Studies find mercury in much U.S. corn syrup | Science & Health | Reuters — Although this report stems form this research here. It’s not being reported to any extreme (yet) in the American press. The extent to which this unnatural product has gotten into the food supply in the USA is a crime.
Many common foods made using commercial high fructose corn syrup contain mercury as well, researchers reported on Tuesday, while another study suggested the corn syrup itself is contaminated.
Food processors and the corn syrup industry group attacked the findings as flawed and outdated, but the researchers said it was important for people to know about any potential sources of the toxic metal in their food.
In one study, published in the journal Environmental Health, former Food and Drug Administration scientist Renee Dufault and colleagues tested 20 samples of high fructose corn syrup and found detectable mercury in nine of the 20 samples.
Dufault said in a statement that she told the FDA about her findings but the agency did not follow up.
Found by Aric Mackey who predicts that to combat this menace, the FDA will change the specification so it is OK to have more mercury in our food.
#39–Fusion==Personally, I don’t know, I was just taking Nimby’s word for it.
Both you and he “sound like” you know what you are talking about AND you shouldn’t post as you both do and not think you know very firmly.
In my ignorance, I tend to believe Nimby==only because I have read about bull rushes being planted to “take up” contaminations in the earth and water. Now, I don’t remember specifically if it was metal contamination==but they were taking up more than just needed nutrients. Also==plants do take up other metals like iron and copper. So, what you say doesn’t have the ring of truth to me.
but then I don’t think all the missing mercury was poured into corn syrup vats either.
As usual, I’m left to the google. I read labels and habitually don’t buy much processed food, so the issue for me is mostly moot, other than the scientific/social issues of intellectual curiosity.
Care to amend your statement, or give the source for your belief, or explain the difference between mercury/metal/iron/nutrients?
Actually, it is better for your body than sucrose. Sucrose is a simpler carb than fructose.
Sucrose is one molecule of fructose combined with one molecule of glucose. Fructose and glucose are simple sugars; sucrose is not.
#41–ubiquitous==once again another post from someone who posts with authority as if they should be believed.
Starting the google to check on Fusions info I came across the follow website that explains why fructose is more damaging than sucrose==just the opposite of what you posted. It seems that “the simplicity” of the molecule is not the determining factor but rather how it is exactly metabolised.
A little info makes a person dangerous. Please explain the discrepancy or how you gain pleasure in posting as if you knew something to the deteriment of all. Are you repuglican of nutritional science?
http://medbio.info/Horn/Time%201-2/carbohydrate_metabolism.htm
NWO Catalog
Item #387757:
New! GMO Corn With Mercury, -Solve all your population *and* control problems with one new exciting product!
-guaranteed to lower birth rates & produce fat, mindless voting dolts out of the surviving ones all in one fell swoop!
Start fulfilling all your NWO eugenics desires TODAY! -call now for free brochure.
Bobbo,
Very few plants are capable of taking up heavy metals. That is because each molecule is poisonous to the plant. The whole practice of osmosis (transfer of water and nutrients from one cell to another) requires the metal to go through a cell wall. Because of the toxicity that would destroy the cell walls and prevent the further uptake of nutrients.
Yes, some metals are required for some plants in minute quantities. These plants however are tolerable of those metals. Copper, iron, and zinc being the most common. Heavier metals, including mercury, lead, nickle, cadmium, and the like are not normal plant nutrients.
Soils with excess heavy metals will not support much diverse flora. Only those plants tolerant of heavy metals can grow there.
I didn’t see anything, and don’t aim to spend all day searching for it, is that some water plants “fix” the metals in their roots. The metals do not travel up the stem. Most plants would find the heavy metals toxic.
In the oceans, rivers, and lakes, there are also some single cell plants that can absorb heavy metals. These plants though do not require osmosis to survive and the amounts are extremely minute, if measureable.
Slightly larger animals eat these plants and concentrate the heavy metals in their fat. They, in turn, are eaten by larger predators who concentrate the heavy metals even more. It is the accumulation that causes the problems.
Areas hit by mercury contamination follow this chain. In Minamata Japan, where mercury first came to be see as the poison it is, it too followed this path. Mercury itself is insoluble in water, In Minamata the locals ate fish from polluted water. Being the top of the food chain, they accumulated the mercury until it became a problem.
I am not a biologist or chemist. As the Safety Officer many years ago I had to take many courses on various harmful substances. Most of what I’ve related above is from memory.
#44–Fusion==excellent. I have read articles on bull rushes and water lillies and you nudged my memory. As I agree with your “logic” I was going to agree whole heartedly but I decided to google just once for “mercury uptake in plants” and it appears you are wrong.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3474/is_/ai_n28804790
At least we both agree eating even trace amounts of mercury is not good. I wonder if any federal standard would only talk about lifetime ingestion and once again fail in their duties to protect the American Public from rapacious corporate agri-business?
The phosphoric acid pulls more mercury out of our fillings than the Coke contains! It’s just not politically correct to talk about how many “old age” diseases come from accumulations of mercury from our fillings and especially crowns.
Fortunately, Christians can neutralize poisons by the prayer of faith.
#46–Timuchin==yes, I forgot to mention teeth fillings and aluminum cookware about 3 times now. With reference to Alzheimers, I forget what the most recent studies have found. These reports on “trace bad chemicals” in our bodies seem to go back and forth with no conclusions. I’d think “science” would be more capable of reaching that conclusion?
