You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'food' tag.
Aha! AHA. I knew high fructose corn syrup was evil, and now I don’t need to launch into an explanation of the U.S. corn subsidy or the unnecessary and excessive addition of HFCS to non-sweet food items. From this day forward, I can just say, in an alarmist evening news sort of way, HFCS has MERCURY. End of discussion.
A slight mod of Paulina’s quick chocolate fix, more suited for my cousin’s fickle microwave:
1 tsp baking powder
1/2 cup brown sugar (little less)
1/2 cup whole wheat flour
1 Tbs. canola oil
2 Tbs. carob powder
3 Tbs. chocolate chips
Dash of vanilla
Milk substitute of choice (almond, soy, rice, etc)
Mix dry ingredients together (except chocolate chips), then add wet. Put in a dash of milk substitute of choice until a batter is formed. It should be just thin enough that it starts to pour. Fold in chocolate chips. Microwave for 2-3 minutes, until the top is only a little liquidy, and a knife inserted comes out mostly clean.
More experiments to come. No pictures, however – it’s not terribly pretty or photogenic, particularly in the large bowls I microwave them in so it doesn’t bubble over the edge (though that hasn’t happened since I put in baking soda instead of powder – FYI, don’t do that).
High fructose corn syrup is doing damage control! Those bastards. The propaganda bandwagon seems to be composed of a series of commercials – I’ve caught two so far – and a website, Sweet Surprise, dispelling all those nasty rumors about HFCS. In one, the scene opens on two picnickers, one of whom is eating an ice pop and offers a bite to her BF. He refuses, citing HFCS – but when she challenges him on it, with the perfectly natural recitation of “High fructose corn syrup has no artificial ingredients, is made from corn, and is equivalent in calories to table sugar.” The other is two moms chatting at a pool party. One mom starts pouring punch, and the other gives her passive-aggressive jab of “Oh, you’re not really concerned about your kids’ health, are you?” When mom #2 gives her the ‘bish, plz’ look and asks why she says that, and the other cites HFCS, once again she can’t quite back up why HFCS is bad. Cue another totally conversational recitation of “HFCS has no artificial ingredients, is made from corn, and like sugar is fine in moderation!”
At which point I must raise my hand, and ask: Where is the argument for people who knew what their issues with HFCS were?
And also what mom thinks liquid sugar counts as ‘moderation’, but that’s a totally different can of worms.
First: How is HFCS not an artificial ingredient? I’m not totally up on the process but I think there’s a bit of man-made intervention in extracting and concentrating liquid sugar from corn. It is, at least, something I’ve failed to encounter when eating a cob. Some clever advertising wordsmiths can probably argue that HFCS can be an artificial ingredient without containing any artificial ingredients, and since the ads only say it doesn’t contain any artificial ingredients… etc etc. Sure, fine. Still, highly processed, even if they haven’t thrown anything in to make it moreso.
Second: My issue is, in fact, that HFCS is made with corn, so thanks for pointing that out guys. Out of all the sugar sources in the world – cane, beet, maple, etc etc – why try to squeeze blood out of a stone with corn? Because there is too. damn. much. The Farm Bill subsidizes corn production, meaning farmers get a set price for their product regardless of market demand. So if you know how much you’re going to get, and it’s not going to change, why not grow more? So Americans are left with more corn than they can eat, and while, as a friend pointed out, exporting to Mexico would be awfully nice, what with the corn shortage there that led to tortilla prices skyrocketing to the point of unaffordability, we turn it into other things instead. HFCS, ethanol, animal feed (resulting in the need for antibiotics, but still, another issue…).
From pbs.com:
“While Americans have been eating sugar in one form or another for centuries, the influx of high-fructose corn syrup into everyday foods—even those not normally associated with sweetness—has helped boost overall sweetener intake by 19 percent since 1970. As a result, Americans now eat about 523 more calories each day. And about 76 of those extra daily calories come from sugars and sweeteners like HFCS. At last count in 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that Americans eat 79 pounds of corn sweetener per year—a four-fold increase from 1970.”
HFCS is cheap. It’s not much for companies – who, pre-60s, did just fine without sugar in their unsweetened products – to throw a little HFCS in there and get a bit of the crack addiction effect. And thanks to that, I can’t buy a loaf of bread anymore. It is a long and arduous task to find a single one (even whole wheat, even though those are often highly processed and just dyed brown, but again, another issue entirely) without HFCS in it. My toast does not taste sweet. I don’t want it to be sweet. Yet HFCS is there, in all its pure, empty-calorie glory.
Also neatly addressed by the quote above is the last point: HFCS is indeed equivalent in calories, and empty nutrients, to sugar. Yet because it’s so cheap, it pops up more than sugar ever dead, so we’re eating it more, and we’re getting fat. Now, I believe in America’s spirit of determination, and I’m sure they could get fat without HFCS. But it’s not really helping.
But until any altruistic billionaires start buying air time for King Corn to compete with Sweet Surprise, I’ll just have to hope everyone else knew why HFCS was bad news, and is less than persuaded by the ‘Aw, you don’t know what you’re talking about’ argument.
