quote:

quote:

If the public doesn't care enough to out of their way to certain choices to establish a market, no one will respond with filling that need close by. Better yet, if anyone here believes that people in their area are craving such options, open a shop and see how it does. Maybe its because those same people will drive, walk, waddle, or rascal scooter right past your healthy options place and right over to Toxic Hell for an e-coli laced burrito and 64oz mountain dew.

You seem to be making a case for fucking over the ignorant

I am not their keeper, and being ignorant is a choice unto itself. Are you smart enough to make everyone's decisions for them. For that matter who is and who is infalible?

quote:

In the U.S., HFCS is among the sweeteners that have primarily replaced sucrose (table sugar) in the food industry. Factors for this include governmental production quotas of domestic sugar, subsidies of U.S. corn, and an import tariff on foreign sugar; all of which combine to raise the price of sucrose to levels above those of the rest of the world, making HFCS less costly for many sweetener applications. Critics of the extensive use of HFCS in food sweetening argue that the highly processed substance is more harmful to humans than regular sugar, contributing to weight gain by affecting normal appetite functions,[8] and that in some foods HFCS may be a source of mercury, a known neurotoxin.[9][10][not in citation given] The Corn Refiners Association disputes these claims and maintains that HFCS is comparable to table sugar.[11] Studies by the American Medical Association suggest "it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose", but welcome further independent research on the subject.[12] Further reviews in the clinical literature have disputed the links between HFCS and obesity,[13] diabetes,[14] and metabolic syndrome,[13] and concluded that HFCS is no different from any other sugar in relationship to these diseases.[dubious – discuss] HFCS has been classified generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since 1976.[15]

quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM
Same is true about the price if you drive through Mc D's-----I can go to the grocery store once a week, and cut my cost----So maybe spread 5$ in trip cost over 15 meals---not too fucking bad

Who mentioned the drive through?  You're assuming that everybody can afford to own a car. 

Walk, take the bus, whatever---that cost exists regardless of what or where you eat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


[quot]HFC--read the ingredience, they are posted on the package.

Which soda bottled in the u.s. has sugar and not hfc?

quote:

First off, is hfc more toxic or more fattening than refined cane sugar? If so, prove it.

quote:

I assumed it best to cut out both.

quote:

To your soda question: Hansen's I believe, as well as Izze.....to name a couple

quote:

I remember you now Thompon...

quote:

So quick to snark and criticize....What is your solution?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM

travel out of Barstow, you might witness the difference in state to state fatness, I don't need a university research study for everything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM

HFC is cheaper and politically helps big corn-------

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


[quot]HFC--read the ingredience, they are posted on the package.

Which soda bottled in the u.s. has sugar and not hfc?

quote:

First off, is hfc more toxic or more fattening than refined cane sugar? If so, prove it.

My question to you was: "which customers demanded that sugar be replaced with hfc"?
In what part of that question do I say anything about one or the other being toxic or fatning?

Consumer demand is usually for themost affordable product not a particular ingredient---HFC is cheaper, hence Coke and Pepsi use it

quote:

I assumed it best to cut out both.

You may assume what you choose but it has nothing to do with my question to you.

are the consumers of such junk demanding its removal? The people moslty demanding its removal don't really drink soda anyways (the healthy living crowd)

quote:

To your soda question: Hansen's I believe, as well as Izze.....to name a couple

You are aware that hansen's soda(not monster energy drink) market share is a single digit percentage? This would seem to refute your claim that the consumer demanded hfc in their soda it would also indicate that there is virtually no choice for the consumer to purchase non hfc soda.

you asked if there were any sodas in the US that weren't impregnated with HFC, I answered you, don't deflect

From hansen's website

Currently you can find Hansen's and Blue Sky products in participating Albertson's, Safeway, Trader Joe's, Kroger, Whole Foods Market, Sprouts, Henry's, Stater Bros, Costco, and Ralphs stores.
Not exactly what anyone with a three digit iq and a pulse would consider easy to get.

Sounds like some major chains to me

quote:

I remember you now Thompon...

Misspell my name like this again and I will contact the mods

Cry me a river, I missed an 's' call it keyboard error

quote:

So quick to snark and criticize....What is your solution?

I point out your ignorance and instead of seeking the source of your ignorance you assault the one who points it out. If you cannot validate the moronic drivel in your post then stop posting moronic drivel.


