High Fructose Corn Syrup
- Thread starter Cowgirl
- Start date
Cowgirl
Well-Known Member
Thanks!
It's the in thing to hate on corn. Because so much of what we eat is derived from corn, the hysterical hippies have painted it as the Darth Vader of plants, which is just ridiculous.
kwillia
n/a
Attachments
Cowgirl
Well-Known Member
I don't hate corn. I hate how we're treating it.
How should it be treated instead?
Cowgirl
Well-Known Member
Well supply and demand generally says when you have too much of something and the price drops, you cut supply so you can get a higher price and not over produce that product. Corn is the opposite. After WWII, we had all this ammonium nitrate (used in bombs) but didn't have a use for it. We figured out it was a good fertilizer, which made people use it on their corn fields. This made small family farms with diverse products start growing more and more corn, because their yield really increased using the ammonium nitrate. Farmers started planting entire farms in corn, which flooded the market. Now, corn is dirt cheap because farmers are getting subsidized so much. The price is so low that farmers continue to plant every acre available to get more money. Now we have a surplus of corn, so we're feeding it to animals (in concentrated animal feeding operations-CAFOs) because it's cheap, we're putting it in every food product imagineable, and we're putting it in our gas tanks. We have too much corn yet we continue to produce it because of the messed up market.
What I wish is that subsidies would go away, which would increase corn prices so farmers could grow less. Then they could plant other things, like vegetables, or they could bring the animals back to their farms instead of just growing commodity grains.
What would we use for those purposes if we didn't use corn? As in, what would livestock animals eat instead, what would we use for fuel, what would we make cooking oil out of? And why would those substances be better than corn?
Yet somebody still grows vegetables, and somebody still raises livestock. I don't know about you, but I've never had a problem finding a steak or a bunch of broccoli at the grocery store. I'm not sure why you feel it would be better for farmer's to diversify their crops instead of specializing in one. Or why commodity grains, like wheat, corn or whatever, are worse than, say, avocados or cauliflower.
rpexie
.:Georgia Peach:.
Corn sugar is manufactured by treating corn starch with hydrochloric acid under pressure, cane sugar is cane juice with the molasses washed off, not quite the same thing.
*BZZZT* Wrong answer.
We subsidize the crap out of sugar.
Um, NO. Compared to corn, the sugar subsidies are a drop in the bucket.
Agricultural subsidy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And I know this is Wikipedia and is from 2004, but it's still 2,841 BILLION versus 61 million. Not an insignificant difference, eh?
Having said that, I'm one of the unfortunate ones who is suffering from things related to what they allow or don't allow in the food chain. I've wound up in the hospital this year from eating...HAMBURGER. Twice. Yep...something as supposedly non-complicated as ground beef now throws me for a loop and a major outbreak of hives and I've NEVER had hives in my life. I'm not a bubble person by any means, but I have a bad reaction to chemicals, especially MSG and things with perfumes/dyes in them. I've eaten ground beef since I was a tot and have NEVER had the reaction I've had this year. Spending hours in the ER and being pumped full of steroids to stop this reaction is not my idea of fun, but since they've claimed the reaction rate to these additives is 'insignificant', I just have to spin the roulette wheel and take my chances.
Research on my part shows that there are so many things they now allow in something they can label as '100% ground beef' that it's truly frightening. Beef-by-products treated with ammonia? A-OK from the FDA. Less than 5% of the population has a problem with it. Sucks to be like me, part of that "small" minority, who have a truly horrible reaction to it.
Cowgirl
Well-Known Member
We would use regular sugar in food. We'd stop putting corn in our gas tanks. Livestock would eat what they're meant to eat, grass. I'm not saying we should grow zero corn, but we definitely shouldn't grow so much of it.
I have issues when our livestock is grown in mass quantities like it is. When our beef is standing in inches of manure, and fed antibiotics because their environment is so stressful they'd get sick and die if not fed antibiotics. When feeding them corn, which is unnatural for them, upsets their rumen and makes it acidic, therefore allowing e. coli to thrive. How many people have been poisoned because of E. coli in their meat? And did you know if we fed beef a natural diet of forage (pasture and hay) two days before slaughter, that 80% of the E. Coli in their rumens would be killed. But we don't do this, because it's cheaper to raise beef on corn than it is to use land for pasture. It's quicker to raise beef on corn than it is on pasture. Same goes with pork, chicken, etc.
People want cheap food, but what they don't realize is what we're paying now is not the actual cost of food! We're subsidizing the hell out of corn and we think we're paying for cheap food, but we're paying for it down the road when we get all sorts of medical problems from eating what we're eating. If we quit subsidizing corn, food prices would go up BUT we'd be eating more natural food and we'd be healthier for it.
I feel it's better for farmers to diversify their crops so they can stop getting subsidized and actually make their own money. I don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to produce corn when we are already flooded with corn in the first place.
JMHO.
migtig
aka Mrs. Giant
We would use regular sugar in food. We'd stop putting corn in our gas tanks. Livestock would eat what they're meant to eat, grass. I'm not saying we should grow zero corn, but we definitely shouldn't grow so much of it.
