I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics1 min ago
Fructose?
19 Answers
Can anyone name all the other guises that stuff comes in please?
Hopefully simply 'sugar' is not one? (UK)
Thanking you all in advance....
Hopefully simply 'sugar' is not one? (UK)
Thanking you all in advance....
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Ah you refer to this .... http://
13:51 Wed 17th Apr 2013
To answer your question specifically (as I understand it), fructose is also known as "fruit sugar". If you see "sugar" on a list of ingredients, that would have to be ordinary, everyday, sugar, the sort that everyone buys in a 1 kg paper bag, also known as "sucrose". Cane sugar and beet sugar are, to all intents and purposes, identical. They are both about 99.9999999% pure sucrose. They can only be told apart by isotope analysis. As the wiki article explains, sucrose is broken down by the digestive system into fructose and glucose, which can then be utilised by the body.
@Matheous-2 Before you get too exercised at the possible health dangers of HFCS, take a look at this site - Brian Dunning, Skeptoid - I would recommend his site incidentally, for a critical analysis of, well, just about any of the scare stories about what might or might nor affect your health :)
http://
This is also a good site for critical analysis and the actual evidence for some of the health and science scares that you often find in the media.
http://
http://
This is also a good site for critical analysis and the actual evidence for some of the health and science scares that you often find in the media.
http://
Thanks for the useful links Lazygun!
"If you're overweight, stop overeating, and stop trying to place the blame elsewhere."
Good quote, but HFCS isn't exactly good for you either- like loads of other sweeteners e.g.. aspartame. Maybe if the Manufacturers put less salt in their fizzy drinks, they wouldn't have to sweeten them up so much! Then, I suppose the salt gives them a longer shelf-life while shortening ours!
"If you're overweight, stop overeating, and stop trying to place the blame elsewhere."
Good quote, but HFCS isn't exactly good for you either- like loads of other sweeteners e.g.. aspartame. Maybe if the Manufacturers put less salt in their fizzy drinks, they wouldn't have to sweeten them up so much! Then, I suppose the salt gives them a longer shelf-life while shortening ours!
Aspartame has been studied since 1970.
http://
http://
@Wak Well I would be very careful where I got my information from. Mercola, along with Rense, Prison Planet and Natural News all see conspiracy and will often reject consensus thinking on medical treatments and procedures in favour of their own conspiracies.
Aspartame is a case in point. There were indeed some potentially shady goings on when the product was first introduced, back in the 1970s - and the subsequent objections and those allegations tainted the history.
However, since then there have been many reviews and studies on the safety of aspartame, and the safety of the product has been conclusively proven.
One of the major claims in your reference, for instance, suggests that industry trials were uniformly positive, independent trials were universally negative - but closer examination of the references shows that Dr. Olsen left out 50 peer reviewed studies, all of which demonstrated aspartames safety. Closer analysis of the citations alleging that aspartame were unsafe were often found to be unpublished letters, small studies that were not peer reviewed, even just chapters from books.
In short, the evidence offered was extremely poor and he had cherry picked his references in an effort to bias the findings. Shoddy science at best, deliberate misdirection at worst.
This false controversy has resonated through the decades, affecting other countries who have been affected by the controversy.
The European Food Safety Authority recently conducted the most comprehensive review yet, using 600 data sets, including the first 100 or so original studies submitted when application was originally made for aspartames introduction into Europe.
This is their conclusion.
"On January 8, 2013, the EFSA released its draft report, which found that aspartame and its metabolites "pose no toxicity concern for consumers at current levels of exposure. The current Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) is considered to be safe for the general population and consumer exposure to aspartame is below this ADI"
Wiki have a good page on the whole aspartame conspiracy theories and the testing to show its safe, for those willing to take the trouble to look.
http://
Another good, objective site which examines the whole sorry saga of the hysterical claims about the dangers of aspartame can be found here
http://
You should also make yourself familiar with the breakdown products of aspartame, the metabolites - all of which naturally occur in the body.
In fact, the only people who have to worry about aspartame are those who have a rare autosomal recessive ,metabolic genetic disorder called PhenylKetonUria or PKU, who are unable to metabolise phenylalanine, which is found in aspartame. This genetic disorder is thought to affect 1 in 10,000 individuals.
http://
Its a free country, and of course you are at liberty to avoid it if you want - but do not let yourself be misled by sites like Mercola....
Aspartame is a case in point. There were indeed some potentially shady goings on when the product was first introduced, back in the 1970s - and the subsequent objections and those allegations tainted the history.
However, since then there have been many reviews and studies on the safety of aspartame, and the safety of the product has been conclusively proven.
One of the major claims in your reference, for instance, suggests that industry trials were uniformly positive, independent trials were universally negative - but closer examination of the references shows that Dr. Olsen left out 50 peer reviewed studies, all of which demonstrated aspartames safety. Closer analysis of the citations alleging that aspartame were unsafe were often found to be unpublished letters, small studies that were not peer reviewed, even just chapters from books.
In short, the evidence offered was extremely poor and he had cherry picked his references in an effort to bias the findings. Shoddy science at best, deliberate misdirection at worst.
This false controversy has resonated through the decades, affecting other countries who have been affected by the controversy.
The European Food Safety Authority recently conducted the most comprehensive review yet, using 600 data sets, including the first 100 or so original studies submitted when application was originally made for aspartames introduction into Europe.
This is their conclusion.
