/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.11640824]

Why do so many people hate this thing? Prove to me that HFCS is any worse than cane sugar.

[Anonymous No.11640837]

corn haha

[Anonymous No.11640844]

[Anonymous No.11640847]

>>11640824
>people eat too much and get fat
>corn is in everything
>"it must be the corn"

[Anonymous No.11640880]

>>11640824
Fructose is a monosaccharide where as cane sugar (sucrose) is disaccharide. Monosaccharides don't need to be broken down first by intervase before being metabolized and therefore spike you blood sugar a little faster than more complex sugars. Other than that I have nothing.
Regardless. So long as your not prediabetic and/or drinking HFCS by the gallon it really shouldm't be an issue.

[Anonymous No.11640890]

>>11640844
hey grum!

[Anonymous No.11640910]

>>11640824
Normal corn syrup is (probably) no worse than cane sugar. HFCS has been chemically altered and may be a problem, but it hasn't been proven.

[Anonymous No.11640918]

>>11640824
Subsidized through corporate welfare program GMO drenched in carcinogenic roundup and added heavily in virtually all processed foods, fatty mcfatfat. Cane sugar, unsubsidized and used by specialty artisan bakers or home cooks for occasional treats.

Stay fat and jingoistically dumb, fatty.

[Anonymous No.11640986]

>>11640844
The Pilgrums

[Anonymous No.11641441]

>>11640918
>He said, drinking a cup of sugar

[Anonymous No.11642194]

>>11640824
The problem isn't with the chemical nature of HFCS, the problem is that its cheap and sweet so food companies shoehorn it into everything they can to make their foodstuffs more palatable to the average american. People are consuming more sugar at breakfast today than the average person consumed in a day 100 years ago. Its the quantity of sugar that is the problem.

[Anonymous No.11642903]

>>11640824
Unwarranted subsidies.

[Anonymous No.11642937]

>>11640918
>Corn is bad because it helps subsidize farmers
Why is everyone so retarded when it comes to their opinions on subsidies? You know they don't just give away money to farmers for no reason, right? Subsidies keep farming stable so farmers are no longer swinging between the extremes of underproducing and not being able to sell enough or overproducing and ending up not getting paid enough because supplies are so overly abundant that it drives the price down. We make back way more money than we put into subsidies for farming because it evens out their behavior to allow for the ideal amount of profitability and supply.

[Anonymous No.11642953]

>>11642937
Anon is right, we need to keep the subsidies, import quotas and tariffs, otherwise we'd be flooded by cheap foreign sugar!

[Anonymous No.11642963]

>>11642953
Go read about wartime farming and the Great Depression. You don't want farmers reacting wildly to short term conditions, that's how you get stupid situations like farmers with massive amounts of crops nobody can buy.

[Anonymous No.11642967]

>>11642963
Yes brother! Let's raise a glass of delicious soda to our brave sugar farmers.

[Anonymous No.11642969]

>>11642963
This is what grain bins, futures, and insurance are for.

[Anonymous No.11642971]

>>11642967
OK, I'm just going to go ahead and accept you're too simpleminded to intuit any real world scenario more complicated than "corn bad."

[Anonymous No.11642974]

>>11642969
How does the existence of ways to mitigate a problem invalidate any other way of mitigating the same problem?

[Anonymous No.11642990]

>>11642974
It's better to not leave tax payers on the hook when the industry can solve its own problems.

[Anonymous No.11642999]

>>11642969
CORN BAD
ME NO LIKE CORN

[Anonymous No.11643021]

>>11642990
Enjoy your famines and dustbowls.

[Anonymous No.11643055]

>>11642990
One of the primary purposes for the existence of the state is to ensure of stable and consistent food supply.

[Anonymous No.11643057]

>>11642937
Farmers who receive corporate welfare subsidies from their whores in congress and turn around and finance those selfsame whores' campaigns with part of the federal tax dollars they were given in a never ending vicious cycle, use this blatant lie that "hey guys, it's an issue of national security" as an attempt to justify their unscrupulous "gib me dats." The irony is, most of them are using proprietary seed and chemicals from a German GMO agri/chemical company, lol!
>we're dependent on foreign companies to produce crops, but we need them gib me dats to make sure we're not dependent on foreign countries in a crisis.
The absolute absurdity of your argument.

