Food Freedom

High Fructose Corn Syrup To Be Illegal in New York?


Following on the heels of her batty colleague Felix Ortiz who tried to ban the use of all salt in restaurant cooking, New York Assemblywoman Barbara Clark (D-Queens) has proposed a bill to make the "selling, storing, distributing, holding for service, or using in preparation" of high fructose corn syrup illegal in New York, effective immediately on passage of her bill.

Here's the full text of the bill.


Ever noticed how news accounts often characterize the activity of legislators as "crafting" a bill? Very little crafting evident here.

More from me on why corn syrup is no worse for you than sugar here and here, including the mandatory government-subsidies-to-corn-totally-suck disclaimer.

Via Center for Consumer Freedom.

NEXT: The Pulitzer for eCards

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. *knock, knock, knock*

    Who is it, man?

    Hey, Dave, it’s me. Open up. I got the stuff.

    1. Dave’s not here man.

    2. Shit, man, I wanted the dark Karo.

  2. Will someone please stand up and tell these fucking busybodies to just go the fuck away and drop dead?

    1. I guess they banned sugar-coating comments too.

  3. I don’t know how much more of this idiocy I can stand. It may just drive me insane.

  4. “selling, storing, distributing, holding for service, or using in preparation”

    She forgot “writing, thinking about, or saying ‘high fructose corn syrup’ within 500 feet of a school, church, playground or park.”

    1. You know I was serius up thread. It’s as if their long-term goal is to make absolutely everything a controlled substance. Will there be SWAT teams raiding places suspected of selling, storing, distributing, holding for service, or using in preparation the evil substance high fructose corn syrup?

      1. It can’t happen here.

      2. We’re working on that, Gobbler.

      3. No, this will not happen because, unlike, say, heroin, there are ready substitutes for HFCS on the market which do not cost significantly more. Still a fucking maddeningly idiotic law to propose.

  5. Al Qaeda will come and go, but what are we doing to fight the liquid terror in our soda cans?

  6. Where the hell did this HFCS insanity come from? Is there one particularly persuasive idiot that got the ball rolling? Is there a scientific basis for any conclusion other than its sugar like other sugar?

    1. Table sugar is half glucose and half fructose. HFCS is something like 55% fructose and 43% glucose. I could be off by a few percentage points. It doesn’t seem like a big difference and I was a skeptic for a long time, but the rat studies finally persuaded me. Basically group A is given free access to water sweetened with HFCS and B with water sweetened with table sugar. Every rat in group A becomes obese, but only some of the rats in group B. The explanation for this is that glucose and fructose bind together which leaves no free fructose in table sugar. There IS free fructose in HFCS though (even if it doesn’t seem like there is a lot of it), and the body metabolizes free fructose differently than glusose and fructose that are bound together.

      So I’d prefer 100 calories of table sugar to 100 calories of HFCS, even if the latter is sweeter. I still agree that these laws are insane. If they outlaw the worst sugar, they might as well outlaw all but the best sugar. Eventually they’ll have outlawed every substance other than a government created organic sludge.

      1. I’m also a believer that HFCS is slightly worse for the body than table sugar. And I agree with you that treating HFCS like a controlled substance is ridiculous.

      2. That rat study has serious problems, man.…‘t-tell-us

        For one, female rats provided HFCS actually gained less weight than females given sugar. It doesn’t look like good science.

        1. You’re right, as are those mentioning this downstream. I’m willing to revise my views if I see a conflicting study with better methodology. In the meantime I have to judge how much weight to give those results.

          The reasoning does give a scientific basis for the premise that HFCS is worse than table sugar though, so it answers JR’s question even if further studies disprove that line of reasoning.

          1. Robert H. Lustig, M.D., Professor of Clinical Pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco said, “The difference between high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose, molecule for molecule or ounce for ounce, isn’t worth discussing.” (Tucker J, Allday E. January 20, 2010. “Schools switch sugars in chocolate milk.” San Francisco Chronicle.

            You may be interested in listening to the podcast Skeptoid: Critical Analysis of Pop Phenomena on high fructose corn syrup. The transcript is also available at

            You can also read the latest research about high fructose corn syrup at

            Audrae Erickson, Corn Refiners Association

      3. Which they’ll call Soylent Green.

      4. I was chief chemist for a food company whose name would be immediately familiar to you. I later was in charge of laboratory quality assurance for the Food safety and Inspection Service of USSDA, so I believe I can weigh in on the science here. If you have studied fructose, you are no doubt aware that it is the predominant sugar in fruit. Diabetics are advised to eat fruits which are high in fructose rather than ordinary sucrose as in cane sugar. Yes, the two are metabolized somewhat differently. I would submit that obesity is due far more to over consumption of all sugars, fats and calories in general combined with lack of exercise.

        My GP agrees with me. Over the past two years, I have dropped from 226 pounds to 145 by changing my diet and exercise regimen. I eat more fruit, (fructose), more vegetables, more slowly and have regular exercise in the form of physical work.

        I would say it is simplistic to blame one or two factors for the obesity in this country. As individuals, we have the ability to control this.

  7. New York Assemblywoman Barbara Clark (D-Queens) has proposed a bill to make the “selling, storing, distributing, holding for service, or using in preparation” of high fructose corn syrup illegal in New York, effective immediately on passage of her bill.

