On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 07:19:31 -0000
(Alex Rast) wrote:

No, but the point is, if there's no way to know whether a given item
containing HFCS might have had such GMO's in there, you can be put in the

position of unwillingly supporting, through your purchases, crops and
business practices you don't endorse. Ultimately most major companies
respond minimally if at all to social activism in the form of verbal
protest or crop destruction or anything else direct like that, but they
will respond to demand. By not buying products that incorporate practices

you don't support, you reduce demand for the product and hence apply
influence that actually *can* encourage companies to stop practices you
don't support.


Good luck stemming the tide.


You're concerned about the uncontrollable spread of GMO crops, yet
you
vilify Monsanto when they render them sterile so that they can't spread?
Pick a cause and stick with it.

These are 2 separate concerns. Some GMO's can spread, while others are
sterile and thus create dependence on new seed for the farmer. Neither of
these outcomes is desirable. Again, since there's no labelling, you can't
be selective for either one. It would be virtually impossible for there
to be a GMO combining both properties, but since both properties are
undesirable, this creates 2 groups of GMO's, both of which would be nice
to be able to avoid.


Explain how, precisely, a farmer becomes dependent on sterile GMO seeds?
Do they somehow poison the earth so that no other crop can be grown there?


If your concerns aren't as strong or you don't think any action you take
can have much impact or you think that the amount of effort required is
too great relative to the gain, that's your choice. But there are other
individuals whose concerns are sufficiently strong as to make them wish
to avoid corn syrup. These are the people for whom corn syrup can be
objectionable.


There's a real answer i'm looking for, but i doubt anyone will come up
with it.

at Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:41:31 GMT in 20050215074131.5f0f645e@wafer,
(Eric Jorgensen) wrote :

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 07:19:31 -0000
(Alex Rast) wrote:

By not buying products that incorporate
practices
you don't support, you reduce demand for the product and hence apply
influence that actually *can* encourage companies to stop practices
you don't support.
Good luck stemming the tide.

It seems to me there are 4 basic positions you can take if at the outset
you believed these practices to be unethical.

You can utterly capitulate and decide that in a world where, after all,
ethics are relative these aren't ethical questions that are that serious
and simply not worry about them.

You can adopt a defeatist attitude that, in spite of your ethical
misgivings, no action on your part will change anything anyway so there's
no point in even trying although you still remain annoyed.

You can decide that the ethics of the situation are so poor that they must
be fought at whatever cost in terms of personal sacrifice, accepting
diminished food choices in order to keep your principles.

You can choose to believe that real change is possible and that if you want
to see any change you have to do something about it, or at least that if
you're not part of the solution, you're contributing at least passively to
the problem.

I recognise that I'm simplifying the views you could take but hopefully
I've covered the broadest categories. Personally, I must admit that I don't
think that the first 3 viewpoints are especially constructive, although
they're perfectly valid. No doubt each position involves expending more
energy than the previous one. But I also think that it's in not being
prepared to invest some energy at the outset that we end up being put in
difficult ethical positions - because those people with questionable ethics
are going to try to get away with it by taking advantage of those who would
rather not spend any energy to contain them.

You're concerned about the uncontrollable spread of GMO crops, yet
you
vilify Monsanto when they render them sterile so that they can't
spread? Pick a cause and stick with it.

These are 2 separate concerns. Some GMO's can spread, while others are
sterile and thus create dependence on new seed for the farmer....

Explain how, precisely, a farmer becomes dependent on sterile GMO
seeds?
Do they somehow poison the earth so that no other crop can be grown
there?

Apparently this is the case. Some GMO's have apparently been created so as
to kill off non-GMO crops grown on the same land. Again, this is probably
the very worst abuse of the technology, and probably not all that common,
but again, there's just no way to tell what GMO's might have been used, as
long as there's no labelling.

If your concerns aren't as strong or you don't think any action you
take can have much impact or you think that the amount of effort
required is too great relative to the gain, that's your choice. But
there are other individuals whose concerns are sufficiently strong as
to make them wish to avoid corn syrup. These are the people for whom
corn syrup can be objectionable.


