- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What is y’all’s stance on government banning high fructose corn syrup?
Posted on 6/14/23 at 7:15 am to TigerVespamon
Posted on 6/14/23 at 7:15 am to TigerVespamon
quote:
Sugar is sugar. The difference is the sedentary lifestyles and overall poor diets that make Americans fat.
Bing, bing, bing!!!!! Ask anyone you work with to describe the stairwell of any building they work in or visit (doubt they have any idea), you rarely run into fat people in stairwells, wonder why, surely if we can spend millions studying HFCS is bad for you (paid for by big sugar lobbyists) and sugar is bad for you (paid for by big agri), we can spend a few bucks to figure out why people who take the stairs, walk rather than drive, arent obese.
Hint, its not the hfsc, the sugar, the "intolerance", the glucose blocking", its the lack of exercise and the excess food consumption.
Here in the Caribbean you will see "pipers" on the sidewalks from time to time. Addicts to crack "hence pipers", I have yet to see one without "six pack" abs, I wonder if its because of their reduced consumption of sugar.....or the fact they friggin exercise.
0
Posted on 6/14/23 at 7:18 am to Damone
FIFY:
Ah, the classic “But The State will ensure the proper end is always reached!”
Ah, the classic “But The State will ensure the proper end is always reached!”
This post was edited on 6/14/23 at 7:33 am
Posted on 6/14/23 at 7:18 am to schwartzy
quote:
I’ve been in Europe for 2 weeks now and the ratio of fit:fat is much higher than in USA
This has very little to do with high fructose corn syrup
This post was edited on 6/14/23 at 7:38 am
Posted on 6/14/23 at 7:19 am to schwartzy
I’m actually for it and I hate government involvement in most consumable items
The stuff is evil and worse for us than just about any other products INVENTED in the past 50 years
The stuff is evil and worse for us than just about any other products INVENTED in the past 50 years
Posted on 6/14/23 at 7:19 am to schwartzy
Should not be banned.
Should not be subsidized
Should not be subsidized
Posted on 6/14/23 at 7:21 am to schwartzy
It's a complicated question.
In a perfect world I would advocate for no government intervention beyond requiring clear warning labels. As long as people know the risks I think they get to decide whether to take them or not.
However, that perfect world scenario would also include:
1. The near absence of government in the health care industry. It's one thing if I am not forced to subsidize someone else's poor choices, it's another thing if I am.
2. I don't object 100% to government providing subsistence levels of food to poor people, but as a taxpayer I would need to see some responsibility exercised with that program. People get what is given to them, and what is given to them can't be anything proven to raise cholesterol, cause diabetes, etc. Because as a taxpayer I am also responsible for paying for that person's Medicaid care. So nothing with HFCS.
3. The government needs to stop subsidizing crops in general and corn in particular.
You get the idea. Remove government from several other entanglements and I don't see a reason the product needs to be banned (only labelled correctly and with whatever warnings research supports).
But given that government entanglements aren't going away, realistically speaking, I wouldn't shed a large tear if they banned it. Again, when I am forced to be financially responsible for so many other people who don't know how to make good choices, I would be o.k. removing that one from their range of possibilities.
In a perfect world I would advocate for no government intervention beyond requiring clear warning labels. As long as people know the risks I think they get to decide whether to take them or not.
However, that perfect world scenario would also include:
1. The near absence of government in the health care industry. It's one thing if I am not forced to subsidize someone else's poor choices, it's another thing if I am.
2. I don't object 100% to government providing subsistence levels of food to poor people, but as a taxpayer I would need to see some responsibility exercised with that program. People get what is given to them, and what is given to them can't be anything proven to raise cholesterol, cause diabetes, etc. Because as a taxpayer I am also responsible for paying for that person's Medicaid care. So nothing with HFCS.
3. The government needs to stop subsidizing crops in general and corn in particular.
You get the idea. Remove government from several other entanglements and I don't see a reason the product needs to be banned (only labelled correctly and with whatever warnings research supports).
But given that government entanglements aren't going away, realistically speaking, I wouldn't shed a large tear if they banned it. Again, when I am forced to be financially responsible for so many other people who don't know how to make good choices, I would be o.k. removing that one from their range of possibilities.
Posted on 6/14/23 at 7:23 am to Samso
quote:
This very little to do with high fructose corn syrup
Not so sure about that.
Posted on 6/14/23 at 7:23 am to schwartzy
quote:
I am a republican
I believe it
quote:
I’m also in favor of banning high fructose corn syrup
I'm certainly not for the government unilaterally deciding what the American people can eat. Why in the everliving frick do you think you should be able to decide that for other people.
Go frick yourself.
Posted on 6/14/23 at 7:25 am to Damone
quote:Should the US do much more to restrict other "damages" such as access to various sedentary vices, automobile use, air conditioned homes, etc.?
The US should do much more to regulate the quality of it’s produced food.
If so, the same enforcement bureaucrats would be thrilled to oblige your desires.
Posted on 6/14/23 at 7:29 am to NC_Tigah
No, it’s just an easy step to tell companies they can’t put that poison shite in food. They should also begin regulating micro plastics in food.
Posted on 6/14/23 at 7:32 am to Damone
They should also wipe your arse and tuck you into bed at night. Because you aren't able to choose fresh foods and make your own decisions, live with risk and enjoy your freedom.
Posted on 6/14/23 at 7:34 am to schwartzy
you really think a single ingredient is the reason why a huge section of the population is huge?
Have you noticed
portion size
buffets
chicken finger restaurant ratio
prices
how much people walk
Or maybe a few other differences?
Have you noticed
portion size
buffets
chicken finger restaurant ratio
prices
how much people walk
Or maybe a few other differences?
Posted on 6/14/23 at 7:40 am to coldbeerfan
quote:The article mentioned Power Aid. Look at the difference in sugars (carbs) in a regular vs a Zero. It's 36 grams to Zero. This sit isn't hard!
Even a Mexican coke has pure cane sugar in it plus only 4 other ingredients. How many does a coke have in our country?
Posted on 6/14/23 at 7:44 am to concrete_tiger
Other foods The State should ban (off the top of my head):
Salt
Butter
Cheese
Processed foods
smoked meats
luncheon meats
fried foods
trans fats
ice creams
hot dogs and sausages
soda
white sugar
white flower
alcohol
I'd also like to point out that Black people and other disadvantaged and those in the LGBTQIA/Child -attracted/Groomer + community are disproportionately affected by these foods.
Salt
Butter
Cheese
Processed foods
smoked meats
luncheon meats
fried foods
trans fats
ice creams
hot dogs and sausages
soda
white sugar
white flower
alcohol
I'd also like to point out that Black people and other disadvantaged and those in the LGBTQIA/Child -attracted/Groomer + community are disproportionately affected by these foods.
Posted on 6/14/23 at 7:46 am to Damone
quote:
The US should do much more to regulate the quality of it’s produced food.
Thats exactly how you end up with shortages, rationing, long lines and starvation.
Posted on 6/14/23 at 7:52 am to Lsupimp
What’s it like being a cuck for big business?
Posted on 6/14/23 at 7:52 am to schwartzy
There are plenty of fat ppl over there. One thing about Europe is they don’t have many choices of the same thing. I’d rather live here in a free market where there are more options and it gives competition for better prices for the consumer.
Posted on 6/14/23 at 7:53 am to schwartzy
you should also notice there's a whole hell of a lot more people walking everywhere there.
Posted on 6/14/23 at 7:59 am to Damone
quote:It's just an easy step to tell companies they cannot produce red meat as well. 200K Irish cattle bear witness.
No, it’s just an easy step to tell companies they can’t put that poison shite in food.
Posted on 6/14/23 at 7:59 am to Bulldogblitz
quote:
you should also notice there's a whole hell of a lot more people walking everywhere there.
Exactly. Most tourist areas are older, and those areas evolved around walking. They also escaped our moronic food pyramid. Just to name one example, savory breakfast is the norm in most places, not a plate of bowl full of carbs and sugar.
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News