Showing posts with label Obesity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obesity. Show all posts

The National Blues

SUBHEAD: People in the new town square i.e. the Walmart, are prematurely old, fattened and sickened.

By James Kunstler on 28 April 2017 for Kunstler.com -
(http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-national-blues/)


Image above: Walmart electric shopping carts lined up with the old, fat and sick. From (http://acidcow.com/pics/74507-walmart-shoppers-are-a-special-breed-of-people-27-pics.html).

While the news waves groan with stories about “America’s Opioid Epidemic” you may discern that there is little effort to actually understand what’s behind it, namely, the fact that life in the United States has become unspeakably depressing, empty, and purposeless for a large class of citizens.

I mean unspeakably literally. If you want evidence of our inability to construct a coherent story about what’s happening in this country, there it is.

I live in a corner of Flyover Red America where you can easily read these conditions on the landscape — the vacant Main Streets, especially after dark, the houses uncared for and decrepitating year by year, the derelict farms with barns falling down, harvesters rusting in the rain, and pastures overgrown with sumacs, the parasitical national chain stores like tumors at the edge of every town.

You can read it in the bodies of the people in the new town square, i.e. the Walmart: people prematurely old, fattened and sickened by bad food made to look and taste irresistible to con those sunk in despair, a deadly consolation for lives otherwise filled by empty hours, trash television, addictive computer games, and their own family melodramas concocted to give some narrative meaning to lives otherwise bereft of event or effort.

These are people who have suffered their economic and social roles in life to be stolen from them.

They do not work at things that matter. They have no prospects for a better life — and, anyway, the sheer notion of that has been reduced to absurd fantasies of Kardashian luxury, i.e. maximum comfort with no purpose other than to enable self-dramatization.

And nothing dramatizes a desperate life like a drug habit. It concentrates the mind, as Samuel Johnson once remarked, like waiting to be hanged.

On display in the news reports about the mystery of the opioid epidemic is America’s neurotic reliance on supposedly scientific “studies.”

Never before in history has a society studied so much and learned so little — which is what happens when you resort to scientizing things that are essentially matters of conduct. It rests on the fallacy that if you compile enough statistics about something, you can control it.

Opioid addiction is just another racket, a personal one, in a culture of racketeering that is edging toward truly epochal failure, for the simple reason that rackets are dishonest, and pervasive dishonesty is at odds with reality, and reality always has the final say.

The eerie thing about reading the landscape of despair is that you can see the ghosts of purpose and meaning in it.

Before 1970, there were at least five factories in my little town, all designed originally to run on the water power (or hydro-electric) of the Battenkill River, a tributary of the nearby Hudson.

The ruins of these enterprises are still there, the red brick walls with the roofs caved in, the twisted chain-link fence that no longer has anything to protect, the broken masonry mill-races.

The ghosts of commerce are also plainly visible in the bones of Main Street. These were businesses owned by people who lived in town, who employed other people who lived in town, who often bought and sold things grown or made in and around town.

Every level of this activity occupied people and gave purpose and meaning to their lives, even if the work associated with it was sometimes hard. Altogether, it formed a rich network of interdependence, of networked human lives and family histories.

What galls me is how casually the country accepts the forces that it has enabled to wreck these relationships. None of the news reports or “studies” done about opioid addiction will challenge or even mention the deadly logic of Walmart and operations like it that systematically destroyed local retail economies (and the lives entailed in them.)

The news media would have you believe that we still value “bargain shopping” above all other social dynamics. In the end, we don’t know what we’re talking about.

I’ve maintained for many years that it will probably require the collapse of the current arrangements for the nation to reacquire a reality-based sense of purpose and meaning. I’m kind of glad to see national chain retail failing, one less major bad thing in American life.

Trump was just a crude symptom of the sore-beset public’s longing for a new disposition of things. He’ll be swept away in the collapse of the rackets, including the real estate racket that he built his career on.

Once the collapse gets underway in earnest, starting with the most toxic racket of all, contemporary finance, there will be a lot to do.

The day may dawn in America when people are too busy to resort to opioids, and actually derive some satisfaction from the busy-ness that occupies them.

.

Trump the Growthist

SUBHEAD: President Donald Trump and his brief interregum in a growth economy.

