Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In talking about solvency in social programs, you often hear that “working longer” is a solution. But I see people at very young ages who are nearly incapable of working already. I’m pretty sure they are suffering the same ills of feeder lot animals. Feeder lot animals are rushed to slaughter when very young. And it is a race between the knife and the ills of their diets. Some cattle are mistakenly slaughtered when visibly sick. But there’s no sense in focusing on that because they aren’t that much sicker than the other animals. Concentrated chicken feeding operations bulk up chickens while demineralizing their skeletons. The more unfortunate have broken legs that can’t support their purposely enormous weight.
And we see youth who are in similar shape. You see them competing on Biggest Loser. But the ecstasy of winning there is undermined by the knowledge that if they continue their diet of engineered food, there’s no way that weight can be permanently off.
More and more you see people using manufactured products to support their weight so they can get around. They are sick enough, they just don’t effectively compete with any sound-bodied peer. And more of those peers are offshore where the engineered food industry has been unable to penetrate. Our society wants to say no to an “anti-fat” stereotype, but it’s a mistake to imagine sick people of any age can ever battle for jobs that are competitive. Catering to people sick with lifestyle diseases is not any kind of solution to America’s employment troubles. To battle with other economies, we need a robustly healthy population, but the engineered food industries are a real fifth column, giving aid and comfort while seeking higher profits. Try as we might, we need to stop refusing to see what upsets our status quo.
What do you mean by engineered food? What level of engineering is making people fat? Can you prove this?
Plants and animals we eat have been changed over a long time by humans. This is what a banana looked like before humans...
The Obesity epidemic is relatively new, in the last 4 decades. This is as businesses could sell cheaper, larger, portions to people that demanded it. Add this in with the rise of more sedentary occupations (computerization) and people get fat. This isn't some sort of secret conspiracy...it's just regular business giving the customer what they want and a societal change. More people have cheaper access to more calories than in history, and as people we have been slow to respond to that.
I am all for getting people eating less, and working out more. That is their choice. As well as what they eat.
Also, I think you are mixing up terms. It's not engineered anything to slaughter sick animals. It's people trying to get out of regulations to make more money. It is a terrible practice, but it is one that will happen when we have cut food inspectors to the point where companies are lucky to get inspected one day every three years.
If its not a "conspiracy", let them start speaking publicly. And "engineered" means they are breaking down products into chemical components then remixing them in a way nature never imagined. Seriously, when in the history of the human species did anyone "crack" the corn kernel and then concentrate the syrup to become an all purpose sweetener? The very fact that fructose comes in "high" levels indicates how false and artificial it is. The sweetness has been a factor in corn bread, but that was a matter of grinding the corn into flour and relying on the presence of sugar, IN ITS NATURAL CONCENTRATION, to make a food item. What we have in corn syrup is directly comparable to plastics made from oil. Oil does not naturally turn into plastic. It takes advanced chemical processes to produce plastic feeder stock from petroleum.
Tell me how high fructose corn syrup is "naturally" made from corn.
And why is SO much money being fed into defeating labeling referendums whenever they pop up. Does that suggest an industry delighting in transparency?
"Prove it" just means "my mind is made up, so I dare you to make me change it in any way". Ya know, that is EXACTLY how addicts talk!
If its not a "conspiracy", let them start speaking publicly. And "engineered" means they are breaking down products into chemical components then remixing them in a way nature never imagined. Seriously, when in the history of the human species did anyone "crack" the corn kernel and then concentrate the syrup to become an all purpose sweetener? The very fact that fructose comes in "high" levels indicates how false and artificial it is. The sweetness has been a factor in corn bread, but that was a matter of grinding the corn into flour and relying on the presence of sugar, IN ITS NATURAL CONCENTRATION, to make a food item. What we have in corn syrup is directly comparable to plastics made from oil. Oil does not naturally turn into plastic. It takes advanced chemical processes to produce plastic feeder stock from petroleum.
Tell me how high fructose corn syrup is "naturally" made from corn.
And why is SO much money being fed into defeating labeling referendums whenever they pop up. Does that suggest an industry delighting in transparency?
