# Shock! Sugar industry publishes 'research' that shows sugar is great



## ChrisSamsDad (Dec 22, 2016)

However, one of my fave websites dissects it here:

http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/12/the-food-industry-is-gaslighting-us-on-the-harms-of-sugar/

This kind of bastardisation of science is what's behind the 'doubt' behind Global Warming and other anti-scientific movements like anti-vaccination and anti-GMO people.


----------



## Ditto (Dec 22, 2016)

Diabolical!  

I'm with Prof. Yudkin...pure, white and deadly.


----------



## mikeyB (Dec 22, 2016)

I'm not at all surprised, except by how this managed to get published at all. I can remember similar papers decades ago that showed how cigarettes were good for you.


----------



## grovesy (Dec 22, 2016)

mikeyB said:


> I'm not at all surprised, except by how this managed to get published at all. I can remember similar papers decades ago that showed how cigarettes were good for you.


Yeah. I keep meaning to read Malcolm Kendricks doctoring data.


----------



## Northerner (Dec 22, 2016)

grovesy said:


> Yeah. I keep meaning to read Malcolm Kendricks doctoring data.


I'd also recommend Ben Goldacre - 'Bad Pharma' and 'I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that'


----------



## grovesy (Dec 22, 2016)

Northerner said:


> I'd also recommend Ben Goldacre - 'Bad Pharma' and 'I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that'


I have read it thanks.


----------



## mikeyB (Dec 22, 2016)

Read 'em both. Northerner is costing me a fortune in  Kindle  books


----------



## MikeTurin (Dec 22, 2016)

ChrisSamsDad said:


> This kind of bastardisation of science is what's behind the 'doubt' behind Global Warming and other anti-scientific movements like anti-vaccination and anti-GMO people.


Behind global warming doubt I have the sensation that are the same corporations that are trying to make us eat a lot of sugar.
It's also easy to think that behind pro-GMO documentation there's a similar gentle push because GMO are made by the same corporations. 
That are selling GMO seed to make more corn to make more high fructose con syrup to make more sugary drinks....


----------



## grovesy (Dec 22, 2016)

mikeyB said:


> Read 'em both. Northerner is costing me a fortune in  Kindle  books


I am a bit of a tight wad I wait till they are on offer . I have them on my wish list.


----------



## ChrisSamsDad (Dec 22, 2016)

MikeTurin said:


> Behind global warming doubt I have the sensation that are the same corporations that are trying to make us eat a lot of sugar.
> It's also easy to think that behind pro-GMO documentation there's a similar gentle push because GMO are made by the same corporations.
> That are selling GMO seed to make more corn to make more high fructose con syrup to make more sugary drinks....



Well in all those cases, it's pretty much the same situation, there's very good science showing that global warming is true, from many different directions all leading to the same conclusion, and GMO research is the same: Not only is there no evidence that any GMO technology has led to harm, there's not even a plausible reason why it would - what GMO tech means is simply inserting a gene into another organism - and all genes do is make a protein, if the protein was poisonous in the first place it would be an issue, but no-one is doing that. The benefits have been substantial - most insulin available nowadays is made by genetically modified botulism - billions of tonnes of GMO cereals have been eaten by animals and there's been no adverse effects. 

Just to be clear - no ill-effects from GMO derived food on a human has EVER been recorded. Not one, EVER.

Most GMO protestors I've come across don't even know what GMO actually means and assume it's all about Glyphosate or that evil corporations are randomly inserting fish genes into apples or something. Humans have been genetically modifying plants and animals for 1000s of years, and it was very random and slapdash - also nature does it on it's own. We've got 100s of virus genes in us and it's been no problem. The previous way of GMO tech was to irradiate seeds so that there would be some random mutation and then they'd grow the plant and see if it was a good one - no-one really complained about this even though now it sounds mad - but even that scatter gun approach never caused a problem. 

Now GMO tech is precise and just the individual gene is inserted - quite often from the same type of plant, so that the new plant has a useful characteristic that other plants of the same type has. 