[Anonymous No.11643154]

>>11643021
Yeah, it's kind of funny seeing so many people nowadays demonizing farming subsidies for causing obesity. The fact so many people can become morbidly obese, even among the poorest population segments, is a pretty good indication this solution for unstable food supply has worked really fucking well. Getting people to eat less is a real problem that needs solving, but you don't solve it by bringing back roller coaster reactive farming practices with good times driving prices down and pushing farmers to over-plant in a vicious downward cycle of increasingly excessive supply needed just to break even followed by desolation and famine because the land's been deep plowed to death.

[Anonymous No.11643169]

>>11643057
It's not about independence from foreign countries, it's about stabilizing farming practices. As in maybe instead of trying to decide on the best way to help yourself out of a crisis it might be a little smarter to set up a system that keeps the crisis from happening in the first place. And it's not even like you're losing money through subsidization because the stability it creates leaves everyone with more wealth than if you eliminated subsidies and let a Dust Bowl scenario happen. It's not a politician bribing scheme, that's such an insanely childish cartoon worldview I have a hard time believing you're even being serious.

[Anonymous No.11643172]

>>11642971
Or I'm just fucking with you and I don't feel like elucidating the economic costs of entrenched sugar protectionism buoyed by the national adoption of corn as a chemical feedstock.

Right on corn bro!

[Anonymous No.11643175]

>>11642937
Oh, we know there is a "reason" for it, we just think the reasoning is unsound.

Stability is a problem which doesn't need intervention to fix.

[Anonymous No.11643176]

>>11643169
You can do that with break - even insurance programs. We don't have break even crop insurance because that doesn't keep unprofitable farms operating. You need subsidies for that.

[Anonymous No.11643183]

>>11643172

[Anonymous No.11643189]

>>11643183
Feel free to google the deadweight loss of corn subsidization from somewhere more recent than the 1930s, gramps.

[Anonymous No.11643191]

>>11643176
>doesn't keep unprofitable farms operating
Keeping unprofitable farms operating isn't a bad thing, it's the point. Letting farms fail makes farmers overly reactive and constantly alternating between over-planting price crashes and ruined land food shortages.

[Anonymous No.11643203]

>>11643189
Yes, it's very easy to criticize a longstanding, wildly effective solution from the vantage point of someone living on the tail end of a century of good times subsequent to its implementation. That's called taking things for granted. After seeing so many people lash out at farming subsidies over the years I almost want to see them abolished just so these same people can experience firsthand why they're being retarded.

[Anonymous No.11643235]

>>11643203
Yes, YES! Increase them further! Any drop and it'd be the dust bowl all over again!

[Anonymous No.11643239]

>>11643154
The issue is not "subsidies" full stop, the issue is that the US almost exclusively subsidizes a few specific calorie-rich, micronutrient-poor monocrops. If you look at the EU's agro subsidies you'll see they dump a shitload of welfare bux into their farms too, but other crops besides maize and soy get help, so even poor people can eat a relatively healthy diet. In the US we browbeat poor people for being "stupid" while flooding these food deserts with garbage, vegetables and whole grains are considered luxury products for out of touch yuppies because the market prices have been distorted for so long that it's simply taken for granted that it must be really hard to grow a fucking carrot.
>>11643203
>things should never improve
Get a load of this brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11643257]

>>11643191
>Keeping unprofitable farms operating isn't a bad thing, it's the point

Just because it's the "point" doesn't mean the whole idea is fundamentally flawed from the get-go.

>>11643239
This.

[Anonymous No.11643745]

You cannot escape the corn.

[Anonymous No.11643917]

>>11640824
Mercury-based chemical catalyzer user in HFCS industrial manufacturing process.

[Anonymous No.11643922]

>>11643169
They can grow crops that are actually in market demand then. They'd have to actually work now though instead of driving around in John Deere automated farming equipments once a month until corn harvest.

