Is it curiosity or distrust?
It's sad but true -- I do NOT trust most advertisements. I actually remember a time when businesses were held to a higher-standard of TRUTH-in-advertising. Those were the days I did not hit the mute-button on my remote when a series of commercials interrupted my TV-entertainment. Oh yeah, well, that was before remotes . . . but still, even if remotes existed back then, I would NOT have needed to mute the commercials.
Since I'm not drawn to buying "energy drinks" (a.k.a. Sports Drinks) I haven't been aware of exactly what's available in stores. Yes, I probably hit the mute-button when the commercial comes on TV. I don't live completely under a rock though -- I have heard that most energy drinks are loaded with sugar and caffeine to give the experience of an energy-boost, but this has not been a topic of interest for me since I don't drink them. It's not that I don't need energy; I just don't need the awful side-effects that come AFTER the sugar high.
How did this topic of Energy/Sports Drinks come up in my universe?
Just moments ago during a phone conversation, someone mentioned a "healthy energy drink" that supposedly has all kind of good vitamins and nutrients added to it and is lower in calories than Gatorade. She highly recommended this particular healthy drink. Another plus -- this drink was recommended by her doctor.
Curiosity or Distrust?
At first I was curious. Then, when she told me the name of the drink, my Distrust-red-light started going off.
Have you heard about the Gatorade-branded "healthy energy drink" called G-2? I had not heard of it but checked it out (curiosity?) on the internet to find more about it. One of the ingredients is High-fructose corn syrup (distrust!).
What we should know about High-fructose corn syrup (source: wikipedia)
- HFCS is a corn syrup that's undergone enzymatic processing to convert its glucose into fructose AND THEN it's been mixed with pure corn syrup (100% glucose) to produce its specific sweetness. I'm no scientist so nothing in that sentence makes particular sense to me.
- HFCS has replaced sucrose (table sugar) in the U.S. due to governmental subsidies of U. S. corn and an import tariff on foreign sugar. The tariff raises the price of sugar. Government subsidies makes using HFCS aLOT cheaper in products. Oh, and most corn grown in the U. S. is genetically modified.
- Health hazards of HFCS:
- mercury reported in some HFCS manufactured in the U.S. in 2005. Curiosity: why are we finding mercury in a corn product?
- liver disease (scarring or fibrosis) found among patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (attributed to increased consumption of HFCS)
- digestive disorders, i.e., fructose malabsorption, formerly named "dietary fructose intolerance." This digestive disorder is actually a dietary disability of the small intestine where the amount of fructose carrier in enterocytes is deficient. Curiosity: what causes the small intestine's disability to function as it's supposed to (specifically related to processing fructose)?
- obesity -- research has fallen on both sides, depending on what each side WANTS to prove. On one side, there's a correlation between obesity and the increased replacement of sugar with HFCS in products such as soft drinks, including energy/sports drinks. The other side finds no such correlation. Curiosity: Was there a time when "research" was conducted to actually discover the truth? Rather than trying to prove something that may or may not be true!
There are a number of other factors that can be seen by anyone who cares to look. One such factor is the amount consumed. The soft drink container has increased from 6 oz. to 1 liter or more. As the container has increased the ingredients changed from sugar to HFCS.
Also, the psychological effect of increasing the soft drinks container size is obvious. Most people associate drinking "the whole thing" as what's expected. It's like the industry dictates our personal serving size.
Even if I'm curious because I don't trust something, the underlying intention for me is to "really know the truth." To me, this means that I read and listen to a wide range of sources beyond the advertisement.
Recently, I read an article written in 2008 about the dangers of HFCS. There was a piece in the article about how researchers from Rutgers University found "very high levels of reactive carbonyls" in eleven carbonated soft drinks sweetened with HFCS. The article says that reactive carbonyls "have been linked to tissue damage and complications of diabetes." And, guess what!? A single can of soda has five times that concentration of reactive carbonyls. Old-fashioned table sugar has NO reactive carbonyls. (Source: the nutrition reporter)
Curiosity: So, there's evidence that HFCS is responsible for tissue damage -- I'm thinking major organs are made up of tissues, i.e., lungs, heart, kidneys. It makes no sense to me how a product linked to tissue damage can even be on the market!?
Curiosity: So, is it true that we have government agencies with the responsibility of ensuring food & other products are safe? Oh, maybe the government agencies only write the policy. Does that mean we need "food police"?
Curiosity: So, there really are human beings who can produce and sell products that might be dangerous to other beings . . . and they can do this with a clear conscience?
What can we do? I say "we" because I know I'm not alone in feeling overwhelmed with wanting "to do" something and yet feeling like I'm just one individual. Yet I know the answer is to just keep on writing and talking -- researching and sharing what I find -- asking questions and sharing what I find out.
It wasn't curiosity that killed the cat; it was automatic, unconscious behavior. If the cat had truly been curious, he would've been more aware of his environment and the danger.
Posts