It's really just a huge non-problem which the multi-billion dollar 'organic' industry is pushing, along with various Green parties who are subject to this weird belief that 'natural' is generally best and somehow more moral. If you want to follow the money to find about something, then 'Big Organic' is actually as insidious and full of crap as Big Pharma or Big Sugar or whoever.


----------



## mikeyB (Dec 22, 2016)

I agree with every word you've written there Chris. Couldn't have put it better myself. You might have added that we've been genetically modifying dogs for the last few hundred years, and nobody seems bothered by the fact that with the help of a footstool, or ladder, a chihuahua could mate with a Labrador. And we've been genetically modifying cereals by hand for a thousand years, as you say. You couldn't have popcorn without all that work.


----------



## MikeTurin (Dec 23, 2016)

ChrisSamsDad said:


> Well in all those cases, it's pretty much the same situation, there's very good science showing that global warming is true, from many different directions all leading to the same conclusion, and GMO research is the same: Not only is there no evidence that any GMO technology has led to harm, there's not even a plausible reason why it would - what GMO tech means is simply inserting a gene into another organism - and all genes do is make a protein, if the protein was poisonous in the first place it would be an issue, but no-one is doing that. The benefits have been substantial - most insulin available nowadays is made by genetically modified botulism - billions of tonnes of GMO cereals have been eaten by animals and there's been no adverse effects.
> 
> Just to be clear - no ill-effects from GMO derived food on a human has EVER been recorded. Not one, EVER.


I was a bit joking. What I think about GMO foods is that because they are developed by huge multinationals, the "mobster" attitude they have could cause a series of problems unrelated to the precise aspect of GMO food is poisonous itself.

Why plant a GMO cornfield with an higher yeld when the corn production is already greather than the corn consumption, so it's used not for human consumption but to make high fructose corns syrup? Maybe planting sugar cane or beet to make sugar is a better idea. But because there's no GMO beet GMO corn is pushed instead...

Another proble is that a GMO cultivar could displace non-GMO cultivar, giving a standard product, loved by processing food intustries, a lot less by direct consumers. I call it the "golden Delicious" effect, so when you get an apple at a cantee is always a Golden Deliciuos, even if threre are hundreds of apple cultivars, some quite interesting and more tasty.


----------



## Lilian (Dec 23, 2016)

"Just to be clear - no ill-effects from GMO derived food on a human has EVER been recorded. Not one, EVER."

I doubt you will hear of many cases even if there were.    They are NOT going to let them be publicised.

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/doctors-confirm-first-human-death-officially-caused-by-gmos/


----------



## Northerner (Dec 23, 2016)

MikeTurin said:


> I was a bit joking. What I think about GMO foods is that because they are developed by huge multinationals, the "mobster" attitude they have could cause a series of problems unrelated to the precise aspect of GMO food is poisonous itself.
> 
> Why plant a GMO cornfield with an higher yeld when the corn production is already greather than the corn consumption, so it's used not for human consumption but to make high fructose corns syrup? Maybe planting sugar cane or beet to make sugar is a better idea. But because there's no GMO beet GMO corn is pushed instead...
> 
> Another proble is that a GMO cultivar could displace non-GMO cultivar, giving a standard product, loved by processing food intustries, a lot less by direct consumers. I call it the "golden Delicious" effect, so when you get an apple at a cantee is always a Golden Deliciuos, even if threre are hundreds of apple cultivars, some quite interesting and more tasty.


