Evil, sinister, deadly… High fructose corn syrup: not as bad as the bandwagon thought?

Brittany — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 04:04:54 +0000

I’m sure you’ve seen it. The commercial with a bunch of little kids on stage performing a third or fourth-grade play for an audience full of parents, dressed as green, red and orange vegetables and fruits. Everything is sweet and cute until suddenly, out of the corner of your eye (or screen) you notice the oozing, gross blob of a costume, known only as the recently infamous high fructose corn syrup.

If you’ve shopped for a loaf of bread recently, you probably noticed how much bread companies, at least, are pushing the whole anti-high fructose corn syrup movement, as many bread wrappers feature prominently bold text reading, “No high fructose corn syrup!” I guess that’s to make their consumers absolutely sure, without a doubt, that they’re using real sugar and not that bad, evil sugar pretender also known as HFCS.

Well, here’s a kicker. According to PR Newswire, the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), led by Executive Director Rick Berman, just launched a million-dollar ad campaign in an attempt to show the world exactly how wrong it has been in falsely accusing our now infamously famous cheaper sweetener.

This nonprofit group blames the Sugar Association, saying that leading nutrition experts say the two are nutritionally equal.

Is this true?

Well, as far as the article publishing most of this “breaking” news information goes, the only portion that makes any assertion to the contrary of what the world has been seemingly convinced of over the past year comes directly from the mouth of Mr. Berman, “The public will soon understand that they have been misled into thinking that high fructose corn syrup is handled differently by the body than other sugars. What people need to understand is that corn, beet and cane sugar are all processed. And they all contain the same amount of fructose. One is no more natural than another.”

All this leaves me with but one question: If the two are the same, why would companies that use sugar to sweeten their products buy the one that costs significantly more than the other?

I don’t know. You tell me.

Wine: Good today, bad tomorrow?

Brittany — Sat, 09 May 2009 03:40:38 +0000

First, it was coffee. It’s bad for you. It’s good for you. It’s bad…back and forth, back and forth. One minute it causes your blood pressure to skyrocket its way into the stratosphere, and the next it’s potentially saving your life by lowering your risk for developing diabetes and colon cancer.

Good…bad? Well, which is it?

Wine now seems to be having the same problem. It’s beginning to crop up in the news again, this time not plowing its way onto the scene screaming, “Alcohol makes you fat!” or “Sulfates in alcohol kill!” like it did a few years ago.

Now, according to the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health online, researchers are claiming that drinking wine in severe moderation – no more than 20 grams a day or the equivalent of about a half a glass per day – increases life expectancy by 2.5 years. This is even taking into consideration socioeconomic status, dietary factors and other lifestyle habits.

From a fatty death to a longer life: incredible.

As for now, wine appears to have the potential to prolong life. As for 10 years from now, well, it has been said that history tends to repeat itself.

Streaming Magazine » Food & Wine

Evil, sinister, deadly… High fructose corn syrup: not as bad as the bandwagon thought?

Wine: Good today, bad tomorrow?