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.

(Huffington Post)   Government: "Sugar is deadly poison" Sugar Companies: "No one is buying our sugar" Government: "We'll buy it" Government- The cause of and solution to all of life's problems   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 67
    More: Stupid, USDA, Jimmy John Liautaud, median age, farm bills, nestle, sugars, rescues  
•       •       •

6029 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Mar 2013 at 9:18 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-14 03:57:07 PM

dericwater: Cane is equally bad as HFCS.


lmao for real
 
2013-03-14 03:59:53 PM

MythDragon: Wouldn't an easier solution be to just let a bunch of bees loose near sugar refineries?
[assets.sbnation.com image 512x288]

/either that or Englishmen.
//Aaaah! The bees are defending themselves, somehow


First you get the sugar.  Then you get the power.  Then you get the women.
 
2013-03-14 04:17:14 PM

Stile4aly: MythDragon: Wouldn't an easier solution be to just let a bunch of bees loose near sugar refineries?
[assets.sbnation.com image 512x288]

/either that or Englishmen.
//Aaaah! The bees are defending themselves, somehow

First you get the sugar.  Then you get the power.  Then you get the women.


Perhaps, but he who controls the spice, controls the universe.
 
2013-03-14 04:36:24 PM
Silverstaff
the same people who talk about Free Market are sure to bail out and prop up with subsidies businesses who should fail

The name for those people is Neoliberals.


Generation_D
The family farm is a lie at this point, just another means to leech government money for a selected few (land owners and corporate farming companies)

Have you seen the "So then God made Monsanto" video? My google-fu is failing but it's good shiat.


mossberg
The only reason there is domestic sugar production is because the US subsidized the industry and increased tariffs on foreign sugar specifically to destroy Cuba's main export. Without massive subsidies, it would be unprofitable to grow sugarcane (and a lesser extent, sugarbeet) in the US. Why are we giving tax dollars to the sugar industry (or corn, or soy?).

Usually when you ask a question in order to answer it, you should put the question first.


hasty ambush
Not agree with the sugar bailout but according to the article it cost us $3.5 billion a year. Combined State and Federal means tested welfare spending (TANF, Food stamps , etc) will exceed $1 trillion. The Sugar bailout needs to stop and means tested welfare spending needs to be cut.

That comparison is worthless if you don't total up ALL government subsidies of businesses. That includes most of the DoD budget.


OgreMagi
Drop the corn subsidies.
Drop the sugar tariffs.
Reduce the financial aid to sugar exporting countries.
PROFIT!

It's a win for everyone except the corn growers. But fark those assholes.


When the rubber hits the road, we don't necessarily disagree.
 
2013-03-14 05:04:26 PM

OgreMagi: foxyshadis: ZeroCorpse: Incog_Neeto: doubled99: By "Sugar" do they mean cane sugar or HFCS?

Cane is equally bad as HFCS.


Another deluded consumer

You're the deluded one if you think sugar is better for you than HFCS.

Cane is sucrose. HFCS is glucose. They absorb differently in the human body.

Idiot, you're on the internet a hop, skip, and click away from any resource you could find and you spout some insane drivel instead.

Cane sucrose is broken into 50% glucose, 50% fructose by the body.

HFCS is normally 42% fructose or 55% fructose, the rest glucose. The name itself even includes fructose? (The "high" compares to regular corn syrup, which is almost pure glucose. Too bad we're not talking about that because no one eats it.) The difference compared to regular sugar is very small, although HFCS doesn't have to be broken down by sucrase first and thus absorbs a bit more quickly into the body.

Either one will spike your insulin levels. Either one will make you fat if you eat a lot of it. Both are wildly overused in American foods and snacks. Both are heavily subsidized by the government. The difference is miniscule except for the price, and if corn subsidies and sugar tariffs went away tomorrow, producers would switch back immediately and we'd still have all the same health problems we do today.