Yes, I can see a potential problem there - like introducing rabbits to Australia or cats to small islands - commercial interests don't always foresee (or deliberately ignore) the potential consequnces. Happened with nuclear in the 1950s - remember everything was 'atomic', but they didn't consider the waste products? What about all the junk in space that no-one considered, but is now a potential problem? Happens with a lot of things that don't take a holistic view of their impact


----------



## ChrisSamsDad (Dec 23, 2016)

Lilian said:


> "Just to be clear - no ill-effects from GMO derived food on a human has EVER been recorded. Not one, EVER."
> 
> I doubt you will hear of many cases even if there were.    They are NOT going to let them be publicised.
> 
> http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/doctors-confirm-first-human-death-officially-caused-by-gmos/


The "World Daily News" - seriously? You're quoting that as a source to provide proof? You know all this furore about fake news sites winning the Brexit vote and getting Trump elected? They don't even pretend that their articles are real. From their disclaimer page:
_WNDR assumes however all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website – even those based on real people –  are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purely a miracle._
I really hope your post was satirical too.


----------



## Robin (Dec 23, 2016)

MikeTurin said:


> s a bit joking. What I think about GMO foods is that because they are developed by huge multinationals, the "mobster" attitude they have could cause a series of problems unrelated to the precise aspect of GMO food is poisonous itself.


I agree that it's not the GM food itself, it's the knock on effect. When Monsanto first developed Roundup-ready crops, the seed was sterile, and I remember reading about US farmers who were suddenly faced with having to buy their seed corn from Monsanto at whatever price they wanted to charge, instead of saving a proportion of this year's crop as seed for the next.


----------



## ChrisSamsDad (Dec 23, 2016)

Northerner said:


> Yes, I can see a potential problem there - like introducing rabbits to Australia or cats to small islands - commercial interests don't always foresee (or deliberately ignore) the potential consequnces. Happened with nuclear in the 1950s - remember everything was 'atomic', but they didn't consider the waste products? What about all the junk in space that no-one considered, but is now a potential problem? Happens with a lot of things that don't take a holistic view of their impact


There are those people who think coming down from the trees was a big mistake, but you can't stop progress out of fear of unknown consequences - what you can do is take reasonable precautions and what most people don't realise is that the amount of testing involved before releasing a new GMO product is enormous. 

What we DO know is that global warming is going to have devastating effects on the world's agriculture, what's now arable will become desert or flooded and if we don't want to see death and disease of biblical proportions, along with all the land war that will go along with it. (There's a very strong argument that Syria's problems started because of global warming), then we will need new versions of crops that are drought resistant, grow in more salty water, more disease and pest resistant. Cross-breeding and irradiation are the next best technology and they take 10s of years rather than a couple to develop. GMOs would be even faster without all the paranoia around them causing unnecessary delays and testing. Basically if you 2 varieties of corn and one has trait A - say it contains more Beta-Carotene and the other strain has trait B - say it is resistant to the biggest pest in Africa, then putting the gene that causes trait A into the other variety will mean that the resistant corn now prevents blindness AND is resistant to the pests, that's all GMO does - in terms of unknown consequences - yes there will be some, but it's not a glaringly scary scenario like taking the gene that makes botulinum and inserting it into a cold virus or something - GMO is a technique that you can do many different things with. I'm sure someone will come up with an evil one, but then that's been true of just about every technology. And yes, you could say it's playing god, but then all technology is - aren't we playing god as diabetics by defying death?


----------



## ChrisSamsDad (Dec 23, 2016)

Robin said:


> I agree that it's not the GM food itself, it's the knock on effect. When Monsanto first developed Roundup-ready crops, the seed was sterile, and I remember reading about US farmers who were suddenly faced with having to buy their seed corn from Monsanto at whatever price they wanted to charge, instead of saving a proportion of this year's crop as seed for the next.


This is simply not true - the terminator gene making the plants that grew from the seeds (rather than the seeds themselves, obviously) was a patent application, but never actually made). Also farmers don't normally save some of the crop for next year, GMO or otherwise. That's something that's been made up by the Organic Lobby.
http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked


----------



## Robin (Dec 23, 2016)

ChrisSamsDad said:


> This is simply not true - the terminator gene making the plants that grew from the seeds (rather than the seeds themselves, obviously) was a patent application, but never actually made). Also farmers don't normally save some of the crop for next year, GMO or otherwise. That's something that's been made up by the Organic Lobby.
> http://www.popsci.com/article/science/core-truths-10-common-gmo-claims-debunked


Ah, that's what I probably remember, it would be protests that such a thing was being contemplated. It was the small farmer lobby, as I recall, who said they saved their seed. The article you've referred me to talks about the large scale operators not saving seed, which I can understand.