[Anonymous No.11643934]

>>11640824
>sweet corn
>diced onions
>diced jalapeños
>sautee in butter
Wa La

[Anonymous No.11644443]

>>11643922
>They'd have to actually work now
See you keep pretending your alternative approaches would maintain stability only to turn around and allude to how farmers would be held accountable based on how successful they are. You can't have it both ways. If you want to make farmers live or die by whatever their yield is at any given point in time then you're not maintaining stability and all the dangerous reactive practices that lead to over-planted land, price crashes, and famine are free to happen again.

[Anonymous No.11644558]

>>11644443
Yeah, the only option, clearly, are an insane glut of corn syrup or mass starvation. If only there was some way to subsidize a diverse variety of crops, but the Cato Institute told me diversity is white genocide and HFCS is freedom so there ya go

[Anonymous No.11645072]

>>11644558
This. The right is entrenched in the strategy of coordinating subsidies to foods that are causing diseases from obesity related diabetes to cancer with subsidized medico/pharma profiting off of the former. Vicious cycle.

Transferring those subsidies both to healthy crops and research into sustainable agriculture would be a major step in reducing an american obesity rate nearing 40%.

This could easily be remedied with limiting campaign contributions but you see how that idea is going over with the current crop in power.

[Anonymous No.11645088]

>>11645072
people wouldn't eat healthy foods even if they were free.

[Anonymous No.11645090]

>>11640824
It's not bad per se, it's just that it's in so many foods for no reason

[Anonymous No.11645095]

>>11645072
How about instead of complaining about obesity because our system for maintaining a stable food supply is working too well you focus on teaching people to eat less? If you only ate 2,000 calories of the worst kinds of junk food daily you would not become obese. Just eat less and the problem is solved. The existence of corn isn't forcing you to eat a caloric surplus.

[Anonymous No.11645097]

>>11645072
you could drink 2k calories of HFCS a day and not ever gain a pound

[Anonymous No.11645137]

>>11642937
>they don't give money away for no reason

Of course not, silly. They give it away for votes

[Anonymous No.11645148]

>>11642963
You mean soy?

[Anonymous No.11645162]

>>11645097
yeah and you could get a gf

[Anonymous No.11645172]

>>11645097
>you could drink 2k calories of HFCS a day
There's 2,000 calories in just 20.8 fl oz (616 ml) of HFCS. It would literally take thirty seconds to drink that.

[Anonymous No.11645256]

>>11645095
>teaching people to eat less
Omfg, we can't jncrease the education budget, our poor multimillionaire farmers might have to take a cut in their gib me dats. No, we can't have that. As a matter of fact, we need to slash the education budget even more, the population looks like they're getting restless and not wanting to follow in rightwing goosestep. Nip it in the bud, ok?

[Anonymous No.11645263]

>>11640824
I don't trust anything that comes out whole, completely undigested in my poop.

[Anonymous No.11645273]

>>11645256
How is it not clear that obesity needs to be solved by changing eating behavior and not by making the food supply less stable and less abundant? Once again, corn is not making you fat. Your eating a surplus of calories is making you fat. Stop doing that and your problem is solved.

[Anonymous No.11645279]

>>11645263
It doesn't, those are literally just the outer husks with dookie in them.

[Anonymous No.11645654]

>>11645273
It’s obvious you’ve never taken an economics course

[Anonymous No.11645673]

>>11645654
That post doesn't have anything to do with economics so I don't know what you're imagining your point was supposed to be.

[Anonymous No.11645686]

>>11645673
Decision making is as fundamental to economics as anything. It explains literally everything else. How ignorant can you be holy shit.

[Anonymous No.11645725]

>>11645686
Yeah, deflecting to "you're stupid if you don't accept my non sequitur as relevant and meaningful" isn't a great approach. Just because you can relate economics to everything doesn't mean it makes sense to accuse someone of not taking an economics course when they aren't making any sort of economics specific claims.