    I can just imagine what will it be like for all those people that invested in corn syrup inventories to suddenly have to throw away their working capital once it becomes “illegal”. For one, retroactive laws are ILLEGAL in this great nation, so you cannot make already-stored corn syrup illegal – not that such fact will stop the buttinskies.

    1. Not to defend this terrible piece of legislation, but your criticism is off-base. This is not a “retroactive” law in the sense you are describing. It would not be illegal to have held HFCS in your inventory; it simply becomes illegal to continue to. Your argument implies that any law would be illegal that simply interfered with plans that some business had already made.

      1. This is not a “retroactive” law in the sense you are describing. It would not be illegal to have held HFCS in your inventory; it simply becomes illegal to continue to.

        EP, no disrespect, but if you already possess something and suddenly the law says it is “illegal” to possess it, that damned makes the law retroactive because it affects already-existing private property. The fact that one “warehouses” inventory does not change the fact that it IS private property, never mind if it is commercial property. The government cannot do that (ok, it can, but ought not to.)

        Your argument implies that any law would be illegal that simply interfered with plans that some business had already made.

        No, any law that unduly interferes with private property rights SHOULD BE illegal or invalid or simply not enacted at all. This is clearly the case – who cares if it happens to be part of the plans of a business? How does the fact that a business uses HCFS change anything? A business is nothing more than someone’s PRIVATE PROPERTY applied on transformation for exchange purposes; how would that make the business owner fair game to have his rights trampled over is beyond me – you will have to explain that one to me.

        1. Retroactive. I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

          Under your reasoning, no law could ever be passed banning an object or substance. I happen to agree, but it is hard to make the argument (in a legal context) that no such laws can legally be passed.

  8. The thing about HFCS is not that it’s bad in and of itself, it’s that it’s a symptom of the monstrous Big Corn lobby that’s strangling this country.

    1. That’s the real tragedy here. It’s another case of ridiculous government action to correct a problem created by ridiculous government action.

      Without the Cuba embargo and all the ongoing corn subsidies, table sugar would be cheaper and there wouldn’t be HFCS in damn near every product at the grocery store.

      1. But…But…that would be rewarding Cuba for it’s evil government of repression, egalitarianism, and history human rights violations.

        We Americans have our pinciples you know!

      2. It sure is ridiculous. Just get rid of the ill conceived corn subsidy already.

      3. Basically I agree with you. The issue is, do I lose my libertarian credentials if I prefer this policy solution that gives me real sugar rather than HFCS? As I see it, either way it’s the result of government action. Might as well take the cleaner tasting, potentially healthier sugar.

        1. If you prefer cane sugar, you are free to preferentialy purchase products with cane sugar in them. Ther’ex already a market for this kind of thing.

          1. Sugar tariffs means that sugar costs 2x in the US as much as sugar on the world market and sugar import quotas means that the US might have shortages:


        2. The libertarian solution in this case is to remove the market manipulations that make your preferred product more expensive. Government action is not bad if it results in a more open market, but it is bad if you are favoring a new market restriction that is intended to cover the unintended consequences of a previous restriction.

          Outlawing corn syrup to favor cane sugar bad, desubidizing corn and removing tariffs on imported sugar to open market preference for either corn or sugar good.

          1. The thing about HFCS is not that it’s bad in and of itself, it’s that it’s a symptom of the monstrous Big Corn lobby that’s strangling this country.

            It’s also the sugar quotas and tariffs that make sugar much more less cost competitive than HCFS. It’s a rational reaction to gummint induced market distortions.

            1. Much more less?

        3. I would say that removing subsidies and opening trade to the world market is government policy a libertarian can safely get behind. HFCS is artificially cheap and sugar is artificially expensive. That is why HFCS is in everything.

        4. Yes. You do.

          Having the government institute policy based on your “preferred” policy/outcome is pretty much the antithesis of Libertarianism.

          And yes, the government would have to take action to remove the corn subsidy, but that is a reduction in government policy, and while it has an outcome, that outcome is the result of things going back to the way Libertarians think they should have been.

  9. This is about as silly(!) as prohibiting the possession or use of any substance containing water.

    Politician in sack.
    Sack in river.

    1. Which is why I hope they pass this bill. I want to see citizens at the Assembly with pitchforks and torches, tar and feathers. All the better to discourage the rest.

  10. Because it’s for our own good. Especially you fucking knuckle-dragging, inbred, wife-beating skinhead Republicans, though we wish you’d die already.

    But we’re not elitists!

    1. You forgot “teabagging racists”.

      1. I think “skinheads” covers the racist and teabagging parts, if we’re to believe Media Matters.

  11. This is insane and so frustrating. I’ve told my liberal friends who are worried about “high fructose corn syrup” there is an easy answer: STOP THE FREAKING GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES WHICH FOSTER IT SO MUCH. Jesus I’m sorry for the all-caps, but it’s so patently obvious. Here the problem IS the government, they created this problem.

    1. Why do you hate farmers?

    2. You’ve accepted the principle, MNG, why do you quibble about the details?

      1. What principle have I accepted Jeffersonian? Banning things? Because I’m pretty sure you believe in government force to ban some things to (trespass, robbery, fraud, etc).

        So Jeffersonian, since you accept the principle, why not this specific application?

        Look, agreeing with some banning doesn’t mean I must support any ban. It’s this kind of thinking that makes the LP pull 1-2%. Why not embrace and encourage someone agreeing with your stance here rather than demand total purity?

