I understand that these dumb decisions are mostly profit motivated. But nobody stops to think that the reaction abroad may be: do not eat anything produced at USA?
Cane sugar and corn syrup are both just sugar. Your health isn't going to be any better drinking cane sugar coke than corn syrup coke.
The reason corn syrup is demonized is because it is cheap, enabling lots of foods to pack sugar without much cost. The health concerns remain consistent across all forms of sugar.
> The reason corn syrup is demonized is because it is cheap, enabling lots of foods to pack sugar without much cost.
This !
The OP made a bad point using coke as an example.
The actual point is the HFCS and the fact that HFCS is used extensively in the US, often in places you would not expect it.
In bread products for example its common to find HFCS in it in the US.
The Europeans rarely put any form of sugar in their bread doughs unless they are explicitly baking a sweet product. And even then, the concentration is lower.
Incorrect. There is more fructose in HFCS used in Coke, HFCS 55. Fructose is metabolized in the liver, and stored as fat there. Glucose is directly metabolized by cells throughout the body.
Also there is no single reason that HFCS is demonized, there are multiple good reasons why it is harmful in the US. It is also not a singular cause to all US diet related pathologies.
Staying on topic, the chemicals the EPA will no longer enforce the laws for pollution for are demonstrably harmful.
The EPA has unilaterally decided not to do its job because it doesn't care about the health of the citizens of the US.
It turns out the acidic environment in most beverages inverts the sucrose in cane sugar to form a 50:50 mix of fructose and glucose. In the end, the fructose/glucose ratio in cane-sugar-sweetened drinks becomes similar to high-fructose corn syrup, which is about 55:42. And the reaction is quick: about half the sucrose gets inverted in about three weeks. [1]
Exactly. To remind us - it's the fructose which is a metabolic problem in amounts over a certain value - worth checking out why. Cane sugar and beet sugar both contain sucrose which is one glucose linked to one fructose molecule so you get half the fructose.
> Same for American coke w/ Cane Sugar instead of actual sugar.
American Coke is sweetened with Corn Syrup. Maybe it's just me being a dumb American probably fooled by some green washing but isn't Cane Sugar better? What's "actual sugar" in the EU?
That's pretty interesting. Were there different flavors in each country as well? My friend brought me some paprika pringles from iceland and they were delicious. So good that we ordered them online but the online versions shipped terribly and were delivered as pringles dust. I used it to bread chicken which still was pretty good. But if you are in iceland get the paprika pringles!
That is mostly because the same brand made for Eastern europe tastes like shit compared to the stuff for western. Worst offenders are nutella and coca cola. but there are many others.
I'm American and I've decided at least with cookware that I'm only buying European made products. I don't have a choice with ingredients but at least I can buy European pots and pans knowing it's more regulated.
> US typically gets the cheaper and worse option (less safe)
Yes. EU has the precautionary principle: you may market the product after documenting its safety. In the US, it’s often the other way around: you can market the product unless/until someone can show it to be unsafe.
This is often a point of conflict e.g. when negotiating free trade agreements between US and EU, as the US often sees this as a technical barrier to trade and protectionism.
Perhaps they are strictly traditionalist and only accept beet sugar, and none of that new-world cane stuff that doesn't grow well in European climes ./s
If you view all this through the lens of the goal of administration being to weaken the US both internally and as a world power, it all comes much more clearly into focus.
Then it can be seen as no longer a disparate collection of seemingly random political, social, and economic moves, but rather as a directed, intentional movement.
I'm an American who's been living outside the US for a very long time. I always check where food is from at the grocery store before I buy it. Whenever possible, the US is one of a few countries where I avoid almost all ingredients. When it comes to meat, it's a 100% absolute refusal to purchase. The quality is so different that the taste is immediately obvious, and it's not good.
Yeah, but we’re doing great at avoiding mad cow disease recalls.
Every time a sample comes up positive, we cut the sample percentage by an order of magnitude.
Problem solved.
See also: Tainted meat from Boar’s Head.
We also have the “nitrate free” and “uncured” labels, which means the nitrate (pink curing salt) is called “celery salt” in the ingredient list, and the manufacturer is exempt from federal caps on the amount they added. (Celery salt is the same exact chemical, but with a different production process.)
They can force foreign countries into importing by threatening tariffs. Though I guess they cannot force-feed it to international consumers in the end.
I think there’s a deep fundamental psychosis of the right wing to get the world back to “survival of the fittest”. If you die of PFAs, poverty, other pollution, well then that’s just bad luck for you.
They just don’t believe in a society that cares for the weak and needy.
Survival of the fittest should apply to businesses above anything.
If a business can't handle the regulations to not pollute water then it's a clear cut case.
This is all the symptom of laziness of the mind.
There is resistance to change, adapt and make the world a better place not just for this, but future generations.
There is no leadership in the US, no vision, no drive. The excessive wealth has created a leading class that happily rests on the laurels of prior generations while squandering the future.
This problem extends to all citizens, beyond the weak and needy, and permeates all levels of government from small to big.
I live in one of the best school districts in the US, and when I see the food the children are served I am surprised this is acceptable.
But this is what the US is, extract as much money from people while providing sub standard service. All in-the name of the free market and shareholder value.
> Survival of the fittest should apply to businesses above anything. If a business can't handle the regulations to not pollute water then it's a clear cut case.
See, there you go again, over regulating free enterprise out of existence. /s
To the main point—I guess we agree. Also: the right wing political movement in the US is an amalgam of conservative religiosity and (MFing) libertarianism. It’s frantic and fear-driven.
>They just don’t believe in a society that cares for the weak and needy.
There is some truth to that, but I don't think that explains their position on PFAS because too much PFAS will disable even a strong healthy person. In this particular, it's more that they think that the harm is being exaggerated and that the actual, non-exaggerated degree of harm does not justify putting restrictions on business and commerce.
>that they think that the harm is being exaggerated and that the actual, non-exaggerated degree of harm does not justify putting restrictions on business and commerce
I struggle to find a topic where they don't think this. It seems the burden of "proof" is too high. They don't believe in risks to health, the environment, climate, or even functional democracy itself. They think all are fake and profit is more important.
What you say is true in general, but there are execeptions: for example, the Republicans judge the harm done by heroin, fentanyl, amphetamine and cocaine to be very high -- probably higher than the average estimate of the harm as judged by the Democrats. Ditto street crime.
My understanding (without data, sorry) is that the conservative position blames drug addiction on bad choices and evil, rather than circumstances. As well the focus is on authoritarian policing as opposed to “harm reduction”.
They will think this right up until these things affect them or their community. Then it will be someone else's fault--someone outside of their tribe--that it happened.
