He's not wrong, our food in the U.S. sucks, and corn syrup is a big part of it. I hate to agree with someone who's so far advanced an incredibly anti-science view of health. But, he has a point on this one.
Agreed, but I have doubts that this will be a massive improvement if the same amount of other sugars are used. I'm sure some things would reduce sugar to fit with production, but if some foods just became gritty (or, soda with sugar sinking to the bottom) I would not be shocked.
Particularly because that seems like the easy-but-wrong-answer. Not that "maybe we shouldn't make sugar cheaper than water" and "food doesn't need to be loaded with sugar to taste good" should be unpopular opinions.
Wait but like coke with regular sugar instead of hfcs isn’t gritty, nor does the sugar sink to the bottom.
Is this a common thing? Stuff used sugar before hfcs and corn subsidies, and most people think shit tasted better that way, so now I’m confused as that’s not the case?
My assumption here is that sugar would need to be dissolved, mixed, and emulsified with more care/difficulty than hfcs. Though if there is any issue here it might not be present until a product has sat on the shelf (or in your house) for too long. Also for gritty, I was thinking more for something like ketchup or other sauces.
I'm also not saying this is a fault of sugar itself, but that hfcs allows highly sweetened products to be produced more easily (which may present said issue if high sugar content is kept 1:1 despite no longer using hfcs).
Mexican coke is already cane sugar. That just means the US gets the good shit too.
God help rfk if this somehow results in Americans losing access to their sodies, though.
He will find a gun behind every mobility scooter.
A new YT video by a chemist (NY66qpMFOYo, go to 6:35) just came out highlighting that the acidity causes sucrose to invert into 50:50 glucose:fructose over time anyways, so it makes even less sense. And there's more sodium.
I like Isomaltulose (glucose-fructose with a stronger bond, making it metabolize slower) but it's expensive and not as sweet. Though maybe other types of sweeteners could be used like this, perhaps in combination for a better flavor profile.
Making soda less appetizing sounds like a win, too
Good luck going against big corn. The US pays lots of money to destroy corn 🌽 that is deliberately kept off the market to maintain corn prices for producers. Aside from war and oil, corn is America's other economic obsession.
He really is a grab bag full of good ideas and the worst ideas.
I think the antivax shit started that way too, with either crunchy or soccer moms helicopter parenting their kids and worrying about what chemicals they were ingesting from processed food. Then the fake autism link came out and it scared some of those types to go too far in the other direction into vax denialism (the orange cultists came much later and had different reasons).
RFK Jr did some good environmental work awhile back but he bought into a ton of bullshit under the guise of "natural" is always better so he's got a ton of wacky ideas bumping around with a few good ones in there.
I would agree with this assessment. Nearly all these extreme positions start off with some good intentions that spirals out of control and become radicalized.
Broken clock but I'm here for it
Yup, this one might accidentally be good for American health.
Don't know if I'd say accidentally in this case but I agree. Now we wait for the corn lobbyists to tear it apart
The brain worm is suffering from all the fast food on the Trump plane.
no the fast food is good for the brain worm
the brain worm wants the fast food
Those Iowa senators are going to love this shit.
Iowa farmers: We're voting Republican because we can't stand socialism. Also Iowa farmers: Where's our federal welfare in corn subsidies?
Fucken welfare queens.
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, all of them will be hurtimg between this and the promise of a trade war with China that they didn't recover from during Trump's first disastrous term.
They will get plenty of Federal welfare in the form of Trump's expanded Ethanol subsidies.
Holy shit, he’s actually against something that’s harmful.
He's also pro-psychedelics, which is fantastic. We have decades of research and normalization to catch up on.
He's his own brand of crazy. We're still better off without him by about a trillion percent. Not even close to worth it.
Is corn syrup more harmful than other sugar sources? Probably not. But it would be nice to be able to afford food that's not loaded with it.
Yeah people don't realize that "high fructose" corn syrup used in food products, actually has less fructose than regular sugar. It's mostly just beverages that are more, and it's arguable how much that 5% difference actually matters.
This crusade vs HFCS is one of the best examples I’ve ever seen of the maxim “Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while”.
That's a stupid maxim, pigs have an excellent sense of smell.
What are you? A reviewer for a scientific journal or something?
Only good thing RFK might do, but might be balanced out by rolling out a red carpet for polio.
Can’t have fat kids who don’t fit in the iron lung bro.
RFK might actually end up being chaotic good. It's really just going to come down to what he ends up focusing. Legalization of harmless drugs and a deeper look at the root of American obesity? Sounds great! Banning vaccines and removing labelling requirements? Literally bringing us back to the early 1900s.
He's not chaotic good, he is chaotic evil. It's just that every now at then his chaos sword hits an actual bad thing, that doesn't make him good at all.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News