Great you are just another worthless critic who hasn't a solution, but merely a complaint


Who should be responsible? Who should be in charge if not yourself? Who? How? and Why? What's your plan to fix the woes of a fast food nation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM

What are you getting at with HFC anyway---do you have some kind of conspiracty theory going---- Refined sugar is bad period--


From Wikipedia:

quote:

In the U.S., HFCS is among the sweeteners that have primarily replaced sucrose (table sugar) in the food industry. Factors for this include governmental production quotas of domestic sugar, subsidies of U.S. corn, and an import tariff on foreign sugar; all of which combine to raise the price of sucrose to levels above those of the rest of the world, making HFCS less costly for many sweetener applications. Critics of the extensive use of HFCS in food sweetening argue that the highly processed substance is more harmful to humans than regular sugar, contributing to weight gain by affecting normal appetite functions,[8] and that in some foods HFCS may be a source of mercury, a known neurotoxin.[9][10][not in citation given] The Corn Refiners Association disputes these claims and maintains that HFCS is comparable to table sugar.[11] Studies by the American Medical Association suggest "it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose", but welcome further independent research on the subject.[12] Further reviews in the clinical literature have disputed the links between HFCS and obesity,[13] diabetes,[14] and metabolic syndrome,[13] and concluded that HFCS is no different from any other sugar in relationship to these diseases.[dubious – discuss] HFCS has been classified generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since 1976.[15]

quote:

Misspell my name like this again and I will contact the mods

Cry me a river, I missed an 's' call it keyboard error

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM

What are you getting at with HFC anyway---do you have some kind of conspiracty theory going---- Refined sugar is bad period--


From Wikipedia:

quote:

In the U.S., HFCS is among the sweeteners that have primarily replaced sucrose (table sugar) in the food industry. Factors for this include governmental production quotas of domestic sugar, subsidies of U.S. corn, and an import tariff on foreign sugar; all of which combine to raise the price of sucrose to levels above those of the rest of the world, making HFCS less costly for many sweetener applications. Critics of the extensive use of HFCS in food sweetening argue that the highly processed substance is more harmful to humans than regular sugar, contributing to weight gain by affecting normal appetite functions,[8] and that in some foods HFCS may be a source of mercury, a known neurotoxin.[9][10][not in citation given] The Corn Refiners Association disputes these claims and maintains that HFCS is comparable to table sugar.[11] Studies by the American Medical Association suggest "it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose", but welcome further independent research on the subject.[12] Further reviews in the clinical literature have disputed the links between HFCS and obesity,[13] diabetes,[14] and metabolic syndrome,[13] and concluded that HFCS is no different from any other sugar in relationship to these diseases.[dubious – discuss] HFCS has been classified generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since 1976.[15]

I have bolded the words you might want to look up to be sure you actually know what they mean

quote:

quote:

To your soda question: Hansen's I believe, as well as Izze.....to name a couple

You are aware that hansen's soda(not monster energy drink) market share is a single digit percentage? This would seem to refute your claim that the consumer demanded hfc in their soda it would also indicate that there is virtually no choice for the consumer to purchase non hfc soda.

quote:

you asked if there were any sodas in the US that weren't impregnated with HFC, I answered you, don't deflect

To wit I point out that non hfc soda is virtually unobtainable in this country since the hansen's soda are a small single digit of the market...how is it that that fact seems to escape your notice?

From hansen's website

Currently you can find Hansen's and Blue Sky products in participating Albertson's, Safeway, Trader Joe's, Kroger, Whole Foods Market, Sprouts, Henry's, Stater Bros, Costco, and Ralphs stores.
Not exactly what anyone with a three digit iq and a pulse would consider easy to get.

quote:

Sounds like some major chains to me

Notice the bolded part...not all, not many, not most...the word is participating. Notice the fact that hansen's soda is a small single digit percentage of the market?
The math works like this. Hansen's soda is about 3 percent of a 27 percent market share, 97 percent of which is monster energy. Which would seem to make hansens some major fraction of 1 percent of the market. Is that what you feel is the meaning of widely available?

(in reply to MileHighM)

quote:

Which soda bottled in the u.s. has sugar and not hfc?

quote:

My question to you was: "which customers demanded that sugar be replaced with hfc"?
In what part of that question do I say anything about one or the other being toxic or fatning?

Consumer demand is usually for themost affordable product not a particular ingredient---HFC is cheaper, hence Coke and Pepsi use it

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

quote:

Which soda bottled in the u.s. has sugar and not hfc?

Pepsi has all those Throwback brands with real sugar. They even taste better than the others.

quote:


A bunch of Vague shit----I don't understand you, we agree it is not good for you regardless,

quote:

yet you seem to defend this notion that it is heart of evil.

quote:

...There isn't a safe alternative when it comes to the massive amount of sugar americans consume.

quote:

The issue isn't HFC, it is habits of the consumers of 'sugary shit.' It is like arguing the only reason cigarettes are dangerous is because of add nicotine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM

Still goes back to you should read a label and avoid putting crap into your body...even before there was concerns over HFCS, the only things that really contained it were considered junk and crap by most anways (Soda, pancake syrup, et). All things that shouldn't be widely consumed regardless of what sweetener is in it. Including 0calorie sweeteners