People have been processing foods in less sophisticated ways for quite awhile. It's how cured olives and dent corn (hominy) were even made edible in their natural state...to process them in lye to a form not found in nature. Something being natural is a terrible argument for some one using a computer, an amalgam of silicon, copper, and plastics that is no where found in nature. If you really only cared about what was natural you would have trashed your computer...but it is a very useful made made thing
I think the food industry is **** as it is now, corn syrup is one of the things that makes it too easy to eat too much and studies have been incomplete where needed....but it doesn't make your claims true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever
"Prove it" just means "my mind is made up, so I dare you to make me change it in any way". Ya know, that is EXACTLY how addicts talk!
No, it is simply this...what will change my mind is evidence. Proof. Not just claims. That is a scientific viewpoint. As Bill Nye pointed out.
Like Ken you have provided nothing, and yet you still believe it. It's the mind of a zealot. You are projecting your own problems with lack of evidence onto the world and people who disagree with your claims. I don't think the modern food industry is doing things right, but it is dishonest to have their claims and yours as the only two options.
If your only evidence is to claim other people who don't believe are addicts...that's your problem.
Hey, the day I start thinking about EATING my computer, the engineering of my computer will become relevant. Yes of COURSE corn is edible in its natural state. My father's farm had corn that we picked, put in a kettle of boiling water and ate. At the State Fair they have untreated corn they do nothing but grill and sell. Corn is a TOTALLY naturally edible product. Cargill and Archer Daniels aren't making it "edible", they are extracting what they consider "added value" to create ingredients that nature would never provide on its own. Just like gasoline can't just emerge from petroleum without expensive and sophisticated cracking.
Seriously, when I joust with people who argue on behalf of Engineered Food, I think I see signs of the damage that such food can do to natural potential. The whole country is clearly getting dumber, and I think a big part of it is the dominant junk food diet. And the cost of our medical establishment outruns the whole rest of the world in ANOTHER sign of what the engineered food industry is saddling us with. We can't address it by saying "DON'T EAT THAT CRAP FOOD OR THE WHIRLPOOL WILL SUCK US DOWN" because, well, the people who make big money wouldn't appreciate that degree of candor.
Hey, the day I start thinking about EATING my computer, the engineering of my computer will become relevant. Yes of COURSE corn is edible in its natural state. My father's farm had corn that we picked, put in a kettle of boiling water and ate. At the State Fair they have untreated corn they do nothing but grill and sell. Corn is a TOTALLY naturally edible product. Cargill and Archer Daniels aren't making it "edible", they are extracting what they consider "added value" to create ingredients that nature would never provide on its own. Just like gasoline can't just emerge from petroleum without expensive and sophisticated cracking.
Seriously, when I joust with people who argue on behalf of Engineered Food, I think I see signs of the damage that such food can do to natural potential. The whole country is clearly getting dumber, and I think a big part of it is the dominant junk food diet. And the cost of our medical establishment outruns the whole rest of the world in ANOTHER sign of what the engineered food industry is saddling us with. We can't address it by saying "DON'T EAT THAT CRAP FOOD OR THE WHIRLPOOL WILL SUCK US DOWN" because, well, the people who make big money wouldn't appreciate that degree of candor.
Obviously you didn't pay enough attention when you were a child between flint corn and sweet corn. If you boiled flint corn and tried to eat it you would break your teeth. Hell, I knew this when I was a kid and I was quite a bit removed from my farming roots...they fed it to hogs. This is basic stuff.
I don't care what people like, I care what can be proven. So far you have proved nothing after machine gunning claim after claim. When asked for evidence you just machine gun insults instead. I even think the food industry is crap...but without evidence I don't believe your claims any more than I believe big foot or the Loch Ness monster.
So why should I care about flint corn? Earl Butz was the guy who brainwashed farmers into raising this rather than edible corn. And from that has come this massive Engineered Food Industry. Prior to that, there was a very useful sweet corn industry and cattle ate grass or grain. But Butz and his political slice wanted BIG AG, wanted really a corporate force to become sugar daddies (and sugar is their product) for Nixon and the GOP. It worked. Corn is incredibly cheap. But its just not EDIBLE corn. It needs corporate chemistry, food engineering. And then it flows in vast quantities into products on the shelf in the store. It may have stifled food inflation, but the inflation was really there. It was just like shrinking the candy bar instead of raising the price. In this case, engineered food shrunk the nutritional value as the price extracted for "keeping food cheap". Now we are at least the second fattest nation in the WORLD, and we have a HUGE MEDICAL BILL. So an economist might say "no net advantage". We don't pay at the register in the grocery store. But we overpay in Medicare, in private insurance, in hospitals. If we ate natural food, it is entirely plausible we'd have expenses more like the nations that refuse to eat the CRAP we eat!
