If one were tempted to even consider taking such articles with more 
than a grain of, er, sugar, then looking at the funding sources of any 
studies would possibly serve as a guide to the quality of the results. 
While these may be expected to be independent variables there seems, 
in the real world, to very often be a fascinating degree of no doubt 
totally coincidental correlation between the $ interests of the funder 
and the conclusions drawn.

> Here are some articles/essays about american sugar tariffs.
>
> http://www.americansugarbeet.org/secndTier.asp?bid=125
> http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/27/061127ta_talk_surowiecki

> I've also heard of this in the context of High Fructose Corn Syrup
> being a "bad" sugar compared to cane sugar,

It's conceivable that HFCS is bad wrt cane sugar but, if so, this 
would be similar to saying, if comparing people murdered,  that Mao 
was bad compared to Stalin.
In the case of the sugars, both are a source of highly concentrated 
highly water soluble simple carbohydrates. Such things are great if 
used appropriately but both liable to cause all the things you see 
them cause if used the way you see them used.

> ... but does point out that the timing of the obesity
> epidemic (overstated or not) coincided with the introduction of HFCS
> as a sweetener.
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/1969924.htm

Yeah. Right.
I would be quietly amazed (but not at all surprised) if people who had 
a look at the general trends in lifestyles (eating, exercise, ...) 
from say about WW2 on needed experts of any sort at all to be sure of 
what's causing the "epidemic".

An interesting correlation is the timing between the introduction of 
"western" diets to indigenous largely local produce communities and 
the notable ramping up of diabetes in their communities. About 30 
years. Obviously varies with circumstance. No refs given - left as an 
exercise for the student. (That www.goog....)

Another interesting "curve" is the availability of sugar in any form 
to the general populace. Much prior to 1900 the main sources would 
have been honey with some geographically limited botanical sweeteners 
(eg Stevia in areas of South America, nectars generally). Availability 
per capita in any population was generally minimal. Somewhere around 
1900ish the curve climbs out of the noise and leaps exponentially to 
many many many times the prior levels.

The novel "Robinson Crusoe" consists of AFAIR 2 stories (perhaps 3) of 
which the first is generally widely known. The (an) other has him on a 
ship which meets another which has suffered a disaster. Most aboard 
are dead not AFAIR of lack of water but of starvation. The passengers 
are a rich lady and her ?niece?. I think the woman dies soon after 
rescue and the niece survives. Not the point - The lady owns a 
substantial amount of cargo and this is taken from the ship along with 
the lady by Crusoe while the remnant of the murderous crew are left to 
their fate. All penny dreadful stuff. But what's the relevance here? 
Her cargo was barrels of sugar! All aboard were dying of hunger while 
many barrels of major fattener #1 lay in their hold. Defoe seems to 
have missed this subtle point OR it was not generally realised that 
the sweetener-treasure of the day was also a major food on its own 
right.

Just gargoyled for the second part of the story. The above "sugar" 
episode is not detailed here but it's probably in the "burning ship" 
section mentioned in line 2, paragraph 2. A VERY wide ranging and 
venturesome venture overall !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Further_Adventures_of_Robinson_Crusoe

While I'm gaggling - some good stuff here

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar





        Russell


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist