--
http://baribob.net,

@zentec: The problem with that is, to let them drink it means letting someone else SELL it. Allowing a food producer to market food that is unsafe is, well, unsafe.

Boylans here in the North East uses sugar and not hfcs also. I dont know if its sold in other parts of the U.S. but its becoming very popular due to the regular sugar use and not hfcs.

oh, you opponents of HFCS are not just misguided, you are severely misinformed. since before 1980, you have consumed HFCS without your knowlege. back then, zillions of tests were performed on the daily foods you ingested by substituting HFCS for cane sugar. when taste test results returned positive, manufacturers of food products containing cane sugar switched to HFCS as fast as the HFCS market would allow. why, you ask? well, for starters, we consumers demand reasonable prices. another little cause and effect, called US govt cane sugar price supports, protects US cane sugar growers from having to compete in the world sugar market. cane sugar prices (continue to) remain artificially high in the US when compared to the world market price, while HFCS competes worldwide, hence much lower prices for HFCS users. while it is true that US govt supports corn growers, it had/has NOTHING to do with HFCS - it was all about putting (corn based) food on your tables for the past 70 years. now, that same US govt support for corn growers also helps develop corn alcohol for your hybrid fuel-using cars. corn growers are very profitable right now thanks to your US govt corn support. corn supply is not meeting demand at this time, so expect price increases at your local grocery store on those items containing sugar which one might enjoy from time to time. so, children, it depends on which spin one wants to put this HFCS issue - i only speak truthfully. oh, by the way, your body digests and converts HFCS to energy in the same manner that it digests cane sugar, so fear not that HFCS is any more detrimental to your health than cane sugar. i know this, for i am in the business, and a healthcare provider on top of that. even if HFCS was not even on the market, then (some of you) would be calling for a ban on cane sugar to reduce obesity and other healthcare risks. i suggest that we all kick our children outside to play, throw away all home computers and video games, buy a bicycle and get active (like we once were as kids).

Check your ketchup for HFCS! We switched to the organic version of Heinz or some brand like that because all the others have HFCS. It tastes the same, but isn't poisoning you.

It should be ranked on the same list as Trans fats so I don't understand why San Francisco isn't being hailed along with New York for banning Trans fats.

HFCS is bad for you. End of discussion.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about healthy living and treating your body like a temple and whatnot, but every once in a while I enjoy a can of cola.

Just like everything else; it's all about moderation. Now about that aspartame...

That's right. By allowing the mass slaughter of sharks worldwide, FOR NOTHING MORE THAN THEIR FINS, we are killing our planet, and ourselves. This MUST stop.

It is absolutely barbaric. Shark finners drop long lines (among other methods) that can stretch 60 MILES... these lines catch all kinds of things. Turtles, fish, sharks, etc.... and the unwanted sealife are killed by the lines and cut loose. The sharks are pulled up, fins cut off, and dumped back into the ocean, WHILE STILL ALIVE, where they sink to the bottom to die.

Think about it people. Your greedy fucking IMAGE of wealth by eating shark fin soup is an atrocity against nature and ourselves.

My friend Andrew Gumbel reported on this for the Independent, in the UK. I linked to his piece and more info here:

[www.advicegoddess.com]

Ducks and geese are not human, and because gavage, the process of feeding the ducks would be terrible for a human, doesn't mean ducks respond the same way.

HFCS, sugar, honey, and several fruit juices all contain the same simple sugars. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted high fructose corn syrup "Generally Recognized as Safe" status for use in food, and reaffirmed that ruling in 1996 after thorough review.

In a joint letter to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom concerning the proposed tax, the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Corn Refiners Association jointly opposed the proposal and explained that HFCS and table sugar are similar in composition and that several studies have shown that the two types of sugars are metabolized similarly by the body. On its website, CSPI says that the idea that HFCS is more harmful than sugar is an "urban myth" and that there would be no health benefit whatsoever if companies switched from HFCS to sugar.

