Posted on 12/15/2010 3:40:46 AM PST by Scanian
First, kill all the farm subsidies! That should have been President Obama's mantra if he truly wanted to curb the nation's child-obesity "epidemic." Instead, on Monday he signed into law the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.
That law has plenty of problems. But it's certainly striking how it ignores such a flagrant contributor to flabby youth -- Uncle Sam's economically illiterate farm program.
The US Department of Agriculture spends billions a year on farm subsidies that indirectly promote obesity.
How? The subsidies maintain an oversupply of certain foods at commensurately cheap prices. Subsidies have proved a catalyst for agribusiness to produce far more food than the population can eat, reducing the price for consumers. Cheap food has led restaurants to serve larger portions, and arguably this has contributed to the obesity problem.
The feds' farm policies also promote the substance anti-obesity campaigners call "liquid Satan" -- high-fructose corn syrup.
A generation ago, the USDA began paying farmers to grow as much corn as possible. Today, subsidies to crops such as corn total $19 billion a year. Corn subsidies total more than $8 billion a year.
Cheap corn enables the corn-processing industry to profitably churn out an abundance of high-fructose corn syrup, selling it cheaply to food and beverage companies. The syrup, a fructose-glucose liquid sweetener, is a major alternative to sucrose (table sugar) first introduced in the 1970s. Meanwhile, the feds restrict the supply of sugar via import quotas on foreign-grown sugar -- raising the US price of sugar to two-to-three times the global level.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I think the author is saying that if we can afford to buy food it’s too cheap.
Nobody’s holing a gun to anybody’s head to make them eat that crap.
Not true!
I was in the market yesterday and some guy was holding a gun to my head ...
Nah, but the government massively subsidizing what is probably the most obesogenic substance in the food supply (perhaps single-handedly responsible for the US obesity explosion relative to other countries) does have a certain ironic appeal. You can always count on the feddral gubmint doing the wrong thing.
A good take on the issue from prof. Robert Lustig:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
I disagree. High-fructose corn syrup is in a lot of products. You really have to read the labels. If 20 years ago they used sugar, then today they almost certainly use HFCS. Real sugar is probably considered too expensive today.
People have a choice. Should the government ban that crap? Given the supposed impact put forth by the Food Police, one would think so.
You are perfectly right of course - they shouldn´t ban anything, of course. But they should definitely not pour taxpayer money over it.
Also, they should stop giving out BS vegetarian-biased health advice (no, eating like a rabbit is not the key to being lean and healthy as Mrs. Obama would like us to believe!).
Finally, people should know that they better stay away from large amounts of fructose unless they really enjoy obesity, diabetes and probably a gaggle of other “diseases of civilization” as well. The truth shall set you free, etc. etc.
“I disagree. High-fructose corn syrup is in a lot of products. You really have to read the labels. If 20 years ago they used sugar, then today they almost certainly use HFCS. Real sugar is probably considered too expensive today.”
Lustig puts it nicely: “HFCS isn´t metabolically evil - it´s an economic evil.”
Also, the problem isn´t really replacement of cane and beet sugar with HFCS - it´s the replacement of no sugar with HFCS, in everything from breads to salad dressings and a wide variety of processed foods. The problem is the fructose, regardless of the source.
This guy is right about farm subsidies needing to end. Other than that, he’s an idiot.
Huh? The chemical composition of HFCS is essentially the same as that of sucrose (table sugar), and it is digested by the gastrointestinal tract and absorbed into the body in the very same way. Both offer four calories per gram. Obesity happens because people consume more calories than they burn. There are no obesity causing foods, only obesity causing diets. Blaming an ingredient for obesity is absurd.
England and Mexico are suffering from an obesity epidemic as substantial as ours yet they use little, if any, HFCS in their food production.
For every complex problem there is a simple solution -- and it never works.
The only obesity problem we are facing as a nation that is adversely impacting our health and security is the gargantuan monstrosity we call the government.
“Huh? The chemical composition of HFCS is essentially the same as that of sucrose (table sugar), and it is digested by the gastrointestinal tract and absorbed into the body in the very same way.”
Yes indeed. But HFCS is cheaper per gram of fructose. And it is the fructose that is (a substantial part of) the problem.
