My understanding is that when you put, say, 3 Tbsp of refined table
sugar in a bread recipe, the yeast will react with that sugar to
produce carbon dioxide to make the bread rise, and alcohol.

Does this mean that there is not any "sugar" (at least from the 3 Tbsp
added to the mix) in the finished loaf of bread?

Another way to put my question is: If I am "sugar conscience" and don't
want to ingest plain old table sugar, will I be doing so if I put it in
my bread? Or will it NOT be sugar anymore after it is baked, and
therefore not a concern?

TIA,
Greg

wrote in message
oups.com...
My understanding is that when you put, say, 3 Tbsp of refined table
sugar in a bread recipe, the yeast will react with that sugar to
produce carbon dioxide to make the bread rise, and alcohol.

Does this mean that there is not any "sugar" (at least from the 3 Tbsp
added to the mix) in the finished loaf of bread?

Another way to put my question is: If I am "sugar conscience" and don't
want to ingest plain old table sugar, will I be doing so if I put it in
my bread? Or will it NOT be sugar anymore after it is baked, and
therefore not a concern?


Yeast cells don't need added sugar. There are enzymes in flour that convert
starch to sugar and the yeast utilize that. I'm sure that the yeast probably
also metabolize some of the added sugar, but you can't count on all of it
being utilized. If you are concerned about sugar, don't add any. Sugar is
added for flavor, to increase browning, and as a tenderizer (because sugar
blocks gluten formation). You can make great bread without adding sugar.

On 13 Feb 2005 15:07:44 -0800
wrote:

Another way to put my question is: If I am "sugar conscience" and don't
want to ingest plain old table sugar, will I be doing so if I put it in
my bread? Or will it NOT be sugar anymore after it is baked, and
therefore not a concern?


Starch is polymerized sugar - better stay away from baked goods in their
entirety.

Honestly i don't know how you people work out the concept that refined
sugar is somehow worse for you than, oh, lets say turbinado. Or straight up
cane juice. There's probably some vitamin content in beet juice, but some
people are sensitive to it, especially small children.

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

"Eric Jorgensen" wrote in message
news:20050213190501.631df422@wafer...
On 13 Feb 2005 15:07:44 -0800
wrote:

Another way to put my question is: If I am "sugar conscience" and don't
want to ingest plain old table sugar, will I be doing so if I put it in
my bread? Or will it NOT be sugar anymore after it is baked, and
therefore not a concern?


Starch is polymerized sugar - better stay away from baked goods in
their
entirety.

Honestly i don't know how you people work out the concept that refined
sugar is somehow worse for you than, oh, lets say turbinado. Or straight
up
cane juice. There's probably some vitamin content in beet juice, but some
people are sensitive to it, especially small children.

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

I love it when people say they don't use sugar -just honey, like there is
some difference.

My understanding is that when you put, say, 3 Tbsp of refined table
sugar in a bread recipe, the yeast will react with that sugar to
produce carbon dioxide to make the bread rise, and alcohol.
If you add sugar it still enzymatically reduced to simple sugars which
can be assimilated by the yeast and responsible (for just what you
said) for the bread rise and alcohol.
As table sugar or sucrose is not digestible unless broken down into its
component monosaccharide; glucose and fructose( by invertase) which
what the yeast really needs.
Does this mean that there is not any "sugar" (at least from the 3 Tbsp

added to the mix) in the finished loaf of bread?
Actually there exist in the flour residual amounts of sugar ( not
higher than a percent In most cases, ). But that is not enough ,as the
yeast needs more ; therefore they have to convert any available free
starches to sugars by enzymatic methods( amylase in malt and flour).
Another way to put my question is: If I am "sugar conscience" and
don't
want to ingest plain old table sugar, will I be doing so if I put it
in
my bread? Or will it NOT be sugar anymore after it is baked, and
therefore not a concern?
Just remember ,A bread can simply be made with just four basic
ingredients: Flour, salt, yeast and water.
Roy

Most people who are sugar conscious these days are really carb conscious.
Sugar is but one carb and assuming you are talking about a bread product
(you did add yeast) it is chock full of carbs more so from the flour than
the sugar. All carbs convert to glucose in your body and glucose is a form
of sugar.

If the problem is simply a desire not to eat table sugar (sucrose) then yes
there is still a negligible amount in the product. Sugar acts as a catalyst
for yeast but usually does not convert it all in a recipe.