Read the CSPI press release and the letter. [www.cspinet.org]

Consumers can see the latest research and learn more at www.HFCSfacts.com.

Audrae Erickson
President
Corn Refiners Association

@privateer: I hope you realize that ADHD is grossly over-diagnosed. I'm not saying that ADHD isn't a real disorder, but that alot of "physicians" are too quick to declare that ADHD is the problem and then prescribe ritalin. Most parents do this without getting the opinions of other doctors.

High-fructose corn syrup

it will be real interesting when they ban coke (the pop, not the drug which will always be legal in san francisco)

I guess were about to see an invasion of coke from mexico (the pop, although they also ship us the other kind as well) since they make all thier stuff from sugar instead of HFCS

Man is no one responsible for themselves anymore? Kids kill classmates blame vid games and music. Sex crazed teens blame lack of religion. 400 pounders dropping like flys blame hollandaise sauce. Hey heres an idea make all schools have gym every semester of every grade level.

Again, you just have to live in the right ethnic neighborhood. I can find booze-filled candies in my grocery store!

@leftystrat:
Smoking is a little different, I think. There are negative externalities which bother people who don't smoke. When I'm eating dinner at an expensive restaurant, I don't want to also taste the cigar from the guy across the room. I agree that if there are no (or barely noticable) negative externalities, then, for the most part, government should be hands off. However, your statement, when taken to hyperbole (here, we can see that I realize that there is a logical failing with this argument - I understand this, but I believe that it is close enough to make a fair comparison) would be:
I hate pollution so I don't pollute. However, if everyone else wants to pollute, they should feel free to do it as much as they desire.

@FerryPrincess:
Then we can buy it from someone else. It's not a big deal. I mean, the whole point (ok, not the whole point) of NAFTA was so that we could trade corn. Mexico grows corn. We told Mexico that NAFTA would be a great thing. When they finally came around to it BAM! Tons of corn subsidies in the US. We basically stole all the corn farmers' jobs in Mexico because of it. Do we get corn cheaper?
In a manner of speaking, yes and no. The farmers sell corn for less than would be the market price if the government wasn't giving them crazy subsidies, but guess who's paying that money? Tax payers.

@teapartys_over:I've searched high and low to find a commercially available bread that do4esn't have a corn product in it for my mother who can no longer eat bread because of her allergy and her age makes it hard for her body to cope. Can't find one. It's in there in every brand including the kosher Arnold's. Usually kosher certified foods helps to weed out the corn products - but not with bread. Hve to makeit from scratch.

So:
- sugar more expensive via government policy
- corn syrup cheaper via government policy

Slow day at consumerist?

It's ridiculous they feel the need to add HFCS to plain corn syrup. I buy pure glucose from the baking store when I need corn syrup in a candy recipe.

@tempest: It's pretty easy to find Kinder Eggs in my Brooklyn neighborhood.

@Sherryness: I had no idea about "modified starches" masquerading as HFCS...thanks!

It's ridiculous that I live in a country that allows HFCS but won't let me indulge in runny unpasteurized milk cheeses. Sometimes the cheese shops here "accidentally" receive a shipment that includes a few, and they sell it anyway.

There is a huge underground movement of foodies secretly buying/importing banned foods in the U.S. A lot of the stuff is still available if you know where to look, so people are eating what they want regardless. This is especially true with raw milk in farming communities. If I cared to I could find it easier than I could find pot, and that's really saying something.

(I have no issue with HFCS being banned, though. Coke made with real sugar would be awesome.)

@ChuckECheese: Ummmm....Buick....tastes like chicken.

@bones: Ban the stuff anyway. It's made from genetically modified corn that I'm allergic to.

I don't even believe that HFCS is principally responsible for the problem of obesity in America. The food items most likely to be responsible, in my opinion, are diet foods. Americans aren't fat because they aren't dieting; they're fat because they are! When you eat very few calories your metabolism falls and in that condition, the majority of the calories you consume are turned into fat rather than be used by the body. So, people eat diet foods, their metabolism falls, they slip up every now and again, eating foods with a large number of calories, those calories are stored as fat, and then, seeing their increase in weight, they resolve to lost weight by eating MORE diet foods, etc... It's a vicious circle.

