On 28-Jan-2009, at 16:52, Lawrence Sica wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2009, at 7:03 PM, Jared ''Danger'' Earle wrote:
>> On 27 Jan 2009, at 23:55, Kevin Callahan wrote:
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-hatfield/our-melamine-theres-mercu_b_161334.html
>>
>> The official answer:
>> http://www.hfcsfacts.com/HFCS-Mercury-Study-Outdated.html
>>
>> Yeah, it's a fight.
> I love how they call it "natural." From what I understand the
> process is a chemists wet dream of concoctions and treatments.
> There is nothing really natural about the crap. Not to mention in
> the fact that how it tastes sweeter really isn't what our bodies in
> the long run find good for them from what I recall.
I have a theory that HFCS is largely responsible for the rise in
diabetes. It may be a "pirates prevent global warming" sort of chart,
but the rise in diabetes in the US closely follows the rise in use of
HFCS in place of sugar and such.
It's a theory that's been gaining traction in recent years, so my
hunch may well prove to be right.
--
In England 100 miles is a long distance. In the US 100 years is a
long time
_______________________________________________
OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected]
http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters
List hosted at http://cat5.org/