There's a real answer i'm looking for, but i doubt anyone will come
up
with it.

Are you saying that you were posing some sort of quiz? That there's an
answer you're already aware of but you're trying to see if anyone else can
guess what it is? If so, would it not be better and more helpful and
informative to give us the benefit of your knowledge by posting the answer
that you know?

If not, and you're saying you're looking for a real answer but don't know
what it is, I submit to you that you've already decided in your heart that
you want to give up corn syrup. If this is the case, then you should not
waste time and simply give up corn syrup now. It's not necessary for you to
be able to rationalise your decision by being able to supply an
incontrovertible logical justification to anyone who would challenge your
decision. Ultimately virtually all decisions are based on your own internal
axioms, which are by nature unprovable: being axiomatic they're the very
things you have to accept as a given.



--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 01:52:09 -0000
(Alex Rast) wrote:

at Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:41:31 GMT in 20050215074131.5f0f645e@wafer,
(Eric Jorgensen) wrote :

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 07:19:31 -0000
(Alex Rast) wrote:

By not buying products that incorporate
practices
you don't support, you reduce demand for the product and hence apply
influence that actually *can* encourage companies to stop practices
you don't support.
Good luck stemming the tide.

It seems to me there are 4 basic positions you can take if at the outset
you believed these practices to be unethical.

You can utterly capitulate and decide that in a world where, after all,
ethics are relative these aren't ethical questions that are that serious
and simply not worry about them.

You can adopt a defeatist attitude that, in spite of your ethical
misgivings, no action on your part will change anything anyway so there's

no point in even trying although you still remain annoyed.

You can decide that the ethics of the situation are so poor that they
must be fought at whatever cost in terms of personal sacrifice,
accepting diminished food choices in order to keep your principles.

You can choose to believe that real change is possible and that if you
want to see any change you have to do something about it, or at least
that if you're not part of the solution, you're contributing at least
passively to the problem.

I recognise that I'm simplifying the views you could take but hopefully
I've covered the broadest categories. Personally, I must admit that I
don't think that the first 3 viewpoints are especially constructive,
although they're perfectly valid. No doubt each position involves
expending more energy than the previous one. But I also think that it's
in not being prepared to invest some energy at the outset that we end up
being put in difficult ethical positions - because those people with
questionable ethics are going to try to get away with it by taking
advantage of those who would rather not spend any energy to contain
them.


I figure my best shot is quiet subversion. But now that I've let that
cat out of the bag it's not really subversion anymore.


You're concerned about the uncontrollable spread of GMO crops, yet
you
vilify Monsanto when they render them sterile so that they can't
spread? Pick a cause and stick with it.

These are 2 separate concerns. Some GMO's can spread, while others are
sterile and thus create dependence on new seed for the farmer....

Explain how, precisely, a farmer becomes dependent on sterile GMO
seeds?
Do they somehow poison the earth so that no other crop can be grown
there?

Apparently this is the case. Some GMO's have apparently been created so
as to kill off non-GMO crops grown on the same land. Again, this is
probably the very worst abuse of the technology, and probably not all
that common, but again, there's just no way to tell what GMO's might
have been used, as long as there's no labelling.

If your concerns aren't as strong or you don't think any action you
take can have much impact or you think that the amount of effort
required is too great relative to the gain, that's your choice. But
there are other individuals whose concerns are sufficiently strong as
to make them wish to avoid corn syrup. These are the people for whom
corn syrup can be objectionable.


There's a real answer i'm looking for, but i doubt anyone will come
up
with it.

Are you saying that you were posing some sort of quiz? That there's an
answer you're already aware of but you're trying to see if anyone else
can guess what it is? If so, would it not be better and more helpful and

informative to give us the benefit of your knowledge by posting the
answer that you know?

If not, and you're saying you're looking for a real answer but don't know

what it is, I submit to you that you've already decided in your heart
that you want to give up corn syrup. If this is the case, then you
should not waste time and simply give up corn syrup now. It's not
necessary for you to be able to rationalise your decision by being able
to supply an incontrovertible logical justification to anyone who would
challenge your decision. Ultimately virtually all decisions are based on
your own internal axioms, which are by nature unprovable: being
axiomatic they're the very things you have to accept as a given.


