It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
Ok so now tell me, is this really a reason for the government to regulate it the same way it regulates alcohol or other substances?
The United States spends $65 billion in lost productivity and $150 billion on health-care resources annually for morbidities associated with metabolic syndrome. Seventy-five per cent of all US health-care dollars are now spent on treating these diseases and their resultant disabilities. Because about 25% of military applicants are now rejected for obesity-related reasons, the past three US surgeons general and the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff have declared obesity a “threat to national security”.
Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SoymilkAlaska
Since high fructose corn syrup is in everything, it's just a way forgovernment to control what/how much we eat.
And the loon doing the study is out of San Fran. Which explains sooooooo much!
(apologies if this is a repeat, still reading all the posts)
A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain
Compared to animals eating only rat chow, rats on a diet rich in high-fructose corn syrup showed characteristic signs of a dangerous condition known in humans as the metabolic syndrome, including abnormal weight gain, significant increases in circulating triglycerides and augmented fat deposition, especially visceral fat around the belly.
edit on 2-2-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
Ok so now tell me, is this really a reason for the government to regulate it the same way it regulates alcohol or other substances?
“The environmental footprint of HFCS is deep and wide,” writes Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma. “Look no farther than the dead zone in the Gulf [of Mexico], an area the size of New Jersey where virtually nothing will live because it has been starved of oxygen by the fertilizer runoff coming down the Mississippi from the Corn Belt. Then there is the atrazine in the water in farm country — a nasty herbicide that, at concentrations as little as 0.1 part per billion, has been shown to turn male frogs into hermaphrodites.” And we haven’t even started talking about why the stuff might be bad for you yet. Defenders of the HFCS faith are quick to point to studies contradicting stories that cast the sweetener in a negative light. Over at the Accidental Hedonist (a blog that supplied much of the substance and inspiration for this article) author Kate Hopkins puts it this way: The rise in obesity is directly the result of over-production of a government subsidized sweetener. There are “clues” that keep popping up that suggest health dangers as well. One study claimed livers of rats on a high fructose diet looked like the livers of alcoholics, plugged with fat and cirrhotic. Another suggests that HFCS may contribute more to fat that is stored deep in the body around the abdominal organs. This fat is known to promote pre-diabetes (insulin resistance) and to increase blood fats (triglycerides). Two of the enzymes used in the manufacturing process, alpha-amylase and glucose-isomerase, are genetically modified to make them more stable. University of Florida researchers found that fructose-heavy diets “can induce leptin resistance, a condition that can easily lead to becoming overweight.” Leptin is a substance produced by the body to trigger feelings of satiety; it tells us when to stop eating. No wonder that big gulp is so easy to swallow.
Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by SoymilkAlaska
Pure sugar cane is good. White sugar that is processed, your just eating something that tastes good but there's nothing good for the body on that.
Pure Sugar cane, now that is something. Try eating that stuff and you won't get enough of it, which is good. So, if your making something that asks for sugar, go for the dried up sugar cane stuff, it's worth it all the way.
“There has to be some sort of societal intervention. We cannot do it on our own because sugar is addictive. Personal intervention is necessary, but not sufficient.”…
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
This right here is wrong with the entire study or focus of this person
“There has to be some sort of societal intervention. We cannot do it on our own because sugar is addictive. Personal intervention is necessary, but not sufficient.”…
hotair.com...
Nanny Statism if I ever saw it. We can't discipline our own selves so we have to have govt do it for us.edit on 3-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
For years the federal government has subsidized corn to the tune of several billion dollars a year.
Intake of HFCS has increased from .6 pounds per person per year in the 1970s to 73.5 pounds per person in 2007. This represents an alarming 12,250% increase in consumption over just a few decades. Government intervention in the free market through crop subsidies has led to a disastrous change in what Americans eat. Though many other policies would have to be changed with it, the dismantling of crop subsidies would be a healthy start to breaking up corporate agriculture conglomerates, and it would encourage diversity in American farming. Better food would lead to better health.
Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
I see the graph that you have produced showing that the incidence of obesity is growing in America. But I have a question:
In 1998, the World Health Organization changed the definition of obesity by decreasing the BMI at which a person is considered obese. Generally, a person in 1998 would have to wiegh 20 lbs less than he did in 1997 to avoid being considered obese.
www.cnn.com...
Further, Americans have grown by an average of over an inch in hieght since the 1950s. So for the BMI to be lower, the hieght to wieght ratio would have to be lower.
usgovinfo.about.com...
So are we looking at an obesity crisis OR are we looking at an Orwellian change in the definition of obesity in order to fund a propaganda campaign which will allow the government to tax food and intrude into the private lives of their citizens?
PS - the medical definition of diabetes was also changed in 1998. The blood sugar level at which a person would be diagnosed as a diabetic was lowered by a full point.
Change the definition and VOILA instant obesity crisis, instant diabetes crises and reasons provided why "unhealthy food should be taxed and regulated".
Tired of Control Freaks
Indeed, Australia, which is awash in cheap sugar but consumes little high-fructose corn syrup, has obesity patterns similar to those in the United States. The authors note that: Australia and the United States both have high and rising obesity rates, but opposite sugar policies. Sugar is the major sweetener consumed in Australia, not HFCS, and there are essentially no distortions in its program.
One study estimated that between 280 000 and 325 000 deaths annually in the United States could be attributed to obesity.3 More than 80% of these deaths occur among people with a body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m2. The increase in death from obesity has been documented in a number of studies from around the world (Table 1).
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SplitInfinity
It's funny, I was at Whole Foods today. I always feel so good when I am in a health food store. Yesterday I had carrot juice. And the organic food buffet is pretty interesting. The timing of this thread is interesting for me, and hubby is on a health kick now too.
Originally posted by subfab
sign me up for my medicinal sugar card.
it helps my gout.
ha ha ha ha ha
-subfab