        1. Because I’m pretty sure you believe in government force to ban some things to (trespass, robbery, fraud, etc).

          And look at how effective the government policy banning robbery is.

          1. Why not embrace and encourage someone agreeing with your stance here rather than demand total purity?

            I agree with MNG here, too.

            1. It’s a shame MNG can’t be right more often.

              1. I keep trying to tell him that black people vote Democrat in such large numbers due mostly to what I’d describe as inertia, but he won’t believe me.

                1. Shorter MNG: C’mon guys, why can’t you be more like the D’s and R’s?

                  1. Why can’t you guys be more like the D’s?

                2. Fools are hard to reprogram, Art.

                3. I believe you Art to some degree, I just maintain that inertia is well deserved. At a pivotal time the Dems made the right decision vis-a-vis civil rights and the GOP went the wrong way. Still the GOP salts this wound, and so blacks rationally are suspect.

                  Libertarians sadly waxed eloquently on the right of association in the face of Jim Crow, discrimination and such. And so a loss of credibilty there among blacks.

                  What I hate is the patronizing view that if only blacks knew better they’d flock to the GOP or LP. Oh, they know, they know…

                  1. The LP has relatively little market presence, but as far as the GOP is concerned: I don’t think the GOP salts the wounds (some politicians do, but I digress), I just think there isn’t any particular compelling reason for many people to vote Republican. And many people, including black people, vote narrowly for what they think is their self-interest. From this perspective, I the Dems must seem like the lesser of two evils to a solid majority of black people. So I suppose I agree with you there, as far as a superficial analysis of voting habits is concerned.
                    I do feel like the Democratic Party largely takes black votes for granted and that I wish more black people would stop supporting what I consider to be the status quo because it’s my perspective that the status quo is corrupt and that many of the policies supported by liberals are not actually particularly helpful to the poor. I just think it’s pretty unlikely that black people would suddenly start voting libertarian, but I’m so cynical about politics I’m not sure how much of an improvement it would even be if more black people started voting for the GOP.
                    I feel like the Dems mostly just pander to black people rather than do much of anything useful. But I guess that’s my knock on the political system in general. I guess we don’t even disagree much on that.

                    1. I guess we just disagree on how well-deserved the inertia is. I’m sure we can agree that the other options are remote and really remote.

                  2. You’re saying, in essence, that libertarians loved Jim Crow laws.

                    Go fuck yourself, MNG.

                    1. No, technically I’m saying that many a self styled libertarian used libertarian principles to oppose anti-discrimination legislation during the Goldwater campaign, and many of them did it with the declared intent that a lack of anti-discrimination laws would essentially produce an effect similar to Jim Crow laws.

                      And oh, go fuck yourself Right Wing Guy.

                    2. No, double-fuck off, MNG… you’re using the tired, old “anyone right-of-center is a hatemongering racist wife-beater” template.

                      This isn’t the 1950s. Only white-supremacist tools pine for the return of segregated lunch counters. Last time I checked, the LP doesn’t cater to white supremacists, and we have never been in favor of segregated lunch counters.

                      Make that a triple go fuck yourself, while you’re at it.

                      Jesus, was it hard to say you’re right about ending sugar subsidies. It really is a shame you’re such a dick about most other policies. You seem like an intelligent fellow, despite your liberal brainwashing levels.

        2. Because robbery, trespass, etc. are aggressive actions taken by one party against another against his consent, not decisions one party decides to make for himself. If the State can mandate this or that because of a long-term health benefit or liability, there’s no reason this particular intrusion is any better or worse than, say, banning smoking in private businesses like restaurants, other than it currently makes “liberals” look foolish, politically.

          Like I said, you’ve already accepted the principle, so live with the logical extension of it.

        3. Exactly how is HFC in a category that is in any way comparable to trespass, robbery, or fraud (which are actions of dubious morality)?

          1. It’s not, and even MNG has to regret the comparison.

            1. Well, yeah, especially since I was making the argument that banning HFCS was WRONG then this is really an area where you guys are shadowboxing…

    3. Why is consumption of high fructose corn syrup a problem, MNG?

      1. My name is Art-P.O.G. and I approve of MNG’s message.

        1. I’ll always remember you as The Art-P.O.G.

          1. By popular demand (see: I’m a follower and I give in to peer pressure).

      2. I am saying that even if we accept the premise that it is a problem why in the world can’t they realize that the best way to deal with the problem, one that involves no coercion or paternalism, is to stop the massive subsidies which foster the low cost production of that product? I mean, WTF x 10?

        1. I guess once entitlements or subsidies are in place, they’re nearly impossible to get rid of. There’s surely a name for this phenomenon.

          1. It need not be so. You just say to all those liberals who oppose HFCS “HEY, IT’S THESE SUBSIDIES.” Even in Food Inc. they recognize the subsidies are the problem. It’s just a matter of now making those people concerned start to ask prospective candidates about it…

            1. Hey, then I’ll finally back those dirty hippies on something.

              1. Yes, we’re in cahoots with the Zionists to take over the world.

                Um… mwahaha, and so forth.

                1. If it includes lox, I’m in.

            2. Or it could be that the people who watch Food, Inc. dont really give a shit about farm subsidies. What they give a shit about is hatin on corporations.

              1. I’ve Googled “Food Inc”, and still can’t find their contact info. All I get is some site for a bullshit movie by Robert Kenner, and a site for a Mediterranean restaurant in California.