----------



## mikeyB (Dec 23, 2016)

Most of the milk you drink is from genetically modified cows. In the search for high yield, some scientists found cows with abnormal gene for excess milk production, so bred from those with  the abnormal gene to spread it through the population of dairy cows, and these are gradually replacing normal cows, which now could probably not survive in the wild.

I wouldn't have the slightest qualm about eating food from GM crops, because scientifically, medically, there is no possible impact on human health. You digest  these abnormal  genes along with the normal, because they're made out of the same stuff, and your digestive enzymes aren't discriminatory. That fact must be bleeding obvious to anybody capable of thought.


----------



## ChrisSamsDad (Dec 24, 2016)

Robin said:


> Ah, that's what I probably remember, it would be protests that such a thing was being contemplated. It was the small farmer lobby, as I recall, who said they saved their seed. The article you've referred me to talks about the large scale operators not saving seed, which I can understand.


It's not even a problem for small farmers, they just don't really tend to do it - the 2nd generation seeds that they'd try to grow would start to differ from the originals and lose the good traits and degenerate.


----------



## HOBIE (Dec 28, 2016)

I wonder what the arsenic makers would say in research


----------



## Lilian (Dec 28, 2016)

mikeyB said:


> Most of the milk you drink is from genetically modified cows. In the search for high yield, some scientists found cows with abnormal gene for excess milk production, so bred from those with  the abnormal gene to spread it through the population of dairy cows, and these are gradually replacing normal cows, which now could probably not survive in the wild.
> 
> I wouldn't have the slightest qualm about eating food from GM crops, because scientifically, medically, there is no possible impact on human health. You digest  these abnormal  genes along with the normal, because they're made out of the same stuff, and your digestive enzymes aren't discriminatory. That fact must be bleeding obvious to anybody capable of thought.



I think you might be mixing up hybrid with GMO.      Hybrid mixes the best of the genes of the same species.   GMO uses different species which normally could not breed together.


----------



## HOBIE (Dec 28, 2016)

HOBIE said:


> I wonder what the arsenic makers would say in research


A salesman at the newspaper could come up with a storey  about arsenic


----------



## mikeyB (Dec 28, 2016)

Lilian said:


> I think you might be mixing up hybrid with GMO.      Hybrid mixes the best of the genes of the same species.   GMO uses different species which normally could not breed together.


The same comment applies to genes of different species. All get gobbled up by the digestive enzymes. I am perfectly aware of the difference between hybrid and GMO, and the millions of children eating  genetically modified rice that contains Vitamin A, instead of the polished rice that contains none, will attest that it isn't dangerous. Only loopy conspiracy theorists think it is.


----------



## Martin Canty (Dec 28, 2016)

Beware of GMO crops..... They might come back to bite!!!!


----------



## HOBIE (Dec 28, 2016)

Good Martin .  The day of the Triffords ?


----------



## Martin Canty (Dec 28, 2016)

Yup


----------



## Lilian (Dec 28, 2016)

I do not think the danger lies in the food itself but by the copyright of who owns it.    It is not grown it is engineered.     You are then in murky dangerous waters.    It will become worse than who own oil.     Since when have big companies or countries been altruistic.


----------



## ChrisSamsDad (Dec 29, 2016)

Lilian said:


> I think you might be mixing up hybrid with GMO.      Hybrid mixes the best of the genes of the same species.   GMO uses different species which normally could not breed together.


Well, strictly speaking selective breeding, hybridisation, and gene-splicing are all Genetic Modifications - GMO is just the most direct way of inserting precisely the gene that you want. Though it can come from a different species, it often comes from the same one.


----------

