If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Labspaces.net)   New study finds that countries that use a lot of HFCS have more type 2 diabetics than countries that don't use as much HFCS   (labspaces.net) divider line 236
    More: Interesting, high-fructose corn syrup, Keck School of Medicine, percent higher, trade policies, dietary guidelines, preventive medicines, trade restriction, International Association of Educators  
•       •       •

6864 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Nov 2012 at 4:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



236 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-29 02:28:11 PM  

dragonchild: Lunaville: Please, could either you or Dragonchild explain what the glycemic index is, it's relevance to health, and the easiest way to guestimate where a food falls on that scale in terms a person without a scientific background can understand?

Magorn: The Glycemic Index is an attempt to measure the speed at which a particular food causes your blood sugar to rise and the overall amount of the rise.

Pretty much, but I need to clarify something here. People somehow think that high glycemic index leads to high blood sugar leads to insulin leads to fat leads to diabetes. This is not correct. The concept of glycemic index is for the benefit of people who ALREADY have trouble with insulin -- i.e., diabetics. This comes down to the huge, huge difference between glucose and fructose. To explain this, let's go through various scenarios:

1) Healthy person consumes sucrose (table sugar) or HFCS -- a can of cola, for example.
In this case the fructose and glucose are broken down separately. Glucose is a basic molecule of life -- it's one of the few things your brain can consume for energy, and if you starve yourself of glucose your liver will make the stuff from whatever you have stored. One assumption is that insulin leads to fat -- this is, again, not correct. Insulin, by itself, is benign and frankly rather necessary -- just ask a Type I diabetic. They'd love to be able to make their own insulin. What insulin does, among other things, is it tells the body to process the glucose and stop eating. Yes, insulin leads you to STOP eating. The glucose largely gets stored in the liver and muscles as glycogen, which is 100% non-toxic. Now here's where the fructose comes in. Your liver has to process it, leading to all sorts of toxic by-products. This has several effects.
A) Fructose does not trigger insulin. You could eat a truck of it and your brain won't think you ate anything. This is why "a calorie is a calorie" is bunk that needs to die.
B) Fructose by-products render insuli ...


Given the effort that took to type, I feel i should take a moment tot hank you for taking the time to post it. Obviously I've been doing a shiatload of research into my disease (type II) and I've never seen things explained quite so concisely. Virtual tip of the hat to you
 
2012-11-29 02:54:34 PM  

dragonchild: Knowledge


Magorn: Given the effort that took to type, I feel i should take a moment tot hank you for taking the time to post it. Obviously I've been doing a shiatload of research into my disease (type II) and I've never seen things explained quite so concisely. Virtual tip of the hat to you.

Yeah, nice to see some knowledge up in this joint. Thanks for the effort.

You get a cookie apple wedges gluten-free melba toast with unflavored soy paste!
 
2012-11-29 03:38:15 PM  

born_yesterday: dragonchild: Knowledge

Magorn: Given the effort that took to type, I feel i should take a moment tot hank you for taking the time to post it. Obviously I've been doing a shiatload of research into my disease (type II) and I've never seen things explained quite so concisely. Virtual tip of the hat to you.

Yeah, nice to see some knowledge up in this joint. Thanks for the effort.

You get a cookie apple wedges gluten-free melba toast with unflavored soy paste!


Sigh... All that, and you gave him carbs...

What's wrong with a nice juicy steak?
 
2012-11-29 04:05:35 PM  

dragonchild: Lunaville: Please, could either you or Dragonchild explain what the glycemic index is, it's relevance to health, and the easiest way to guestimate where a food falls on that scale in terms a person without a scientific background can understand?

Magorn: The Glycemic Index is an attempt to measure the speed at which a particular food causes your blood sugar to rise and the overall amount of the rise.