By Erik Lindberg on 24 January 2017 for Resilience -
(http://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-01-24/donald-trump-and-economic-growth-a-brief-interregnum-on-growthism/)


Image above: A passerby looks at a statue of Donald Trump in the nude on August 18 2016 in San Francisco. The Republican nominee may have exaggerated his height in order to decrease his BMI. From (http://www.vocativ.com/359585/did-trump-add-an-inch-to-avoid-being-technically-obese/).

What is wrong with the economy?”—that is the question that has driven American politics at least since Reagan, and of course is still driving it today.

For Reagan, the simple answer was that freedom had been curtailed.  Unleash the dreams, drive, and desires of the American people, said Reagan, and there are no limits to what we can accomplish or how much growth we should expect.\That simple message has been maintained with only minor modification through the presidencies of two Bushes, almost two Clintons, and Obama.

True, the Republicans tell us we can realize our dreams by way of liberty and deregulation, while Democrats (with somewhat more complexity) have emphasized the role of education and public investment. But beyond that, there is little disagreement, which is also why we have maintained our democratic decorum with relatively little trouble.

Despite whatever differences we often emphasize, liberals and conservatives have thus shared the belief that our common good resides in an expanding and growing world of material improvements, a broadening of horizons, increasing mobility, choice, possibility.

They have shared the keywords of limitless and infinite, arguing only over differences in how to map our progress and chart our course “forward” towards this ever-receding horizon of limitless possibility.

This has come to an end with Donald Trump’s new metaphorics of economics.  To the question, “What is wrong with the economy?”

Trump answers: we have made bad deals.  While it is certainly true that Trump’s business experience as a real estate developer and talk-show host (both equally requiring the so called “art” of the deal) colors his interpretation of macroeconomics, something much larger is afoot, and is embedded in this new way of answering our inescapable political question.

For implied in his focus on the deal and the bargaining-table are a number of unique assumptions. Chief among these, I think, is that the total amount of goods and services available are, at some level, fixed.

Trump doesn’t say this outright, but his words carry weight only if this is true.  His is a new mercantilism, a return to values that have been on the ropes for the past five-hundred years.

The deal-maker truly thrives in a world without the “win-wins” we have come to accept as a part of the normalized, but mythical, arc of a progressive history.  Although Trump is certainly not anti-growth, Trump’s economic vision operates independently of growth and his appeal is fueled by its waning.

In a fast-growing economy, Trump would be irrelevant and his focus on deal-making would appear trite and meaningless, a side-show to the primary business of expansion, the ravings of a monomaniacal out-of-work reality TV star.  In a world where growth has stalled, or has not kept its promise, he becomes the hero of the masses and the president of the land, most had believed, of eternal Growth.

From Reagan to Obama (and even to would-be Clinton II), the assumption had always been that more technology, more education, more freedom, more equality, more investment, less regulation, and so on and so on, would always create more bounty, around which little fighting would be required (only an ignoramus would turn away, fists clenched, from such possibility and promise).

One of the main political points of economic growth was the way it allowed even the losers to win.  Self-interest could therefore also be magnanimous, inclusive, enlightened, universalizing.

With Trump, at least by dint of emphasis, the assumption is that we must fight others, and beat them without mercy and without reservation, to get what we want.  The economy is not suffering, here, because of a failure of innovation.

It is suffering because we let the Chinese or Mexicans take our stuff. . . and now, goddammit, we want it back.

Self-interest is pugnacious, combative, and belligerent (America First)—very much in keeping with the entire package of Trump, who maintains great consistency amidst the unpredictable veneer.  This is not to say that Trump is anti-growth.  But it is to say that he presents himself as the messiah who redeems the American project in a zero-sum world.

What are we to make of this? 

The standard liberal answer would be to follow our Silicon Valley leaders and new Wall Street friends and double-down on innovation and growth, open the last corners of the world to ever-more trade, and invest in the so-called knowledge economy—messages that fit easily with the other liberal message of inclusion and increased freedoms for the previously dispossessed and marginalized others.

Regular readers of Resilience of course realize that this economic program has a strong mythical element.

Yes, I would remind us all, but without any joy, economic growth has been the strangely elastic glue (the subject of this series) that has held the body politic together—or sufficiently apart.

But economic growth was never simply about innovation or freedom; it was about using energy to turn more and more natural resources into more and more usable products under very specific historical conditions; it was not to be sustained without breaching ecological limits.

The price of continued economic growth will be an overheated planet, ecosystems spinning out of control, more war, famine, waves of forced migration initiated by political instability, a further narrowing of our trust horizons leading to tribalism and nationalism, the election of populist right-wing demagogues. . .

