In fact, though I'm not an expert in this matter, much less play one on Free Republic, I have studied some on dietary intake--which is why I try to keep my consumption of certain refined foods to a minimum ( such as table sugar, things made with refined flour, ready-made meals ). This is not because I am a diabetic, but because it is a sensible thing after studying a bit of literature.
Now, this is wonderful, but it gets away from the main topic of the article--which is the states having their authority infringed by the Federal government. And, you have to admit, its easier to grease the palms of 536 ( I'm including the President here ) people in Washington DC, than it is across 50 states.
I am of the belief that this, in conjunction with certain other things like NAIS, and a few other data points are due to the actions of certain industries like Con-Agra, ADM, and large producers is a way to maintain a lock.
True, but I was just reacting to the misinformation as it was posted. I find it relevant because the end result of the misunderstanding of food ingredients (although most of the posters here won't admit it) will be to allow the feds to regulate and control those ingredients and foods further reducing our personal freedom. Food ingredients could easily be the next class action lawsuit all for the sake of our children.
but the study I linked to implicates both substances...
The researchers go out of their way to target HFCS as the source of the problem without honestly informing the readers that if HFCS wasn't used, sugar would be. Researchers like to demonize sucrose and fructose as leading causes of obesity. The problem of obesity is people consuming more calories than they require. What sugar the body doesn't need gets stored as glycogen. When the liver and muscles are full of glycogen the body converts the sugar to fat. When the body gets too much fat all sorts of bad things can happen to you: Diabetes, heart disease, strokes, cancer etc. You rarely see thin people with diabetes. The problem is too many calories going in and not enough activity to burn it off. Our sedentary lifestyle is causing this along with no knowledge of basic nutrition.
Now, this is wonderful, but it gets away from the main topic of the article--which is the states having their authority infringed by the Federal government.
I'm normally a proponent for protecting states rights but in this case I support legislation that reduces government regulation over business and makes it easier for them to compete. Imagine operating a food manufacturing business with 5,000 sku's and being forced to offer a different label and/or packaging for 50 different states. Does that complicate your business and drive costs up? Is having uniformed federal regulations really going to make the domestic food supply less safe? IIRC, we only inspect about 2-3% of all products entering this country anyway.
Our food supply is the safest in the world and the big companies have gotten big by giving consumers what they want in the way of product variety, quality, consistency, packaging and labeling information. To think that they wouldn't have responded to the demands of consumers without the government forcing them to do so is to not understand the industry.
The same people who howl here about the loss of state sovereignty and the risks to our food supply will be the same ones to howl when these same food companies move their production to another country to escape the incredible and overbearing regulation producers here must endure.