“Both offer four calories per gram. Obesity happens because people consume more calories than they burn.”
Obesity does indeed involve the surplus storage of energy in fat tissue, but that in itself says nothing about the causality involved.
Personally, I find it strange that the notion that people are supposed to count calories with absurd precision to prevent obesity has achieved such widespread acceptance. After all, a sustained 25 kcal surplus per day will make you fat. Can anyone determine how many calories they consume daily with a precision of 25 kcal?
I find the various alternate hypotheses much more convincing, I.e. stories involving the dysregulation of our various apetite and energy management systems.
“England and Mexico are suffering from an obesity epidemic as substantial as ours yet they use little, if any, HFCS in their food production.”
That´s a good point. My guess is (as stated in a post above) that the problem isn´t really any particular problem regarding the HFCS, but rather fructose (and possibly other neolithic agents in combination with modern lifestyles).
It´s a rather fascinating issue, and I suspect that the caloric reductionism that has dominated the discussion is a red herring that´s made the problem much harder to tackle.
It’s the kind of food the government subsidizes that is the problem. Grains from Cargill and Con Agra, that make white bread, doritos, and corn syrup, for example. They don’t subsidize beef, or fruits and vegatables. In fact, they are actively denying tree fruit and nut farmers irrigation water in California’s Joaquin Valley.
No, that was a School Board meeting.
Do you have any idea what the chemical composition of HFCS and sucrose are?
And it is the fructose that is (a substantial part of) the problem.
So eating fresh fruit is making us fat? Yeah, that fructose is deadly.
Obesity does indeed involve the surplus storage of energy in fat tissue, but that in itself says nothing about the causality involved.
Causality? Say what? Obesity results from an imbalance between energy consumed in foods and energy burned by metabolic processes and physical activity. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Personally, I find it strange that the notion that people are supposed to count calories with absurd precision to prevent obesity has achieved such widespread acceptance.
You find the fact that if you consume more energy than you burn you'll gain weight strange? Why is scientific fact strange?
I find the various alternate hypotheses much more convincing, I.e. stories involving the dysregulation of our various apetite and energy management systems. My guess is (as stated in a post above) that the problem isn´t really any particular problem regarding the HFCS, but rather fructose (and possibly other neolithic agents in combination with modern lifestyles).
Sure. Unfortunately for you, HFCS and sucrose (regular ol' table sugar) are made up of the same two chemicals (glucose and fructose) in similar proportions. HFCS is commercialized in two formulas. One form offers approx. 55% fructose and 45% glucose. The other offers 42% fructose and 58% glucose. Sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. If one is bad for you then the other must be bad for you too (neither are bad). Maybe it's those other neolithic agents. I really hate them.
It´s a rather fascinating issue....
I agree. I find it fascinating that some people believe that glucose and fructose from HFCS is chemically different than glucose and fructose from hydrolyzed sucrose.
I suspect that the caloric reductionism that has dominated the discussion is a red herring that´s made the problem much harder to tackle.
Actually, the problem is pretty simple. Burn more calories than you consume and you won't get fat. Unless, of course, you never believed in the first law of thermodynamics to begin with. The problem gets complicated when people start believing in nonsense that has no basis in scientific fact.
There is about 12 cents of wheat in a loaf of bread. So commodity prices don't have a lot to do with (at least grain prices, pork beef chicken and dairy yes) retail food prices.
It pays to belong to an industry with a powerful lobby and deep pockets.
Personally, I find it strange that the notion that people are supposed to count calories with absurd precision to prevent obesity has achieved such widespread acceptance. After all, a sustained 25 kcal surplus per day will make you fat. Can anyone determine how many calories they consume daily with a precision of 25 kcal?
People don’t need to count calories with precession unless they’re sedentary.
When I was Army and pre-Army I had little problem. I did have a problem with the Army’s weight tables and every year had to have body fat measured – passed with flying colors every time.
After I retired my weight (and fat) shot up. Not enough exercise. I was setting on my butt in college and after graduation I found there was no demand for 40 year old college grads and drove a cab. Still setting on my butt all day. When I realized my weight was out of control I cut out all junk and fast food. I started working out again. I lost about 70 pounds in a year.
When I look at people who are really overweight – and not by Body Mass Index – most have sedentary jobs.
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.