Rep. DeLauro: Tax Every Teaspoon of Sugar

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced this week the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax (SWEET Act), which aims to institute a tax of one cent per teaspoon—4.2 grams—of sugar, high fructose corn syrup or caloric sweetener.

The measure (HB 5279), introduced Wednesday says, “A 20-ounce bottle of soda contains about 16 teaspoons of sugars. Yet, the American Heart Association recommends that Americans consume no more than six to nine teaspoons of sugar per day.”

Even though the manufacturers of the sweet drinks are targeted to pay the tax, the text of the bill itself notes that the goal is to reduce public consumption through a price increase. …

Very few real (natural, unprocessed) foods have high amounts of simple sugars occurring naturally, so how are they “unavoidable”? HFCS imparts well over ten times the normal amount of free simple sugars to anything it’s added to.

The precursor to HFCS, all-glucose corn syrup, is itself produced by hydrolyzing corn starch with alpha-amylase (produced from Bacillus subtilis instead of the human pancreas) and HCl, an unnatural process even inside the body. The next step in converting to HFCS is to add enzymes that convert some of the glucose to fructose.

If this is meant to be a defense of crony capitalism’s favorite sweetener, then consider that the Communist Manifesto is the chief historical advocate of “combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries” (ninth plank of Communism per the Manifesto)—something that did not happen in the USA until after WWII, take note.

Very few real (natural, unprocessed) foods have high amounts of simple sugars occurring naturally, so how are they “unavoidable”?

I suppose that depends on how you define "high"? Fruit is loaded with fructose. Many popular and healthy vegetables contain glucose. Mannose can be found in legumes and vegetables, and galactose can also be found in fruits, vegetables and herbs. Does your "natural" diet prevent you from eating ketchup or from putting mayo on your sandwich? Do you deny yourself beer, yogurt, hot dogs, cake, pastries, chocolate and ice cream? Sounds pretty damned boring to me, and for absolutely no good reason.

HFCS imparts well over ten times the normal amount of free simple sugars to anything it’s added to.

Did you get that nonsense from the same source that told you hydroxymethylfurfural is carcinogenic when found in parts per billion? You need to improve your sources of information. HFCS is a replacement for sucrose. That's how it is used, and it has replaced sugar on a nearly one-for-one basis for a long time.

Sounds scary. But it isn't. HFCS is about as close to honey as you can get. Are you trying to tell us that honey is deleterious to our health? Sure. Yet your body cannot tell the difference between glucose and fructose from HFCS and glucose and fructose from sucrose. It handles it in the same manner, and like all sugars, it ends up at the same level of the Krebs Cycle as 3x2 carbon fragments. The horror.

What the hell....? How would the food manufacturing industry exist without agriculture? Working together to produce products that people want and use is communist? Good grief, are you confused. HFCS became popular because the politicians make sucrose more expensive for American industry than the rest of the world. HFCS also has properties that beverage manufacturers, baking and the processed food industries find appealing. It isn't some big conspiracy to control your precious bodily fluids. The only people who see problems with this food ingredient are those who don't understand basic human nutrition.

Funny that I need to “improve (my) sources” while you throw USDA data at me.

Comparing honey to HFCS is as “confused” as one can get. The latter never contains the amino acids, electrolytes and other buffering agents that honey does. Never mind what Proverbs 25:16 says about consuming excessive amounts of honey in particular. Same with comparing the fructose content in rather large servings of fruits and vegetables, also mixed in with starches and other complex sugars, proteins, et al—when it is eaten in that context, the amount of free fructose is combined with other ingredients that react with the HCl in stomach acid first.

If what the Communist Manifesto clearly states does not startle you, especially in relation to the level of government involvement in agriculture, then what will? It’s absurd to claim leftist crony-capitalist “agribusiness” produces “what people want”. Learn some basic biochemistry before continuing to blindly trust the government.

Funny that I need to “improve (my) sources” while you throw USDA data at me.

Yeah, your sources for information have you saying ridiculous things on this thread like hydroxymethylfurfural is formed in the stomach in amounts that can be considered carcinogenic.

Now if you have something that shows the USDA chart is incorrect, let's see it. Otherwise, we'll go with the USDA's chart that proves another one of your ridiculous claims was, well, ridiculous.

Comparing honey to HFCS is as “confused” as one can get. The latter never contains the amino acids, electrolytes and other buffering agents that honey does.

Oh, good grief, take an ex-lax will ya. HFCS is not meaningfully different in composition or metabolism from honey. Honey is a free sugar comprised mostly of fructose and glucose, just like HFCS. As a matter of fact, the ratio of fructose/glucose in honey, (1.22) is exactly the same as the HFCS used to sweeten beverages (HFCS 55). Yeah, honey contains some small quantities of amino acids, vitamins, minerals and antioxidants. But that really isn't germane to our discussion. The small amounts of amino acids found in honey are of little nutritional significance.

The chemical composition of honey is regularly compared to that of HFCS. You would know that if you used more informed sources.