                I suspect MNG saw said bullshit movie.

          2. Yes. Retroviral infection.

          3. There’s surely a name for this phenomenon.

            I think it is called “the Senate”.

    4. Re: MNG,


      Well, MNG, you cannot ask the government to do that . . . It simply makes too much sense, and that’s not like them.


        Again, makes too much sense for the government to follow.

    5. For once, MNG, you say something sensible.

    6. You do realize that Iowa is a swing state that votes early in presidential elections?

      So, repealing the subsidies is WAY unlikely to happen.

    7. I agree with MNG.

      Never have more shocking words ever been typed. Not by me, at least.

  12. This will pretty much empty whole aisles in supermarkets.

    If this were to actually go into effect, I predict the good Assemblywoman would have to be escorted by an armed guard to a plane taking her out of the country. The overhead shots of enraged citizens mobbing her car on the way to LaGuardia would be simply wonderful.

  13. I agree, STOP THE FUCKING SUBSIDIES and tell ADM and their buddies the gravy train is over.

    Agree that HCFS has not been shown to be any more harmful than table sugar, which is not saying much. Problem with HCFS is that its so cheap (thanks to the subsidies), has a long shelf life and a pleasant “mouth feel” unlike regular sugar. As a result it is used not just as a flavoring, but also as a preservative and a cheap filler.

    I’d just LOVE to see this bill pass. Probably 80% of all food items in grocery stores, and 95% of all food served in restaurants, has HCFS in one form or another.

    1. I should have noted that I also agree with MNG’s idea for the elimination of subsidies for HFCS. But we all know it ain’t ending there.

  14. HFCS is worse than sugar:

    That said it shouldn’t be banned. We should just abolish corn subsidies and trade embargoes against countries that would export sugar.

    1. This was already discussed up-thread.

      I would add that as a general principle, it’s unwise to draw a conclusion one way or another based on a single study. The weight of evidence has been in the other direction so far.

    2. Are you sure you know the whole science behind sugar from one study you stumbled upon?

  15. I only know that I prefer Mexican Coke (made with cane sugar) better than American Coke, made with HFCS. You can buy bottles of Mexican Coke at Costco, if you want to try…

    1. I agree that Mexican Coke tastes better than American Coke. Personally, I think it is the glass bottle though. Supposedly, Coca-Cola has done blind taste tests and no one can tell the difference however.

      1. Remember that Coke switched to the New Coke formula because of blind taste tests. They’re apparently not that good of a methodology.

    2. Mmmmmm… I love MexiCoke!

  16. The retarded thing is that there is already movement away from HFCS solely through the market, as more people have become concerned about HFCS (whether justifiably or not). I’ve been seeing a lot of “made with real sugar” products showing up. And if there are studies that conclusively show HFCS is worse as alluded to above, people will abandon it in droves and companies will scramble to present real sugar products. Which would also crush the demand for corn, punching ADM and the other subsidy whores in the gut.

    So this will probably all be taken care of by the market. But hey, let’s ban it anyway because we’re retarded politicians.

    1. You said it better than I would’ve, but I was thinking along those same lines. Something similar also seems to be happening with trans fats/partially hydrogenated oils. People who are concerned about their health and their weight will probably educate themselves about things that are bad to them, while people that don’t care will probably have unhealthy habits even if the nanny gov’t tries to ban everything bad for them.

      1. This.

        You would be absolutely flabbergasted the amount of folks following a cholecystectomy or duodenal resection that regress back to old eating habits. You would think having your gall bladder ripped out or your digestive pipes plumbed might be a wake up call.

        But then I practice in a state that ranks in the top five states for obesity.

        1. I’ve seen the same thing. Instead of a wake-up call, people see it as a way out of facing the consequences of their behavior.

      2. What’s wacky is that this could sort of cause a battle between corn Congressmen/women and nanny Congressmen/women. Banning HFCS would not make the subsidy whores happy, as it is a huge part of what corn is used for, so the cornholers would try and stop bans, whereas the nannies would want them.

        That could be entertaining, I must say.

        1. They have an ally in Bio-fuels and Greenies. That would alleviate both unfortunately; the nannies can redirect their efforts against CO2 emissions and the corn folks still get their subsidies due to The One’s “commitment to alternative energy diversity”.

          1. Good point, and thanks for ruining my little fantasy, you jerk.

            1. Sorry to be such a killjoy. I liked your scenario much better.

    2. “””I’ve been seeing a lot of “made with real sugar” products showing up. “”

      Showing up, and disappearing. Where’s my Pepsi throwback!!!

  17. The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.

    – H.L. Mencken

  18. It would be hilarious to watch a black market develop for HFCS.

    “Hey there dude…… some really sweet good n’ plentys here, ya….made with the good stuff you know it…straight HFCS baby, it’ll make you right brutha…”

    1. Certainly would make the addiction term “sweet tooth” more accurate.

  19. Just to play devil’s advocate, maybe this ban wouldn’t be the worst thing. It might lessen the corn lobby’s incentive to demand sky-high subsidies.

    OK, who am I kidding. They’ll just find a way to start making paper out of the stuff, or maybe pacemakers and nuclear warheads. The corn lobby is shameless.

  20. 1) No, HFCS is not “just as bad for you” as table sugar. Parroting industry propaganda like this does little credit to libertarians.

    2) Table sugar is also quite bad for you; along with almost all the other carbohydrates in the standard American diet, it is responsible for the high American rates of obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc.

