Famous Death Row Last Meals
Most Expensive Tuna In The World Sells For Over A Million At Tokyo…
Photo: Hulu
In the spoof, one mom is surprised to find another mom serving Juicy Drink at a kid's party. After pointing out that's it contains HFCS, she says: "You know the things they say about HFCS." The other mom replies: "Like what? That's it's made with corn, it's natural enough, and, like sugar, it's fine in moderation." Trouble is, that's almost exactly what the real commercial says, and that's all one big corn-fed lie.
For starters, corn-no, not the corn on the cob we all love on warm summer nights around the barbie-is not your innocent friend but an excuse to bulk-up foods with cheap filler. Sugar in moderation? Yeah, that's fine, but there's nothing moderate about the levels found in HFCS. The good news is that the dangers of HFCS, especially from obesity, are becoming more obvious every day. Thanks to documentaries like Fast Food Nation and Food, Inc. and the writing of experts in the field, such as Michael Pollan, it's getting harder to deceive the American public. If nothing else, when SNL can pull off a gag so easily, you know the game is over.
In the real commercial, the association advises you to check out sweet surprise.com for a "sweet surprise." One of the first things you'll learn is that "in 1983, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration formally listed HFCS as safe for use in food and reaffirmed that decision in 1996." That true-a valuable stamp of approval from the same government that once called margarine, which was filled with trans-fats, much healthier than butter and treats the big-agriculture growers of corn, sugar, soybeans, and cotton to billions of dollars a year in useless subsidies. Why? Has anyone ever heard the term "lobbyist?" Hey, it takes a lot of money to convince everyone that a lethal product is actually good for us-and to do it with a smile.
Watch the SNL spoof at Hulu.com.
Amy Adams' Bikini Body Isn't What You'd Expect ...
St. Louis Sports Bar Gives Man Receipt Criticizing His Child
'Sopranos' Star Dies At 51
'Undercover Boss': Top 4 Moments From Season 4 [VIDEO]
Las Vegas Court Officials Accused Of Covering Up Sex Assault [VIDEO]
What's Behind This Door Is Terrifying
Xbox One-80: Microsoft reverses Xbox One DRM features
Groomers Lose Dog, Claim Not Responsible
Men's Wearhouse Abruptly Fires Its Founder, Spokesman
James Gandolfini: Friends, Family Mourn Acting 'Genius'
Male Judge Sets Dress Code For Female Lawyers And Sparks Uproar
The Boob Bandages Are Off!
'Lone Ranger' Star Johnny Depp Opens Up About Split From Vanessa Paradis
The Story Behind Shapewear: From Girdles to Spanx
'Today' About To Undergo Another Overhaul
'Grease' Cast: Where Are They Now?
PHOTOS: Beautifully Abandoned America
Paula Deen Allegedly Makes Racist Comments
WATCH: Porn Star Says My Dad's Angry I Ruined Porn For Him
Kate Middleton's Birthing Plan: Read All The Details!
From Child Hero To Murder Suspect
Khloe's Workout Photos Are Pretty Alarming
Michael Hastings Dead At 33
Helen Lost 82 Pounds: 'Helping Others Is What Life Is All About'
WHOOPS: NSA Director Has Embarrassing Hot Mic Moment
One Of FBI's Most Wanted Nabbed In Mexico
PHOTOS: Michelle Obama's Ireland Trip Wardrobe Is Making Us Jealous
LOOK: Teen Was 'Shamed' By TSA Officer For This Outfit
5 Ways To Get A Flat Stomach -- While Standing Up
Chipotle Reveals Use Of Controversial Ingredient
7 Beautiful Actresses Who Were Told They Weren't Pretty Enough
Inside Kim Kardashian's Pregnancy Nightmare
3-14-2011 @4:39PM Adam said... So Bill, do you also work for a "natural" food co. with a vested financial interest in evaportated cane juice syrup?
Reply
3-14-2011 @5:33PM Avi C said... I don't want you to look up dash or hyphen on wikipedia, but please make distinctions between dashes/hyphens inside of words -- and those used to separate sentance fragments.
Reply
3-14-2011 @5:53PM Lauren said... ...said the person who misspelled "sentence." ;)
3-14-2011 @9:44PM Aaron said... So..... why does Slashfood allow its writers to spread lies? I won't get into all of them in this post alone, but consider this quote:
"but there's nothing moderate about the levels(of sugar) found in HFCS"
If you have ever looked at some of the scientific truth and evidence about HFCS and sugar, you would realize that sucrose(white sugar) is 50% fructose and 50% glucose bound in one molecule. There are 2 kinds of HFCS (HFCS 42 and HFCS 55) Meaning 42% fructose/58% glucose and 55%fructose/45%glucose, these exist as separate molecules of fructose and glucose and are not bound to one another. Glucose and fructose are both simple sugars, glucose being the one your body utilizes the most readily. So how can you say that there is way more sugar in HFCS than sucrose(white sugar)? Even more so, sucrose is in an acidic environment(whether the food product or your stomach) It breaks down into glucose and fructose(just like HFCS, but 50/50 of each) before your body digests it. The original data published on HFCS was research that said that fructose was harder for your body to digest than glucose, while this may hold true, it truly applies to the fructose in both sucrose and HFCS and you cannot say there is more "sugar" in HFCS than sucrose.
