Articles

Zoning out after dining out at work

Posted on:

For years, I took a peanut butter sandwich to work every day for lunch, and I ate it alone. A PB sandwich was particularly easy to hold with one hand while I kept on grading papers and preparing labs or lessons. I chose that route so I could get home a…

Articles

What should high fructose corn syrup make you mad?

Posted on:
High-fructose corn syrup is the first ingredient of this popular pancake syrup, after water. Photo: Sally Kneidel

What is high-fructose corn syrup? Is it really dangerous to your health? Lots of health professionals and researchers say it is. Should you avoid it completely? Science writer Laura Bell of Science News just published a great article summarizing some of the latest buzz about high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). New research on its health effects is not entirely clear-cut, and those effects may depend on the genetics of the particular consumer. But Bell’s article convinced me to minimize my family’s consumption of HFCS, and avoid it whenever possible.

Lookin’ in the frig…

Just 5 minutes ago, I poked around my family’s kitchen looking for HFCS in our own foods, and quickly found 3 things in the frig that have it: ketchup, pancake syrup (it’s the first ingredient after water), and chocolate syrup (HFCS is the first ingredient). As you probably know, ingredients are listed on food packages in descending order of their relative proportions in the food.

High-fructose corn syrup is a common ingredient in soft drinks, sweet and savory sauces, fast foods, baked goods, dairy products, and many other packaged foods.

What is HFCS?

High fructose corn syrup was developed by the corn industry, which is always looking for new products from corn, because corn subsidies make corn so cheap and thus so competitive in the marketplace. Food scientists at the Corn Projects Refining Company discovered a way to convert glucose from corn starch into a different sugar called fructose, not naturally found in corn. The regular corn syrup, containing glucose or maltose, was already on the market. But fructose has the advantage of being sweeter than corn syrup.

After tooling around with this fructose created from corn, the corn researchers came up with a new highly-marketable corn-based sweetener: high-fructose corn syrup. It’s fructose blended with glucose. Although not as sweet as straight fructose, it’s still sweeter than corn syrup and at least as sweet as table sugar (sucrose). It can be even sweeter than table sugar, depending on the ratio of fructose to glucose in the blend. HFCS offers numerous mass-production benefits: it’s not only cheap and sweet, but also very stable in foods, and easy to store and transport in liquid form. Voila! A golden ticket to profits for food corporations!

Why are consumers and medical professionals concerned about HFCS?

For all its benefits for producers, HFCS is laden with threats to public health. For one thing, the cheap price of HFCS has led many companies to sweeten products that had not previously been sweetened, thus increasing the daily caloric intake of many Americans. In his new book Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us, Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist Michael Moss makes a convincing case that the food industry has intentionally hooked the American public on sweet, salty, fatty foods to increase sales, resulting in serious blows to our health. HFCS has provided a primary tool for hooking us.

Of course, health professionals are concerned about over-consumption of all sweeteners that are high in calories. But HFCS has its very own set of red flags, not shared by other sweeteners.

Four of the biggest concerns about HFCS are possible effects on the liver, the heart, abdominal fat, and the kidneys.

Liver damage?

Fructose from HFCS behaves differently in the human body than glucose or sucrose. When you eat regular corn syrup or table sugar, the sugars don”t move into the liver unless the liver needs sugar for energy. But fructose seeps into the liver, whether or not the liver needs it. Laura Bell summarizes it this way, “When fructose is consumed some of it always ends up in the liver, where it may be packaged…for long term storage as fat. It may promote fatty liver disease.” A researcher at UC San Francisco (Robert Lustig) compares HFCS to “alcohol without the buzz” because of its potential to cause liver damage. Miriam Vos at Emory University School of Medicine says certain people are probably more susceptible to liver damage by HFCS due to genetics, just as some are more vulnerable to cancer from tobacco or the effect of salt on blood pressure.

You may know that fructose is a naturally-occurring sugar in fruits, sometimes called fruit sugar. But not to worry. Fruit sugar does not behave the same way in the body as the fructose in HFCS and is not dangerous to the liver.

Heart disease?

A number of studies suggest that HFCS can raise the triglyceride level in the blood, which is a well-known risk factor in heart disease.