Never mind what Proverbs 25:16 says about consuming excessive amounts of honey in particular.

Does it say anything about consuming too much water? How about too much salt? Those things can be bad for you as well if you ingest too much of them.

Same with comparing the fructose content in rather large servings of fruits and vegetables, also mixed in with starches and other complex sugars...

But you were the one who said that very few real foods have high amounts of simple sugars occurring naturally. Once again, you're incorrect. I see a recurring theme here involving your questionable sources.

when it is eaten in that context, the amount of free fructose is combined with other ingredients that react with the HCl in stomach acid first.

In what context, then, does simple sugars combining with HCL in the stomach create 5-HMF in quantities that could be considered carcinogenic? I don't believe that HCL in the gut even does this, but who am I to question your sources? ROFL.

If what the Communist Manifesto clearly states does not startle you, especially in relation to the level of government involvement in agriculture

I think government should stay out of agriculture, but government interference in agriculture has been going on for a long time - even long before WWII. Of course, your initial comment about this was directed at the “combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries”. There was no mention of government like there is now. You have a habit of changing your story. Anyway, I'm not sure what you mean by using the term "combination." Food manufacturers and the agriculture industry have been very close for hundreds of years. Just like everything else you've said here, I think you fear the things you don't understand.

Learn some basic biochemistry before continuing to blindly trust the government.

Does providing you with facts equate to blindly trusting the government in your tin foil world? I did manage to take out some government backed loans to finish my grad degree in biochemistry, focused in food science. Does that make me a part of the communist manifesto?

Find. New. Sources.

What “facts” have you produced, again?

Stop making baseless claims. HFCS and honey are absolutely not the same thing; not even close. For one, the water content is radically different (raw honey at far less than 14 percent, while HFCS is at 24 percent or higher); for another HFCS does not contain honey’s amino acids or vitamins (honey contains all of the B complex); for yet another, HFCS is not as alkaline as honey; and yet another, honey will remain utterly pathogen-free and even produces peroxides that kill many harmful microorganisms.

So far, it’s only your opinion that the reaction of HCl with free fructose (sans any buffering agents) cannot produce enough 5-HMF to result in levels that can be carcinogenic.

The matter of the government subsidizing corn resulting in making HFCS cheaper than sucrose or other more natural sweeteners is a direct consequence of their following the Communist Manifesto. There is no other explanation or conclusion. It’s not a conservative standpoint to countenance this just on that matter alone, separate from whatever ill effects may result from consuming HFCS, which are not acute (nor have I claimed them to be).

I am not incorrect with respect to natural foods not containing high doses of simple sugars, especially when unbuffered and especially compared to other contents, which work against the production of 5-HMF.

HFCS and honey are absolutely not the same thing; not even close

Never said they were the same thing, but, yeah, they are very close.

HFCS does not contain honey’s amino acids or vitamins (honey contains all of the B complex)

LOL. All those amino acids, vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants represent a whopping .50 g out of 100 grams of honey. Does the term straining at a gnat mean anything to you? Like I said before, HFCS is not meaningfully different in composition or metabolism than honey.

While Toddsterpatriot waits for you to answer his question (hint: HFCS and sucrose have the same GI), I'm still waiting for you to show us how HFCS imparts well over ten times the normal amount of free simple sugars to anything it’s added to. That's high quality nonsense you got right thar.

So far, it’s only your opinion that the reaction of HCl with free fructose (sans any buffering agents) cannot produce enough 5-HMF to result in levels that can be carcinogenic.

Now it's only fructose that causes this deadly reaction, and it must be qualified so that there are no other "buffering agents" - whatever that means - to interfere with the carcinogens being formed. Maybe you don't realize it, but you're really hacking now. Forming hydroxymethylfurfural from HCL and sugar will work in a lab, in a beaker, but transferring those results to the human body is a stretch that you can't make.....IMHO, of course. Do you realize that the air you breathe and the water you drink contains benzene? Yup, it's true. Now, Mr, Natural, is benzene a powerful carcinogen or not? Oh Noes!!

I am not incorrect with respect to natural foods not containing high doses of simple sugars

You are incorrect about so many things. Most recently, you were woefully misguided about how HFCS came to be commercialized. And now you want us to believe that fruits, vegetables, herbs and legumes are not natural? I think you throw up all kinds of qualifiers and caveats as a defense mechanism when someone points out your many misunderstandings.

Funny how I’m “incorrect on so many things” and all I get told is that it is your opinion. Never mind your abuse of scripture.

Glycemic index reveals nothing, not even relating to how much insulin a body produces in response to a certain food. Incidentally, the average glycemic index of fructose is 19 while that of sucrose is 68, so why did you throw a lie at me, I’d like to know. Never mind not understanding that weight percent of certain ingredients does not speak to their reactivity or acidity/alkalinity, such as in honey.