Like others, I have elsewhere suggested that Trump is a symptom of the end of growth.  I have long assumed that the end of growth would create exactly the sort of dangerous neo-populism and probably violent economic nationalism that Trump represents.

But what is left of the hopeful liberal in me had also held out the possibility that, at the same time, the end of growth would have also spawned a vigorous and vibrant post-growth communitarianism–that educated, structurally and system-minded liberals, at the least, would join a post-growth movement founded on values of earth care, people care, and fair share.

But as of yet, such values remain secluded in a small and powerless subculture. Liberal America is as lost as Trump with its unarticulated hopes for the rise of a cosmopolitan global middle-class, eight billion strong–a view that belies all reason and all math.

Because growth had become magnanimous, or so we could reasonably believe, liberals have narrowed their horizons to growth and only growth as the foundational value.  It had not occurred to me that the hard, boorish, and belligerent right would be the first to plant its flag in the end of growth.  But it has–whether it is aware of it or not.

To put this another way, yet to emerge is a widespread post-growth political movement grounded in universalism (rather than nationalism), in cosmopolitanism (rather than tribalism), in empathy (rather than pugilism), in sharing what is left (rather than competing over it).

Perhaps I was hoping for too much—for the impossible transplanting of a kind of altruism and generosity that, ultimately, may be the result only of growth and expansion, into conditions of contraction.

But the possibility that a whole-planet populism is not simply a contradiction in terms—however slight it may be—will keep me going for another round.

.

Fukushima worst human disaster

SUBHEAD: Obesity rates now nearly double Japan average — Excessive weight gain after nuclear crisis “a marker of radiation brain damage”.

By Admin on 24 January 2015 for ENE News -
(http://enenews.com/study-fukushima-serious-man-made-disaster-human-history-obesity-rates-double-japan-average-excessive-weight-gain-after-nuclear-disaster-marker-radiation-brain-damage)


Image above: Children play in a facility in Koriyama, Fukushima Prefecture, on Dec. 10, 2014. From (http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201501240044).

Asahi Shimbun, Jan 24, 2015 (emphasis added): Obesity a growing problem among children in Fukushima… An education ministry survey released Jan. 23… found that 15.07 percent of 9-year-olds in Fukushima Prefecture were 20 percent or more heavier than normal. The figure was much higher than the national average of 8.14 percent, and the highest among all 47 prefectures. [It] was also the highest among all prefectures for 7-year-olds, 11-year-olds and 13-year-olds… According to the ministry, obese children are most commonly found in the Tohoku region… the trend has been especially acute in Fukushima Prefecture since the 2011 onset of the nuclear crisis…. The ministry said this appeared to be because children in Fukushima Prefecture are restricted from playing outdoors due to radiation fears…

National Research Center for Radiation Medicine (Ukraine), 2013: Rise of obesity incidence in ChNPP accident survivors is related to abnormal secretion of α-melanotropin [α-MSH]
  • Accident at the Chernobyl NPP… was followed by the intensive release of a wide range of radioactive elements with affinity to many endocrine tissues. The mentioned radioactive fallout resulted in both internal and external radiation exposure, among others, of the central endocrine structures of the human brain.
  • Higher incidence of borderline obesity – 37%… and of primary obesity – 32.5%… was found in the ChNPP accident survivors vs persons in the control group (31.1 and 24.6% respectively)… For the first time there was revealed a new abnormal way of a reaction on radiation namely – the ‘blunted’ protective response of the physiological increase of α-MSH secretion along with body mass index elevation normally preventing further growth of adipose tissue. There is no increase of α-MSH secretion or even there is a hormone deficiency in most [obese] survivors of the ChNPP accident
  • Received data indicate to the increased risk of borderline obesity and obesity after the prolonged exposure to radiation in moderate doses. The mentioned risk is stipulated by disorders in melanocortin system resulting in α-MSH deficiency at the background of obesity that can be considered as a marker of such an abnormality.
Poster presentation for ‘Rise of obesity incidence in ChNPP accident survivors is related to abnormal secretion of α-melanotropin’ (pdf), 2013:

  • The Chernobyl NPP accident in 1986 and Fukushima NPP accident in 2011 are still the most serious wide scale man made disasters in human history… Massive radioactive release and fallout followed both accidents. Wide range of radioactive isotopes were released some having high affinity to hormone-producing tissues including ones in the cerebral endocrine structures… Today the Chernobyl NPP accident is not over but has evolved into the long-term fourth phase
  • Subjects: The Chernobyl NPP accident survivors (emergency workers… and evacuees…)
  • Decrease of α-MSH… can be considered as a marker of radiation brain damage. Thus α-MSH can be considered as a sensitive marker of radiation impact which deficiency of synthesis leads to disorder of pathways preventing further body mass increase…
α-MSH: Most important of the melanocyte-stimulating hormones in stimulating melanogenesis, a process that… plays a role in feeding behavior… regulation of appetite, metabolism…

See also: Yomiuri: Alarming trend in Fukushima children -- Parent's radiation fears and stress from disaster blamed for spike in obesity rates

.

