Options
Making Americans Sick
· Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius promised, "The U.S. government plans to increase funding to battle obesity and views healthcare reform as an opportunity to encourage better eating habits." Rather than spending money and attacking the food industry, the secretary and others concerned with the health of Americans ought to go after the U.S. Congress. Let's look at it.
According to a study by researchers at the University of California, Davis, published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation (May 2009), widespread use of fructose may be directly responsible for some of the ongoing increase in rates of childhood diabetes and obesity. Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases abdominal fat and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese people. The participants in the study who consumed fructose-sweetened food showed an increase of fat cells around major organs including their hearts and livers, and also underwent metabolic changes that are precursors to heart disease and diabetes.
Other studies have linked diets rich in high-fructose corn syrup to elevated risks of high triglycerides (a type of blood fat), fat buildup in the liver and insulin resistance, notes Dr. Gerald Shulman and his colleagues at Yale University School of Medicine.
"This is the first evidence we have that fructose increases diabetes and heart disease independently from causing simple weight gain," said Kimber Stanhope, a molecular biologist who led the UC Davis study, adding, "We didn't see any of these changes in the people eating glucose."
You say, "Williams, glucose, fructose -- what's the fuss?" Sucrose is the sugar sold in 5- or 10-pound bags at your supermarket that Americans have used as a sweetener throughout most of our history. Fructose is a sweetener that has more recently come into heavy use by beverage manufacturers and food processors. You ask, "How come all the fructose use now?"
Enter the U.S. Congress. The Fanjul family of Palm Beach, Fla., a politically connected family, has given more than $1.8 million to both Democratic and Republican parties over the years. They and others in the sugar industry give millions to congressmen to keep high tariffs on foreign sugar so the U.S. sugar industry can charge us higher prices. According to one study, the Fanjul family alone earns about $65 million a year from congressional protectionism.
Chairman Emeritus of Archer Daniels Midland Company, Dwayne Andreas, has given politicians millions of dollars to help him enrich ADM at our expense. For that money, congressmen vote to restrict sugar imports that in turn drive up sugar prices. Higher sugar prices benefit ADM, who produces corn syrup (fructose), which is a sugar substitute. When sugar prices are high, sugar users (soda, candy and food processors) turn to corn syrup as a cheaper substitute sweetener. Early on, some sugar-using companies found out they could import products like ice tea, distill out its sugar content and still beat the high prices caused by Congress' protectionist sugar policy, but to do so was eventually made illegal.
Congress' sugar policy not only reduces the health of American people, it reduces American jobs as well. Chicago used to be America's candy manufacturing capitol. In 1970, employment by Chicago's candy manufacturers totaled 15,000 and now it's 8,000 and falling. Brach's used to employ about 2,300 people; now most of its jobs are in Mexico. Ferrara Pan Candy has also moved much of its production to Mexico. Yes, wages are lower in Mexico, but wages aren't the only factor in candy manufacturers' flight from America. Sugar is a major cost and in Mexico, they pay one-third to one-half what they pay in the U.S. Life Savers, which for 90 years was manufactured in America, has moved to Canada, where wages are comparable to ours, but their yearly sugar cost is $10 million less.
Working in the favor of Congress with these and other life-threatening and health-reducing schemes is American unawareness and the fact that most often, their victims are invisible.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Former Senator Fred Thompson: "Thanks to The Patriot for your considerable efforts to hold back the 'Clintonistas' while I was in the Senate. The Patriot's message provides a critical touchstone for those inside the Beltway who have forgotten who they serve." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Peggy Noonan: Mitt Romney's Moment
- Argus Hamilton: From The Comedy Store
- Burt Prelutsky: Time to Start Playing Offense
- Rich Galen: Obama & Romney Tout Good News
- Edwin J. Feulner: 'Law of the Sea' Treaty: Sink It
- Arnold Ahlert: With Democrats, You're Either All In - or All Out
- Oliver North: Memorial Day 2012
- Ken Blackwell: Remarks on Religious Liberty
- L. Brent Bozell: Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut
- Michelle Malkin: Obama's Land of the LOST
- Rebecca Hagelin: The 'Gay Marriage' Spin
- David Limbaugh: Obama and Leahy vs. Sir William Blackstone
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
























Duke of Earl
Dr. WIlliams,
Brilliant as usual.
Let me see if I have the scenario correct: The right hand (business) uses a substance that may or may not increase the risk of diabetes and/or obesity. They use this substance because they have purchased the U. S. Congress and obtained higher tariffs on a raw material that is more readily available in other countries.
The left hand (consumers) don't know of this. Or, if they do know, the consumers do nothing about it; such as making Johnny and Susie exercise more and stay away from video games.
Now comes the benevolent U. S. Government who has made all of this possible. The benevolent government is now going to fight this weight and health problem by attempting to force these same companies to do right and make right. Of course, the benevolent government will issue new rules and regulation which will be ignored because the afore mentioned purchased government will accept more money to allow business to ignore the new rules, etc.
All credit to Joseph Heller, "Catch-22" is real. I do not fault the companies from maximizing their incomes and profits: that is the nature of capitalism. I do fault the parents of the children today. These parents allow their kids to loll around the house and play video games and watch TV and movies, etc. Kids should be outside in the fresh air; playing baseball, football, golf, basketball, soccer, any sport really; riding bicycles and having fun.
The idea that the U. S. Government is going to help the kids overcome obesity and health problems is ridiculous beyond reason.
Duke
Posted July 21, 2010 at 9:18:54 AM
Mark Staller
Mr. Williams, I read you every week and find you to be upright and fact-oriented in your analysis. However, this piece strikes me as a bit lazy. Could you give us simple folk a precise congressional act or any other legislation that we could review for ourselves to validate your premise? I have no doubt about your claims. It's just that I couldn't stand up in a town hall meeting and challenge some pol who rails about obesity and claims the government is here to help. I'd wish to challenge him on the role government has played in creating the situation in the first place.
Posted July 21, 2010 at 10:47:17 AM
Caseace
It is like everything with the government, they create a problem and then offer more government as the solution to a problem of their own making. Always at the expense of freedoms and taxes done in the name of altruism. Examples abound.
Posted July 21, 2010 at 2:20:42 PM
nthomas
Sucrose is sugar. Glucose is what the body produces(from eating sucrose, fructose, lactose, etc.).
Anyway, the point is, every piece of legislation will hurt some and help others financially. That is why we need to know and carefully select the people that have the job of legislating. And, get them out when they prove untrustworthy.
Posted July 21, 2010 at 2:37:02 PM
pete
Thats why Coke bottled in Mexico tastes like the Coke anybody over 50 remembers drinking as a kid, and Coke bottled in the US tastes like crap.
Posted July 21, 2010 at 2:47:47 PM
Jonathan Sarfati
Frédéric Bastiat warned against protectionism back in 1850, in his famous essay “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen” http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
Protectionists fool politicians and voters with all the jobs saved—“what is seen”. But they ignore the jobs lost because of increased costs of sugar-using industries, and even other industries because consumers have less money to spend after paying the inflated costs—“what is not seen”.
Posted July 21, 2010 at 3:32:03 PM
Howard Last
Does anyone remember that Benedict Dole was the spokesman for the Archer Daniels Midland Company on the Sunday morning talk shows? And before anyone complains of comparing Dole to Arnold, they were both war heroes and had wives that were envious that they did not get a promotion. Dole thought he had a devine right to be king (oops President).
Posted July 21, 2010 at 8:41:49 PM