There is a difference.  HFCS does not react normally with the brain receptors like sugar.  So you don't get that "satifisied" feeling after you drink a big ass cup of soda.  Which is why people are drinking way too much of that shiat.  If I drink a Mexican Coke (made with real sugar and typically in a 12oz bottle), I'm good.  If I drink an American made Coke (HFCS, 16oz bottle), I want another.


There's also evidence that the stomach cannot break down HFCS as efficiently as sucrose, which is also bad.  On top of that, on an empirical scale HFCS doesn't sweeten things as much as sucrose does per caloric unit, so you wind up having to put more crap in to get the same level of sweet.
 
2013-03-14 05:21:52 PM

yukichigai: On top of that, on an empirical scale HFCS doesn't sweeten things as much as sucrose does per caloric unit, so you wind up having to put more crap in to get the same level of sweet.


HFCS is actually sweeter than regular sugar. Its big problems are that it metabolizes badly and doesn't satiate like sugar does, so you end up shoving way more of it down your piehole than you would of equivalent goods made with sugar
 
2013-03-14 05:23:43 PM

stevetherobot: WTF are you talking about subby?


Did you not read the article? Did you not understand it? Or perhaps you didn't recognize the Simpsons quote, originally:

Homer: "Alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems!"

/first greenlight!
//hardly ever submits, but this was an easy one
 
2013-03-14 05:31:23 PM

BigJake: yukichigai: On top of that, on an empirical scale HFCS doesn't sweeten things as much as sucrose does per caloric unit, so you wind up having to put more crap in to get the same level of sweet.

HFCS is actually sweeter than regular sugar. Its big problems are that it metabolizes badly and doesn't satiate like sugar does, so you end up shoving way more of it down your piehole than you would of equivalent goods made with sugar


Not per measure, per caloric unit.  You may only need to add half as much volume wise, but calorie wise it's more.
 
2013-03-14 06:05:11 PM

LibertyHiller: You know how I know you've never heard of sugar beets?


I know exactly what a sugar beet is, and it's irrelevant because they don't make sugar plantations in the US profitable in either case without subsidies and/or tariffs.

What about anything I said was inaccurate?

The US has very high protective sugar tariffs, to prop up US sugar plantations along with subsidies?  Doesn't matter if it's beet or cane, it's still inefficient to grow in this country.  http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/sc019 (University of Florida)

That HFCS became a popular sweetener because it was cheaper than sugar after the tariffs? http://cosmos.ucdavis.edu/archives/2009/cluster7/RASHEED_AYESHA.pdf (University of California-Davis)

That tobacco farms turned to corn farms, producing HFCS? http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0272.htm (Connecticut State Government Office of Legislative Research)

That sugar and HFCS consumption have dropped due to the popularity of healthy eating and sugar-free foods, leading to lower income for sugar plantations? http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/94/3/726.full (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition)

Seriously, if you've got something refuting those points, I'd like to know
 
2013-03-14 06:30:42 PM

ZeroCorpse: Incog_Neeto: doubled99: By "Sugar" do they mean cane sugar or HFCS?

Cane is equally bad as HFCS.


Another deluded consumer

You're the deluded one if you think sugar is better for you than HFCS.

Cane is sucrose. HFCS is glucose. They absorb differently in the human body.


Sugar is a disaacharide (sp?). 50-50 glucose/fructose. HFCS is 55-45 fructose/glucose. Very small difference.
 
2013-03-14 06:56:31 PM
demotivators.despair.com
 
2013-03-14 08:48:25 PM

RanDomino: hasty ambush
Not agree with the sugar bailout but according to the article it cost us $3.5 billion a year. Combined State and Federal means tested welfare spending (TANF, Food stamps , etc) will exceed $1 trillion. The Sugar bailout needs to stop and means tested welfare spending needs to be cut.

That comparison is worthless if you don't total up ALL government subsidies of businesses. That includes most of the DoD budget.