    3) This law is an ass, of course. It’s trying to legislate nutrition that got us into this mess in the first place, and legislating it again will just prevent us from adapting to new information as it becomes available.

    1. Table sugar and carbohydrates are bad for you? Speaking as an American two generations removed from Ireland, I beg to differ.

      Life without potatoes is not something I’m willing to contemplate.

      1. you know why the Oirish lived on potatoes? Because they were fucking dirt goddamn poor. Not because it’s optimal food. Christ.

        1. Optimal food? What are you, the food police?

          Potatoes fucking rule.

          I know damn well why my starving ancestors ate them, which is even more of a reason to appreciate them.

    2. “2) Table sugar is also quite bad for you; along with almost all the other carbohydrates in the standard American diet, it is responsible for the high American rates of obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc.”

      Nutrition FAIL. Glucose is what is required for cellular respiration. The process of digestion is to break down foodstuffs to glucose.

      The over consumption of carbs (whether complex or simple) combined with an at risk HX (or present condition) of the aformentioned maladies and a sedentary lifestyle is what is bad.

      1. It is indeed required, which is why your liver produces it by breaking down larger molecules. You’ll have plenty of glucose in your bloodstream even if you eat a diet of nothing but red meat.

        Consuming as much sugar and processed carbohydrates as the typical American is a good way to make yourself miserable, and then to become insulin resistant, and then to get your feet sliced off because of your diabeetus.


        1. True Warty. The magical liver stores glucose as glycogen and released in the presence of glucogon. Which permits one from running out of energy while sleeping and maintaining blood sugar levels while digestion occurs.

          Problem with a diet high in red meat is much higher risk of colon and ass cancer.

          1. Perhaps. Even so, being sodomized with a camera-tube once a year after I turn 40 seems far preferable to being a legless diabetic dipshit. Those people give me the creeps, no offense to SugarFree.

            Wait, I do mean offense to SugarFree. Yo, fuck your pancreas.

            Anti-sugar stuff. The rule of 20 bit is interesting.

            1. Sodomized indeed! I use either general anesthetic or MAC for the colonoscopies I perform. The discomfort post procedure is generally short lived. Now the prep with a gallon of Go Lytely OTOH, most folks would really like to avoid.

              My Ex-GF is a type 1 diabetic. She drank like a fish too. I think she still does. Worst arguments we had were over her A1C and her diet.

              1. Worst arguments we had were over her A1C and her diet.

                Totally had to google ‘A1C’…

              2. “”Sodomized indeed! I use either general anesthetic or MAC for the colonoscopies I perform. “”

                Yeah, and we never know what you really did. I was on the table for an hour but there’s only 20 minutes of video. I keed, I keed.

      2. Speaking of meat, I saw a headline yesterday about some study which supposedly shows that raising livestock for meat doesn’t contribute to TEH GLOBAL WARMING after all. Did anyone read that article, and is it bullshit or not? I would enjoy being able to tell vegans to eat some steak for the environment.

        1. Heh…bullshit.

        2. Aren’t you always speaking of meat?

          I’d like to make fun of you for “eating meat” (har, har) but I am also a pretty big carnivore. I’m just not a fan of carbs; don’t really care for them. If you put a plate of pasta and a plate of sushi in front of me, it is sushi every time, no exception.

          So I’ll just make fun of you for listening to Amon Amarth, who I just noticed played here in Seattle yesterday. HA HA THEY’RE NAMED AFTER MOUNT DOOM WHAT NERDS

          1. Don’t knock Amon Amarth. I saw them in LA a couple days ago, and they were awesome. Pure Fucking Viking Metal!

            1. I’m pretty pissed they’re not coming to Cleveland this year. I might have to make the trip down to Pittsburgh, even though I loathe that place.

          2. Carbs are for retards, and Viking death metal bands who do synchronized headbanging are for splendid fellows such as I. Don’t hate what you can’t understand, you little Morlock asshole.

            1. Morlock?!?

              Carbs are for retards, but calling a bunch of Scandinavians, who haven’t raided anything besides their local Taco Bell at 1 AM, “Vikings”, is also retarded.

              1. Bullshit, dipwad, they drink mead out of horns onstage. MEAD OUT OF HORNS ON STAGE! You don’t know what a fucking Viking is.

                Oh, and you should watch True Norwegian Black Metal.

              2. They drink beer out of horns onstage, dipwad. You just don’t know what a Viking is.

                Also, you should watch True Norwegian Black Metal.

              3. They drink beer out of horns onstage, dipwad. You just don’t know what a Viking is.

                Also, you should watch True Norwegian Black Metal. Which for some reason, the spam filter won’t let me link.

              4. They drink beer out of horns onstage, dipwad. You just don’t know what a Viking is.

                For some reason, the spam filter won’t let me link to it, but you need to watch True Norwegian Black Metal on Then watch the North Korea and Liberia episodes while you’re at it, and try not to jack off too much over the Thai tranny episode.

                1. “…try not to jack off too much..”


                  You should run for public office.

                  1. You should run for public office.

                    My signs would be fun.

                    MAKE YOUR PEACE AND VOTE WARTY
                    VOTE WARTY OR BE RAPED


                    1. I’d vote for you.

                    2. I’m a bit like Prince, myself. I Would Vote 4 U

                2. I’ve drank beer out of a horn, too, dude, it doesn’t make me Rolf the Walker. When they give somebody a blood eagle on stage*, you let me know, and I’ll buy the tickets.