I'm sorry, I guess I've been a bit of a jerk. I'm offended by arguments
that appeal to fear and doubt or other emotional considerations rather than
logic and science.

It turns out that if you happen to be male (around half of us are), and
you have a copper deficiency (most americans do), and you are already
leading a less than healthy lifestyle (ditto), a diet high in fructose -
and the average american gets about 9% of their calories from fructose - it
seems to increase the lipid (fat) buildup in the liver, and increase your
plasma lipids - which is to say there's more fat in your blood stream. And
none of that could possibly be good.

It's even worse if you're diabetic.

For some reason the same action wasn't observed in women.

So, there's the reason i was hoping someone would cough up. Didn't want
it to come from me, I'm just some crank.

Google for "fructose" and "plasma lipids" and you can see the research
for yourself.

If you happen to be living a healthy lifestyle, well, that would mean
that you're eating a balanced diet, and wouldn't have to worry about the
effect of a high-fructose diet, would you? And in that case, your only
legitimate objection to HFCS is probably political or sociological.

In article , (Alex Rast) wrote:
at Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:05:01 GMT in 20050213190501.631df422@wafer,
(Eric Jorgensen) wrote :

....

While you're at it can somebody explain their objection to
high-fructose
corn syrup without using any dieting buzzwords? I'm all ears.

There is a valid objection to high-fructose corn syrup - GMOs. A large
percentage of the nation's corn crop these days is grown with genetically
modified organisms (GMOs), whose genetic code has been artificially
manipulated.


So what if they are, its not like you are going to grow a 3rd penis or
something.

Research on potential health consequences of GMO's is spotty at best, and
since it's a new technology, there's no research on long term effects, for
the incontrovertible reason that these crops haven't been on the market
long enough for a study of long-term effects to be made.

More disturbing are the ethical consequences. It would be one thing if
genetic modification were being done solely for what one might take to be
socially beneficial reasons like increased crop yields or higher nutrient
values, but this is not the case. In fact, many of the GMOs currently being
raised have been created for things like herbicide/pesticide resistance.
It's bad enough that such crops encourage even more widespread use of
pesticides with known toxic properties and which definitely cause
environmental damage, but in fact typically the pesticides they're created
to resist are ones manufactured by the same company selling the seed (most
seed companies are owned by companies who manufacturer pesticides and
herbicides). Thus the company is actually trying to manufacture a market
for its own product.
They arent making them to resist pesticides, they are made to help resist the
pest so pesticides arent needed on the crops.



Again, that in itself is ethically questionable, but in addition such
companies are creating GMOs with even more insidious properties. They're
designed to die out in one generation, so a farmer can't replant seeds
saved from the crop he just made - he's dependent on buying more from a
seed supplier. And these GMOs can also require an activator - another
chemical, usually manufactured by the same company, in order to produce a
crop at all. But even that's not the worst of it. Some of them are designed
so as to kill off any crops not of that GMO stock grown on the same land.
So the farmer is literally made a captive - he has to use the seed from the
company, he has to apply the chemical from the company, he can't back out
and revert to non-GMO production.

It's also impossible to contain GMOs, in the sense that a farmer adjacent
to the one growing GMOs can't prevent some seed from blowing over or
spilling over or in some other way migrating into the next field,


Which is exactly the reason an activator is used , to prevent in the wild
cross-contamination

contaminating his crops in unpredictable ways. And, like the StarLink corn
episode a few years back, trying to control where GMO's end up in the
marketplace is fraught with difficulties. The government doesn't require
any sort of labelling for GMO crops, so the customer can't make an informed
decision even if they want to. It's for this reason that some people stay
away from corn syrup in any form - you can't know whether it contains GMOs,
and either you're unwilling to subject yourself to unknown health
consequences or you don't want to be a part of supporting very questionable
business practices.


Are you the type who thing the government is cropdusting us using jet
contrails at 40,000 feet?