What needs to be unbanned before anything else is all forms of recreational drugs, but that's not going to happen, because of the DEA, the pharmaceutical industry, the CIA, corrupt venal politicians, prison administrators, etc... Who's not making money off of that - uh, you know, besides your average powerless yoked citizen?

Corn syrup...blecch.

johnva, if we end corn subsidies, won't that spike the cost of beef, milk and pork, as a large portion of corn grown in the US is used to feed cattle and hogs?

Maybe the timing is wrong, as commodities are all over the place due to the economic perfect storm?

Does that mean I prefer a ban? That's funny, I'm against banning things, and I'm against government subsidies...what to do?

They were determined that we get them from a continentally grown crop, so they passed legislation making that happen.

If only we didn't do that sort of thing, there'd be more food grown for eating, we'd be buying sugar at a fraction of the price, and some poor countries would have a better lifestyle. (unless, of course, you realize that the sugar plantations are in the hands of non-resident landowners, and the money flows directly away)

Chicago should also ban their restaurant-sold pate...or at least from the Russian Tea Room. I could only take one bite. By the time I walked to the Sears Tower, I had to start crawling.

Here's a novel idea: don't *&$#ing eat any, ok?

The last thing we need (besides HFCS apparently) is Big Brother enacting legislation about it.

I abhor smoking, therefore I don't smoke. I don't insist on laws. My area has banned it in bars. I don't think it's fair to smokers.

Remember: if you make your own decisions, the terrorists win.

Anyway, there you go. Have a nice weekend, and don't worry about the 1/3 of the world who are starving while we fret over where our sugars come from!

Oh my god, you're right. I should give up a healthy diet, because 1/3 of the world is starving. Thanks.

At least we're raising the bar for competition into higher lifestyle, so that fewer people will have money to buy the now endangered chinook salmon?

Anyway, there you go. Have a nice weekend, and don't worry about the 1/3 of the world who are starving while we fret over where our sugars come from!

blech, too many comments to see if someone pointed this out already

Problems for Mississippi catfish farmers arose after unlabeled Vietnamese catfish began flooding the U.S. market.

Neither are dolphins.

@The Bambino: Thank you for lending an ear. I'm not saying it's fine and dandy to be putting in all our food - like I said earlier, I try to avoid it for other reasons. But there's virtually no evidence to show that it's any unhealthier than plain sugar.

@Buran: I'll do that - now, if only Imo's Pizza (or Cecil Whittaker's in my neck of the woods) could ship cross-country!

Google it, and you'll see several opinions on whether this is or isn't banned, but my experience is that retailers can't get the stuff. Apparently, the folate is keeping mass commercial imports out, but travelers bringing it in, as well as individuals importing it for their own use seems to be okay.

Get it here -- hmm, a few flavors on that list that I haven't seen at Schnucks OR at their restaurant. I bet they have them, just not on the regular menu.

And now I want a Java Float. Grrr...

1. HFCS
2. Partially hydrogenated oils
3. Trans fats
4. Artificial dyes
5. BHA/BHT
6. Alum
7. Artificial sweeteners

@Buran: The sodas are under the 365 brand - Cola, Black Cherry, Raspberry, Ginger Ale, Orange Cream and some other flavors, and they're made with 100% cane sugar and also have no sodium or caffeine.

And I lived in St. Louis my entire life (moved to SF four years ago) - and I loved Fitz's! One of the many things I miss about the city.

@Dervish:

Interesting. I will read those studies, I was not aware of them. Thanks for the information.

@termitehead: I don't know about the meat, but it used to be illegal to buy kangaroo leather here until Adidas sued the state.

I'm waiting for the guberment to ban every position except for missionary.

Because horses are pretty.

Seriously. It boils down to that, more or less.

