High Fructose Corn Syrup Good or Bad?

[Kurioxan]

And the idea of them being hybrids and controlled is not good either.
Those seeds cannot generate offspring, you cant use the previous crop to plant a new crop, to me that is a massive flaw and will likely result in some big problem to some generation.

Reducing self sufficiency is always a bad idea, and putting your faith and food in the hands of a corporation, specially one with such ill repute as Monsanto, seems like a nice recipe for a clusterfck pizza with a side of crap salad.

[Bergtau]

And the idea of them being hybrids and controlled is not good either.
Those seeds cannot generate offspring, you cant use the previous crop to plant a new crop, to me that is a massive flaw and will likely result in some big problem to some generation.

Only the ones that are genetically engineered to be like that, which is done for business reasons IIRC.

[Reeve]

'cause they aren't the same thing. The processes used by humans to cultivate specific crops would still be prone to natural law. We wouldn't be able to mix the DNA of fish into cats, for example. Some genes can have unpredicted effects on the resultant organism and thus we should proceed with caution on the matter. The biggest problem (given that unpredicted effects can be checked for before stuff is consumed) is identical genetic structure and the wiping out of biodiversity. While genetic modification can be good, we shouldn't use it to the extent that all of our crops are essentially the same lineage or else we leave them vulnerable to disease. See bananas.

While I agree that biodiversity is a concern, luckily we have the ability to genetically manipulate our plants now in the case of a serious disease. Even then, I see the point that you don't want to have too little diversity for a variety of reasons.

That said, I don't see why people are afraid of consuming GMO foods. It just strikes me as completely illogical fear with a lack of good evidence showing the detrimental effects of those foods on humans.

[Kurioxan]

Only the ones that are genetically engineered to be like that, which is done for business reasons IIRC.

Mhm, it is, which is in by itself a problem in my view.
Never sacrifice self sufficiency tbh, but then again i can understand.
But dont have to agree

[Bergtau]

While I agree that biodiversity is a concern, luckily we have the ability to genetically manipulate our plants now in the case of a serious disease. Even then, I see the point that you don't want to have too little diversity for a variety of reasons.

That said, I don't see why people are afraid of consuming GMO foods. It just strikes me as completely illogical fear with a lack of good evidence showing the detrimental effects of those foods on humans.

'cause they are afraid of the side-effects that some genes can cause. Toxins and the like even though genetically modified food would be tested for toxins before it was moved into production and then retested before being shipped.

At least, that's my assumption (on the testing) and if I'm wrong, I can see why people would be complaining.

[Reeve]

'cause they are afraid of the side-effects that some genes can cause. Toxins and the like even though genetically modified food would be tested for toxins before it was moved into production and then retested before being shipped.

At least, that's my assumption (on the testing) and if I'm wrong, I can see why people would be complaining.

I think it's the same reason they don't like nuclear power plants. Godzilla and the Giant Ants.

[vecnuh]

'cause they are afraid of the side-effects that some genes can cause. Toxins and the like even though genetically modified food would be tested for toxins before it was moved into production and then retested before being shipped.

At least, that's my assumption (on the testing) and if I'm wrong, I can see why people would be complaining.

The problem with testing in USA is that the criteria for a healthy food. Standard way of testing the food is overdosing animals(or cells) and showing that in an acute case cells/animals don't die. Federal regulations do not impose long terms tests. Thus, companies do not do it because they want to save money on costly tests.

Reality is no one knows what are the real long term usage effects. Except maybe number of scientists working on the particular subject. Not that anybody asks them anything.

[Chiquihuite]

Genetic modification isn't bad by itself. The problem is actually what the products are being modified for.

In the case of GMOs in the agricultural industry, they're being modified for the express purpose of resisting extreme exposure to chemicals like pesticides and herbicides. You'll notice that Monsanto corn and soy is referred to as "Roundup Ready". Roundup is a Monsanto herbicide product meant to kill weeds. Speaking of chemicals, check out some of Monsanto's other greatest hits: Agent Orange - rBGH -

So in effect, if you buy products made from GM crops, you're buying products that have been endlessly showered with poisonous chemicals. With such constant exposure, it's inevitable that some residue will remain in the resulting food products. Pesticide companies insists that these quantities are too small to prove harmful to humans, but neglect to mention that continued exposure will lead to a gradual buildup of the chemicals in your system. We've learned a great deal about how this buildup process plays out by studying its effect on bees (Ever heard of "Colony Collapse Disorder"? It's starting to appear very likely that the cause is exposure to agricultural chemicals)

[Kurioxan]

I think it's the same reason they don't like nuclear power plants. Godzilla and the Giant Ants.