In article , (Alex Rast) wrote:
at Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:05:01 GMT in 20050213190501.631df422@wafer,
(Eric Jorgensen) wrote :

....

While you're at it can somebody explain their objection to
high-fructose
corn syrup without using any dieting buzzwords? I'm all ears.

There is a valid objection to high-fructose corn syrup - GMOs. A large
percentage of the nation's corn crop these days is grown with genetically
modified organisms (GMOs), whose genetic code has been artificially
manipulated.


So what if they are, its not like you are going to grow a 3rd penis or
something.

Research on potential health consequences of GMO's is spotty at best, and
since it's a new technology, there's no research on long term effects, for
the incontrovertible reason that these crops haven't been on the market
long enough for a study of long-term effects to be made.

More disturbing are the ethical consequences. It would be one thing if
genetic modification were being done solely for what one might take to be
socially beneficial reasons like increased crop yields or higher nutrient
values, but this is not the case. In fact, many of the GMOs currently being
raised have been created for things like herbicide/pesticide resistance.
It's bad enough that such crops encourage even more widespread use of
pesticides with known toxic properties and which definitely cause
environmental damage, but in fact typically the pesticides they're created
to resist are ones manufactured by the same company selling the seed (most
seed companies are owned by companies who manufacturer pesticides and
herbicides). Thus the company is actually trying to manufacture a market
for its own product.
They arent making them to resist pesticides, they are made to help resist the
pest so pesticides arent needed on the crops.



Again, that in itself is ethically questionable, but in addition such
companies are creating GMOs with even more insidious properties. They're
designed to die out in one generation, so a farmer can't replant seeds
saved from the crop he just made - he's dependent on buying more from a
seed supplier. And these GMOs can also require an activator - another
chemical, usually manufactured by the same company, in order to produce a
crop at all. But even that's not the worst of it. Some of them are designed
so as to kill off any crops not of that GMO stock grown on the same land.
So the farmer is literally made a captive - he has to use the seed from the
company, he has to apply the chemical from the company, he can't back out
and revert to non-GMO production.

It's also impossible to contain GMOs, in the sense that a farmer adjacent
to the one growing GMOs can't prevent some seed from blowing over or
spilling over or in some other way migrating into the next field,


Which is exactly the reason an activator is used , to prevent in the wild
cross-contamination

contaminating his crops in unpredictable ways. And, like the StarLink corn
episode a few years back, trying to control where GMO's end up in the
marketplace is fraught with difficulties. The government doesn't require
any sort of labelling for GMO crops, so the customer can't make an informed
decision even if they want to. It's for this reason that some people stay
away from corn syrup in any form - you can't know whether it contains GMOs,
and either you're unwilling to subject yourself to unknown health
consequences or you don't want to be a part of supporting very questionable
business practices.


Are you the type who thing the government is cropdusting us using jet
contrails at 40,000 feet?

at Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:49:40 GMT in ,
(GMAN) wrote :

In article ,
(Alex Rast) wrote:
at Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:05:01 GMT in 20050213190501.631df422@wafer,
(Eric Jorgensen) wrote :

....

While you're at it can somebody explain their objection to
high-fructose
corn syrup without using any dieting buzzwords? I'm all ears.

... A large
percentage of the nation's corn crop these days is grown with
genetically modified organisms (GMOs), whose genetic code has been
artificially manipulated.

So what if they are, its not like you are going to grow a 3rd penis or
something.

Almost certainly not, but taking a devil-may-care attitude has its own
risks as well. While really wierd side effects are probably very unlikely,
the research into the consequences of GMOs isn't very extensive, in part
because of the simple fact that they haven't been around long enough for
there to be extensive research. As a result, some people may want to opt to
avoid GMO's until research is extensive. But there's no labelling for GMO's
and so no way to know if a given product with suspect ingredients might
have them. Thus, if you wish to avoid GMO's, the only choice is to avoid
the suspect category altogether.

but in fact
typically the pesticides they're created to resist are ones
manufactured by the same company selling the seed (most seed companies
are owned by companies who manufacturer pesticides and herbicides).
Thus the company is actually trying to manufacture a market for its own
product.
They arent making them to resist pesticides, they are made to help
resist the pest so pesticides arent needed on the crops.

No, in fact quite a few are made specifically to resist herbicides or
pesticides, one of the most common being "Roundup-ready" soybeans, which
have additional resistance to the herbicide Roundup.

Others are being made to resist the pests as you suggest.

... these GMOs can also require an
activator - another chemical, usually manufactured by the same company,
in order to produce a crop at all. ...

It's also impossible to contain GMOs, in the sense that a farmer
adjacent to the one growing GMOs can't prevent some seed from blowing
over or spilling over or in some other way migrating into the next
field,

Which is exactly the reason an activator is used , to prevent in the
wild cross-contamination

There are actually 3 issues going on here - each applying to different sets
of GMO's.

One set requires an activator, making a farmer potentially dependent on the
same company supplying the seed to supply the activator.

Another set kills off other plants growing in the same field, making the
farmer dependent on the specific seed supply from the specific company.

A third set can cross-contaminate in the wild, affecting adjacent farmers
in unpredictable ways without that adjacent farmer's consent.

It's not that all 3 of these properties are necessarily going to be found
in one GMO that's at issue. Indeed, it's unlikely that they're found
together. The issue is that, since there is no labelling, there's no way to
know what GMO's having what undesirable impacts went into a given product.
So if you want to take any position to avoid GMO's, you have to avoid them
all.

It's for this reason that
some people stay away from corn syrup in any form - you can't know
whether it contains GMOs, and either you're unwilling to subject
yourself to unknown health consequences or you don't want to be a part
of supporting very questionable business practices.

Are you the type who thing the government is cropdusting us using jet
contrails at 40,000 feet?

There will always be a group of individuals who are paranoid about the
activities of government, Big Business, The Mob, and any other organisation
or cabal, real or imagined, that they feel they can't control. I don't
think, however, that this represents the mainstream group of people who
avoid GMO's.

Many if not most of the people who avoid GMO's primarily object to the way
GMO's have been foisted upon American society - introduced very soon after
their creation, with little regulation in place regarding their use and no
labelling requirements. There is thus little opportunity to choose based on
GMO content, except for boycotting all foods that might have GMO's in them
altogether.

I find it disappointing that in the GMO debate, so many of the arguments
from both sides presented in the public media try to marginalise the other
side. This has had the effect of turning the question into a battle of
opposing polemics, stifling any thoughtful discussion or analysis of the
issues. And this has on the one side meant a curtailment of research and
products that might actually have been useful, and on the other side almost
zero visibility into the process, with concomitant ability to make rational
choices, for the concerned public.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

at Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:49:40 GMT in ,
(GMAN) wrote :

In article ,
(Alex Rast) wrote:
at Mon, 14 Feb 2005 02:05:01 GMT in 20050213190501.631df422@wafer,
(Eric Jorgensen) wrote :

....

While you're at it can somebody explain their objection to
high-fructose
corn syrup without using any dieting buzzwords? I'm all ears.

... A large
percentage of the nation's corn crop these days is grown with
genetically modified organisms (GMOs), whose genetic code has been
artificially manipulated.

So what if they are, its not like you are going to grow a 3rd penis or
something.

Almost certainly not, but taking a devil-may-care attitude has its own
risks as well. While really wierd side effects are probably very unlikely,
the research into the consequences of GMOs isn't very extensive, in part
because of the simple fact that they haven't been around long enough for
there to be extensive research. As a result, some people may want to opt to
avoid GMO's until research is extensive. But there's no labelling for GMO's
and so no way to know if a given product with suspect ingredients might
have them. Thus, if you wish to avoid GMO's, the only choice is to avoid
the suspect category altogether.

but in fact
typically the pesticides they're created to resist are ones
manufactured by the same company selling the seed (most seed companies
are owned by companies who manufacturer pesticides and herbicides).
Thus the company is actually trying to manufacture a market for its own
product.
They arent making them to resist pesticides, they are made to help
resist the pest so pesticides arent needed on the crops.