BPA link to obesity & diabetes

SUBHEAD: Study shows strengthened link to estrogen mimicking chemical that is making us fat and sick.  

By Lynn Peeples on 16 February 16 in Huffington Post - 
  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/bpa-chemical-hormone-obesity-diabetes_n_1276996.html)

 
Image above: Plastic containers including those with BPA's in sorting bin. From (http://naturallyyoursblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/bpa-reduces-male-reproductive-health.html).
 
The modern lifestyle of super-sized french fries and couch potatoes often takes the blame for the rising rates of obesity and diabetes in the U.S. -- perhaps rightly so. But growing evidence suggests another factor in the dual epidemics: modern chemicals.

Exposure to even minuscule amounts of synthesized substances -- used in everything from pesticides to water bottles -- can scramble hormone signals, scientists say. This interference can trick fat cells into taking in more fat or mislead the pancreas into secreting excess insulin, a hormone that regulates the breakdown of fat and carbohydrates.

Among the most ubiquitous and scrutinized of these so-called endocrine disruptors is bisphenol A, better known as BPA. The chemical is a common ingredient in plastics and food-can linings.
"When you eat something with BPA, it's like telling your organs that you are eating more than you are really eating," says Angel Nadal, a BPA expert at the Miguel Hernandez University in Spain.
Nadal's latest research, published last week in PLoS ONE, finds that the chemical triggers the release of almost double the insulin actually needed to break down food. High insulin levels can desensitize the body to the hormone over time, which in some people may then lead to weight gain and Type 2 diabetes.
To achieve this feat, BPA fools a receptor into thinking it is the natural hormone estrogen, an insulin regulator. Nadal's team found that even the tiniest amounts of BPA -- a quarter of a billionth of a gram -- did the trick. The effect disappeared when the researchers stripped the specific receptors from the study mice, evidence that they had in fact pinpointed BPA's chemical mechanism, which had previously eluded scientists.

In laboratory tests of human cells, the response was even more pronounced.
"That pretty much nails it," Bruce Blumberg of the University of California, Irvine, who was not involved in the new study, told The Huffington Post. He notes that despite the prior associations made between BPA and metabolic problems, including obesity and diabetes, doubt had lingered because of a lack of understanding about how the phenomenon occurred. Long-term studies of children -- tracking BPA exposures and health outcomes -- remain ongoing around the world.

An estimated 90 percent of people in developed countries have BPA circulating in their blood at levels often higher than the threshold for causing hormone disruption used in Nadal's study. This high incidence is due not only to exposures from leaching food packages but also BPA-infused cash register receipts, dental sealants and toilet paper.

"People are seeing effects of BPA down to 1000-fold below [Nadal's threshold]," adds Frederick vom Saal, another expert in endocrine disruptors at the University of Missouri-Columbia. "It takes so little of this chemical to cause harm."

The chemical industry disagrees. "BPA is one of the most thoroughly tested chemicals used today and has a safety track record of 50 years," says Kathryn Murray St. John, a spokesperson for the American Chemistry Council, a lobbying group for the plastics industry. She highlights recent regulatory rulings in favor of the safety of BPA.

Vom Saal, who also wasn't involved in the Spanish study, explains why the "standard estimates of safety" may be invalid. Minute amounts of the chemical may be even more potent than larger quantities, he says, which can flood the receptors and essentially turn them off, stopping the flow of insulin. In other words, the dose does not make the poison -- at least not in the ordinary sense. Yet the traditional dose-response assumption remains the basis for most regulatory tests that have deemed the chemical safe.
The consequences of the continued widespread use of BPA could be most dire for pregnant women and developing fetuses, who appear to be particularly sensitive.

