I really adore this commercial. It’s propaganda and its very best.
Via the Washington Post, January 26, 2009
“Almost half of tested samples of commercial high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) contained mercury, which was also found in nearly a third of 55 popular brand-name food and beverage products where HFCS is the first- or second-highest labeled ingredient, according to two new U.S. studies.”
UPDATE: The corn industry’s response to the findings.
In addition to…
January 30, 2009 at 2:56 pm
This is what the age of reason boils down to – we believe that there is a definite true answer to any one question.
Where is the maybe logic?
I just read an article on another blog where someone states that there has just been a study released in Michigan (I believe) that links an increased chance of prostate cancer in people who masturbate in their 20s and 30s. (WHAT A LOAD OF CHRISTIAN SHIT) There is no link to the actual study, the study is not named, there are no additional scientific (or rational) arguments that would explain why this is the case, or how this supposedly happens, yet as the blog article is written about a ‘scientific study’ (and since science = the truth), most everyone who has commented on it takes it for being true and comment from the viewpoint that the study exists and that it is probably correct.
The sun still orbits around the Earth and the Earth is still the centre of the Universe. Who remembers Copernicus?
It is so easy to manipulate language so that insane beliefs become reality, for people who have a connection with the language – ie., scientific language being more believable to Western, educated and cynical people. Fuck me and grow up to your own reality tunnel.
Maybe logic.
January 30, 2009 at 10:43 pm
I actually heard that masturbation was good for the prostate.
You’d think that science would be capable of answering questions about High-Fructose Corn Syrup. In actually, science can answer this question but there are two hurdles.
The first is regarding the sample used. The corn industry is claiming that the scientists used a sample of HFCS that is much older than the type the use now, which doesn’t contain mercury. It’s hard to tell what the truth is.
The second question has to do with the longitudinal nature of looking at HFCS’s impact on health. Maybe I’m wrong, but perhaps it could be analogous to carcinogens and cancer. From my understanding, it’s not a single carcinogen that’s behind cancer but the combined effects of exposure to a whole host of carcinogenic compounds. I’m not sure how many direct and immediate health risks there are to HFCS, probably not many. But how do you measure its impact in 30 years?