Deb wrote:
Most people who are sugar conscious these days are really carb
conscious.
Sugar is but one carb and assuming you are talking about a bread
product
(you did add yeast) it is chock full of carbs more so from the flour
than
the sugar. All carbs convert to glucose in your body and glucose is a
form
of sugar.


I am not carb conscious and don't have a weight problem, but rather I
want to make bread that has as little unnecessary ingredients as is
possible without compromising its nutritional value. I don't care about
taste. The more bland it tastes, the better, as far as I am concerned
personally.

I recently made a loaf of bread with only whole wheat flour, wheat
gluten, yeast and water (no salt or sugar or oil) and it turned out
very satisfactory as far as taste and texture.

I very much appreciate the responses form all of you! I am just
beginning to learn to bake my own bread (new Kenmore bread machine)
because I would like to save money for one thing but more importantly I
want to eliminate processed foods from my diet. Too many friends and
relatives are having heart problems and/or dying now that I have
reached my 50's. I don't want to join them just yet ;-)

Thanks again for the help and advice.
Greg

If you haven't already tried it you might consider experimenting with other
flours. It wouldn't fit your request for bland foods but they do fit the
bill for heart healthy. I like to use whole wheat flour sometimes and when
using white flour I like to add things such as wheat berries, oats, bulgar,
spelt, quinoa, rye (not my personal favorite),etc. They increase your fiber
content and add nutrients your won't get from just white flour.

Debra


wrote in message
ups.com...

I very much appreciate the responses form all of you! I am just
beginning to learn to bake my own bread (new Kenmore bread machine)
because I would like to save money for one thing but more importantly I
want to eliminate processed foods from my diet. Too many friends and
relatives are having heart problems and/or dying now that I have
reached my 50's. I don't want to join them just yet ;-)

Thanks again for the help and advice.
Greg

wrote in message
oups.com...
My understanding is that when you put, say, 3 Tbsp of refined table
sugar in a bread recipe, the yeast will react with that sugar to
produce carbon dioxide to make the bread rise, and alcohol.

Does this mean that there is not any "sugar" (at least from the 3 Tbsp
added to the mix) in the finished loaf of bread?

Another way to put my question is: If I am "sugar conscience" and don't
want to ingest plain old table sugar, will I be doing so if I put it in
my bread? Or will it NOT be sugar anymore after it is baked, and
therefore not a concern?

TIA,
Greg


You are getting a lot of advise, most of it good, but nobody is answering
your question. The answer is that, if you add a small amount of sugar
(perhaps 1/2 an oz. to the lb. of flour) the yeast will ferment virtually
all of it. It can help speed the fermentation process a little (not
necessarily a good thing and not necessarily bad.) The yeast will get the
job done just fine without any added sugar as others have indicated.

If you put a lot of sugar (more than 1 oz. per lb. of flour) you are likely
to get some sweetness in the bread because the yeast won't ferment it all in
a normal fermentation period. Halla, Cuban and other breads have this
slight sweetness so, obviously, all the sugar has not been converted by the
yeast.

If you don't want any sweetness in the bread, then don't use any sugar as
others have correctly recommended. I think it's pretty hard to beat a nice,
lean, hard crusted Italian bread made just from flour, water, yeast and a
little salt for flavor.

Fred
Foodie Forums
http://www.foodieforums.com

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.

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.

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,
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.

--
Alex Rast

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

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:22:36 -0000
(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.

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.


You're talking about Starlink, and I know a thing or three about
Starlink Corn.

True, the FDA has confirmed that Starlink corn is being used to
manufacture corn syrup, and furthermore that there is no technology
available to prevent the further spread of the Starlink genes.

However, you're talking out your ass, because you know not of what you
speak.

Starlink corn is corn that has been genetically manipulated to create
it's own supply of a pesticide known as Cry9c. This means that there is
pesticide *in the corn, which sounds pretty alarming, at first.

Let me break it down for you.

1: We didn't invent Cry9c. Cry9c is a protein that is generated by a
natural soil bacterium found basically everywhere that there is dirt.

2: Cry9c is not toxic. You heard me, non-toxic. The pesticide action of
Cry9c is very specific - it binds to the interior of the digestive tract of
caterpillars, which starves them by preventing them from ingesting
nutrients from what they eat. Caterpillar physiology is very different from
mammalian physiology, our digestive tracts lack the structures that Cry9c
binds to.

