Anywhosit, this guy chronicles the rise and fall of HFCS as a sweetener. And while he acknowledges the worriers, and even that HFCS might be worse pound for pound, than other sweeteners, he points out that HFCS is 55 percent fructose, while "sugar" is 50 percent fructose.
And while many are American-bashing for obesity rates (American bashing, is, IMHO, a favorite pasttime of some, for deep, dark reasons they'd probably prefer not come to light and in which I don't feel like blogging about right now), its interesting to note Australia has simliar numbers with a sugar based industry.
I love the "natural is healthy" falacy, so I especially loved this...
The unwholesome reputation of HFCS has no doubt been exacerbated by the general
view that it's less "natural" than other forms of sugar. The notion that
anything natural is healthy—and anything artificial is not—seems especially
silly when it comes to added sweeteners. If fructose is indeed the problem, we'd
do well to avoid the all-natural sweeteners in health-food products and fruit
drinks, which often include concentrated apple or pear juices. These are almost two-thirds fructose—and might be significantly worse for your
health than HFCS. (Organic, raw agave nectar could be even more dangerous,
containing 90 percent fructose.)
What we have here is, a failure to, well, not so much communicate as research or think broadly. So many go astray on this failure. And not only on the "natural is healthy" argument, but that's another post for another time.
No comments:
Post a Comment