"The fetus is not only exposed to BPA but also to higher levels of insulin from the mother, making the environment for the fetus even more disruptive," says Nadal. "This is a very delicate period."
Previous studies have suggested that the environmental chemicals in the womb can preprogram weight gain later in life. BPA, for example, may tell a growing fetus to develop more fat cells.

Nadal adds that BPA is just one of a larger cocktail of at least 20 endocrine disruptors commonly used in everyday items, including phthalates, nicotine, dioxin, arsenic and tributyltin. Further, obesity and diabetes aren't the only risks posed by the chemicals. Studies also hint at links with cancer, infertility, heart disease and cognitive problems.

Overall, half of the developed world is now overweight and one in six is obese -- about double the numbers of 30 years ago. Approximately 250 million people suffer from diabetes worldwide.

Sure, our lifestyle has changed over the decades in parallel with the increased use of BPA. Yet scientists have noticed the same fattening trend in newborns, lab rodents, pets and wildlife that live in close proximity to humans. Have babies or mice really changed how much they eat or exercise? Experts highlight this as further evidence that more than just caloric intake is driving the current epidemics of obesity and Type 2 diabetes.

"The scary thing is, this is occurring in children. Thirty years ago, we called Type 2 diabetes 'adult-onset,'" vom Saal says. That's not the case anymore.

.

GMO-HFCS by another name

SUBHEAD: High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has earned a bad reputation. So now the industry wants the name changed to "Corn Sugar".  

[Editor's note: We must be winning. The GMO dominated corn syrup industry is on the defensive. They know that, due to health concerns, consumers are avoiding "high-fructose" labeled foods. As a result some food companies are removing it from their products. The industry answer: Change the name to "corn sugar". ] 


By Tara Parker-Pope on 14 September 2011 for the NYT - 
  (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/a-new-name-for-high-fructose-corn-syrup/)

 
Image above: Ingredients for Coke, and virtually all nationally distributed sodas consist overwhelmingly of HFCS mixed into carbonated water. From (http://blog.thegreenplate.org/2010/09/corn-sugar-leaves-sour-taste/).
 
Would high-fructose corn syrup, by any other name, have sweeter appeal?

The Corn Refiners Association, which represents firms that make the syrup, has been trying to improve the image of the much maligned sweetener with ad campaigns promoting it as a natural ingredient made from corn. Now, the group has petitioned the United States Food and Drug Administration to start calling the ingredient “corn sugar,” arguing that a name change is the only way to clear up consumer confusion about the product.

“Clearly the name is confusing consumers,” said Audrae Erickson, president of the Washington-based group, in an interview. “Research shows that ‘corn sugar’ better communicates the amount of calories, the level of fructose and the sweetness in this ingredient.”

According to the market research firm NPD Group, about 58 percent of Americans say they are concerned that high-fructose corn syrup poses a health risk.



Some scientists over the years have speculated that high-fructose corn syrup may contribute to obesity by somehow disrupting normal metabolic function, but the research has been inconclusive. As a result, most leading scientists and nutrition experts agree that in terms of health, the effect of high-fructose corn syrup is the same as regular sugar, and that too much of either ingredient is bad for your health.

Marion Nestle, a professor in New York University’s department of nutrition and a longtime food industry critic, says that Americans consume too much of all types of sugar, but that there is no meaningful biochemical difference between table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup.
“I’m not eager to help the corn refiners sell more of their stuff,” Dr. Nestle wrote in an e-mail. “But you have to feel sorry for them. High-fructose corn syrup is the new trans fat. Everyone thinks it’s poison, and food companies are getting rid of it as fast as they can.”

Dr. Nestle says she thinks the plural “corn sugars” is a better description of high-fructose corn syrup, which is actually a mixture of glucose and fructose. But she agrees that the corn refiners “have lots of reasons to want the change.”

“Even I have to admit that it’s not an unreasonable one,” Dr. Nestle said.

Michael Jacobson, executive director of the health advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest, said he thought the term “high-fructose corn syrup” had misled many into thinking the sweetener was composed mainly of fructose, a simple sugar found in honey and fruit.

“Sugar and high-fructose corn syrup are nutritionally the same,’’ said Dr. Jacobson, who has a doctorate in microbiology. “I don’t know if ‘corn sugar’ is the best term, but it’s better than ‘high-fructose corn syrup.’ ”

High-fructose corn syrup, which came into widespread use in the 1970s, isn’t particularly high in fructose, but was so named to distinguish it from ordinary, glucose-containing corn syrup, according to a report in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. High-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (also known as table sugar) contain about the same amount of glucose and fructose. In fact, one commonly used version of the ingredient known as HFCS-42 actually contains less fructose (42 percent) than table sugar, which has 50 percent fructose, according to the report.