No, in fact quite a few are made specifically to resist herbicides or
pesticides, one of the most common being "Roundup-ready" soybeans, which
have additional resistance to the herbicide Roundup.

Others are being made to resist the pests as you suggest.

... these GMOs can also require an
activator - another chemical, usually manufactured by the same company,
in order to produce a crop at all. ...

It's also impossible to contain GMOs, in the sense that a farmer
adjacent to the one growing GMOs can't prevent some seed from blowing
over or spilling over or in some other way migrating into the next
field,

Which is exactly the reason an activator is used , to prevent in the
wild cross-contamination

There are actually 3 issues going on here - each applying to different sets
of GMO's.

One set requires an activator, making a farmer potentially dependent on the
same company supplying the seed to supply the activator.

Another set kills off other plants growing in the same field, making the
farmer dependent on the specific seed supply from the specific company.

A third set can cross-contaminate in the wild, affecting adjacent farmers
in unpredictable ways without that adjacent farmer's consent.

It's not that all 3 of these properties are necessarily going to be found
in one GMO that's at issue. Indeed, it's unlikely that they're found
together. The issue is that, since there is no labelling, there's no way to
know what GMO's having what undesirable impacts went into a given product.
So if you want to take any position to avoid GMO's, you have to avoid them
all.

It's for this reason that
some people stay away from corn syrup in any form - you can't know
whether it contains GMOs, and either you're unwilling to subject
yourself to unknown health consequences or you don't want to be a part
of supporting very questionable business practices.

Are you the type who thing the government is cropdusting us using jet
contrails at 40,000 feet?

There will always be a group of individuals who are paranoid about the
activities of government, Big Business, The Mob, and any other organisation
or cabal, real or imagined, that they feel they can't control. I don't
think, however, that this represents the mainstream group of people who
avoid GMO's.

Many if not most of the people who avoid GMO's primarily object to the way
GMO's have been foisted upon American society - introduced very soon after
their creation, with little regulation in place regarding their use and no
labelling requirements. There is thus little opportunity to choose based on
GMO content, except for boycotting all foods that might have GMO's in them
altogether.

I find it disappointing that in the GMO debate, so many of the arguments
from both sides presented in the public media try to marginalise the other
side. This has had the effect of turning the question into a battle of
opposing polemics, stifling any thoughtful discussion or analysis of the
issues. And this has on the one side meant a curtailment of research and
products that might actually have been useful, and on the other side almost
zero visibility into the process, with concomitant ability to make rational
choices, for the concerned public.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

"Alex Rast" wrote in message
...
at Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:49:40 GMT in ,
snip
I find it disappointing that in the GMO debate, so many of the arguments
from both sides presented in the public media try to marginalise the other
side. This has had the effect of turning the question into a battle of
opposing polemics, stifling any thoughtful discussion or analysis of the
issues. And this has on the one side meant a curtailment of research and
products that might actually have been useful, and on the other side
almost
zero visibility into the process, with concomitant ability to make
rational
choices, for the concerned public.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

I don't like to see a dismissive attitude toward this topic. There is, of
course, much more that you have already discussed. Worries about emergence
of pesticide resistant insects and organisms. Diminishing plant gene pool.
Farmers dependent upon future contracts with large processing companies and
locked into specific seeds to fulfill that contract.
Janet

"Alex Rast" wrote in message
...
at Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:49:40 GMT in ,
snip
I find it disappointing that in the GMO debate, so many of the arguments
from both sides presented in the public media try to marginalise the other
side. This has had the effect of turning the question into a battle of
opposing polemics, stifling any thoughtful discussion or analysis of the
issues. And this has on the one side meant a curtailment of research and
products that might actually have been useful, and on the other side
almost
zero visibility into the process, with concomitant ability to make
rational
choices, for the concerned public.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

I don't like to see a dismissive attitude toward this topic. There is, of
course, much more that you have already discussed. Worries about emergence
of pesticide resistant insects and organisms. Diminishing plant gene pool.
Farmers dependent upon future contracts with large processing companies and
locked into specific seeds to fulfill that contract.
Janet

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:53:59 -0600
Alan wrote:


While you're at it can somebody explain their objection to
high-fructose
corn syrup without using any dieting buzzwords? I'm all ears.