Pretty much, but I need to clarify something here. People somehow think that high glycemic index leads to high blood sugar leads to insulin leads to fat leads to diabetes. This is not correct. The concept of glycemic index is for the benefit of people who ALREADY have trouble with insulin -- i.e., diabetics. This comes down to the huge, huge difference between glucose and fructose. To explain this, let's go through various scenarios:

1) Healthy person consumes sucrose (table sugar) or HFCS -- a can of cola, for example.
In this case the fructose and glucose are broken down separately. Glucose is a basic molecule of life -- it's one of the few things your brain can consume for energy, and if you starve yourself of glucose your liver will make the stuff from whatever you have stored. One assumption is that insulin leads to fat -- this is, again, not correct. Insulin, by itself, is benign and frankly rather necessary -- just ask a Type I diabetic. They'd love to be able to make their own insulin. What insulin does, among other things, is it tells the body to process the glucose and stop eating. Yes, insulin leads you to STOP eating. The glucose largely gets stored in the liver and muscles as glycogen, which is 100% non-toxic. Now here's where the fructose comes in. Your liver has to process it, leading to all sorts of toxic by-products. This has several effects.
A) Fructose does not trigger insulin. You could eat a truck of it and your brain won't think you ate anything. This is why "a calorie is a calorie" is bunk that needs to die.
B) Fructose b ...


It was mentioned already, but I'm going to say it too.

THANK YOU for putting this so eloquently and clearly. I read an article in Men's Health many years ago that outlined much of the same material.. it was very eye-opening..

..now a short CSB:

After I read that article, I decided to do a little experiment. I cut all (or at least as much as realistically possible) of the HFCS out of my diet. Ate the same amounts (and when possible types) of food and drink as normal, but chose options that were free of HFCS. For sodas, I switched from normal sugary sodas to diets. Same with juices like cranberry, apple, etc.. ketchup, etc..
I ate at the same times whenever possible.

2 weeks later, I had lost 12 pounds, and I felt MUCH more energetic.

Made a believer out of me. HFCS is HORRIBLE for you..



Oh yeah, because I don't think it was mentioned before, I'll add this:

HFCS does NOT occur in nature. That video with the woman walking through the corn field talking about how corn sugar is no different from other sugars is wrong on so many levels.

Corn Syrup =/= HFCS

An interesting Video on HFCS
 
2012-11-29 04:12:58 PM  

violentsalvation: No sh*t.


AND we're done here folks, last one turn off the light.
 
2012-11-29 04:18:10 PM  

ZipSplat: No, there's not. There are just a lot of studies that simply study HFCS with no contrast with sucrose. The rest is just foodies trying to save face. It's gone from "OMG HFCS HAS MERCURY IN IT AND WILL KILL YOU!" to "Well, can't we just say it's a *tiny* bit worse if we fund more studies of HFCS exclusively? Please?"


I take it you are completely unable to use Google? Are you arguing the the exact precision of my language? Perhaps I should have said preliminary. Either way you are still wrong.

Press Release

Abstract

Corrigendum
 
2012-11-29 04:27:15 PM  
Was having a hard time finding this, but finally located it.. I don't know if it's 100% accurate, but I trust Alton, and it's interesting, at the very least.

Skip forward to 3:30 for the pertinent science
 
2012-11-29 04:35:21 PM  

Magorn: As a newly diagnosed diabetic, let me pass on a tip to all and sundry that I didn't know until too late:

Have your docs check your vitamin D level regularly and supplement them as necessary.

vit.D is hugely important in sensitizing the Insulin receptors in cells, allowing you to use less insulin to do the same job. Most adult who do not work outside are somewhat to severely deficient in it even if they drink Vit D milk (and our obsessive use of sunscreen ain't helping matters either).Therefore Vit D deficiency is a major contributing factor to the onset of Type II diabetes (and may explain why in NA African-Americans have a higher incidence of it even after controlling for all lifestyle factors)

My doc is offering me some hope that with massive Vit D supplements and the low carb diet I'm undertaking I may be able to completely reverse the disease. So for whatever it's worth, get yourselves checked.


in the same boat - concur completely

will only offer caution in using Vit D - it is possible to take too much & unbalance your system in the other direction (scientific diagnosis ya?) like anything else.

/sugar is the devil
 
2012-11-29 04:49:44 PM  

SirTanon: dragonchild: Lunaville: Please, could either you or Dragonchild explain what the glycemic index is, it's relevance to health, and the easiest way to guestimate where a food falls on that scale in terms a person without a scientific background can understand?

Magorn: The Glycemic Index is an attempt to measure the speed at which a particular food causes your blood sugar to rise and the overall amount of the rise.