Last I checked, every grocery store, convenience store and mini-mart in the city still carries copious amounts of every major soda brand on the market -- each of which is practically *made* of HFCS.

So... whatchootalkinbout, Consumerist?

@johnva:
"But you don't lose anything by banning transfat, for the most part."

Sure you do. You lose the right to eat transfat. I'm not a child. I'm capable of being an informed consumer and figuring out what is and is not good for me without government intervention. And should I get a sudden hankering for french fries dipped in margarine, I should be able to indulge that craving without fear of the food police.

I'm far from a Libertarian, but the Consumerist makes me feel like it sometimes with comments like these. :/

@chuloallen: It's closer to food than a cigar is. People put it through their digestive systems. I can't remember the last time I saw someone swallow a cigar. By your logic, by the way, I'd not count high-fructose corn syrup as a food either!

@postnocomments: who cares? i don't want to live to be 200. or even 90. hell i could keep going lower, but you get the idea. i personally feel like living it up while i'm still young. what's the point in preserving yourself for the sake of old age? makes me think of old people in convertables or sports cars that never drive over 30mph.

[www.nih.gov]

I'd add stevia, the naturally super-sweet plant that can be used either as a leaf, or as an crystalline extract as a sugar substitute and that is widely used as such in many other countries.



However, in the US, thanks to lobbying by Monsanto (then headed by Donald Rumsfeld) who didn't want competition to Aspartame, it can't be sold as a food in the US. Fortunately, it is available as an herbal supplement, but this really limits it's distribution channels and keeps it out of things like soft drinks.

@postnocomments: Yep, if they just stop subsidizing it, I bet it would go away.

HFCS doesn't need to be banned. They only have to cut the corn subsidies. It's so annoying how that stuff shows up in everything. Even stuff that's supposed to be healthy, like yogurt.

And yes, I grew up on the farm, drinking "raw" goat milk and cow milk.

@teapartys_over: My problem with it is that it is in a lot of things that most people wouldn't think of as including a sweetener in the ingredients. Therefore they are not even on the lookout for it. That's because manufacturers are using it as a preservative. So HFCS is popping up in Lea & Perrin's Worcestershire Sauce, mustard, Italian salad dressing, rotisserie chicken (because it's in the rub or marinade they use), etc. So people are consuming sweetener, and sweet empty calories, because hfcs is an effective and cheap preservative. It adds empty calories to what should normally be a healthy, or at least semi-neutral, food choice.

@teapartys_over: I agree it can be avoided but it gets sneaked into the most ridiculous things. I found it in a can of stewed tomatoes (can't remember which brand) - why do canned tomatoes need high fructose corn syrup?

wow. Its amazing how many consumerist people are against freedom.

The goverment "Allows" companies to sell food. LOL. I would hope the goverment would allow companies to do what the want to.

Or would you rather live under a king, that tells you what is good and what is bad.

No you cannot drive a car that can kill you.

Candy? no one 'needs' candy, lets ban that too.

hmm meat? well we really dont 'need' meat lets ban meat as well.

hmm what else is bad. Drinking is bad, lets ban drinking.

Soda, also crap, lets ban soda.

jucie, well jusic is high in sugar, lets ban that too.

Once you start, where do you stop?

I had heard about that quite a while back, I think it was an article about a bar in Japan that served the fruit. I didn't understand the rational behind the ban. Of course, we can't always find rational reasons behind the way our government works.

As for endangered species, it's been shown again and again that you need a multi-layered approach to really cut down on the market for them. We have to destroy the consumer market for the species or people will still harvest and trade in them illegally. Maybe these particular regulations aren't the best approach, but they're just trying to attack the problem on both ends.

The people of San Francisco will surely perish if they ban corn syrup. Some corn syrup products:

Ketchup
Soda-pop
Salad dressing
Pie filling
cereal
bread
granola bars
jelly
spaghetti sauce

I say eat what you want. But don't sue because you didn't know it would get you fat.