So why should I care about flint corn? Earl Butz was the guy who brainwashed farmers into raising this rather than edible corn. And from that has come this massive Engineered Food Industry. Prior to that, there was a very useful sweet corn industry and cattle ate grass or grain. But Butz and his political slice wanted BIG AG, wanted really a corporate force to become sugar daddies (and sugar is their product) for Nixon and the GOP. It worked. Corn is incredibly cheap. But its just not EDIBLE corn. It needs corporate chemistry, food engineering. And then it flows in vast quantities into products on the shelf in the store. It may have stifled food inflation, but the inflation was really there. It was just like shrinking the candy bar instead of raising the price. In this case, engineered food shrunk the nutritional value as the price extracted for "keeping food cheap". Now we are at least the second fattest nation in the WORLD, and we have a HUGE MEDICAL BILL. So an economist might say "no net advantage". We don't pay at the register in the grocery store. But we overpay in Medicare, in private insurance, in hospitals. If we ate natural food, it is entirely plausible we'd have expenses more like the nations that refuse to eat the CRAP we eat!
Is this a joke? I really think you are just pulling people's legs...this whole thread must be satire.
Flint corn/Maize has been raised since 2500 BC. This is long before the sweet corn you ate. Earl Butz didn't brainwash farmers to raise it in some modern conspiracy...and people can eat processed products an lose the weight. It is more natural food than sweet corn, which is a recessive trait bred by Indian farmers (human beings, not often found in nature) first recorded in 1491. Granted, it is likely known much earlier...but flint corn is not something no one knew about till Earl brainwashed farmers
This is about middle school level science and history here. It's not that businesses are conspiring to do all these terrible things, it's that you have no clue of basic business, farming, or even basic history. The world looks like a conspiracy to the ignorant when they have no idea what is going on in the first place...or those trying to look like complete lunatics in some sort of satire.
Thanks for the satire. I needed before a long work week. It is really funny how ignorant conspiracy theorists are as they try to act smarter than the rest of the world. You should make an application to cracked.com as they are always looking for people who can pun the most bizarre in society like they really believe it. Give me a heads up when you do and I'll help get views.
You do know that the Mayans domesticated corn, right? And their "processing" was grinding it on limestone to make a meal. No "cracking" at all. No chemistry except to the extent lime interacts with corn. But the FACT is that they proved you can eat corn! You don't NEED Cargill. Cargill is like the guy who makes the cocaine into crack to make more off each ounce. You seem pretty thoroughly brainwashed from the things you actually said without choking. You deserve the illness in old age you'll get from eating the crap you buy from Big Engineered Food.
Quote:
maize was typically ground up on a metate and prepared in a number of ways. Tortillas, cooked on a comal and used to wrap other foods (meat, beans, etc.), were common and are perhaps the best-known pre-ColumbianMesoamerican food. Tamales consist of corn dough, often containing a filling, that are wrapped in a corn husk and steam-cooked. Both atole and pozole were liquid based gruel-like dishes that were made by mixing ground maize (hominy) with water, with atole being denser and used as a drinking source and pozole having complete big grains of maize incorporated into a turkey broth.Though these dishes could be consumed plain, other ingredients were added to diversify flavor, including chili peppers, cacao, wild onions and salt.
HFCS was first introduced by Richard O. Marshall and Earl R. Kooi in 1957. They were, however, unsuccessful in making it viable for mass production, primarily because the glucose-isomerizing activity they discovered required arsenate, which was highly toxic to humans.[SIZE=2][21][/SIZE] The glucose (xylose) isomerase that did not require arsenate ion for its catalytic activity and thus was industrially feasible was first discovered by Dr. Kei Yamanaka, Kagawa University, Japan, in 1961.[SIZE=2][22][/SIZE][SIZE=2][23][/SIZE] The industrial production process and creation was made by Dr. Yoshiyuki Takasaki at the Agency of Industrial Science and Technology of Ministry of International Trade and Industry of Japan in 1965–1970. HFCS was rapidly introduced to many processed foods and soft drinks in the U.S. from about 1975 to 1985.
