We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, February 2. 2012
What don't "they" want to regulate? Call for Sugar to Be Regulated as a Toxin. That is not from The Onion. Well, I suppose if "they" want to regulate CO2, a basic and necessary ingredient of air, then why not sugar?
Why the sudden interest by the Food Nazis in regulating this most basic and appealing of carbohydrates? From this article: Sugar Should Be Regulated As Toxin, Researchers Say:
Oh, so the scientists are not sure? So what? It's the precautionary principle, and we brain-dead masses can not be left alone with their own food. I can regulate my own sugar, thank you very much. And my own body, too. What do the Feminists say: "Government's hands off my body."
You can't make this stuff up.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I oppose "Nanny Stat-ism" with the best but refined (white) sugar does not appear to be that beneficial the human body.
I read a book, years ago, the title of which alludes me at this moment. I think the title was "White Death" or something similar.
There are other sweeteners that do the trick and with less negative affect. Education rather than Regulation is the way to go, IMO.
Should have said Moderation and Education rather than Regulation.
(Refined) sugar is a good way to store energy for long periods of time. That's why bees produce honey for example, sugar cane and beet store sugar for the inactive season.
All that the refining does is remove impurities, condensing the energy even further.
If our society has reached a state where there's no physical need to stockpile energy rich food, that doesn't mean it's harmful or not beneficial...
All that the refining does is remove impurities, condensing the energy even further.
Aren't those impurities removed (like magnesium) that change it into a simple structure the same ones sugar must now extract from the body to return it to a complex structure so the body can digest it? That seems like a waste of energy, to me.
While I'm no expert on the subject there seems to be enough data available that suggests the "Law of diminishing returns" might apply here.
You are indeed no expert. 100% of your body functions run on sugar, glucose. 100% of the carbohydrate you consume is converted to sugar in your intestines and liver (into glucose). It is essential to life. Your body does not care and cannot tell if the sugar is from a pepsi or an apple. If necessary your body can convert fats and even proteins to sugar to burn if you are starving. If you eat to much (of anything) your body will convert it to fat and store it so that later it can convert it to sugar to burn for energy and heat.
Kindly read this and then I'll read your response again.
Your response doesn't inform me of anything I not already aware of. You are missing the point being made.
OK, I know this is disgusting (it still bothers me that I used to do this), but as a child I used to eat spoonfuls of sugar. Even after I stopped eating it straight, I used boatloads of the stuff up until the time I was about 28 or so. 3 heaping spoonfuls in my tea. 4 or more in cereal.
I kept Florida sugarcane growers in business.
The funny part was I was skinny as a rail, in perfect health, and the only reason I cut back my sugar intake at 28 was because I began to realize that my body's metabolism was changing.
That's code for "I was putting on some weight."
Still, even today I'm in pretty good shape. Sure, I've got a bad back, but that wasn't weight related. Well, not in the sense that I was overweight and damaged it. It does help to keep my body in the 195-205 range rather than going above.
I've still got a sweet tooth, though pure sugar spoonfuls haven't appealed to me in quite some time.
I wonder how skinny I'd have been if I hadn't eaten sugar or had a sweet tooth? My sons' pediatrician had a funny saying when we commented on how skinny my boys were:
"There has never been a documented case of a child starving to death in a house full of food. It may not be that he's skinny because he's not eating. It could be he's not eating because he's skinny."
The guy was brilliant. Still one of the best doctors I've visited.
Instead of regulating sugar like alcohol and tobacco, I suggest NOT regulating alcohol and tobacco like sugar. I do not care whether or how much other people drink or smoke, as long as they don't smoke in the same restaurant I'm dining in...not because I'm worried about the "dangers" of second-hand smoke, but because I like to savor the smell as well as taste my food. But other than that, I say it is (or at least once WAS) a free country.
This kind of crap is just infuriating. To think we taxpayers are funding such 'research".
Sugar can't be a toxin anymore than CO2 can be a pollutant. It is an essential part of biochemistry, and the body can't distinguish processed sugar from 'natural" sugar.
But I can envision the regulation of sugar as a fiefdom enlarging, employment opportunity for a legion of parasitic bureaucrats.
I seriously do not believe the Food Police will be satisfied until food is rationed and Government dictates the menu.
Distinguish between research and political advocacy. I don't mind R&D on how various things impact the human metabolism. But that doesn't mean we should tolerate anyone telling us what to do about it.
This was obviously press-released in order to create a big public reaction - a "hey look at me!" moment by scientists which should be condemned by their peers AND the general public.
Public dollars should not be allowed to be taken advantage of in this way. It's the scientists behavior in front of the public which needs to be regulated - go ahead and report your findings, but shut the F*** up about what you think it should result in the public policy sector. They should be banned from receiving any federal grant money for the next 5 years.
Oh that I, biomass,
do exhale poison gas
is like the cow of O'Leary
the junk science theory
to hide EPA's commie ass
yassuh tyhanks --just not writing as much lately --trying to finally get done some long-neglected outdoor maintenance work --on a baily dasis --i mean daily basis. oh my achin' back!
Everybody relax. It's just grant writing season, and all these federal $$ parasites must list their accomplishments in their new applications. The more "astounding" their accomplishments, and the more press they get, the better their chances of getting a renewed, and possibly bigger grant. Happens every spring. (Probably shouldn't admit it, but after retiring from the Air Force, I wrote grants for a living '70's-90's.)
stop subsidizing u.s. sugar industry
decrease sugar consumption
I'm with feeblemind. "This kind of crap is just infuriating." That the Busybody Brigade wants to "regulate" [in other words, take over] the sugar industry is just another example of the intrusive Liberal attitude, and the blandly insulting presumption that they have a right to intrude on other peoples' pleasures, and that "they know best" what one should do with one's life, and leisure time.
It's like the electric utilities installing new "smart meters" to control your electricity usage. Our electric utility did this over our protests, which is one reason we installed a whole house generator, which has already proved itself several times over. But this kind of presumption on the part of the Liberal or Socialist groups of people is only going to get worse, unless we remove that toxic Administration from the White House, and get at least some of our liberties back.
The Sovs were correct in the gulag... only sawdust and water in its' natural state will keep us healthy... Oh, and and working in the salt mine (but salt is 'bad' for us too). I've never known anyone to get fat or end up with diabetes or heart disease by sticking with a sawdust and water diet... Looking at the width of many of our congressmen perhaps we can have the FDA start in the Capitol Dining Room?