Pretty much, but I need to clarify something here. People somehow think that high glycemic index leads to high blood sugar leads to insulin leads to fat leads to diabetes. This is not correct. The concept of glycemic index is for the benefit of people who ALREADY have trouble with insulin -- i.e., diabetics. This comes down to the huge, huge difference between glucose and fructose. To explain this, let's go through various scenarios:

1) Healthy person consumes sucrose (table sugar) or HFCS -- a can of cola, for example.
In this case the fructose and glucose are broken down separately. Glucose is a basic molecule of life -- it's one of the few things your brain can consume for energy, and if you starve yourself of glucose your liver will make the stuff from whatever you have stored. One assumption is that insulin leads to fat -- this is, again, not correct. Insulin, by itself, is benign and frankly rather necessary -- just ask a Type I diabetic. They'd love to be able to make their own insulin. What insulin does, among other things, is it tells the body to process the glucose and stop eating. Yes, insulin leads you to STOP eating. The glucose largely gets stored in the liver and muscles as glycogen, which is 100% non-toxic. Now here's where the fructose comes in. Your liver has to process it, leading to all sorts of toxic by-products. This has several effects.
A) Fructose does not trigger insulin. You could eat a truck of it and your brain won't think you ate anything. This is why "a calorie is a calorie" is bunk that needs to die.
B) Fructose b ...

It wa ...


Interesting, purely ancedotal story:

about a month ago i went to a very swanky wedding of a wife's realtive at a resort in SC. This was about 1 month + after my diagnosis and low carb eating changes. Since I figured this was a once in a lifetime event, (they dropped AT LEAST $150K on this shindig) I decided that for this weekend alone i wasn;t going to stint myself and then I 'd deal with consequnces afterward. The BBQ the night before the weedding featured home made souther delicacies like fried chicken, home-made mac and cheese, and peach cobbler with on-premises home-made icecream. The reception proper featured things like risotto and the best from-scatch wedding cake I'd ever tasted, and the farewell brunch included scatch-bake waffles, fresh cinnamon bread, etc

and I ate all of it. not in ridiculous or over indulgent quantities, but not like a monk either. I fully expceted my sugars to go crazy eating like that, but you know what? They stayed at the EXACT same, pretty good, levels they had the week before when I was low carbing exclusively.

The one time they DID Spike? When I got cocky based on those good results on the car trip home and had a donut and some doritos.

FWIW it seems that hand-made food is better, atleast for me, than the processed crap
 
2012-11-29 05:35:27 PM  

Magorn:

you are wrong. Science says you are dead wrong, and nutritional science is anything but simple. Just like those idiots that bray abouthow counting calories is alway determinant of weight gain, ....


I'll tell you what. Show me a picture of any POW camp where the prisoners are rail thin except for the one guy with a gland problem....

Reducing calories will generally result in weight loss. You just have to reduce *enough*.
 
2012-11-29 05:43:27 PM  
I'm asking my doctor to prescribe a dose of 3rd world poverty to help keep me healthy.
 
2012-11-29 05:54:08 PM  
Seriously, this "sugar is sugar" mantra reminds

Magorn: you are wrong. Science says you are dead wrong, and nutritional science is anything but simple. Just like those idiots that bray abouthow counting calories is alway determinant of weight gain, or posit that all that is necessary to lose weight is to hit the gym, science has debunked all of you. The human body is a biochemical marvel that we barely understand, and unless you have done a lot of reading in the feild of endocrinology and can converse intelligently about eicosanods, YOU personally don't even begin to have a clue what's going on inside your own body.


Seriously, if there's one thing I've learned from Fark it's how many "experts" seemingly have all of the human body's seemingly infinite metabolic nuances boiled down 5-7 word platitudes.

Sughur iz Sughurz!!!1111
 
2012-11-29 06:06:13 PM  
Thanks for the thanks. I do have to make one correction, though. I said "fructose can't be coverted to glycogen". This is false. It can be, in the liver, but the biochemical threshold for doing so is when the liver's glycogen levels are depleted. But remember the liver makes both glucose (from fat) AND glycogen (from the glucose it made), so this is not a normal state. Lustig was vague here, but the example he used was "if you just ran a marathon". So after a long day of farm work or hours of sports your body can take in fructose rather harmlessly, but you can see how this is a HUGE exception to the rule. Does mere hunger have the same effect? I'm not sure, but I wouldn't count on it.
 