If you don’t know what “buffering agent” means, please look it up. These are agents that prevent a massive shift towards a low pH during a reaction, and actually maintain a certain pH within the system. So the HCl within the stomach will be more likely to react with the buffers than directly with the fructose.

Calling HFCS what it is—an unnatural industrial product—is not the same as saying “fruits, vegetables, herbs and legumes are not natural”, so that’s reaching.

BTW, the average ambient atmospheric concentration of benzene is about 0.7 parts per billion. That’s in spite of our chemical industry, tobacco consumption and automobiles—mainly because of rapid atmospheric degradation. The vast majority of us will be in our graves long before we can inhale a tiny fraction of the LD50 of that chemical

I don’t understand your seeming anger over this issue. History is quite plain on the correlation between HFCS and government intervention.

Just what are you referring to? I’m trying to make sense of what you say here.

All I came in to this discussion saying was that HCl degrades simple sugars into 5-HMF. I said nothing about breaking down sucrose into glucose and fructose. So what are my “claims” in this respect? Most simple sugars, and some complex sugars, are reducing sugars; sucrose is not, and you’d need an excess of HCl to continue a reaction with the monosaccharides into the corresponding aldehydes after the glycosidic bonds of sucrose are hydrolyzed (and my guess is that you would have a severe case of indigestion at that level).

For the record, it’s a combination of both imposing tariffs and restrictions on sugar imports and subsidization of corn syrup production that renders HFCS cheaper. So I thank you for correcting me on at least that part.

Yes, you are incorrect on so many things.

The glycemic value of carbs is how quickly they are available as glucose. The quickness of availability is determined in the gut during digestion. Sucrose is metablozied so quickly that it has essentially the same GI as the free sugar in HFCS (55~60). No one eats pure fructose so it is always going to be mixed with other things. Those things, along with water, will always be there so your fear of pure HCL reacting with fructose to create 5-HMF, in amounts that could "potentially" cause cancer, is irrational. Earlier you said all simple sugars react with HCL to do this. Is this still your position? Since sucrose is a simple sugar, are you indicting it as well?

How can you possibly go through life not eating naturally occurring simple sugars? You can't, and to suggest that you can, or should, is just plain ignorant.

Calling HFCS what it is—an unnatural industrial product—is not the same as saying “fruits, vegetables, herbs and legumes are not natural”, so that’s reaching.

BS. Here's what you said: Very few real (natural, unprocessed) foods have high amounts of simple sugars occurring naturally, so how are they “unavoidable. You can try and tap dance around this all you want, but it is a indefensible statement. Yet here you are...

HFCS is glucose, fructose, and a few higher sugars. Your body treats them the same as they do glucose and fructose from any other (natural included) source. Your fear of HFCS is irrational.

You also said; HFCS imparts well over ten times the normal amount of free simple sugars to anything it’s added to. This is another indefensible statement.

the average ambient atmospheric concentration of benzene is about 0.7 parts per billion. That’s in spite of our chemical industry, tobacco consumption and automobiles—mainly because of rapid atmospheric degradation. The vast majority of us will be in our graves long before we can inhale a tiny fraction of the LD50 of that chemical.

Excellent. You don't fear benzene in our air or water in trace amounts, nor should you. It's unfortunate you don't apply the same thought process to the possibility that HCL reacting with sugar in the gut might create trace amounts of carcinogens like 5-HMF.

Government intervention that caused industry to develop an alternative to sucrose is a far different stance than saying agriculture and food processors working together is the communist manifesto in action. Those are the kinds of remarks someone would make who knows nothing about the industry, or economic in general. Why is it those who know the least about something are always the first to criticize it or make grand pronouncements based on junk science?

I’m still waiting for you to come up with something coherent.

The glycemic index is an inexact number. It cannot predict when glucose shows up in the bloodstream as food.

I did not say that nobody eats naturally-occurring simple sugars. But unnaturally-produced ones in an acidic medium are not the same thing, versus naturally-occurring simple sugars in an alkaline medium. Nor did I claim that HFCS instantly causes acutely-toxic amounts of 5-HMF in any part of the body. Please stop reading stuff into what I said that is not there, and please stop removing what I said from context—even you yourself acknowledge that the only substance that can match HFCS for simple sugar content in terms of just quantity (versus overall substance) is honey.

BTW, “HCL” (with “L” capitalized) would refer to a hydrogen-carbon compound with unknown element “L”. (The closest element would be lithium, but that has historically been labeled “Li”.) Not trying to be a smart-arse. Chlorine’s symbol is “Cl” (capital C and lowercase l) only.

When did I express a “fear” of the dehydration of fructose or glucose into 5-HMF? You have a bad habit of putting words in people’s mouths. “Potential carcinogen” means just that. OTOH, benzene is an established carcinogen.

BTW, thanks for confessing that it was crony industry that is responsible for HFCS. Just like the Communist Manifesto stated. This problem goes back to the 20s, so it is quite long-standing. I do deplore the government’s protectionist racket with respect to sucrose, at the same time.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.