“The name is confusing, and consumers don’t understand that it has the same calories as sugar,” said Ms. Erickson, of the Corn Refiners Association. “They also think it’s sweeter tasting. That’s why the alternate name provides clarity for consumers when it comes to the ingredient composition and helps them better understand what’s in their foods.”

Table sugar comes primarily from sugar cane or sugar beets. High-fructose corn syrup is made essentially by soaking corn kernels to extract corn starch, and using enzymes to turn the glucose in the starch into fructose. The ingredient is a favorite of food makers for practical reasons. Compared with sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup doesn’t mask flavors, has a lower freezing point and retains moisture better, which is useful in making foods like chewy granola bars. And because the corn crop in the United States is heavily subsidized, high-fructose corn syrup is also cheap. As a result, it’s now used in so many foods, from crackers to soft drinks, that it has become one of the biggest sources of calories in the American diet.

But the public perception of high-fructose corn syrup as unhealthful has prompted many food companies to stop using it in their products, including Hunt’s Ketchup, Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice and Wheat Thins crackers.

The F.D.A. has six months to respond to the name-change petition. If the agency accepts it, the decision on whether to allow the name “corn sugar” on food labels may take another 12 to 18 months.
Although food label changes aren’t common, the F.D.A. has allowed name changes in the past. The ingredient first called “low erucic acid rapeseed oil” was changed to “canola oil” in the 1980s. More recently, the F.D.A. allowed prunes to be called “dried plums.”

“It’s rare that food ingredient labels are changed, and when they are it’s always been to provide clarity to consumers,” Ms. Erickson said. “This is a classic case for consumers to better understand an ingredient.”

.

GMO Corn HFCS & Cancer

SUBHEAD: So much for safe corn syrup, same as cane sugar argument. Cancer cells slurp up fructose not glucose.

 By Maggie Fox on 2 August 2010 for Reuters News -
  (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE6714ZH20100802)

 
Image above: Aisle of Death. Mmm!. Typical US market display of corn syrup in plastic bottlers. From (http://uwsp.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/your-diet-food-is-making-you-fat).

 [Editor's note: In the last 20 years there has been a replacement cane sugar by high fructose corn syrup, that is almost universally derived from GMO corn. The results are universal obesity, diabetes and possibly cancer. Kauai is where it all begins.]

 Pancreatic tumor cells use fructose to divide and proliferate, U.S. researchers said on Monday in a study that challenges the common wisdom that all sugars are the same. Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways, the team at the University of California Los Angeles found. They said their finding, published in the journal Cancer Research, may help explain other studies that have linked fructose intake with pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest cancer types. "These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation," Dr. Anthony Heaney of UCLA's Jonsson Cancer Center and colleagues wrote.
 "They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth." 
Americans take in large amounts of fructose, mainly in high fructose corn syrup, a mix of fructose and glucose that is used in soft drinks, bread and a range of other foods. Politicians, regulators, health experts and the industry have debated whether high fructose corn syrup and other ingredients have been helping make

Americans fatter and less healthy. Too much sugar of any kind not only adds pounds, but is also a key culprit in diabetes, heart disease and stroke, according to the American Heart Association. Several states, including New York and California, have weighed a tax on sweetened soft drinks to defray the cost of treating obesity-related diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer.

The American Beverage Association, whose members include Coca-Cola and Kraft Foods have strongly, and successfully, opposed efforts to tax soda. [ID:nN12233126] The industry has also argued that sugar is sugar. Heaney said his team found otherwise. They grew pancreatic cancer cells in lab dishes and fed them both glucose and fructose. Tumor cells thrive on sugar but they used the fructose to proliferate.

"Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different," Heaney's team wrote. "I think this paper has a lot of public health implications. Hopefully, at the federal level there will be some effort to step back on the amount of high fructose corn syrup in our diets," Heaney said in a statement.

Now the team hopes to develop a drug that might stop tumor cells from making use of fructose. U.S. consumption of high fructose corn syrup went up 1,000 percent between 1970 and 1990, researchers reported in 2004 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

See also:
Ea O Ka Aina: Smoking Gun on Corn Syrup 3/24/20
Island Breath: Down with King Corn 2/28/08
Island Breath: Death by Coke 12/15/06

.