Abdominal fat?

Laura Bell cites studies that indicate fructose is more likely than glucose alone to cause an increase in the amount of fat in the abdomen.

Kidney trouble

HFCS may increase uric acid in the blood, a risk factor for kidney disease.

See Laura Bell’s article for a more substantive review of health concerns.

The biggest danger

To some consumers, all the bad press on HFCS has made table sugar and other sweeteners look good in comparison. Many products are now labeled as “made with natural sugar” or “real sugar.” And that can be dangerous, leading consumers to think they’re harmless. In small amounts, maybe so. But a 2012 study cited by Bell found that 75{ae720e0b436026f867bfa0c31185c2252a138f27e85f5f152ec5acc1c10a8cc9} of packaged foods and drinks contain added sweeteners. Our soaring consumption of calories has led to national epidemics of obesity and diabetes, as I think we all know by now. Switching from HFCS to sugar or corn syrup is not going to fix that. Sugar, corn syrup and high-fructose corn syrup can all contribute too many calories, and in that regard, none are “harmless.”

In sum, limiting caloric intake altogether may be more important than avoiding particular sweeteners. Of course, we can choose to take care of our families by doing both – limiting calories and avoiding HFCS. That’s my plan.

I’m mad

My “angry” radar is out for HFCS. Some food companies are now labeling it as “corn sugar” to confuse consumers who are trying to avoid it.  Such tactics make me mad.  It’s one more example of deceptive labeling by giant food corporations, like the “made with real juice” labels on concoctions that are 5{ae720e0b436026f867bfa0c31185c2252a138f27e85f5f152ec5acc1c10a8cc9} juice.  Or the popular “All Natural” label which isn’t regulated and means nothing.  I don’t like being manipulated by corporations for the sake of executive salaries and shareholder profits.  It happens a lot these days. When it affects my family’s health, that really gets me steamed.

Articles

Ground zero for climate change? Corporate culprits in Charlotte

Posted on:


A rally in Charlotte last week against a corporation driving climate change. Photo: Sally Kneidel
Last year during the DNC, I heard activist leaders refer to Charlotte as “ground zero for climate change.” I was startled by that.  I grew up in Charlotte and the city has seldom surprised me.  But that made me curious. So I decided to get more active in Greenpeace-Charlotte, and started reading the websites of NC WARN and Rainforest Action Network (RAN). Turns out, the culprits are very specific.  Climate activists are focused primarily on two corporate giants.

Duke Energy and Bank of America are both headquartered in Charlotte, and they’re both major players in climate change, as in driving climate change, through coal.  The tipping point where climate change will accelerate regardless of what we do is getting very close. And coal is a major cause – a cause that we could eliminate. According to Greenpeace, coal is the largest single source of climate-changing pollution in the world.
Activists in Charlotte. Photo: Sally Kneidel
What’s Bank of America’s role in the coal debacle?  This Charlotte-based bank is the biggest bank in the U.S. and the country’s top financier of the coal industry.  RAN reports that BofA has invested more than $6.4 billion in coal in just the last couple of years, ranging from coal mining to the construction of coal plants.  RAN is running a major campaign against Bank of America’s involvement in coal. For more info about BofA’s link to climate change, see ran.org/coal.

And then there’s Duke Energy, the other culprit and the focus of this post.  

Activists in Charlotte “Duke Energy: Make Charlotte a CLEAN energy hub” Photo: Sally Kneidel
 Across the planet, anxious eyes are on Duke Energy…because it is the world’s largest corporate utility. Duke’s stature in the energy sector is formidable.  As we approach the climate’s tipping point, will Duke use its influence to lead the world away from the economic and social chaos of a disintegrating climate?  The answer appears to be simple, and definitive.  No.  Duke’s “2012 Sustainability Report” blithely admits to “an upward trend in our CO2 emissions in the years ahead.”  Duke’s CO2 emissions will keep rising because their 20-year plan (the “IRP”) calls for continued heavy reliance on coal, bolstered by nuclear and natural gas. With this plan, Charlotte’s electric company is likely to maintain its distinction as our nation’s second-largest utility emitter of CO2.