2012-11-29 06:13:34 PM  

IPKnightly: Magorn:

you are wrong. Science says you are dead wrong, and nutritional science is anything but simple. Just like those idiots that bray abouthow counting calories is alway determinant of weight gain, ....

I'll tell you what. Show me a picture of any POW camp where the prisoners are rail thin except for the one guy with a gland problem....

Reducing calories will generally result in weight loss. You just have to reduce *enough*.


Everyone who has ever amputed a limb has probably lost weight too, it's still a pretty retarded way to approach the subject if you want to be pragmatic about it.
 
2012-11-29 06:22:08 PM  

IPKnightly: I'll tell you what. Show me a picture of any POW camp where the prisoners are rail thin except for the one guy with a gland problem....

Reducing calories will generally result in weight loss. You just have to reduce *enough*.


Yeah, but starvation in a POW camp is not a healthy or pleasant way to lose weight. It's not all the same. Some foods make the body store energy fat. Some foods get right in line to be burned as energy. And abstaining from some foods changes the way you experience cravings and hunger, as well as the signal to stop eating.

Telling someone that has had trouble losing weight by pointing to "successful results" in people who have been subject to involuntary starvation is a terrible example. Starving people aren't healthy, and a body that's forced to consume itself for energy isn't a healthy body.
 
2012-11-29 06:40:41 PM  

Magorn: Interesting, purely ancedotal story:




I once went backpacking through Southeast Asia for 9 months with my girlfriend of the time. Did nothing but consume huge quanities of sugar (beer, rice, noodles, sweets). Lived like a sedentary beach bum laying out in the sun all day long like a beached walrus. Melted off weight like I've never experienced before in my life. My girlfriend at the time lived the same exact lifestyle had the exact opposite reaction ... put on lots of weight quickly.

Came back home with a renewed lease on life and vowed to life a healthier lifestyle. Gave up drinking. Started eating super healthy and in smaller quantities. Walked and took public transportation everywhere. Went to the gym 4-5 times a week and hired a trainer. Still gained all the weight back. My girlfriend once again lived the same exact lifestyle and lost all the weight gained in Asia.

That was a pretty significant eye opening event for me that the human metabolism is amazingly complex equation of hormones, enzymes and metabolic processes. Yeah, there are some basic common sense guidelines you can follow in regards to calories in vs. calories out, but I'm pretty well convinced that we'll look back in these times 70 to 80 years from now as the dark ages of understanding the human metabolic process. The funny thing on weight loss is everyone believes themselves to be an expert. Most people will readily admit they're not an astrophysicist or theoretical mathematician, but people who don't know a pentose phosphate pathway from a penthouse playmate believes themselves to be a amateur PhD in biochem because they read the South Beach Diet.
 
2012-11-29 06:56:34 PM  

EmmaLou: How about not putting sugar in every damned food product on the market? At this point I'm not even surprised when sugar or HFCS shows up on a random food label. It's craziness. That's why we have more of the diabeetus.


Even canned baked beans have sugar added.
 
2012-11-29 06:57:49 PM  

wendolynne: Countries that use a lot of HFCS are countries where people eat a lot of processed food. People who eat processed food have little control over the nutritional value of the foods they eat. They are at the mercy of processed food industries which add sweeteners to increase market share. Whether that sweetener is HFCS, cane sugar or something else is mostly dictated by economics as well.

who says you cannot eat money?


Lots of processed food in the UK and Australia but very little HFCS. Lots of cane sugar though, and lots of obesity and diabetes.
 
2012-11-29 06:59:23 PM  

ZipSplat: Keep f*ckin' that HFCS chicken. Eating multiple times over the amount of simple carbohydrates that you should is going to result in diabetes. This isn't because of some mystical property of HFCS that has evaded chemists - it's because if you eat too many simple carbs in general you're going to develop insulin resistance. And yes, having a diet flooded with cheap simple carbs (which we have, thanks to HFCS) will have an increased rate of diabetes.

Get it right.