                  * I am fully aware that most Vikings were not crazy raider maniacs, but that’s what it has come to mean in popular usage.

                  1. You weren’t on stage, were you? Leave the Vikinging to the experts.

                    1. Did you drink mead out of a horn?

                    2. I have. Mead of my own making too. Got the recipe from a food historian at Kalamazoo (International Medieval Studies Congress) who got it straight from a manuscript. Shit was da bomb yo!

          3. You mean sashimi right? Cause rice is a carb.

            1. Yeah, correct, sorry.

              I’ll even just go buy nice cuts of fish, cut them up myself, and have homemade sashimi.

              1. Sashimi is great and all, but it would be way more satisfying if it left a puddle of blood like a good steak. That’s all I’m saying.

                1. Ewwwwwww…I can’t eat rare meat. I guess I’m just a big ole wuss. I do like sashimi, though. So I guess raw fish is OK.

                2. Only candyasses cook their steak, you sniveling reprobate. Acceptable uses are steak tartare, carpaccio, and steak sashimi.

                  If you are going to cook it, you merely sear the outside and then nothing more.

                  And yes, Art (below), you are a wuss, and you are missing out. Rare/raw beef is phenomenal.

                  1. Bullshit, Epi. You microwave your steaks, don’t you? Your half-inch little steaks. You sicken me.

                    1. I don’t eat a lot of red meat, but I figure I do have to try some rare beef sooner or later.

                    2. Just make sure it’s good steak, Art. If you’re ravenous at the time, you’ll really enjoy it.

                    3. Yeah, eating cheap steak raw is not pleasant.

                  2. I say enjoy yourselves. You only have one life. Besides, the more people who adopt your diets, the more business for me! (chuckle)

                3. 4 hoves and a MOO.

  21. selling, storing, distributing, holding for service, or using in preparation

    And we think that the health-nuts in this country haven’t adopted the War on Drugs as their model.

  22. From her point of view, it is perfectly crafted.

  23. Eventually they’ll have outlawed every substance other than a government created organic sludge.

    “A government created organic sludge.” That’s a hell of a thing to call The American People?.

    1. government created organic sludge

      The inevitable future of Lara Bar.
      It’s organic. It’s sludge. It contains many recommended minerals and vitamins. The perfect food for the “New Man”.

    2. It’s the precursor to Soylent Green(tm)

      1. One of my horrifying premonitions is that in 100 years, most people’s meals will consist of energy bars, and cooking your own meals iwll be considered a luxury frowned upon for the lack of nutritional controls.

        1. I had that same thought this morning, when I was choking down some sort of vile breakfast shake because I was too lazy to fry myself some eggs like a regular adult human being. The food of the future is in a can.

          1. Back on the SlimFast again, Warty? It wasn’t just water weight, like you kept telling yourself?

            1. It was some sort of protein shake garbage that my girlfriend got and then never used. It’s Brady Quinn approved, yo. “Now I’m done!”

              1. I did notice that Brady Quinn was built like a linebacker, so maybe it works. On the other hand, his throwing arm was nowhere near as strong as it looked.

                1. All that shit is useless. If you want to get big, lift weights with powerlifters and drink a gallon of whole milk every day. Powders are for suckers.

                2. And Brady Quinn sucks. Fuck you, Phil Savage.

        2. I don’t think that scenario is too far fetched Hazel. Making relatively inexpensive food bars with the ideal amounts of nutrients dispensed equally among a populance from a centralized authority coupled with peer pressure would be an Orwellian dream.

          1. I know. The most horrifying nightmares are always the ones that are the most plausible.

            I’m just waiting for the government to start mass distributions of nutrition bars to the poor in place of food stamps.

            Then for a generation raised on food bars to grow up.

            Then for people to start building apartments that don’t have stoves.

            1. Man, you could totally make a dystopian movie about this.

              Underground restauraunts surrepticiously serving Fettucini Alfredo to a clientele of corrupt government officials.

              Not that it would be banned, of course. Just that the ingedients would be expensive and socially stigmatized, much like ciagrettes. With bystanders on the street envious of the taste of delicious cooked food, using legendary high-fat sauces, yet superificially distainful of the decadence.

              The plot would be something about mass food shortages which underly the governments rationale for keeping everyone on Power Bar rations, only to discover that bands of resistance fighters have been growing illegal GMO produce in secret underground caverns.

                1. Apparently, if you ever come up with an awesome story idea, somebody else already did it. With a better title.

              1. THAT would be the ultimate irony: Teh Evil GMO’s the salvation of society.

                What would cause the mass food shortages though? Hmmm, it’s gotta be something pretty drastic. How about a genetically modified bacterium that proliferate in the soil or perhaps some wierd vector immune to organic pesticides?

                1. What would cause the mass food shortages though?

                  Price controls.

                  The black market GMOs would have market prices.

                  1. Price controls.

                    You did say the most plausible is the most frightening. And the most politically insidious and successful.

                    Nationalism would be the most obvious route of implementation. Don’t forget a war in there somewhere to galvanize the populance.

                    1. Oh totally. A vicious cycle of food shortages, resource wars, and trade protectionism.

                      Cue scenes of starving mobs rioting in unspecified third world countries, accompanied by government claims that “local” food sources must be protected for the sake of national security and the environment, and biazrrely incongrous claims that banning food imports and exports will be better for cited starving third-worlders as wells as domestic citizens.