It makes things taste funny.

How's that?


I doubt that, properly applied, it really does.

On the other hand, coke-a-cola in virginia tastes different than
coke-a-cola in utah, and I hear that's because they use cane sugar. Or were
8 years ago when i visited virginia.

I can taste the difference between cane sugar and beet sugar if i'm
putting it right on my tongue. In an unflavored sugar cookie, i'd have to
work at it but might be able to figure out which is which. In much anything
else, I doubt i'd be able to tell.

Well ,as I am not a Coca Cola devotee/drinker I cannot verify and
confirm that statement.
Besides it require factual details; could you pllease provide some
referrences for such claim? Was there any sensory analysis data that
supports objectively the concept that sucrose gives better taste than
the fructose and glucose combination found in high fructose cornsyrup
in such soft drinks?

Roy

On 19 Feb 2005 19:11:42 -0800
"Roy" wrote:

Well ,as I am not a Coca Cola devotee/drinker I cannot verify and
confirm that statement.
Besides it require factual details; could you pllease provide some
referrences for such claim? Was there any sensory analysis data that
supports objectively the concept that sucrose gives better taste than
the fructose and glucose combination found in high fructose cornsyrup
in such soft drinks?


The real trick is going to be that HFCS actually contains the same
number and kinds of saccharides as sucrose, and has the same caloric
content, and the same level of sweetness.

A guess: I'm convinced that consumer grade cane sugar and beet sugar are
really only about 99.999% pure sucrose, and there are some other impurities
i can just barely taste. Perhaps there are small amounts of other
miscellaneous sugars as well.

Perhaps - and you'd have to know the Secret Formula to know, I guess -
perhaps the cokeacola people weren't using fully refined cane sugar. Some
more molasses content is going to change the flavor significantly.

Eric Jorgensen wrote:
On 19 Feb 2005 19:11:42 -0800
"Roy" wrote:

Well ,as I am not a Coca Cola devotee/drinker I cannot verify
and
confirm that statement.
Besides it require factual details; could you pllease provide some
referrences for such claim? Was there any sensory analysis data
that
supports objectively the concept that sucrose gives better taste
than
the fructose and glucose combination found in high fructose
cornsyrup
in such soft drinks?


The real trick is going to be that HFCS actually contains the same
number and kinds of saccharides as sucrose, and has the same caloric
content, and the same level of sweetness.

HFCS does not contain exactly the same ratio of fructose to glucose as
the inverted sucrose( e. g invert syrup).It can vary in ratios with
varying grades of HFCS.
It is just comparing honey with invert syrup, yes they contain the same
sugar but the ratio that I have found in sugar tables displays some
difference.
HFCS comes in many grades so and the higher the fructose content the
amount of glucose will go down, and the products becomes more sweeter.
With HFCS that approximates the normal liquid sugar in sweetness IIRc
there is the presence of other oligosacchrides much in the same way as
the normal corn syrup.
That might be the reason why their are taste difference between a cola
drink derived from sucrose ( liquid sugars) and the one sweetened with
HFCS.
A guess: I'm convinced that consumer grade cane sugar and beet
sugar are
really only about 99.999% pure sucrose, and there are some other
impurities
i can just barely taste. Perhaps there are small amounts of other
miscellaneous sugars as well.

Well beet sugar and cane sugar have a slightly different behavior as
applied in confectionery manufacture but not in baking nor in beverage
production.
Beet sugar is widely used in Europe while cane sugar is used well in
Asia and Australia. But from what I noticed confectionery manufacturers
prefer the cane derived sucrose from the beets sourced one.
Perhaps - and you'd have to know the Secret Formula to know, I
guess -
perhaps the cokeacola people weren't using fully refined cane sugar.
Some
more molasses content is going to change the flavor significantly.
The coca cola formula is combination of hundreds of chemical
components( usually the flavorants) but its basically sugar, water,
acidulants, caffiene and coloring matter,
Roy