A Philapeno friend of mine used to tease me about the weird things they eat in the provinces. I'll have to let him know that he can no longer eat dog when he goes back to visit family (since last year):

[www.manilastandardtoday.com]

Funny I could not find anything about it being banned in the U.S. Wikipedia only says that State and local laws are used to enforce it. That's one that should be on the list, but ban the cat? What's that all about.. Extra Crispy... MMMMM...MMM!

And with things like transfat or HFCS, they're banning a food additive, not a food. I think that makes it a bit different since there are substitutes that food producers can easily use (sometimes at increased cost).

We've all been eating too much transfat for too long, while living longer, for me to agree that a ban is necessary. I can agree it's bad for you, like a lot of stuff we put into our bodies, and that you certainly have a right NOT to consume any, but I don't agree with a government ban. I don't want to live in a society where the government is so concerned about my well-being that I can't enjoy things I really enjoy, simply because some bureaucrat some where has decided it's bad for me. Today it's smoking and transfat, tomorrow, is HFCS and Liquor, after that it's playing a violent video game... as long as you continue to allow the government to make these decisions for you, it won't be long until you aren't allowed to make any decisions for yourself.

Regarding endangered species, there is no need to ban them in food, since the killing, harvesting, possessing etc. is already illegal. Why do we need two laws that essentially do the same thing?

@bohemian: Yes, but Ho's study compared HFCS-sweetened drinks to a DIET control, not to a sucrose-sweetened control. How do we know that the same levels of carbonyls aren't found in drinks sweetened with sugar?

Endangered species, makes sense to ban production and sales. Health claims and cruelty claims? Stick it. Frankly, if they're going to ban foie for being the product of animal cruelty, you need to ban ALL meat, because what's crueler than murder?*

*This hyperbolic piece of asswittery brought to you by Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA.

@The Bambino: But sucrose is 50% glucose, 50% fructose. When it gets hydrolyzed in the stomach we end up with nearly the same amount of each sugar as if we had eaten HFCS.

Fructose from HFCS and fructose from hydrolyzed sucrose is metabolized in ecaxtly the same manner. Our bodies don't know the difference.

Some studies that have supported this are Melanson et al.'s "Effects of high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose consumption on circulating glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin and on appetite in normal-weight women" and Monsivais et al.'s "Sugars and satiety: does the type of sweetener make a difference?".

Pasteurization is an outdated practice that was necessary before society progressed towards better sanitation procedures. In fact raw milk, when left out side by side with cooked milk will last much longer without refrigeration and inhibit harmful pathogens. It's natural antibodies which get killed in pasteurized milk help ward off the nasties.

If you are concerned over the farms cleanliness, visit your local farmers market and ask to take a tour of the farm. It's all about knowing where your food comes from.

please quit the fear mongering with the "diptheria" bit. the FDA has you psyched.

Also, you don't even agree with banning foods that come from endangered species? That accounts for several of the entries on this list.

[www.sciencedaily.com]

I for one am tired of do-gooders telling me what I can and can't do to my body. If I want to smoke while driving down the highway, without a seatbelt drinking corn syrup enriched coca-cola, eating my transfat dripping Twinkies no government entity should tell me not to. Where do you draw the line on personal freedom/responsibility?? Why do so many insist the government must "protect" everyone from themselves?

lol gotta love sf. maybe they will bring back the Coke with sugar instead of hfcs.

also, i'm craving sharksfin siomai.

@Dervish:

Basically because our body processes the fructose in HFCS differently than it does old-fashioned cane or beet sugar, which messes with the way metabolic-regulating hormones function. It also forces the liver to kick more fat out into the bloodstream at a higher rate, which, well...makes you fatter quicker.

@xmarc: Correlation is not causality.

This will probably doublepost, but here's a good article on HFCS vs. sucrose:
[junkfoodscience.blogspot.com]
The thing I like is, she points out that a lot of these HFCS-demonizing studies compared HFCS to fructose and not sucrose. The thing I don't like is that she's adamant that HFCS and sucrose are the same when they're not. They're really similar but not identical.

