21 Comments

While I don’t like the fact that corn syrup is an ingredient in just about everything we eat, I think the better policy would be to end corn subsidies. Subsidies to corn growers help make HFCS cheaper than cane sugar, which is why it’s used as a sweetener.

This should boost NJ’s economy

Don’t forget that cane sugar imports are essentially banned by protectionist laws. Were, say, Brazilian sugar available for import, the cost of cane sugar would drop significantly, thus making it competitive with corn sweeteners.

Why not instead, enforce the already existing laws banning heroin, cocaine, etc.? They’re far more deadly. Some NYC politicians need to get their priorities in order!

It is only going to get worse. Right now it is New York, tomorrow the entire country. As soon as Obamacare gets rolling watch out. They will be passing laws telling you what you can eat, what you can do, how to do it and outlawing almost everything. All in the name of cutting health care expenses.

This is a much better idea than banning salt.

Benjamin, what’s stopping them from banning both?

The irony of this is that, as others have pointed out, American food manufacturers make heavy use of corn syrup in part because of existing government policies that encourage them to do so: subsidies to corn growers, and protectionist measures to keep foreign sugar out. But statists don’t believe in fixing problems by repealing bad laws that caused them; their solution is to always pass new laws on top of the old ones.

does barbra clark ever eat anything with hfcs in it? i would guess yes. why don’t we require any elected official who proposes pc idiotic food bans “for our own good” to do without the proposed product forever or face criminal charges? what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

I’m not up on the medicine on this one [I say this sarcastically]. Is HFCS your average everyday sugary empty calorie that may lead to diabeties or tooth decay if one consumes too many Twinkies too often? Or is there something fundamentally unsafe`with its consumption?

I have to echo Jim Collins. This is how it starts. The omnipotence derived ObamaCare empowers HHS to regulate or ban pretty much any product, service, or behavior they deem unsavory.

Is HFCS your average everyday sugary empty calorie that may lead to diabeties or tooth decay if one consumes too many Twinkies too often? Or is there something fundamentally unsafe`with its consumption?

There is some evidence that High Fructose Corn Syrup is linked to increased risk of insulin resistance which often leads to diabetes. Thus, it seems to be a bit worse than the typical empty calorie.
As with most science there are also those that dispute that it is any worse than sucrose.

I’ve certainly seen no “smoking gun” data that justifies a ban.

And John & E-Bell are right. If you want to reduce the use of HFCS, just remove the tarrifs on sugar and cut back on corn subsidies. Most people prefer the taste of sugar vs corn sweetners. A number of places nearby sell Coca Cola imported from Mexico so people can get it made with real sugar. It costs a lot more than the domestic coke but it still sells pretty well.

Greg S, I was not advocating that HFCS be banned. I just said that it was better than banning salt, just like being knifed in the arm is better than being knifed in the gut. I don’t want to be knifed at all. I also want to pick my favorite foods.

I do prefer cane sugar over HFCS, but I don’t want it mandated. I want salt in my food. I’d rather the government dropped the tariffs on cane sugar.

Corn syrup is also prized for the gummy and chewy consistency it produces in many types of junk food.

Corn syrup(s) certainly do have their place in cooking. If nothing else, they help prevent crystallization of sucrose sugar when making things like fudge. They also help to prevent baked goods from drying out quite so quickly.

Their widespread use in soft drinks, however, is purely a factor of economics: they’re cheaper than sucrose (cane or beet).

I’ve not found any smoking-gun document about ill effects of HFCS consumption, but I do think there is one. Lots of smoke, but the fire can’t yet be found.

In addition to the Mexican-bottled Coke, Coke itself kicks out a limited quantity of cane-sweetened beverage for Jewish holidays. Pepsi test-marketed a cane produce ‘Throwback Pepsi’ last year, but I didn’t see it on the shelves after the first essay.

I think banning is a great idea. However, instead of banning food ingredients why don’t we ban these NY legislators instead? Clearly it would be a lot easier to get rid of a few legislators than trying to ban salt or high fructose corn syrup and it would contribute to our (mental) health knowing that these people were no longer around to make stupid laws.

What I’d like to know is why there needs to be 10 teaspoons worth of sugar or HFCS in a can of soda or a bottle of tea. When Snapple came out with real sugar tea, I looked at the calories and it’s 10 teaspoons worth. I can make a nice 16-20 ounce green tea with 2 or 3 teaspoons of sugar, 30-45 calories versus 150 for 12 ounces.

Has the Assemblywoman stopped eating anything with corn syrup? Does she require her staff to not eat anything with corn syrup?

Over the past 20 years, American food has simply become sweeter. Whether it’s salad dressings or Thai curries, there’s far more sweetness than there used to be. (Or needs, to be, IMO.)

Manufacturers can’t be entirely faulted as the problem seems to be that people just want sweeter foods, across the board. The market is meeting a demand, but the demand is skewed in the direction of ‘more sugar!’

In the typical blind taste test (small quantity sample, 2 or 3 choices) people tend to prefer the sweeter food.

This does not always carry over to their preferences when eating normally. Witness “New Coke” which overwhelmingly won taste tests but failed miserably in the market.

But because manufacturers believe in taste tests it’s now hard to find staples like bread & spaghetti sauce that aren’t over sweetened.

I’m stunned that, with all of the problems facing the State of NY today, a politician could get away with proposing this kind of nonsense. If I were a voter in Queens, I would be incensed at a politician who thought this was the best use of my elected representative’s time.

If you were a voter in Queens your outrage wouldn’t matter. She (or her predecessor in the district) would have chosen you rather than the other way around.