I hope slashfood can start editing their posts to more accurately display the truth or at least both sides of the argument and utilize sound science, not just criticize the food industry.
Reply
3-15-2011 @11:38AM AR said... And it is all void of any nutrition, all empty calories.
3-15-2011 @12:18AM Samme said... What, you would rather trust science than the food blogger from down the street? Hey that's a great sweater....
Reply
3-15-2011 @9:37AM LinC said... HFCS is not natural. It's heavily processed and shoved into all kinds of foods . That's what makes those "corn sugar" ads so ugly. They dress up a nasty product with a cute new name. Some people will fall for them, but a lot of people know better.
Do you know why HFCS is used in so many foods? Because it's cheap. Why is it cheap? Because corn producers get a whopping big subsidy payment from the Government to grow the stuff. Our best hope is that Ethanol production will drive up the price of corn so that food producers go back to using regular sugar.
Reply
3-15-2011 @10:01AM ConsumerFreedom said... A "lethal product." Perhaps the author of this article should write for SNL, where bar for accuracy is less rigorous. Calling high fructose corn syrup "lethal" is irresponsible and unhelpful to the many Americans to who are trying to eat healthy. Focusing on one ingredient is no quick fix to eating healthily and exercising regularly.
Reply
3-15-2011 @12:23PM johnkzin said... Wow. Look at all the comments from the corn-lobby shills. The article must have said something that struck a nerve. Can't let the food-bloggers say something that might undermine their corporate overlords.
And, by the way, the scientific studies that show HFCS is "natural and ok" are the same ones that are funded by the corn lobby. Gee, imagine that.
Independent studies are the ones that say HFCS is a problem (and some even say high fructose levels in general, whether in HFCS, or with fructose as a direct additive, is the primary problem).
I'll believe the independent studies over the studies funded by an organization that has a vested interest in a particular outcome ... and that end up reaching exactly that outcome. Especially when no other studies are reaching that same conclusion.
Reply
3-15-2011 @6:19PM Peter said... What is the problem you're speaking of?
3-16-2011 @12:00PM johnkzin said... The specific claim/problem is that fructose has a more dramatic effect upon raising the blood-sugar level.
Why that is important: it is a well known (ask any biologist who has studied the digestive system and how fat is produced) fact that if your blood-sugar rises above a certain level, your body starts the process of storing fat instead of directly using whatever food is being digested. THAT is the trigger for body fat production.
So, foods that quickly go into the blood stream ("high glycemic index"), and/or cause blood sugar spikes, will make you fat, even if you're eating a relatively low number of calories of them (and will convert other foots into fat, even if they're otherwise healthy food). What makes a food more likely to go quickly into your blood stream? being over processed makes them easier to digest ... so the two factors seem to be:
1) over-processed cheap-carb foods (white breads, etc.).
2) foods that are high in fructose (especially those with HFCS).
So, avoid white carbs (unless they're naturally white, like cauliflower), simple carbs, and foods that have fructose in the ingredient list (including HFCS). Instead, lean toward foods with complex and/or fibrous carbs, and/or moderate amounts of naturally occurring sweeteners (such as honey).
3-16-2011 @2:06PM Kelly said... While I can't speak to the science of HFCS, I do know that it is everywhere, in so many of the foods we eat. Like sugar, I suppose that it may be OK in moderation. The problem is that most American consumers are not actually eating it in moderation because HFCS has made its way into so many of our food and beverage products, often even those that most would not typically consider to be junk food.
Reply
3-16-2011 @7:46PM linda said... As of 2009, about 60% of corn grown in the US had been genetically modified, along with most of the soybeans and cotton grown here. This corn and soy or elements thereof, are embedded in virtually all the processed foods manufactured here. While much effort has been exerted by the industry, to block any labeling or independent research, The International Journal of Biological Sciences has shown GM corn to be linked to organ damage of the liver and kidney, in rats. And they are not alone in this conclusion. ( Check: The Institute for Responsible Technology - I am not affiliated. ) Of course the industry, in the form of Monsanto, immediately jumped to the defensive, criticizing the study. Monsanto, a major GMO pusher, suffers from a credibility gap as big as the US deficit. Their reputation preceeds them, having never met an organic farmer they did not want to put into bankruptcy.