Are you saying you are gaint Obama's green energy program? Even added togethery they might, might, equal means tested welfare spending: For eample 1 year (FY2013) of Mean tested welfare spending is about 5 times as much 17 years of farm subsidies.

Farm Subsides spending over 17 years,1995-2011
•$277.3 billion in subsidies 1995-2011.
$172.3 billion in commodity subsidies.
$46.6 billion in crop insurance subsidies.
$37.0 billion in conservation subsidies.
$21.4 billion in disaster subsidies.
•62 percent of farms in United States did not collect subsidy payments - according to USDA.
•Ten percent collected 75 percent of all subsidies.
•Amounting to $172.2 billion over 17 years.
•Top 10%: $31,400 average per year between 1995 and 2011.
•Bottom 80%: $594 average per year between 1995 and 2011.

Personel costs (pay, training, health care etc) are generallythe largest part of the defense budget compared to procurement because big ticket equipment costs are spread out over several years, So finding$1 trilliion in subsidies that equal means tested welfare spendig is goiing o be a stunt.

Again am not arguing that subisdies are a good thing but they are not comparable to what welfare moms are costing us.

For the past two decades, means-tested welfare or aid to the poor has been the fastest-growing component of government spending, outstripping the combined growth of Medicare and Social Security spending, as well as the growth in education and defense spending. Over the 20-year period between FY 1989 and FY 2008, total means-tested spending increased by 292 percent. The increase in combined Social Security and Medicare spending was 213 percent over the same period.

Means-tested spending on cash, food, and housing increased more rapidly (196 percent) than Social Security (174 percent). The growth in means-tested medical spending (448 percent) exceeded the growth in Medicare (376 percent).[2] The growth in means-tested aid greatly exceeded the growth in government spending on education (143 percent) and defense (126 percent). Aid to the poor is likely to continue to grow rapidly for the foreseeable future.
 
2013-03-14 09:22:15 PM
hasty ambush
Even added togethery they might, might, equal means tested welfare spending

Not just farm subsidies. Oil and coal, logging, fishing, banks (wasn't there just a link about that like yesterday?)... All the way down to local/State 'incentives' for attracting businesses, like TIF projects. Arguably, police protection against robbery of businesses (it's a government program they're getting for free, right?), and diplomatic and military actions in third-world countries to prop up regimes friendly to US corporations for the past 120 or so years. Why can't those lazy bums go invade these places themselves? Why do they need the government to do it for them?
 
2013-03-15 05:18:40 AM
Jim_Callahan: ...no government wants to be the one where a year's supply of bread costs more than a year of the average salary when they deregulate the markets.

[quizical_dog.jpg]
 
2013-03-15 05:19:44 AM

dericwater: MythDragon: I am losing 20% of my salary for the year, but the government buys crops and just to let it go to waste, or pays farmers NOT to grow shiat.

makes sense.

You can thank Nixon's Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz, for all the convoluted non-capitalistic based economic thinking behind subsidies to farmers.


Actually, he got the idea from FDR.
 
2013-03-15 05:22:13 AM

that bosnian sniper: Here's a wild idea: can corn subsidies that artificially depress the cost of HFCS, and kill the  stupid cane sugar import tariffs (that are in place largely thanks to the corn lobby, to protect market share for HFCS). Let prices normalize across the board,  then re-implement targeted subsidies when and where necessary.


It's so cute that you think politicians will implement subsidies based on anything other than how it affects their power and their careers.
 
2013-03-15 02:01:54 PM

Generation_D: Truther: Generation_D: Cut the fkn farm subsidies. All going to asshats that vote Republican.

Every time you post you prove what a tool you are.

You are just as bad as the asshat right wing nutjobs in Freeperville...

Because I want to cut farm subsidies, because they go more to subsidizing Republican party politics than useful food?

You keep fightin that fight, "Truther."

With your 6 months old Fark account.


You're still a partisan tool...
 
Displayed 17 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report