3: Cry9c is not a new contaminant in our food supply. Cry9c and similar
proteins derived from the same bacterium have been widely used as a
pesticide for more than 20 years. You've been eating food dusted with the
stuff for decades.

4: There is no Cry9c in corn syrup. None. At all. Ever. The FDA
confirms that there is no Cry9c found in corn syrup even when made
exclusively from Starlink corn. Why?

a. Cry9c breaks down in the presence of water

b. Cry9c breaks down in the presence of heat

c. Cry9c breaks down in the presence of light

d. All three of the above are required to produce corn syrup.

e. Indeed, were you for some reason interested in eating fresh dent corn
- something you have never done and will likely never do because it doesn't
taste very good and has an odd texture - by the time it got to the grocery
store, nearly all of the Cry9c in a freshly harvested ear of corn has
already broken down purely due to the presence of water in the kernels. The
starlink nacho debacle notwithstanding, because tortillas are not HFCS.

5: There have been no reported cases of human sensitivity to Cry9c and
similar proteins. Ever. Even during FDA studies designed specifically to
ferret them out. Even when they had a group of people eat nothing but
starlink corn for several weeks.

You are at no risk from starlink corn, least of all from corn syrup, you
ignorant ninny.

If you want to complain about the affect it has on much needed insect
populations, I'm right there with you, but don't come crying to me about
the monarch butterfly - why is it we need a cute mascot to believe in
something?



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.

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,
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.


I wholeheartedly agree that that herbicide and pesticide -resistant
crops are six kinds of bad idea, but this doesn't directly affect the
wholesomeness of HFCS.

The rest of this is so self-contradictory i don't really want to respond
to it but i guess i will.

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.



I'm editing my challenge - can anyone explain to me what makes high
fructose corn syrup objectionable, without dieting buzzwords or fear
mongering?

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:22:36 -0000
(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.

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.


You're talking about Starlink, and I know a thing or three about
Starlink Corn.

True, the FDA has confirmed that Starlink corn is being used to
manufacture corn syrup, and furthermore that there is no technology
available to prevent the further spread of the Starlink genes.

However, you're talking out your ass, because you know not of what you
speak.

Starlink corn is corn that has been genetically manipulated to create
it's own supply of a pesticide known as Cry9c. This means that there is
pesticide *in the corn, which sounds pretty alarming, at first.

Let me break it down for you.

1: We didn't invent Cry9c. Cry9c is a protein that is generated by a
natural soil bacterium found basically everywhere that there is dirt.

2: Cry9c is not toxic. You heard me, non-toxic. The pesticide action of
Cry9c is very specific - it binds to the interior of the digestive tract of
caterpillars, which starves them by preventing them from ingesting
nutrients from what they eat. Caterpillar physiology is very different from
mammalian physiology, our digestive tracts lack the structures that Cry9c
binds to.

3: Cry9c is not a new contaminant in our food supply. Cry9c and similar
proteins derived from the same bacterium have been widely used as a
pesticide for more than 20 years. You've been eating food dusted with the
stuff for decades.

4: There is no Cry9c in corn syrup. None. At all. Ever. The FDA
confirms that there is no Cry9c found in corn syrup even when made
exclusively from Starlink corn. Why?

a. Cry9c breaks down in the presence of water

b. Cry9c breaks down in the presence of heat

c. Cry9c breaks down in the presence of light

d. All three of the above are required to produce corn syrup.

e. Indeed, were you for some reason interested in eating fresh dent corn
- something you have never done and will likely never do because it doesn't
taste very good and has an odd texture - by the time it got to the grocery
store, nearly all of the Cry9c in a freshly harvested ear of corn has
already broken down purely due to the presence of water in the kernels. The
starlink nacho debacle notwithstanding, because tortillas are not HFCS.

5: There have been no reported cases of human sensitivity to Cry9c and
similar proteins. Ever. Even during FDA studies designed specifically to
ferret them out. Even when they had a group of people eat nothing but
starlink corn for several weeks.

You are at no risk from starlink corn, least of all from corn syrup, you
ignorant ninny.

If you want to complain about the affect it has on much needed insect
populations, I'm right there with you, but don't come crying to me about
the monarch butterfly - why is it we need a cute mascot to believe in
something?



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.

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,
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.


I wholeheartedly agree that that herbicide and pesticide -resistant
crops are six kinds of bad idea, but this doesn't directly affect the
wholesomeness of HFCS.