Pity the poor feedlot animals, whose last days are spent fattening up on GMO corn. Not unlike the super-size herds rolling up to the fast food franchises. Corn-ho's would have you believe there is no connection.
Experiencing a better health outcome from eliminating genetically modified high fructose corn syrup seems unavoidable.
Reply
3-23-2011 @1:14PM Emvaz said... To say HFCS is lethal may be a bit of an overstatement, but to my knowledge gained from personal experience and observation, no refined sugars are good for you, period. That aside, there are still plenty of reasons to avoid HFCS over other truly natural sweeteners. The GM status of the corn is one, but just as importantly, many products ( between 1/2 and 2/3) containing HFCS also contain unusually high levels of mercury. Oh but don't worry, that stuff is good for you. Thats why they put it in vaccines. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012601831.html
The truth is, our government and scientific system and the global fascist corporate web that controls it have long been conspiring to gradually reduce global human population, primarily through the contamination of the food, air, and water, (see Codex Alimentarius) as well as the prescribing of deadly pharmaceutical drugs (HIV doesn't cause AIDS, the medication prescribed to fight HIV: AZT causes AIDS, as well as a lifestyle of immune-debilitating hard drugs and poor nutrition...see Dr. Peter Duesberg), and most importantly, socioeconomic controls through global policymaking bodies such as the UN, WHO, IMF, and World Bank and the trade agreements which link everything together.
Anyway, don't trust anything these corporations feed you and call food, just as you shouldn't have to accept the garbage on the radio as music. Instead of slowly poisoning your blood with HFCS, I would suggest using raw honey as a sweetener. It's actually good for you.
Reply
3-31-2011 @8:26PM NiceNCool1 said... You say:
"HIV doesn't cause AIDS, the medication prescribed to fight HIV: AZT causes AIDS, as well as a lifestyle of immune-debilitating hard drugs and poor nutrition...see Dr. Peter Duesberg"
Completely untrue. People don't die of AIDS without having HIV first. You can have great nutrition, and never have done drugs or taken AZT and still eventually die of AIDS if you have HIV. The HIV medications that exist save lives. That's why people who have HIV today live far longer than they did than when there were no medications available. Or are you trying to make the dubious claim that everyone who died of AIDS before the medications were available were all, every single one of them, drug users or didn't eat well.
Stop believing the lies. HIV causes AIDS.
4-01-2011 @12:57AM Emvaz said... Well I'm no medical expert (if there is such a thing), but I'll try to break it down as simply and clearly as I can by rebutting your remarks line-by-line.
"People don't die of AIDS without having HIV first."
This is a true statement, but not for the reasons you are thinking of. As we know, AIDS is the slow reduction of microbe-fighting t-cells in the blood stream, but as anything that creates stress reduces immune activity, this definition wouldn't do. AIDS is by definition: a positive HIV blood test plus the addition of at least one qualifier disease (of which there are over 30 I believe). HIV + qualifier disease = AIDS patient. So for example, If I go to the doctor and have pneumonia and have never tested positive for HIV, then i just have pneumonia. But if I have pneumonia and tested positive for HIV, then I have AIDS, will be told that I am going to die, and given a drug (AZT) which is designed to kill all multiplying cells in the body, and will surely kill me if I were to take it. The only reason there is a correlation between HIV and AIDS is because HIV is included in the defining criteria for AIDS, not because the HIV virus has been proven to weaken the immune system (which it hasn't).
Moreover, the HIV test is so ambiguous that it loses almost all value. The blood test checks for nonspecific viral antibodies. Anyone know how antibodies work? Since I have had chicken pox in the past, my blood would test positive for chicken pox antibodies. The presence of antibodies merely means that the body has encountered the virus and that the immune system has acted or is acting against the virus. Just because i have the antibodies doesn't mean I have the disease. Also, the antibody tests are nonspecific, meaning certain other antibodies can trigger a false positive, i.e. the tests are worthless and specifically designed to create more potential HIV patients (there is Federal money associated with the number of HIV/AIDS patients a state has).
"You can have great nutrition, and never have done drugs or taken AZT and still eventually die of AIDS if you have HIV"
No, I don't think you can. Show me a specific case. In order to die from HIV, the virus would have to have the capacity to kill the cells it infects, thus weakening the immune system. HIV is a retrovirus, meaning it uses part of your cell's DNA to replicate it's own DNA. After replication the virus detaches. There have never been any instances where scientists were able to isolate the virus in a culture of t-cells and actually observe the viruses damaging the cells. This is because RETROVIRUSES DON'T KILL THE CELLS THEY INFECT. This is why your have heard the unfounded theories like "oh the virus must mutate into some super virus that we have yet to identify", or "oh it must just really gradually wear down the immune system." Why would an organism destroy it's means of reproduction? It wouldn't; any organism which would have had such impulses would have been long extinct. The virus is transmitted from the mother to the child from generation to generation, never doing any harm, because if it did the immune system would notice (there are multiple benign retroviruses at work in any given human body).
