting that I START with a highly technical 1100+ page book??
As John MacEnroe famously said to an umpire “You cannot be serious!”
[quote]honkie wrote:
The entire book covers the subject. Try starting with page 1. Studies included in book. The book is better than any single study. [/quote]
You don’t have the studies that you claimed in other words?!
So the whole 1100+ page book is where the answer is for such a simple question??? - Even the chapters on protein and fat? I have a few books by CRC Press and I guess that this one would have well over 1000 references - should I read ALL of them too?
I won’t be wasting anymore time with you if you can’t deliver what you promise and then try to bury me under a mountain of reading, when I call your bluff on providing the research! I’m happy to share ideas and research, but so far it has all been one way!
You could have at least pretended you had read the book and quoted the two chapters from the Amazon Review - “Impact of Biotechnology on Food Supply and Quality Plus Physical and Chemical Interactions of Components in Food Systems (formerly â??Summary: Integrative Conceptsâ??) and Bioactive Substances: Nutraceuticals and Toxicants (formerly â??Toxic Substancesâ??)”. It would have kept up your “image” of knowing the science!
Reading a book with references (and not following them up) or watching a video with scientists in it isn’t the same as reading or being aware the science. I’d be happy to read it if you could supply it, but suggesting that I START with a highly technical 1100+ page book??
As John MacEnroe famously said to an umpire “You cannot be serious!”
[/quote]
You are just a self serving idiot. You are too lazy to bother to do a little research which I should expect from you. Everybody around the forums have seen you for what you are.
Just some update on HFCS - Pepsi has dropped using HFCS…
Keep holding on to your beliefs as we don’t really care and no one here is even listening to you.
You have been banned from some forums for the crap you are pulling. You just don’t have a clue.
The regular Pepsi product continues to use HFCS, and undoubtedly will continue to do so for cost reasons. HFCS is cheap. Cane sugar, particular in the United States due to government propping-up of the price, is relatively expensive.
They have introduced two new products using only cane sugar, or cane sugar and apple juice, as premium products.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The regular Pepsi product continues to use HFCS, and undoubtedly will continue to do so for cost reasons. HFCS is cheap. Cane sugar, particular in the United States due to government propping-up of the price, is relatively expensive.
They have introduced two new products using only cane sugar, or cane sugar and apple juice, as premium products.