HFCS is produced by milling corn (maize) to produce corn starch, then processing that starch to yield corn syrup, which is almost entirely glucose, and then adding enzymes that change some of the glucose into fructose. The resulting syrup (after enzyme conversion) contains approximately 42% fructose and is HFCS 42. Some of the 42% fructose is then purified to 90% fructose, HFCS 90. To make HFCS 55, the HFCS 90 is mixed with HFCS 42 in the appropriate ratios to form the desired HFCS 55. The enzyme process that changes the corn starch into HFCS 42 is as follows:
Glucoamylase – breaks the oligosaccharides down even further to yield the simple sugar glucose.
Xylose isomerase (aka glucose isomerase) – converts glucose to a mixture of about 42% fructose and 50–52% glucose with some other sugars mixed in.
Although both types of amylase are naturally produced by many animals (including humans), the most common method of commercial production is microbial fermentation. Xylose isomerase is not native to animals; and in standard glycolysis the glucose molecules are isomerized only after phosphorylation by glucose-6-phosphate isomerase, yielding fructose 6-phosphate. Fructose molecules are phosphorylated by fructokinase and enter the glycolytic pathway at this point.
While inexpensive alpha-amylase and glucoamylase are added directly to the slurry and used only once, the more costly xylose-isomerase is packed into columns and the sugar mixture is then passed over it, allowing it to be used repeatedly until it loses its activity. This 42–43% fructose glucose mixture is then subjected to a liquid chromatography step, where the fructose is enriched to about 90%. The 90% fructose is then back-blended with 42% fructose to achieve a 55% fructose final product. Most manufacturers use carbon adsorption for impurity removal. Numerous filtration, ion-exchange, and evaporation steps are also part of the overall process.
The units of measurement for sucrose is degrees Brix (symbol °Bx). Brix is a measurement of the mass ratio of dissolved sucrose to water in a liquid. A 25 °Bx solution has 25 grams of sucrose per 100 grams of solution (25% w/w). Or, to put it another way, there are 25 grams of sucrose and 75 grams of water in the 100 grams of solution. The Brix measurement was introduced by Antoine Brix.
A more universal measurement of sugars, including HFCS, is called dry solids. Dry solids is defined as the mass ratio of dry sugars to the total weight of the sugar solution. Since Brix is based on the refractive index of light against a sucrose molecule, it is not accurate when measuring other sugars such as glucose, maltose, and fructose.
When an infrared Brix sensor is used, it measures the vibrational frequency of the sucrose molecules, giving a Brix degrees measurement. This will not be the same measurement as Brix degrees using a density or refractive index measurement, because it will specifically measure dissolved sugar concentration instead of all dissolved solids. When a refractometer is used, it is correct to report the result as "refractometric dried substance" (RDS). One might speak of a liquid as being 20 °Bx RDS. This is a measure of percent by weight of total dried solids and, although not technically the same as Brix degrees determined through an infrared method, renders an accurate measurement of sucrose content, since the majority of dried solids are in fact sucrose.
Recently, an isotopic method for quantifying sweeteners derived from corn and sugar cane was developed which permits measurement of corn syrup- and cane sugar-derived sweeteners in humans, thus allowing dietary assessment of the intake of these substances relative to total intake.[SIZE=2][24][/SIZE]
Last edited by Beenhere4ever; 03-02-2014 at 09:52 PM..
You deserve the illness in old age you'll get from eating the crap you buy from Big Engineered Food.
Wow, you aren't joking...
That's sick and twisted, wish sickness and harm to another human being. I see what kind of vile hate is part of this mindset.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hey, the day I start thinking about EATING my computer, the engineering of my computer will become relevant. Yes of COURSE corn is edible in its natural state. My father's farm had corn that we picked, put in a kettle of boiling water and ate. At the State Fair they have untreated corn they do nothing but grill and sell. Corn is a TOTALLY naturally edible product. Cargill and Archer Daniels aren't making it "edible", they are extracting what they consider "added value" to create ingredients that nature would never provide on its own. Just like gasoline can't just emerge from petroleum without expensive and sophisticated cracking.
