One of these is from sucrose, table sugar. The other one is the messed up molecules in HFCS.
I'm trying to figure out which is which. Any ideas?
Posted on 08/02/2014 10:11:36 PM PDT by Olog-hai
I believe HFCS is a possible cause of the increase in American Type II diabetes.
Public concerns/outrage over smog would never cause a technology leap to make cleaner cars and smokestacks? We are, after all, NOT China
...as PROVEN by the mortgage crisis not long ago, when they JUMPING OVER EACH OTHER to loan $500,000 to people making $50k per year and never having a prayer of paying it back.
You mean the Government/Dodd-Frank legislation that mandated those loans to take place?
Only trouble with that is the "tax" would be taken from taxpayers, not the politicians' pockets.
“You mean the Government/Dodd-Frank legislation that mandated those loans to take place?”
I go back to those loans, that cost this country at least $6T in debt. Those loans were made by BANKERS and they sure as hell knew they couldn’t be repaid - but what the hell, safety in numbers - they can’t jail us all.
REGARDLESS of what the government wants, it is THEIR DUTY to stand up to that, not GO ALONG with it, just because they think they can get away with it.
“Public concerns/outrage over smog would never cause a technology leap to make cleaner cars and smokestacks? “
If the government hadn’t MANDATED unleaded gas be at EVERY GAS STATION some time in the 70s, we’d still be driving those smokers - there was NO WAY that the auto industry could have cleaned up their tailpipes without the government mandate, even if they wanted to (which I doubt they did).
Who is the They and Their that you are tossing around? The Bankers? The law stated they had to make the loans under threat of fines and audits. I blame Government first, bankers second. Frank, Dodd and every congresscritter who voted for this legislation should be in jail.
Neither you can prove this statement nor can I disprove it. I think technology would have cured it without the EPA.
“Neither you can prove this statement nor can I disprove it. I think technology would have cured it without the EPA.”
That is true...but given the incentives and types of people at the top, it’s hard to see how one company would spend an extra $1,000 for catalytic converters, while the others do not...or how all of them could play along together, without someone from the outside, maybe European, coming in without them.
I don’t think it was going to happen...and I’ll stick with that.
“Who is the They and Their that you are tossing around? The Bankers?”
The law DID NOT state that they had to make loans to people that COULD NOT afford to ever make payments, much less loans at 10 times income levels...unless you can link me to where it said that.
Actually it wasn’t Dodd Frank (that was 2010), it was Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that probably did the most damage. It was passed by a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS and opened up the door for banks to be even more idiotic than before.
Before that it was Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act, and that was the basis of this mess, but even that DID NOT require banks to loan money to people that couldn’t pay it back and some actually didn’t do that.
What does "Congressionally Mandated Affordable Housing Goals" mean to you?
Fannie and Freddie (GSE)
====
But it also appears that, perhaps as early as 1993, Fannie Mae began to offer easy financing terms and lowered its loan standards in order to meet congressionally mandated affordable housing goals and fulfill the company’s trillion-dollar commitment. For example, in each of the years 2000 and 2001, the first years for which data are available, 18% of Fannie’s originations–totaling $157 billion–were loans with FICO scores of less than 660 (the federal regulators’ cut-off point for defining subprime loans). There is no equivalent data available for Freddie, but it is likely that its purchases were proportionately the same, amounting to an estimated $120 billion.
These sums would have swamped originations by the traditional subprime lenders, which probably totaled $119 billion in these two years. Data for Alt-A loans before 2005 are unavailable, but the fact that that Fannie and Freddie now hold 60% of all outstanding Alt-A loans provides a strong indication of the purchases they were making for many earlier years.
The GSE’s purchases of all mortgages slowed in 2004, as they worked to overcome their accounting scandals, but in late 2004 they returned to the market with a vengeance. Late that year, their chairmen were telling meetings of mortgage originators that the GSEs were eager to purchase subprime and other nonprime loans.
This set off a frenzy of subprime and Alt-A mortgage origination, in which–as incredible as it seems–Fannie and Freddie were competing with Wall Street and one another for low-quality loans. Even when they were not the purchasers, the GSEs were Wall Street’s biggest customers, often buying the AAA tranches of subprime and Alt-A pools that Wall Street put together. By 2007 they held $227 billion (one in six loans) in these nonprime pools, and approximately $1.6 trillion in low-quality loans altogether.
From 2005 through 2007, the GSEs purchased over $1 trillion in subprime and Alt-A loans, driving up the housing bubble and driving down mortgage quality. During these years, HUD’s regulations required that 55% of all GSE purchases be affordable, including 25% made to low- and very low-income borrowers. Housing bubbles are nothing new. We and other countries have had them before. The reason that the most recent bubble created a worldwide financial crisis is that it was inflated with low-quality loans required by government mandate. The fact that the same government must now come to the rescue is no reason for gratitude.
“Fannie Mae began to offer easy financing terms and lowered its loan standards in order to meet congressionally mandated affordable housing goals and fulfill the company’s trillion-dollar commitment.”
Ok, so it’s OK for bankers to make loans that they know CAN NEVER BE REPAID, as long as they have idiots to buy the paper.
Those are NOT PEOPLE I want anywhere near me, in my private life or at work.
They did...see what happened?
The gov't doesn't "have" to do anything not dictated by the Constitution. We forgot that a hundred years ago and it's now biting us on the ass. BTW: Would the banks have otherwise made these loans without gov't intervention?
“Would the banks have otherwise made these loans without gov’t intervention? “
Easy question. YES. That’s what the Great Depression was about. And once we peeled back those regulations 70 years later...same result, the bankers COULD NOT control themselves.
Notice that she didn’t say anything about the real poisons,the artificial sweeteners.
One of these is from sucrose, table sugar. The other one is the messed up molecules in HFCS.
I'm trying to figure out which is which. Any ideas?
Tends to? What does that mean? Most of the time?
Are you sure that happens with the dilute HCl in our stomach?
You never said how quickly our system breaks down the complex sugars.
There was nothing in those "peeled back regulations" that prevented banks from writing (or buying) bad mortgages.
Potential carcinogen? LOL.
Pure HCL will dehydrate six carbon sugars and create 5-HMF in a beaker, but I don't believe that this happens in the gut. Pure HCL is excreted from the cells, but it is immediately diluted. There are other solids/liquids that are normally consumed along with the simple sugars, in addition to there being water in your stomach. This dilution must happen quickly because the small intestine is alkaline, so by the time it gets there, it is no longer acid.
But even if hydroxymethylfurfural is formed in the gut, it is in amounts so minute that there is no way for it to be carcinogenic. Of course, if you're a researcher looking for funding, force feeding it to lab mice by the bucket load will certainly create all sorts of horrific results that will strike fear into those who don't know any better.
Glucose, fructose, mannose, and galactose are impossible to avoid in a normal diet. Worrying about the potential for 5-HMF forming as a result of eating a normal diet makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Yup. They are especially toxic when the body doesn't metabolize or absorb them.
Scary stuff fer sure....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.