It is interesting that some people seem to be resistant to diabetes though. I know some very fat people with normal blood sugar levels.
 
2012-11-29 07:01:04 PM  

Mock26: But we are free, damn it! I would much rather have a higher risk of the type 2 wilford brimleys than live in some country where you can go to jail for offensive Facebook comments or even get your head cut off for insulting from sheep-farking prophet!

:-D


I would rather live in a country where freedom of speech exists but is limited to not inciting violence or hatred.
 
2012-11-29 07:14:38 PM  

kg2095: It is interesting that some people seem to be resistant to diabetes though. I know some very fat people with normal blood sugar levels.


The opposite happens too, skinny people with severe metabolic disorder and diabetes. It seems that obesity is a symptom of metabolic disorder, not the cause. Like many diseases not all symptoms manifest in all people.
 
2012-11-29 07:33:29 PM  

kg2095: EmmaLou: How about not putting sugar in every damned food product on the market? At this point I'm not even surprised when sugar or HFCS shows up on a random food label. It's craziness. That's why we have more of the diabeetus.

Even canned baked beans have sugar added.


And you wouldnt make baked beans with molasses or something?
 
2012-11-29 08:27:03 PM  

dragonchild: CheatCommando: known liver response to fructose is different than it is to sucrose

The liver doesn't see sucrose. Sucrose is either hydrolyzed in the stomach or broken down by intestinal enzymes. When you consume sucrose, half the caloric energy winds up as fructose in the liver.

Nutritionally, the only real difference between fructose and sucrose, in terms of fructose load, is concentration.


[cotation needed]
 
2012-11-29 08:44:01 PM  

kg2095: It is interesting that some people seem to be resistant to diabetes though. I know some very fat people with normal blood sugar levels.


Perhaps you know me, then....
 
2012-11-29 10:18:15 PM  

Bill_Wick's_Friend: TFA notes that Canada's HFCS use is "up there" but gives no actual figure for comparison. I can't see how it could be too high since I don't see HFCS listed as an ingredient in any products. It's not in ketchup, soda, candy bars, prepared sauces etc etc the way it seems to be in the USA.

Maybe I just don't buy crappy enough food.


If you do a quick study you will frind that countries with socialized healthcare and an interest in keeping their citizens healthy do not allow most of the bullsh*t that is in the products for the US.
Weird coincidences - Fewer carcinogens = fewer health issues and less time in a doctor's office.
Non profit medicne vs. socialized medicne.
Do the maths yourselves.
 
2012-11-29 11:21:41 PM  
Skip the ice cream until your kid agrees to eat something healthy (veggie-wise).

You want them to eat veggies? Make stew. Slow cook it in a crock pot until all the noise and crunchiness is gone from the veggies. That way, the veggies don't act like veggies and everything tastes meaty.
 
2012-11-29 11:25:40 PM  

Strik3r: How long you been farmin' sugar?


That's right. It's always a conspiracy. If Glenn Beck hath taught us anything, it is that there are no controversies surrounding us, only conspiracies against us.
 
2012-11-29 11:34:11 PM  

Beta Tested: I take it you are completely unable to use Google?


Like on any politically charged issue - no, one cannot simply "use Google" to figure out the state of the science on HFCS.
 
2012-11-30 12:10:56 AM  

kg2095: Mock26: But we are free, damn it! I would much rather have a higher risk of the type 2 wilford brimleys than live in some country where you can go to jail for offensive Facebook comments or even get your head cut off for insulting from sheep-farking prophet!

:-D

I would rather live in a country where freedom of speech exists but is limited to not inciting violence or hatred.


Actually, inciting violence is NOT protected by the first amendment. As for hatred, I am glad that it is protected. That which is most offensive deserves to be protected the most. And so long as they are not inciting violence, let them say whatever the Hades they want to say.
 
2012-11-30 12:54:31 AM  

Mock26: kg2095: Mock26: But we are free, damn it! I would much rather have a higher risk of the type 2 wilford brimleys than live in some country where you can go to jail for offensive Facebook comments or even get your head cut off for insulting from sheep-farking prophet!

:-D

I would rather live in a country where freedom of speech exists but is limited to not inciting violence or hatred.

