High-Fructose Corn Syrup - the Controversy

I understood that the metabolic pathways were different for the two. Fructose is metabolized fully in the liver while for glucose it is only 20%. Those fatty acids created by fructose in the liver accumulate in your liver. The reason for the fat gain seen in rats might be because the calories stored by consuming fructose is much greater (30%) versus glucose which is (<1%).I'm quite a bit rusty on the chemistry but I'll take a look at my old organic chemistry books and see if I can find anything to clarify.P.S. I had read an article on BBC that indicated Cancer cells use Fructose more efficiently, or something to that effect.

The issue for me at least is the fact that the BT toxin has been found in streams some distance from the GM crops. It appears that the organic detritus left after harvesting is decomposing in runoff waters. Hoocoodanode?Iirc they are lookiong into doing some research into what effects the BT toxin has on insect populations in these streams and other riparian ecosystems. I think the problem is that HFCS, like that found in soft drinks, is in such a large amount (the fructose found in fruits is at small enough amounts that the liver is able to matabolize it) that the liver starts storing fats that accumulate in the liver and inhibit proper insulin production and increase LDL in the blood.Because sucrose is made up of both glucose and fructose less overall must be processed by the liver.

Bt is used to also control mosquito populations. Farmers have to be careful to use the particular Bt toxin protein specific to the insect they are trying to control, otherwise they could harm beneficial species. So, no I don't agree with your assetion that it is only harmful to lepidopterans and beetle larvae.Should we worry about the possible unintended poisoning of targetted species outside of the farm? Is there such a possible effect? Would you consider 6 months as low persistance?While I applaud the attempt at creating pesticides that are low impact, with low-toxicity to non-targetted species and have a small to negligable impact beyond their application, I champion the continued oversight of any product or design which has the potential for negative consequences. According to this Study the streams tested had stream channels that were 500m from maize fields and that roughly 91% of Indiana's miles of streams were within 500m of where maize fields had been planted.I'm not out to demonize the use of Bt in pesticides or our crops, but I definitely care about the possible negative consequences of their use. I think a high priority item for study should be the impact of the Bt protein in streams and the possiblility of the introduction of GM genes into native species. Continuing my research into HFCS leads me to agree with you that any demonization of HFCS should not be based on its supposed difference with sucrose. (Is 5% more fructose enough to make HFCS so much more dangerous than sucrose? It doesn't appear to be so.)The increase in the percentage of foods that have sugar in their ingredients should be the focus of poeples ire and not the little difference between sucrose and HFCS.Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.Edited by DBlevins, : whats up with copying a text and having it copy the whole field?

Just because it only effects a limited set of species doesn't mean we should not be concerned, right? If the effect of Bt is creating an imbalance in off-the-farm ecosystems by killing a significant number of the targetted species I have to be concerned. What is the impact on species of a toxin that is constantly being put into the system and one that is persistent? My point being that 6-months is less time than the next cycle of planting which makes it for all intents and purposes persistent. Did you read the study?Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

Perhaps I am not being clear or your not seeing the forest for the trees.It doesn't matter whether it effects a limited number of species because we have no idea of the effect that significantly reducing the population of those species could have on the scosystem as a whole.Again, in case I wasn't clear: I am not saying that this is happening, but it definitely should be a concern and studied and not written off as fear-mongering. I said 'If'.

Sorry if I am getting in the middle of the debate here. I thought that fructose did not have an effect on the desire for more food while glucose did have a suppressing effect on food consumption.If this has already been cleared up then feel free to ignore.