So, surely Duke has some clean renewables in the mix.  Maybe elsewhere, but not here. While other utilities across the country are turning to wind and solar, Duke Energy Carolinas plans to derive only 2.2{ae720e0b436026f867bfa0c31185c2252a138f27e85f5f152ec5acc1c10a8cc9} of its generating capacity from wind and solar, and only 2.2{ae720e0b436026f867bfa0c31185c2252a138f27e85f5f152ec5acc1c10a8cc9} from energy-efficiency programs for at least the next 20 years.  Shocking but not that surprising, when you understand the corporate mindset that made Duke the biggest in the world.  You see, the more power plants Duke builds, the more profit they make.  Duke is guaranteed by the state to receive a 10.7{ae720e0b436026f867bfa0c31185c2252a138f27e85f5f152ec5acc1c10a8cc9} rate of return on equity (ROE), which includes construction projects.  Solar threatens this business model. For one thing, solar panels can allow families to generate on-site power, rather than buying electricity from a huge utility.  With such a decentralized power source, Duke would lose considerable control over ratepayers. 

Ever wonder who pays for all the construction of expensive power plants with Duke’s current plan?  Ratepayers like you and me. Not North Carolina’s new energy-hogging data centers (server farms). They and many giant corporations get special deals and much lower rates.  (Google “Duke’s rate rigging scheme” for a great explanation of that; it’s on the website of NC WARN.)  No, you and I will pay for the new plants we don’t want, or at least, that’s Duke’s plan for us, as captive ratepayers. Since Duke’s a monopoly in NC, we have no other electric utility to choose.

But we do have a voice, and we have a responsibility to use it.  

Demonstration against rate-hikes in Charlotte. Photo: Sally Kneidel
Duke is right now seeking approval from the Utilities Commission for an almost 14{ae720e0b436026f867bfa0c31185c2252a138f27e85f5f152ec5acc1c10a8cc9} rate increase for the average residence and 10{ae720e0b436026f867bfa0c31185c2252a138f27e85f5f152ec5acc1c10a8cc9} for small to medium-sized businesses.  (The already low rates for many industrial customers and data centers will increase only 3{ae720e0b436026f867bfa0c31185c2252a138f27e85f5f152ec5acc1c10a8cc9}.)  The rate-hike request will be Duke’s third in just four years. They’re also requesting to increase their guaranteed rate of return (ROE) to 11.25{ae720e0b436026f867bfa0c31185c2252a138f27e85f5f152ec5acc1c10a8cc9} — a very high profit margin compared to most other businesses. One frustrating aspect of this rate-hike request, for us ratepayers, is that Duke wouldn’t need these new power plants if they aggressively promoted conservation, energy-efficiency, and solar rooftops instead.

If the idea of paying for more than your share of unnecessary plants makes you mad, you have a chance to show your opposition. The N.C. Utilities Commission regulates Duke and must approve their rate-hike requests.

On July 8, there will be an Evidentiary Hearing at the N.C. Utilities Commission in Raleigh NC, with expert witnesses testifying.  Those of us who are fighting the rate-hike will hold a press conference and ratepayers’ assembly before the hearing, in front of the building, and everyone is welcome. The address is Dobbs Building, 430 North Salisbury St., Raleigh.  The hearing itself is not a public hearing, the Utilities Commission will not hear comments from the public, but we can sit inside the room where evidence is presented and let our presence be known.

If you don’t make it to the Evidentiary Hearing, you can still submit your comments on the rate hike by emailing statements@ncuc.net or mailing a letter to:
Public Staff — N.C. Utilities Commission
Consumer Services Division
4326 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4326

To clarify that you’re writing about the Duke rate hike, mention “NCUC Docket E-7, Sub 1026″ in your letter or the subject line of your email.

The Utilities Commission is our best opportunity right now to influence Duke’s future actions. This is the time to email them. Without rate hikes, Duke can’t continue its current plan for the future. If you care about the world your grandchildren will live in, if you care about your pocketbook, please let them know.  Tell them you object to paying for more dirty and dangerous plants.  
For more info, check out this eye-opening fact sheet from NC WARN explaining Duke’s secret rate-rigging scheme.  Also, visit the websites of NC WARN and Consumers Against Rate Hikes.