Actually, inciting violence is NOT protected by the first amendment. As for hatred, I am glad that it is protected. That which is most offensive deserves to be protected the most. And so long as they are not inciting violence, let them say whatever the Hades they want to say.


A genuine question: why do you think that allowing hate speech is a good thing?
 
2012-11-30 01:51:31 AM  

kg2095: Mock26: kg2095: Mock26: But we are free, damn it! I would much rather have a higher risk of the type 2 wilford brimleys than live in some country where you can go to jail for offensive Facebook comments or even get your head cut off for insulting from sheep-farking prophet!

:-D

I would rather live in a country where freedom of speech exists but is limited to not inciting violence or hatred.

Actually, inciting violence is NOT protected by the first amendment. As for hatred, I am glad that it is protected. That which is most offensive deserves to be protected the most. And so long as they are not inciting violence, let them say whatever the Hades they want to say.

A genuine question: why do you think that allowing hate speech is a good thing?


Because if its banned, who gets to define "hate speech"?
 
2012-11-30 02:20:25 AM  

kg2095: Mock26: kg2095: Mock26: But we are free, damn it! I would much rather have a higher risk of the type 2 wilford brimleys than live in some country where you can go to jail for offensive Facebook comments or even get your head cut off for insulting from sheep-farking prophet!

:-D

I would rather live in a country where freedom of speech exists but is limited to not inciting violence or hatred.

Actually, inciting violence is NOT protected by the first amendment. As for hatred, I am glad that it is protected. That which is most offensive deserves to be protected the most. And so long as they are not inciting violence, let them say whatever the Hades they want to say.

A genuine question: why do you think that allowing hate speech is a good thing?


Because to limit hate speech is censorship, and except for issues such as National Security and the StarGate Program, the government, in my opinion, has no place in censoring anything. And as Cyno01 asked, who then defines what is to be censored? I really do not like the idea of someone telling me that I cannot say something simply because they do not like what I have to say. Nor would I presume to tell someone else that they cannot say something because I do not like it. The rights of the minority are just as important than those of the majority, especially in a system of government that relies so heavily on democratic voting. Now do not get me wrong, I am not against self control and I do firmly believe that just because I can say something does not necessarily mean that I should say it. But, that is a decision that has to be made by each and every person. It should not be made by others, especially the government.
 
2012-11-30 04:27:54 AM  

Mock26: Actually, inciting violence is NOT protected by the first amendment.


Actually, advocating for violence and even advocating for violent revolt against the government itself is protected first amendment speech, according to the Supreme Court.

In Brandenburg vs. Ohio a KKK member was filmed giving a speech which abstractly threatened violence against those who opposed the KKK and he was later sentenced to ten years in prison.

The conviction was later overturned by the Supreme Court on first amendment grounds.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.

What gets you in trouble is incitement of immanent violence. As in, "Everybody grab a knife and let's stab that guy to death right now!"
 
2012-11-30 04:37:00 AM  

BullBearMS: Mock26: Actually, inciting violence is NOT protected by the first amendment.

Actually, advocating for violence and even advocating for violent revolt against the government itself is protected first amendment speech, according to the Supreme Court.

In Brandenburg vs. Ohio a KKK member was filmed giving a speech which abstractly threatened violence against those who opposed the KKK and he was later sentenced to ten years in prison.

The conviction was later overturned by the Supreme Court on first amendment grounds.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.

What gets you in trouble is incitement of immanent violence. As in, "Everybody grab a knife and let's stab that guy to death right now!"


That is what I meant, but I did not clearly state it. Thanks for explaining it better than I did.
 
2012-11-30 12:06:13 PM  

This text is now purple: Samwise Gamgee: The government subsidy of of corn production in this country makes HFCS cheaper than sugar,

That corn readily grows in the US and sugar cane does not makes HFCS cheaper than sugar.


The government subsidy of it does...
 
2012-11-30 01:59:15 PM  

Samwise Gamgee: This text is now purple: Samwise Gamgee: The government subsidy of of corn production in this country makes HFCS cheaper than sugar,

That corn readily grows in the US and sugar cane does not makes HFCS cheaper than sugar.

The government subsidy of it does...


And the tariffs on sugar.
 
Displayed 36 of 236 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report