                      Meanwhile, underground resistance fighters feed the poor by smuggling GMO seeds and crops out of the country in exchange for bananas, grains and exotic produce, which they sell on the black market to raise money for the cause.

                      The protagonist will be a nutrition scientist who works on developing optimal food bars who questions why certain ingredients are unavailable because of the trade restrictions.

                    2. I don’t envision a Mad Max wasteland though. For some reason I envision a very drab and grey environment. Detroit would suffice as a backdrop.

                      I think you’re on to something Hazel; I could see the the intrigue with scenes of the government officials making deals to circumvent wars with food supplies. Scenes of drably dressed drones walking past in faux indignation of the rabble and their decadent free thinking, content in their conformity for the good of the cause.

                      A few scenes of trading decadent food for sex, or even a strip club with rubenesque dancers to feed the politically connected their meals, since they can’t cook. Chefs have been socially ostracized into near extinction, but a few are kept around, like some archaic religious order, for the enjoyment of the government officials.

                    3. Cue also a few scenes of schools at lunch times with student lined up at dispensary kiosks, which only dipense food after reading a biometric.

                      The “bad kids” are the ones caught behind the school dealing citrus fruits and apples. Drugs have been legalized and very inexpensive so as to distract the populance from the conformist nature of the food bar. Treatment centers for extreme cases of addiction would be nothing more than food bar “re-education”.

                      Oh and product placement everywhere for these food bars with gratuitously annoying jingles. The kind that would personify the food bar and make the audience by the end of the film absolutely DETEST the food bar.

                    4. Oh yeah, I also have in mind a scene where one of the resistance fighters gets to explain comparative advantage, over a discussion of bananas rotting in Central America because they can’t be exported to American markets.

                    5. Also, thewre should be some food bar commercials, official government propaganda, where old people exclaim how much the food bar tastes like bacon, or french fries, or pizza, because most younger people have never actually tasted any of those things, so they have to have an old person verify that they taste correctly.

                    6. A few scenes of trading decadent food for sex, or even a strip club with rubenesque dancers to feed the politically connected their meals, since they can’t cook.

                      Sorry to repeatedly post this, but I have this awesome scene in mind where a really fat government official has food rubbed all over him by a rubenesque prostitute in one of those food sex joints. Something referencing ‘The Cook, the Thief, his Wife, and her Lover’.

                    7. Nice touch.

                      The protagonist during the course of the plot would also have a nice scene or series of scenes incorporating Prisoner’s Dilemma to flesh out the plot. Such as the scientist in the course of his discovering the truth behind the embargos and nature of the price controls stumbles upon our freedom fighters, is caught by government officials and must essentially expose the public goods game for what it is. The freedom fighters would have to weigh whether rescuing the protagonist would be a payoff to them, as he has epressed an interest to join them, seeing the inherently flawed food bar society.

                      Or a Nash equilibrium explanation plot device involving the protagonist and the resistance fighters to prove to the protagonist that exposing resistance is not in best interest of the actors involved, largely because the drone society has chosen it’s fate of ignorance and freedom has it’s risks. It would be up to the protagonist to decide whether the division of labor market solution is in the best interest of all involved. This scene would be the climax and set in the caves where the illegal GMO’s are being grown.

                      I might suggest denouement for plot cohesion.

                    8. Well, I was sort of imagining a Denoument where a bunch of old ladies emerge from their ramshackle houses carrying apple pies they’ve been secretly baking. Meanwhile Guataemalens arrive with truckloads of bananas and immediately begin exchanging them for apple pies in a glorious scene of peaceful cultural and economic exchange.

                    9. Ok, I see where you are going with this. The Food Bar society is too firmly entrenched. It’s not going anywhere. More than likely it will consume the protagonist, since the corrupt government has it’s interest in maintaining centralized order through food, though it will eventually fail due to an unsustainable model. Essentially, the resistance would have to work outside the system kind of on the margins and the film’s dynamic comparison of the two economic models would be the the underlying theme.

                      Heh heh, nothing more american than the apple pie. And little old ladies as resistance fighters with pies for trade. Then a cutaway to the drab drones mindlessly eating their visually indistinguable food bars.

                    10. Gotta catch a couple of hours winks. Fun brainstorming. Looks like you have some material if you actually wanted to develop a short story or screenplay.

            2. One of the things that does irritate me about nutritional science is the emphasis on uniformity. Though we know how most nutrients are utilized in the body, each person by virtue of genetic makeup is different. Further study into genomics and medicine may unlock some of these unknowns.

              And of course you can’t have stoves. While the drones are slaving away and the children are being indoctrinated in the hive, the need for stoves, microwave ovens and other cooking appliances would be moot.

              God, how depressing.

              1. That’s true. Genetics really affect what kind of diet a person can or should eat, and genes don’t always do so in an obvious way.

  24. Did you know that artificially sweetened soft drinks is a marketing scam to get young people hooked on sweets so they develop a craving for more intense sweety highs?

    Babs’ proposed legislation doesn’t go far enough in protecting the children.

    1. That’s some bullshit you’re spinning, j.

      1. I think he’s being facetious. Or at least I hope so.

            1. Is it facetious, or not? I’m genuinely stumped.

                1. Oh, good. Had me fooled, though. Sounded damned authentic.

  25. More from me on why corn syrup is no worse for you than sugar

    KMW, it’s time to update your research: a Princeton study found that

    “In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.”

