i like the part where they say "well, we haven't been doing that for a few years now"... uh, they KNEW? and did it anyway. you know how much ketchup kids eat? ouch.
oddly, i'm told that most of the sodas tested had no detectable mercury. sigh of relief?
then again, i'm of the opinion, that human beans shouldn't be eating HFCS *at all*, but it's apparently quite useful in SOME recipes that one eats occasionally, if at all (sorbets for instance).
I'm curious why you think people shouldn't eat HFCS. I've got a few ideas (and a TMI reason to personally use it in moderation), but I like to hear what others have to say about it.
tenderpaw's 4yo son gets cranky, nasty, and even violent when he's had HFCS. There's a remarkable difference in his behavior when he has and hasn't had it. Even I, a non-kid person, can see it as clear as day. She's changed his diet to reduce, and preferably eliminate, HFCS as much as possible.
Now, whether mercury has anything to do with this or not, I don't know.
The HFCS was supposed to be bad because it goes directly to the liver to get metabolized into fat...I really ought to google it.
Without pretending to be an authority on the science (which I'm not), the behavioral problems may be related to the fructose, or maybe the mercury has something to do with it. It's sort of as if someone found trace levels of lead in wine bottles and everyone went "gee! that's why wine makes you clumsy and stupid! lead poisoning!"
It's also possible that it has idiosyncratic effects on some people but not on others.
I read a better version of this article at the Washington Post a few days ago. I notice neither has the most important part of such studies: how many parts mercury per billion or trillion were found?
Without such numbers, the reports don't convey a meaningful level of risk. If a power plant releases a couple barrels of radioactive water but the measurements are in tens of milliREMs, then the risk is lower than a chest X-ray. The risk would be lower than background radiation from hanging around planet Earth all day.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
brynndragon
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-29 03:53 pm (UTC)oddly, i'm told that most of the sodas tested had no detectable mercury. sigh of relief?
then again, i'm of the opinion, that human beans shouldn't be eating HFCS *at all*, but it's apparently quite useful in SOME recipes that one eats occasionally, if at all (sorbets for instance).
#
no subject
Date: 2009-01-29 04:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-29 10:31 pm (UTC)Now, whether mercury has anything to do with this or not, I don't know.
From what I remember...
Date: 2009-02-04 11:07 pm (UTC)Without pretending to be an authority on the science (which I'm not), the behavioral problems may be related to the fructose, or maybe the mercury has something to do with it. It's sort of as if someone found trace levels of lead in wine bottles and everyone went "gee! that's why wine makes you clumsy and stupid! lead poisoning!"
It's also possible that it has idiosyncratic effects on some people but not on others.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-29 07:26 pm (UTC)Without such numbers, the reports don't convey a meaningful level of risk. If a power plant releases a couple barrels of radioactive water but the measurements are in tens of milliREMs, then the risk is lower than a chest X-ray. The risk would be lower than background radiation from hanging around planet Earth all day.