Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

KurtNYC

(14,549 posts)
47. Soda is GMO corn (HFCS) which is designed to be loaded with most easily absorbed sugar -- fructose
Fri Jul 11, 2014, 06:35 PM
Jul 2014

GMO corn was designed to fatten cattle for slaughter and it does.

Bloomberg wasn't totally crazy when he went after soda -- it wasn't a political winner but the data is there. Bloomberg made his billions -- he didn't inherit it. The guy gets the best data and acts on it. He asked a panel to look into healthcare costs in the City and they found that it cost the City $217,000 for every NYer that develops morbid obesity. The City spend $4.7 bil on obesity related medical treatment every year and the number is rising. Obesity correlates strongly with diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and cancers. Kidney failure is one of the ways that diabetes kills people -- in other words you don't die of being overweight you die because your kidneys lose the ability to get toxins out of your body effectively. The panel recommended a couple things that would make the biggest dent in the problem. One rec was to wean people off of soda. Another was to reduce the incidence of smoking tobacco.

The science is there, the numbers are there. Bloomberg wasn't relying on "Natural News" here. Diet has a huge impact on quality of life and the cost, for the individual and the community, of health care. Bloomberg made a lot of headway on smoking but not on soda. IMHO that is because people accept that smoking is very unhealthy but that took decades. So it will take time on the soda and other GMO foods. Bloomberg was too far ahead of the public perception of this problem.

Perhaps appropriately, the talking points now being used to defend GMO are being called "cigarette science" as many see the similarities. GMO is on trial in Vermont with the burden of proof on the GMO industry to prove that GMO has no significantly different health consequences than conventional seed.

And that may be tough because:

GMO corn was designed to fatten cattle for slaughter and it does.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

That study is STILL garbage mathematic Jul 2014 #1
ROFL... SidDithers Jul 2014 #2
Is it just me or is "Alternet" getting worse and worse? snooper2 Jul 2014 #3
Sadly, science reporting on the left is almost as bad as it is on the right...nt SidDithers Jul 2014 #4
On this I must agree. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #26
I've never trusted their content Bonx Jul 2014 #16
wow G_j Jul 2014 #5
No, we've just seen this garbage posted several times already...nt SidDithers Jul 2014 #6
ROFL G_j Jul 2014 #8
You're the one characterizing this as a major study... SidDithers Jul 2014 #9
If one guys can pay so much then wisechoice Jul 2014 #38
I think it's partly that "where's our jetpacks? their absence means SOMEBODY is to blame!" MisterP Jul 2014 #13
gawd I wish this nonsense would die permanently.... mike_c Jul 2014 #7
It won't... SidDithers Jul 2014 #10
You have a point. Since GMO corn is used so widely, Damansarajaya Jul 2014 #35
"We" didn't see the increase in obesity, diabetes and cancer? KurtNYC Jul 2014 #42
Hmmm . . . good data. I'm not a GMO fan. Damansarajaya Jul 2014 #45
Soda is GMO corn (HFCS) which is designed to be loaded with most easily absorbed sugar -- fructose KurtNYC Jul 2014 #47
Post removed Post removed Jul 2014 #15
I thought I had read the rats were predisposed to tumors! MohRokTah Jul 2014 #27
Alan McHughen frustrated_lefty Jul 2014 #31
Yay! More crappy science!! jeff47 Jul 2014 #11
Nailed it... SidDithers Jul 2014 #12
Do critics of this publication have evidence that current testing standards are optimal? Faryn Balyncd Jul 2014 #14
Do you have evidence that they aren't? jeff47 Jul 2014 #19
Any study showing long term effects of wisechoice Jul 2014 #39
Yes. It's called everyone around you. jeff47 Jul 2014 #46
It appears you have not read either the article or the study: Faryn Balyncd Jul 2014 #50
The study's sample size was too small to make heads or tails out of the data. Avalux Jul 2014 #17
They should redo the study... SidDithers Jul 2014 #18
How about wisechoice Jul 2014 #43
But . . . how does that herbicide affect humans? Petrushka Jul 2014 #20
It affects them poorly. Pesticides also affect humans poorly. jeff47 Jul 2014 #21
Wow, what excellent advice for systemic pesticides! /sarcasm appal_jack Jul 2014 #23
That sounds serious Babel_17 Jul 2014 #25
Here is one on neonics & bird declines: appal_jack Jul 2014 #28
Here's some discussion of problems from using RoundUp to dry down wheat: appal_jack Jul 2014 #29
RoundUp Ready GMO's contributing to Monarch decline: appal_jack Jul 2014 #30
RoundUp & its adjuvants killing amphibians: appal_jack Jul 2014 #32
Neonic pesticides implicated in bat die-offs: appal_jack Jul 2014 #33
Extinction is indeed serious. appal_jack Jul 2014 #34
I only buy non-Monsanto altered products Babel_17 Jul 2014 #36
I agree about rational choice vs. intrinsic opposition. appal_jack Jul 2014 #49
So change the subject, and then attack the strawman for changing the subject. jeff47 Jul 2014 #44
Good Luck with your Monarchs coming back, appal jack! Thanks for your posts not promoting Cha Jul 2014 #48
serious buisiness.. G_j Jul 2014 #22
The truth: Seralini is the Andrew Wakefield of biology. alp227 Jul 2014 #24
Tracing back the source it goes to this...http://www.elsevier.com/ Rex Jul 2014 #37
The Seralini study was originallyh published in the Elsevier journal Food and Chemical Toxicology... SidDithers Jul 2014 #40
Okay thanks, yeah they wouldn't retract anything factual or I wouldn't think so. Rex Jul 2014 #41
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Republished study: GMO Co...»Reply #47