The rest of this is so self-contradictory i don't really want to respond
to it but i guess i will.

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.



I'm editing my challenge - can anyone explain to me what makes high
fructose corn syrup objectionable, without dieting buzzwords or fear
mongering?

HFCS technically is not objectionable to use.In fact its widely used
in the baking industry where liquid sugars are applied.
I think only people who had never used it , do not know much about it
and therefore never understood what it is, have lots to complain
against high fructose corn syrup.

Roy

On 14 Feb 2005 21:15:03 -0800
"Roy" wrote:

HFCS technically is not objectionable to use.In fact its widely used
in the baking industry where liquid sugars are applied.
I think only people who had never used it , do not know much about it
and therefore never understood what it is, have lots to complain
against high fructose corn syrup.


I google for this stuff and start reading about "genetically modified
enzymes" and other assertions so laughably surreal as to be, admittedly,
entertaining.

You ask someone what their objection is, and they start using
meaningless buzzwords like "empty calories". There's no such thing as an
empty or full calorie. Calories just are. That's good, because you need
them to live. We just live in this absurd society where we've solved that
problem far too well, so we have to make up a term like 'empty calories' to
describe the act of eating high-calorie food that lacks things like fiber
and vitamins that also really are preferable to consume.

So it's a stupid argument based on a meaningless buzzword. It doesn't
matter where the sugar in something comes from or what form it takes if it
has too much sugar in it.

Politically, we have an influential corn lobby, and maybe it wouldn't
be cheaper than sucrose from cane or beets if it weren't for all the
subsidies and protectionist trade regulation.

The other side of that coin is the situation in europe, where the sugar
producers have a powerful lobby keeping corn syrup off the shelves using
any means imaginable.

at Tue, 15 Feb 2005 00:18:30 GMT in 20050214171830.2712a477@wafer,
(Eric Jorgensen) wrote :

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:22:36 -0000
(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.

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.


You're talking about Starlink, and I know a thing or three about
Starlink Corn.

I mentioned Starlink, but only as a side comment. That wasn't the central
thrust at all of what I was talking about. There are many different GMO
strains of corn, many of which could potentially be in corn syrup, none of
which are labelled. The comments I made about GMO's apply to various GMO's,
and since there's no way for the consumer to be able to tell what GMO's he
may or may not be getting in corn syrup, there's no way he can be selective
in what he buys. Thats the reason people are wary about corn syrup.

If you want to complain about the affect it has on much needed insect
populations, I'm right there with you, but don't come crying to me about
the monarch butterfly - why is it we need a cute mascot to believe in
something?

That's another risk associated with GMO's that I didn't mention -
destroying possibly important insect populations. I'd be most concerned
about GMO's that destroyed insects indiscriminately. If it's targeted
against specific, known pests, and can be localised to the area where the
crops are grown, that in itself might not pose any problems. However, if a
GMO is capable of killing off a broad spectrum of different insects, this
is potentially a disaster because natural ecosystems often depend on
insects and if a given population were to collapse, it could end up
threatening the entire ecosystem, or at least large segments of it, because
of chain-reaction effects. Certainly if a GMO were killing off monarch
butterfly populations en masse, there could be repercussions in
ecosystems. However, I've seen no articles indicating either that GMOs do
or decisively don't kill monarch butterfly populations en masse.

More disturbing are the ethical consequences....


I wholeheartedly agree that that herbicide and pesticide -resistant
crops are six kinds of bad idea, but this doesn't directly affect the
wholesomeness of HFCS.

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.

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.

I'm editing my challenge - can anyone explain to me what makes high
fructose corn syrup objectionable, without dieting buzzwords or fear
mongering?

It's not a case of paranoia, either. I recognise that, by and large, most
of the risks associated with GMOs are small at most, and the ones that are
cause for concern represent the extremes - the worst abuses of the science.
However, again, since there is no explicit labelling that lets the consumer
determine for himself what choices to make with respect to GMOs, he is in
the position of having to avoid all foods that might possibly contain them
in order to be able to make any sort of impact at all.

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.

Now, if your question was *really* - "can anyone convince me that *I*
should find corn syrup objectionable" - (the "I" referring to you, the one
posing the question) that's a different matter altogether and I think you
should come to your own conclusions and make your own decisions. Out of
curiosity, are there any classes of arguments you think would be valid ones
to disdain corn syrup?

--
Alex Rast

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