Oh, and by the way I'm not against having candy or soda once in a while at the movies or something - I just wouldn't want to be involuntarily eating the stuff all the time in everyday foods.

@Gann: No - research has shown that sucrose and HFCS have identical effects on satiety and appetite-regulatng hormones. Pure fructose, on the other hand, has been shown to lower levels of these hormones, which makes people feel less full.

Food processors prefer HFCS to sugar not only because it's cheaper (or used to be), but also because it's easier to incorporate into foods and because it extends shelf life. HFCS also doesn't change its composition over time. Sucrose, however, will break down over time into its component sugars. This means that a 6 month old sugar-containing product will taste/feel/look different than its freshly produced counterpart.

And what other state may that be?

mcs328, that sharkfin soup you've been eating is probably that lost stray that everyone forgot about.

Here's another one: Mississippi and Louisiana have banned Chinese catfish. Before tainted toys, dog food, and Heparin, Chinese catfish was found to have huge levels of antibiotics. They banned it for that reason, but also to protect their local catfish industry.

So where does that leave us?

My science is a little shaky on this part, but I don't think there's enough land available in the US that can support to growth of sugarcane to make growing our own viable which is a BIG reason HFCS is unlikely to disappear, sadly.

I will whole-heartedly agree with you that when drinking Absinthe you will
not be tripping and find the “green fairy.” If, back hundreds of years ago,
someone was truly hallucinating, they were more than likely doing so based
on lead poisoning rather than any actual cause of the liquor being consumed.
There have been many papers about the subject in 2006-2007 on the subject.
This has to do with the binding of the barrels that the liquid was stored
in, and the levels of alcohol causing the lead to leech into the barrel.

In particular most recently you have the American Chemical Society published
an article stating in effect that the actual levels of thujone in the
pre-ban era prior to 1915 all the way up to modern day, that the levels were
all quite similar and that there was nothing abnormal besides possibly
levels of ethanol to explain the “symptoms.”

NOTE: No regulations have changed. Prior to May 2007 it was not widely
known that the official threshold for thujone analysis—10ppm—is such that it
permits, or effectively "legalizes", many European absinthes. Currently
several authentic absinthes are now available for purchase at liquor stores
and bars in the US. This is a major breakthrough, as many brands will
follow. Accordingly, the absinthe referred to in the below statutes would
be absinthe which is non-compliant with the current limits or is illegally
introduced to the country. Most of the laws which impact absinthe in the US
are out-dated, unfair, convoluted, illogical, self-contradictory, un-evenly
enforced and misunderstood even by those responsible enforcing them. In
short, it's a collection of bad law.

Reference: Chemical Composition of Vintage Preban Absinthe with Special
Reference to Thujone, Fenchone, Pinocamphone, Methanol, Copper, and Antimony
Concentrations. Written by: Dirk W. Lachenmeier,†
*

David Nathan-Maister,‡

Theodore A. Breaux,§

Eva-Maria Sohnius,†

Kerstin Schoeberl,†

and Thomas Kuballa†

Chemisches und Veterinäruntersuchungsamt (CVUA) Karlsruhe, Weissenburger
Strasse 3, D-76187 Karlsruhe, Germany, Oxygenee Ltd., 22 Baylis Crescent,
Burgess Hill RH15 8UP, United Kingdom, and Jade Liqueurs, LLC, 3588
Brookfield Road, Birmingham, Alabama 35226

~Cheers~

I heard that a reason 'food' manufacturers love HFC is cause your body can accept much more of it before telling you it's had enough, unlike cane sugar. This means people consume more of their product and they get richer while people get fatter.

Also, is dog/cat meat actually illegal in the US, or is it just frowned on?

I think for hazardous foods, the bans make sense. Most people these days rely on restaurants for a large chunk of their nutriton. It's impossible to tell what a restaurant has put into the food (unless it's all truthfully disclosed). If the restaurant can't buy dangerous stuff, though, consumers have some protection.