    1. If you set me free I wouldn’t eat corn syrup. Humans?!

  26. Underground restauraunts surrepticiously serving Fettucini Alfredo to a clientele of corrupt government officials.

    That sounds a lot like the USSR. Except for the “underground” part.

  27. On a side food related note, pursuant to earlier discussions of the cost of eating healthy …

    I’ve just duplicated Pasta-Roni’s Angel Hair Pasta with Parmesan Cheese Sauce with no more effort than it takes to make it from the box, and with real parmesan cheese.

    Which doesn’t really mean it’s healthy, but it’s another moment of me going “WTF? It’s so easy to make that there’s no reason to buy it prepared.”

    Really … it’s exactly like making it from the box, minus the bag of flavoring, plus equivalent amount of parmesan cheese and some parsley flakes.

    1. Recipe or it didn’t happen.

      1. No recipe.
        I just threw some milk, butter and parmesan cheese in there … pretty much randomly. Worked.

  28. No … product containing HFCS shall be … used in preparation of any food product to be served or sold ….

    So, after eating HFCS, how long does a person have to wait before preparing a food product for the HFCS to legally not be considered as used in the preparation?

    1. I think that’s Chris Cooper, but I don’t know why he’s wearing a wig.

      1. It’s Chief Justice Judith Kaye. I was just fishing for some gossip from New Yorkers on Kaye.

      2. Art, you’re right about the Chris Cooper resemblance. You must have a very good eye or an alpha version of Google’s face recognition software.

        1. I have a pretty good eye for that sort of thing. I’m a classically-trained portrait painter. I also watch too many movies.

          1. I think that’s the first time I’ve ever seen the phrase, “classically-trained X” with X != “guitarist”. So do you have painting duels with Stevie Vai (or equivalent) to win back souls and stuff?

  29. Someone wants to get on TV…

  30. I’m sure this is buried in the middle of nowhere but I seem to remember my mother mixing Karo syrup with milk in baby bottles for my younger siblings. This back when people were still thinner.

  31. Not to over react or anything, but every time I read stories about crap like this I can’t help but feel that the best that could happen to this country is that it collapse under the weight of its own meddling, busy body, bureaucratic idiocy.

  32. seriously don’t write about things you don’t know about. “A calorie is a calorie” has been debunked time and time again by actual science: observation and experimentation.

    Just because we should not take away people’s right to choose for themselves does not mean we ignore scientific evidence and pretend things we don’t like are not true.

    1. You mean the scientific evidence of epidemiological studies? Where one observes correlations between groups of people? How did you account for the other studies that directly contradict those same correlations by measuring other variables? Do you know which variables “actual science” measured or do you just know a series of conclusions by journalists in publications you like to read?

  33. Not too excited about this one. Another legislator who thinks she is making a point by proposing some legislation she knows isn’t going to make it out of committee.

  34. This will never pass, the US has given corn growers too much money to ever let one state ban HFCS from school lunches, a federal program. And if it’s good enough for the children, it’ll be left alone for everyone else. What a waste of paper and time.

  35. I hope this passes, it would serve the Idiots right, just so the morons know what products will disappear, no more Frozen beverage concentrates, no more Canned and frozen fruits, Granola, breakfast and energy bars, Spaghetti sauces, ketchup, and condiments, Yogurt, or even Baked goods, so just about every type of baking, cooking, shopping center, ballpark and bar, shut down, even your health food stores,…..-hfcs-used I really hope you understand you cannot have it stored or even brought into the state, it started when you bitchy little people wanted to control the smokers (I don’t like smoking either) and now your politicians have moved on to other busybody issues to “protect you”. When will you figure out that it is not your responsibility to control every aspect of another life. OH Please pass this, save our fat little piggy children, cause we are tooo stupid to stop feeding them garbage, oh please save us from ourselves, you know we are to stupid to be anything but a group of sheeple….baaaaa….baaaa

  36. Please do the research. “High-fructose Corn Syrup” has as much to do with “corn syrup” as a poppy flower has to do with heroin. HFCS is a highly processed product. Without getting into too much detail for the comments section, gluclose is metabolized in every cell of the body, fructose must be metabolized by the liver. Really, do the research. HFCS is the next tobacco. We will soon realize that this product has been pushed by a cabal of business interests with little regard for reseach pointing to dangerous statistical correlations among consumers of the product.

    1. And who is it that twists the publics arm to put anything in their mouths. Remember, this is still a free country. People have options, they choose what they want to eat and what they don’t want to eat. Ignorance is no excuse. Next up, Big Brother will be regulating and/or taxing the air you breathe! This is a type of communism when the gov’t controls what you can eat, drink, smoke, etc. Your freedom is slowly being taken away.



  39. Hopefully just the beginning. The only reason we have the poison foisted upon is is because we have an abundance of corn that we are force feeding to cows who are supposed to eat grass, not corn, so that THEY will get fat for slaughter quicker. Stand up to the factory farming industry which does not care if you or your kids die from diabetes. HFCS is not recognized as food by the body so does not help make you feel full, so you will eat more calories if you drink it. This is why you can drink a Big Gulp (bucket) of coke or pepsi like it’s water. Make your own soda with juice and seltzer.

  40. Oh, and also go watch “The Future of Food” on Netflix.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.