I have issues when our livestock is grown in mass quantities like it is. When our beef is standing in inches of manure, and fed antibiotics because their environment is so stressful they'd get sick and die if not fed antibiotics. When feeding them corn, which is unnatural for them, upsets their rumen and makes it acidic, therefore allowing e. coli to thrive. How many people have been poisoned because of E. coli in their meat? And did you know if we fed beef a natural diet of forage (pasture and hay) two days before slaughter, that 80% of the E. Coli in their rumens would be killed. But we don't do this, because it's cheaper to raise beef on corn than it is to use land for pasture. It's quicker to raise beef on corn than it is on pasture. Same goes with pork, chicken, etc.
People want cheap food, but what they don't realize is what we're paying now is not the actual cost of food! We're subsidizing the hell out of corn and we think we're paying for cheap food, but we're paying for it down the road when we get all sorts of medical problems from eating what we're eating. If we quit subsidizing corn, food prices would go up BUT we'd be eating more natural food and we'd be healthier for it.
I feel it's better for farmers to diversify their crops so they can stop getting subsidized and actually make their own money. I don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to produce corn when we are already flooded with corn in the first place.
JMHO.
You explained that much better than I could have. I also want to mention, that it doesn't appear we've learned anything from the "dust bowl" era. We must rotate our crops in order to keep the soil healthy and to continue producing food. Overcompensating by growing the exact same product (corn) year end year out, requires copious amounts of chemicals being placed into the ground in order to "nurture" and "fertilize". Long term, this can cause even more problems.
lnmarsh
Love * Luck * Faith
We would use regular sugar in food. We'd stop putting corn in our gas tanks. Livestock would eat what they're meant to eat, grass. I'm not saying we should grow zero corn, but we definitely shouldn't grow so much of it.
I have issues when our livestock is grown in mass quantities like it is. When our beef is standing in inches of manure, and fed antibiotics because their environment is so stressful they'd get sick and die if not fed antibiotics. When feeding them corn, which is unnatural for them, upsets their rumen and makes it acidic, therefore allowing e. coli to thrive. How many people have been poisoned because of E. coli in their meat? And did you know if we fed beef a natural diet of forage (pasture and hay) two days before slaughter, that 80% of the E. Coli in their rumens would be killed. But we don't do this, because it's cheaper to raise beef on corn than it is to use land for pasture. It's quicker to raise beef on corn than it is on pasture. Same goes with pork, chicken, etc.
People want cheap food, but what they don't realize is what we're paying now is not the actual cost of food! We're subsidizing the hell out of corn and we think we're paying for cheap food, but we're paying for it down the road when we get all sorts of medical problems from eating what we're eating. If we quit subsidizing corn, food prices would go up BUT we'd be eating more natural food and we'd be healthier for it.
I feel it's better for farmers to diversify their crops so they can stop getting subsidized and actually make their own money. I don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to produce corn when we are already flooded with corn in the first place.
JMHO.
I like the idea of putting regular sugar in foods! I am OK with corn going in our gastanks and/or being fed to livestock, tho.
I pretty much agree with everything you said. The part I bolded is the basic problem.
lnmarsh
Love * Luck * Faith
I also want to mention, that it doesn't appear we've learned anything from the "dust bowl" era. We must rotate our crops in order to keep the soil healthy and to continue producing food. Overcompensating by growing the exact same product (corn) year end year out, requires copious amounts of chemicals being placed into the ground in order to "nurture" and "fertilize". Long term, this can cause even more problems.
Exactly! You and Cowgirl really know your stuff! I've heard planting soybeans in between crops of corn, hay, etc. and not harvesting them helps to replenish the soil. I dont know how true it is because I havnt done research on it... I wonder how much truth there is to it. Further, I wonder how many people are willing to rotate their crops like that...
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Uh, yes.
Sugar Import Quotas Test Obama’s Protectionist Impulses - WSJ.com
Sugar is protected. This is not a direct subsidy but, it is a HUGE benefit to domestic sugar people. South American would put them out of business over night. Put a dollar value on that.
Corn enjoys no such restrictions but, that doesn't matter; no one else can grow corn better than us to begin with.
There's no reason not to harvest the soy beans, the root system is the part that contains the nitrogen fixing bacteria nodules.
Rhizobia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cowgirl
Well-Known Member
Most farmers around here definitely rotate their crops. They typically have a corn, wheat, bean rotation. I'm not sure about out in the midwest where they really grow some corn. We also plant a good amount of cover crops here in Maryland, which helps uptake excess nutrients and keep the soil from eroding.
Nickel
curiouser and curiouser
Really? Even though the livestock isn't meant to eat it, gets sick from it, and the consumption of it makes their meat more unhealthy than that of their grass-fed counterparts? We've taken a perfect symbiotic relationship between farmer/livestock and completely ruined it by feeding them corn. Can't use their manure as fertilizer because the corn messes it all up, so farmers have to use chemical fertilizers which come with their own problems. It's stupid.