[Anonymous No.11647582]

>>11645097
>insulin resistance doesn't matter

[Anonymous No.11647652]

>>11645654
>does an introductory microeconomics course
>thinks himself to be an expert in consumer decision making
yikes!
your not necessarily wrong, just very pretentious
while the increased price would have some effect on consumer purchasing decisions, in america there is a much bigger issue with eating habits that needs to be solved.
sugary cereal as a norm for kids, advertising, laziness and general culture needs to be changed and would have a much bigger effect on obesity rates then a 5% change in prices
congrats on passing econ101 btw

[Anonymous No.11647913]

>>11645725
Here let me substitute a word in the conversation so you understand, since you clearly think "economics" is only applicable when there's legal tender currency involved:

Option 1: "We should just call lower income people stupid for not saving for retirement, if they hear that they are being stupid, that will change everything!"

Option 2: "We should change the tax code to create tax-exempt retirement vehicles that appeal to lower income people to encourage them to save for retirement"

What you are advocating is option 1. The only purpose that serves is to make you feel smug.

If you still can't understand this, ask an adult for help.

[Anonymous No.11647922]

>>11647652
Why the fuck do you think those eating habits came from?

Here I'll help. Back in the dust bowl days the US government got involved in preventing mass starvation. At the time refined grains were one of the most preferred choices because it was relatively cheaper and less prone to spoilage. But early childhood malnutrition threatened to lock some areas into an endless cycle of poverty as the resulting adults would have low IQs and behavior problems.

Among other things it was proposed that that adding small amounts of powdered vitamins to cheap refined grains would be one of the most cost effective (oops! did I just imply economics!?) solutions. In the absence of actually nutritious healthy food, poor Americans were told, for generations, to just look at the US RDA score on the side of the box - if the numbers added up to 100% you were fine.

Unfortunately fast forward decades later and people now believe that a bag of sugary garbage with thiamine powder and a full day's supply of vitamin C is a proper meal. A trailer man grows up wondering huh, why am I still hungry. So it just eats more and more of that garbage, and grows fat.

You apparently think that these trends just magically arose due to, fuck if I know, maybe the magic spirits of the flyover land? Just consider for a second whether what you're proposing even makes the slightest bit of sense. "Oh just call them lazy that will fix it". No.

[Anonymous No.11648041]

HFCS traps ATP, so you wont feel full.

[Anonymous No.11648078]

>>11640824
Corn is one of those frankenstein foods that I mostly avoid in its raw form, but will gladly consume any of its bi-products.

I just can't give up cereal and mexican food.

[Anonymous No.11648589]

>>11643057
No, they need it to be able to sustain themselves during hard periods of major crop loss.

[Anonymous No.11648600]

>>11640824
1. it's horrible for the land it's farmed on, and necessitates using a shitload of fertilizer

2. the product itself is nutritionally terrible

3. the USA farms way too much of it because it's cheap to do so on an industrial scale

4. its only cheap to farm corn because flyover states get huge federal gibmedat bux to prop up their shitty corn-based economies

5. it gets put in gasoline, which is retarded and terrible

[Anonymous No.11648613]

>>11648078
>i wont eat corn in its regular form because of soccer moms

>i will however eat the more concentrated ground up versions of it

Nice

[Anonymous No.11648647]

>>11640880
Fructose has to be metabolised to fructose-phosphate first. Then this fructose-phosphate will be converted to glucose-phosphate and then can be used for energy production.

The problem with the high amounts of fructose in hfcs is, that the body cannot metabolise so much fructose at once for energy production, because there is only so much enzyme for conversion. Thus fructose is converted not to glucose-phosphate , but to a storage form.

This storage form is fat.

So hfcs, although having the same amount of calories as cane sugar, makes you fatter because it cannot be used as fast as cane sugar.

This is said simple, for you people.

Source : master of biology. This is stuff they teach you in 1st master semester

[Anonymous No.11648794]

Dudes in King Corn trying to recreate HFCS and using sulfuric acid in the pricess has me on edge about it. I'm aware that therr's not sulfuric acid IN HFCS but that still can't be good for you long-term.