Anyone wanna come over as-I mean for dinner tonight?

@Jozef: "* Raw almonds (even those that are sold as "raw" or "organic" are treated by a chemical some consider carcinogenic)"

so what you saying is you prefer fresh nuts in your mouth?

* Unpasteurized cheese (illegal to sell in many states; I get mine "smuggled" in from Canada by visiting friends)
* Raw almonds (even those that are sold as "raw" or "organic" are treated by a chemical some consider carcinogenic)

And don't forget the "this thing is so delicious it kills the competition" category - Ugly Tomatoes are illegal to export from Florida.

I DNRTFA, but I think trans fats are banned here in Montgomery Co, MD too...

1) Endangered or otherwise ecologically unsustainable species. I fully support any bans or limitations for this reason. (Chilean sea bass, wild beluga caviar, shark fins)

2) Bans for health reasons. I think in some cases these bans go too far, but in others are totally justified. Trans fat really should be banned, since it's essentially a poison. The others are more of a grey area. (Trans fats, raw milk, HFCS, absinthe).

3)Silly bans/animal "cruelty". Horse meat and foie gras probably fall under here. I don't believe foie gras is particularly more cruel than any other form of meat production, and the horse meat thing is just stupid, wasteful, cultural garbage.

@jeff303: You've got that right. The lobbying powers of these companies are just depressing.

You missed one...Kobe Beef is banned

You'd have to literally binge on the stuff to screw you, the same as any alcoholic beverage.

wow. Lets just ban everything.

I'm all for banning some peoples speech here, because I dont like it ethier.

I heart Chilean sea bass.. OMG you can not cook it wrong, and it still tastes good. Problem there is the poor fishing practices.. it will be gone before we know it...I dont think even "certified" fish helps this species. ( ps- I ate it before I researched its bad to buy-ness. I live with the guilt, and the one filet left in my freezer from my huge Costco purchase.)

Oops... did I do it again? Naughty me!

@kylenalepa: Darwin, man. It's not the government's place to be a substitute parent. Let the fatties/unthinking alkies die out and the fitter will remain. As for the gastronomes, well, it's the strongest who pull the strings...

Hope that high fructose corn syrup band doesn't leak into NY lines... My husband LIVES for Karo syrup on his french toast. (Ewww, I know)

All you cheap store brand syrup buyers, BEWARE! (pure maple for me, thanks...)

Wow, what a coincidence - I just found that one of my fav sites linked to this yesterday XD Sorry, Absinthe Trippers: Scientists Say You're Just Really...

I know I'm just asking for flames here, but will someone explain why exactly HFCS is so dangerous? It hasn't been shown to have any adverse effect on health compared to sucrose. I don't like it because it's all tied up in corn subsidies and heavily processed, but I understand why manufacturers use it.

When you're drinking soda made with sucrose, the acidity of it breaks down the sugar into 50/50 glucose and fructose anyhow. This isn't much different from drinking soda with 45/55 glucose/fructose.

Can I still get my tiger penis soup? It cures what ails ya!!

What really got me is they banned people meat. I mean, it's not like were endangered or anything.

@chuloallen: Cigars are not food.

Horses are pretty.

Totally agreed!

@HeartBurnKid: Whole Foods makes "store brand" sodas that are made with actual sugar - no diet versions of the sodas, since they try to keep it as natural as possible.

Maybe then, not only can we get rid of HFCS, but we can also stop the ridiculous, wasteful practice of trying to make ethanol from corn, when there are so many options that are so much better suited (switchgrass, sugar beets, etc).

I did not know that little legal bit about absinthe. Good to know next time I meet some idiot goth clucking on about how they found the stuff. (Disclaimer: I used to be a "goth." Never gave a $%^& about absinthe. Most goths have more fads than "normal" people.)

The other option being eating not-food? Not eating at all? What?