"The HIV medications that exist save lives."
No, they don't.
" That's why people who have HIV today live far longer than they did than when there were no medications available."
Do they? I'm not sure about that one. Are you sure its because we have classified millions of Africans as HIV positive without actually doing a conclusive blood analysis because of the costs associated? And that maybe those numbers have been padded a little bit as a result? Africans for the most part don't have access to AIDS medicine, and thus 98% of Africans classified as HIV positive show no signs of AIDS, while in this country where the "medicine" is readily available, the majority of HIV patients will develop AIDS and die. This has led to the scientific community coining two different types of AIDS: Type I (in the US) and Type II (in Africa). When this means is that when the AIDS virus gets off the plane in Africa having left America, it says "ok time to change the way I behave because I'm on a different continent". Infectious diseased remain constant regardless of the continent: further evidence that HIV is not the infectious agent that causes AIDS. While I doubt you can supply me with a case in which a non-drug using, healthy-eating, heterosexual gets AIDS and dies, much less an example when the AZT actually saved somebody, I can offer a story for you.
Lindsey Nagel was adopted from Romania when she was 5 by an American family. She passed the HIV screening in Romania but her new parents wanted to be sure so they had her tested again. She failed, and her parents were told she had a maximum of 3 years, and she was put on AZT and placed into a treatment group with kids her own age. Although she seemed perfectly healthy, her parents trusted the doctors and agreed to the treatment. After treatment began, she rapidly began losing basic motor functioning, appetite, and began getting sick. Sensing something was wrong, they took her to the doctor, who assured them that it was the HIV that was causing the problems, not the AZT. Nevertheless, her parents had her taken off the meds. Lindsey survives to this day and is in her early 20s, as well as a couple of her fellow group members who were not taking any medication. Her parents never told the doctors that they took her off the meds, so every time she would go in for a checkup they would say "looks like the AZT is doing the trick" or something of that nature. Everyone else who continued taking the AZT in the treatment group is dead (13+ if I remember correctly). AZT by the way is a failed cancer drug because it was deemed too dangerous to use for chemotherapy.
"Or are you trying to make the dubious claim that everyone who died of AIDS before the medications were available were all, every single one of them, drug users or didn't eat well."
Thats exactly what I'm saying. You have to remember that AIDS is a fairly new disease classification that began as something else, and the number of people who died from AIDS-like symptoms before drugs were approved for treatment was very small. It was known as GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) because it first began appearing in the gay community was was associated with only two diseases: Kaposi Sarcoma (a facial cancer) and pneumonia. At that time (and maybe still now) the gay culture was very fast, and involved a staggering amount of immune-damaging drugs. They would snort cocaine and drink to party all night, then do nitrous poppers (now the known cause of Kaposi Sarcoma) all day the next day in the gay bathhouse (very unsanitary places) so they they could handle the pain of having another mans fist fully inserted analy. This of course would tear the rectal lining, allowing entrance of viruses directly into the blood stream. The other demographic: poor urban IV drug users, achieved the same ends but by different means. The low income automatically means less nutritious food, thus a lowered immune level. The IV injection of heroine pretty much paralyzes the immune system, not to mention the other recreational drugs being used. Dirty needles were exchanged of course, which leads to AIDS signaler diseases such as pneumonia or hepatitis being transmitted. Yes, before AIDS, or even GRID, people were dying of what the modern medical establishment would refer to as AIDS-like symptoms. I would be more inclined to describe it as chronic malnutrition paired with a weakened immune system and some common outside infectious agent (i.e. not HIV)
I'm truly only scratching the surface here, and I haven't even delved into the fact that HIV can't be transmitted through heterosexual intercourse, or the fact that the increase in the number of AIDS cases only appears to be of an infectious nature, while in fact the increase can more than be explained by the simple inclusion of additional qualifier diseases (there used to be 2, now there is more than 30).
Again, I would refer you to the work of Dr. Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular and cellular biology at UC Berkeley and expert in Retroviruses. There is an excellent Youtube video series titled "AIDS Hoax 10 Reasons" as well as an acclaimed documentary called "House of Numbers" that I would also recommend.
May I also suggest you do a little bit of research before you try to patronize me and act like you know something that I don't. While I do enjoy practicing the art of persuasion, and would love to go on-and on about how we have been deliberately lied to concerning some of the most important topics concerning the future of this country (and this isn't even one of them), but I'm a student myself, and my teaching energy is limited.