Valid reasons! have you not seen the effects Godzilla has every single year on tokio? they make a documentary every single year!

On a tad more serious note, there are alternatives, why risk going for the one that can have quite the nasty effects, when we can use safer tech.
Japan is shutting down its nuclear reactors, which are in most cases, safe, because of what happened with the earthquake, we dont live in that of a controlled environment just yet and "perfectly safe" is many times "virtually safe" which sadly have to tendency to go "oh sht, we didnt see that one coming"

[Reeve]

Valid reasons! have you not seen the effects Godzilla has every single year on tokio? they make a documentary every single year!

On a tad more serious note, there are alternatives, why risk going for the one that can have quite the nasty effects, when we can use safer tech.
Japan is shutting down its nuclear reactors, which are in most cases, safe, because of what happened with the earthquake, we dont live in that of a controlled environment just yet and "perfectly safe" is many times "virtually safe" which sadly have to tendency to go "oh sht, we didnt see that one coming"

Nuclear Power Plants kill less people on average than Coal power plants. The rare occasion where something does go wrong has spectacular results so people pay more attention. It's sort of like how walking down a street you're far more likely to get injured or die than flying in an airplane, but when an airplane crashes, the results are spectacular, so many people fear flying a lot more than walking down a street.

[Masark]

Japan is shutting down its nuclear reactors, which are in most cases, safe, because of what happened with the earthquake, we dont live in that of a controlled environment just yet and "perfectly safe" is many times "virtually safe" which sadly have to tendency to go "oh sht, we didnt see that one coming"

1. They're actually planning to start them up again. Japan just had an election recently and the government changed hands.

2. The nuclear plant is a bloody footnote to the disaster as a whole. You needed a massive disaster that killed almost 16,000 people to cause the plant to go haywire!

[Slummish]

High fructose corn syrup is a blend of fructose and glucose. Fructose is a simple monosaccharide which means your body only has to metabolize it once. Glucose is also a monosaccharide. However, when you combine them, your body is effectively being forced to metabolize the sugar twice. This leads to excess energy consumption; which leads to the storage of energy as fat.

[Subetei]

yup we have been genetically modifying organisms since the domestication of animals and the beginnings of agriculture.

we've been producing pesticide producing crops since when? How long have we been PCB dumping?

[Mmoplayer111]

The reason why people are afraid of GMO crops is simple. The testing is far from conclusive as to the effects on our own genome of these crops.

In the case of selective breeding as someone else mentioned you cannot crossbreed incompatible genetics. One concern with GMO is this, "Roundup Ready" crops, which Monsanto already creates. I am unwilling to accept that just because they have genetically made the crop itself immune to an herbicide that somehow that toxin is not present in the flesh of the plant when I eat it because last I checked I have not been genetically modified to resist it.

[darkwarrior42]

we've been producing pesticide producing crops since when? How long have we been PCB dumping?

Cross-breeding plants is genetic engineering at a very basic level, something that's been done for a very long time. Using specific examples to attack the practice as a whole doesn't work.

[Mmoplayer111]

Cross-breeding plants is genetic engineering at a very basic level, something that's been done for a very long time. Using specific examples to attack the practice as a whole doesn't work.

Cross breeding required decades of work, and it was only done on a pure observational level, you would see a head of Kale that grew in a round ball rather then an open leaf configuration and you selectively chose to cultivate that crop rather then the other loose leaf kind. More importantly you could not "force" a breeding, if the genetic properties of one plant could not produce the results in another there was nothing you could do to make it happen. With GMO we introduce cross species traits that could not occur in nature, we create plants that produce a toxin in the flesh that makes them toxic to insects.

We as humans wouldn't have eaten these plants in the past since they would have been toxic to us as well, with GMO variant, it has a low enough dose that we do not reach a reaction level of exposure. The lead in paint or asbestos in insulation was not lethal to us in a small singular dose, however prolonged exposure proved to be another thing entirely.

That is what people are scared of, extended exposure over decades, that is also what these companies do not test for.

Back to the original question as well, the levels of HFCS we consume is more the issue.

[Pachycrocuta]

Back to the original question as well, the levels of HFCS we consume is more the issue.

Kinda difficult to truly regulate the amount of HFCS you consume as it is in (practically) EVERYTHING you eat. Unless you want to nearly starve, or painstakingly screen everything you buy, it's nearly impossible.

[Eowenn]

It's worse than sugar. Take that as you will.

[Tychoblu]

Biochemically no, your body just changes the fructose to glucose then you use it.

Bad for you if you get gout.

[Sialanne]

It's no worse than sugar is for you. In moderation, it's just fine, but taken in excess, it's bad. Just like most other things