@Pennsylvanian123: "Until they figure out how to put HFCS in fresh produce, at least..." How about a chilled wedge of iceberg lettuce drizzled with pancake syrup and topped with some diced supreme of grapefruit (this actually sounds edible)? Or, stir-fry broccoli and garlic with soy, HFCS, ginger, a few dashes of hot sauce, and some sliced meat (horse, buffalo or elk).

@HeartBurnKid:

Actually, the better way would be to end sugar import tariffs, but ending corn subsidies wouldn't hurt.

@nomatteus: High-Fructose Corn Syrup can also be labelled as "modified corn starch" and "modified food starch." But not "corn syrup" or fructose or glucose. The "high-fructose" part of the descriptor is because they have severely upped the fructose portion of the corn syrup with an enzyme. Also, "modified corn starch" and "modified food starch" can also be other things besides high-fructose corn syrup. That's the problem with labelling these days - It's still really hard to know what is in a product just by reading the label. Vagueness is allowed.

@tempest: That was gonna be my nomination!

cali make me laugh. they ban unhealthy foods, but legalize weed. so what will people eat when they get the munchies? - tofu bars?

voila, democracy in action

@VA_White: Capri Sun has an All Natural line with no HFCS

HFCS is dangerous, but so is anything in excess.

Here's a list of foods with no High-Fructose Corn Syrup: [highfructosehigh.com]

I hope they don't mind my putting a link to my own site here, since it's on-topic!

[en.wikipedia.org]

Do they have to mark it as "high fructose corn syrup" or can it also be listed as just "corn syrup" or "fructose/glucose" or even just "sugar" (in Canada here...)? I'm never sure when looking at labels--either I don't look at many things with HFCS or else they're not labeled properly in the ingredients list! Or is anything sweet likely to have HFCS?

When shopping I always try to remember...
"Eat Food
Not Too Much
Mostly Plants"

Yet another reason to be in love with San Francisco.....

@zentec: But I think that's precisely why they should ban HFC from all things in the US. Since it will be outlawed it will force the food industry to reinventing another less harmful (hopefully) substance to do the same things that HFC is used for now adays. Hopefully by then we can get everything we have today but not have to flip over the labels to see if it has HFC and it will eventually make us go blind like that fat guy did on discovery channel. He drank 2 litres of soda a day.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Newsweek just did a thing about how 'classic' absinthe (what Toulouse-Lautrec would have drunk) doesn't actually have a level of thujone that would be considered illigal today. But it was 140 proof, which would cause hallucinations in just about anyone, regardless of the inclusion of thujone.

[www.blog.newsweek.com]

And - Absinthe - there's also a loophole if you're into the really toxic variety. Buy it from an overseas distributer and you can get any brand you want (that's what I did).

It's easy to avoid HFC if you shop at Whole Foods or Trader Joe's (assuming the funds necessary).

Monsanto's frankenfoods have been shown to kill bee populations and these nine are banned?

Clearly, people's health is not behind the decisions of what to ban except for shark fins, and that may only be due to concerns for their numbers; if the rich ever acquire a taste for it, watch it come off the list.

End corn subsidies. That'll do it.

Only endangered ones are prohibited.

Major kudos to San Francisco for trying to eradicate what is one of the most disgusting substances still considered legal in the U.S.

I've already banned HFC from my life. Unfortunately, it is coming down to a few juices that can be purchased at Costco and sodas made for sale during Passover. Otherwise, slim pickings because you can't even order things like sweetened tea any longer -- they all have that damned HFC.

San Francisco wants to ban high fructose corn syrup? Well, that should make shopping there easy since all they would have left in the store is the meat, produce and cleaning supply sections. Until they figure out how to put HFCS in fresh produce, at least. Pretty much every other product in the store would be banned.

But..but...horse meat is SOOO delicious! Goes great with dolphin steak and some bald eagle pate...

As an aside, if high-fructose corn syrup is banned in San Francisco, what will happen to all of the sodas? Will they go back to using cane sugar for San Franciscan sodas? Because that would be awesome.

I mega-loathe high-fructose corn syrup. Not sure why they are on the "endangered" list. I wish it was banned!