Better safe than sorry given the ready alternatives.
once again another post from someone who posts with authority as if they should be believed.
Sheesh. My post was two sentences, both factual. I didn’t draw any conclusions, make any inferences, or otherwise editorialize in any way. I don’t particularly like ADM as a company but you’re welcome to buy their stock all day long if you want.
why fructose is more damaging than sucrose==just the opposite of what you posted.
Maybe you’re thinking of someone else’s post. I didn’t draw any conclusions whatsoever.
It seems that “the simplicity” of the molecule is not the determining factor but rather how it is exactly metabolised.
I don’t disagree. I also don’t agree. Actually, I don’t care, nor did I say anything about metabolization, vulcanization, balkanization, lubrication, or inebriation.
A little info makes a person dangerous.
Ah, you flatter yourself.
Please explain the discrepancy or how you gain pleasure in posting as if you knew something to the deteriment of all.
If you point out the discrepancy I’ll gladly defend it.
Are you repuglican of nutritional science?
Monkey+typewriter = “Are you repuglican of nutritional science?”
#48–ubi==thats your defense huh? “I posted without meaning or consequence.” heh, heh.
I don’t know which is worse.
“bobbo said,
Starting the google to check on Fusions info I came across the follow website that explains why fructose is more damaging than sucrose==just the opposite of what you posted. It seems that “the simplicity” of the molecule is not the determining factor but rather how it is exactly metabolised.”
I believe the theory is that since fructose is a complex sugar, it is slower to be metabolized than the simple sugar sucrose, thus it is something akin to complex carbs like starch. I avoid carbs in general and sugars in particular, indulging maybe once a week, and I feel the best I have in years.
#50–Rich==I agree. We all would benefit to treat processed foods as a type of poison==within reason as different souls may take it.
I think you are missing the import of the issue: yes, fructose is more complex and so it has a lower glycemic index and “ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL” it should be healthier than simpler compounds like sucrose. The linked website educates all educatable that all other things ARE NOT EQUAL!!
Fructose goes straight to the liver unlike the simpler sugars.
As I have stressed, I have no knowledge of these subjects. Just the google and my dictionary.
Its only ironic that now with even greater knowledge that processed flour and sugar is REALLY bad for us, that I have developed a fascination with pastry desserts and baking in general. Just Terrible.
Bobbo – I didn’t read the linked article as I’ve seen and read about this for a couple of days now. I did, however, read the abstract (linked above as “research here”) and, from there, to the full article which is linked below the abstract. I admit, I only skimmed the article. There are only so many hours in the day. But what I read seemed solid enough. Hell, I don’t know. I barely slipped through biochemistry in med school. And I’m not going to get involved in the sucrose vs fructose argument above because you can find science supporting both sides. I’ll just say my personal opinion is that HFCS ought to be banned. I try not to use it. But, damn, I do like ketchup!
#52–Nimby==its good to have read enough to come to a firm conclusion isn’t it? I don’t think anyone, except maybe ubiquitoast==and thats hard to tell since he carefully designs his posts so they don’t mean anything (HAW!!==as in “not!) sugar of any kind is good==and from the ONE google article I linked and the OP above, I’ll accept on mere allegation that HFCS is even worse.
The issue of heavy metal uptake is new for me, interesting for a bit, but since its not my field, I’m happy with avoiding mercury whether the corn plant does or not.
look HFCS is a marketing tool as well as a way to get rid of all the GMO corn that other countries wont allow for export for human consumption, and/or demand that any foods that have any gmo content be clearly labeled
also, -aside from making foodstuff last *extra long* it disrupts you “full” switch so you’ll eat more..
also has something to do sugar tariffs and brazil, amongst a few others..
there *might be a reduction of use* now that they just okay’d GMO sugar beets for planting..
(regular sugar cane does not grow too well in the US proper…)
the fact that they are finding mercury in the stuff should be no surprise..in case nobody has noticed.. they have been using the (sometimes toxic) waste products of many industries as food additives/preservatives for many years. coupled with FDA deregulation
or higher allowances of toxic chemicals in everything from water supply to processed foods..
one only look at at how Fluoride became “good for your health (and teeth) as an example..(it’s not)
its all about saving/making money..
-s
lol at #5
Just wait for the next scam, where manufacturers quietly put sugar back in our products, and re-brand them as “lower calorie”.
Which is technically not a lie. sugar laced foods have fewer calories than corn syrup laced foods. Corn syrup is technically sweeter, but requires more to achieve the same sweetness ‘level’ as sugar that people are used to.
12 cans of coke a day? O.o Serious? Older now I can barely finish a can a day!
On subject, this is good news since they are actively advertising corn on TV
You guys who think that plants don’t take up heavy metals from soil need to do a little research.
Plants need metals for to run cellular metabolism as well as build the molecules for photosynthesis chain. They have very effective metal transporters which are not specific, and take up cadmium as well as calcium. (google the function of the CAX gene in plants)
What plants DO have is a way to sequester these heavy metals in vacuoles so they don’t poison the plants… but these are within the cells, so they are still eaten when the plant is eaten.
It’s best to mix it with red wine while visiting Spain w/John.