"On January 8, 2013, the EFSA released its draft report, which found that aspartame and its metabolites "pose no toxicity concern for consumers at current levels of exposure. The current Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) is considered to be safe for the general population and consumer exposure to aspartame is below this ADI"
Wiki have a good page on the whole aspartame conspiracy theories and the testing to show its safe, for those willing to take the trouble to look.
http://
Another good, objective site which examines the whole sorry saga of the hysterical claims about the dangers of aspartame can be found here
http://
You should also make yourself familiar with the breakdown products of aspartame, the metabolites - all of which naturally occur in the body.
In fact, the only people who have to worry about aspartame are those who have a rare autosomal recessive ,metabolic genetic disorder called PhenylKetonUria or PKU, who are unable to metabolise phenylalanine, which is found in aspartame. This genetic disorder is thought to affect 1 in 10,000 individuals.
http://
Its a free country, and of course you are at liberty to avoid it if you want - but do not let yourself be misled by sites like Mercola....
@ Lazygun. Thanks for the reply. It is not in my nature to believe everything I read, even things on this site, but I do believe that some people can be persuaded to give the "correct" or "required" reply if the price is right and so swing the balance.
Another point coming to mind is Monsanto and the GM grains which, I understand, is now grown all over the USA giving the population no choice, whereas the EU community has so far rejected it.
I suppose only time will tell on this one?
Another point coming to mind is Monsanto and the GM grains which, I understand, is now grown all over the USA giving the population no choice, whereas the EU community has so far rejected it.
I suppose only time will tell on this one?
"I understand that Aspartame is another sweetener in drinks, etc., which does more harm than good. Look at the labels of all the soft drinks, Colas, etc. "
Not all soft drinks contain aspartame or any other [artificial] sweetener. The leading cola contains only sugar (in the UK) in the non-diet varieties. The same is true for its major competitor. Saccharin is probably the most widely used [artificial] sweetener.
"but HFCS isn't exactly good for you either- like loads of other sweeteners e.g.. aspartame. Maybe if the Manufacturers put less salt in their fizzy drinks, they wouldn't have to sweeten them up so much!" You cannot lump aspartame and other [artificial] sweeteners in with HFCS. HFCS is essentially a natural product - it may be produced by a manufacturing process, but its major ingredients - fructose and glucose - are naturally occurring molecules. I have never seen salt in any soft drink [I do not include so-called isotonic or "sports" drinks], though diet soft drinks may contain sodium, since saccharin is actually sodium saccharin. But since it is 300-500 times sweeter than sugar, only a small quantity is needed to get the sweetness required.
Not all soft drinks contain aspartame or any other [artificial] sweetener. The leading cola contains only sugar (in the UK) in the non-diet varieties. The same is true for its major competitor. Saccharin is probably the most widely used [artificial] sweetener.
"but HFCS isn't exactly good for you either- like loads of other sweeteners e.g.. aspartame. Maybe if the Manufacturers put less salt in their fizzy drinks, they wouldn't have to sweeten them up so much!" You cannot lump aspartame and other [artificial] sweeteners in with HFCS. HFCS is essentially a natural product - it may be produced by a manufacturing process, but its major ingredients - fructose and glucose - are naturally occurring molecules. I have never seen salt in any soft drink [I do not include so-called isotonic or "sports" drinks], though diet soft drinks may contain sodium, since saccharin is actually sodium saccharin. But since it is 300-500 times sweeter than sugar, only a small quantity is needed to get the sweetness required.
@Wak - I am not expert enough on the latest developments in the GM field and especially the role of Monsanto.
They have demonstrated a willingness to prosecute in those instances where they feel people are using their seeds and intellectual property. I think this has been had for them in terms of PR, and given them a lasting image of a rapacious, uncaring firm.
There are also some genuine concerns about GM - very very difficult to control the spread.
And Monsanto do have the capability of producing "sterile" seeds, using a "terminator gene" sequence which they can build in to the seed genome - but they have promised not to do this, and I think that has been shown to be true so far.
Other than that, i would need to read up a lot more - but in principle I do not have an objection to GM engineering of seeds and plants, to breed greater hardiness in draught conditions, for example...
They have demonstrated a willingness to prosecute in those instances where they feel people are using their seeds and intellectual property. I think this has been had for them in terms of PR, and given them a lasting image of a rapacious, uncaring firm.
There are also some genuine concerns about GM - very very difficult to control the spread.
And Monsanto do have the capability of producing "sterile" seeds, using a "terminator gene" sequence which they can build in to the seed genome - but they have promised not to do this, and I think that has been shown to be true so far.
Other than that, i would need to read up a lot more - but in principle I do not have an objection to GM engineering of seeds and plants, to breed greater hardiness in draught conditions, for example...
@Mattheous No, I dont think so. They are making the point that aspartame itself, for instance, and its metabolites,are well understood, well characterised, and are all actually manufactured in the body or available from other sources.
The regulatory authorities like to establish Recommended Daily Amounts - for pretty much everything actually, and these are mostly derived from animals studies. The RDA that is actually arrived at is usually some fraction, substantially less than the theoretical level at which some harm might concievably happen.
But dose is important, and I think they are trying to make the fundamental point that, even were you to imbibe 10, 20 cans of soft drink a day, you would still be substantially lower than even the cautious RDA that has been established.
The regulatory authorities like to establish Recommended Daily Amounts - for pretty much everything actually, and these are mostly derived from animals studies. The RDA that is actually arrived at is usually some fraction, substantially less than the theoretical level at which some harm might concievably happen.
But dose is important, and I think they are trying to make the fundamental point that, even were you to imbibe 10, 20 cans of soft drink a day, you would still be substantially lower than even the cautious RDA that has been established.
1 to 19 of 19
