Whole Life Times: More Trouble With Corn Syrup

August 2006 | Letters from Readers

More Trouble With Corn Syrup

Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association, wrote a fascinating rebuttal to your May article, “The Trouble With Corn.” Erickson’s argument seems to be that “high fructose corn syrup” (HFCS) is not a “unique” contributor to obesity. Erickson, a classic “fox in the henhouse,” is not really in the position to judge the industry, or protect the public from that industry.

The fact that obesity is occurring in other parts of the world without the presence of HFCS is wholly irrelevant in terms of answering the question: Is it wise to consume HFCS in any foods? The fact that the FDA says “yes, its safe” is less than comforting, since such supposedly governmental watchdog agencies are typically way behind the curve of what is safe or not safe.

Folks, do your own research, do your own thinking, draw your own conclusions. HFCS was originally added to foods simply because it was a cheap sugar. The fact that it blocks the brain’s ability to know the stomach has eaten enough has not stopped or slowed its ubiquitous use in processed foods. In that way, HFCS is akin to aspartame, another poison sweetener that is generally recognized as safe, but which clearly is not. If you must use sugars, look to the past. There’s honey, molasses, date sugar, carob and so on.

We consume HFCS (and its ilk) at our own peril. Imagine, we live in a society where we can choose more and more poisons in our food, and yet the “medical authorities” say they don’t understand why diseases (cancers, heart problems et al) are more and more common.—Christopher Nyerges, Eagle Rock

Car-free and Carefree

In response to review of Who Killed the Electric Car, 6/06:
With the real cost of subsidized gasoline now well above $10 a gallon (icta.org/press/release.cfm?news_id=12), and with “average” automobile ownership and operation costs over a lifetime now zoom-zooming past the $500,000 mark, a few auto-related energy conservation suggestions may be helpful: Go car-free (see savings above); go carless; buy smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles and rent up or larger as needed; drive less; ride-share; trip-link or group errands; negotiate a fuel inefficiency retail price reduction for less than cost-optimally fuel-efficient vehicles; urge the auto industry to stop fighting conservative and reasonable fuel efficiency and green-house gas emission standards and to adopt long-proven, cost-effective fuel efficiency technologies for new vehicles now (not ten to twenty years down the asphalt); support comprehensive inter-modal public transportation and auto-alternative programs, for others, if not for oneself. Make your own energy conservation choices list. Keep it handy, and share it. —Rand Knox, San Rafael

You Can Dig It

Congratulations on the “new” look of the magazine. I am wondering though: how do the numbers regarding “trees saved, ink usage, etc.” compare with the previous numbers of the magazine?—Manuel Nunez, via e-mail

Ed. reply: This is a tricky question. We attempted to crunch the numbers, and because the calculations we use are based on “resources saved” as opposed to “resources used,” we were quite flummoxed (some were up, some were down, but it’s all still saved). We can say this: we’re still using 100 percent chlorine-free, post-consumer-waste recycled interior paper and 100 percent recycled cover, with soy-based ink. The weight of each page is a little thicker, but the trim is smaller and the paper requires less ink, so there is a net decrease in resources used. Does that answer the question?

I am a new fan! The cover of this month’s WLT was so striking, it practically jumped into my hands. What a beautiful photo! —Kelly Valentine, via e-mail

Great job with the new look of WLT! Very classy but not overly done, which is always a fine line to walk. It’s stylish! Interesting cover shot, too.

The articles were all excellent and very informative and I really think your information clip about WLT using 100 percent recycled paper while most publications use less than 5 percent was very telling. I always look, read and enjoy your magazine because it’s one of the few publications that present new ideas that are “workable,” and yet you keep your principles intact even if you have a different political leaning or opinion on something. This is even a tougher fine line to follow but gives you much more credibility in the long run while opening the minds of the readers. The other thing I like is that you are always evolving and you are not afraid of change. —Mark Machuszek, via e-mail

I enjoyed your June ’06 interview with Mata Amritanandamaya Devi (Amma). I look forward to reading other articles from your publication. —Chrissa Mankin, Oak Hill, VA

Get Out Your Reading Glasses

The new issue seems to be larger, which is welcome. What doesn’t work for me—and probably for others—is the smaller, paler typeface. That makes it very difficult for me to read it comfortably. It’s disappointing, because I won’t be able to continue getting it. I will keep checking in case the typeface is darkened. —Jean Pierson, Chicago

Ed. reply: We exist for you, dear readers, and our new design is not set in stone. If you’re out there, and like Jean, you’re having trouble reading this, don’t throw down your magazine in dismay—let us know! To shamefully misquote Margaret Mead, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the font of WLT.”

When I picked-up WLT in front of a Whole Foods Market, it was a new-to-me magazine, so I checked-out the page layout, the fonts and how the editorial content was organized. You can take the engineering work out of the country, but you cannot take the engineer out of me.

I have always been on the move, “moving the job forward” and striving for the next level. My consciousness has been concentrated on outwardly focused methods in the past; I am going to continue reading WLT to gain insight into other methods. —Steve Lee, Redondo Beach CA

WLT, Green and Puffy

I’ve been a reader and fan of WLT for many years. I’ve looked to it for an alternative view of various topics from the mainstream. What worries me is that one of the charges of the “right” is poor scholarship on the “left.” Reading your warning about nuclear waste (“Letter from the Editor,” 6/06) is a case in point. I’m against nuclear power, but realize that to find “real” alternatives to the problems with our present system, it’s important to think clearly and precisely about the facts as they are.

First of all to assume our descendants won’t be able to decipher our language might be a bit overstating the case. Just as we’ve moved our musical storage—from memory to records to 8-tracks to cassettes to CD’s—we always seem to preserve the knowledge in some new form. This is not to say we don’t need to “be sure” we do this in the case of nuclear waste, we should, but to say that it’s a good chance we won’t is ludicrous.

The other way you bolster your argument is to say we don’t know what the Rosetta Stone says. Please remember the reason it’s so famous and cliche by now. Below I’ve included some info on Stonehenge and the “stone” gathered quickly from Googling a couple times.

The other reason I finally had to say something is this: for many years WLT has been the leading edge of the edge, along with Magical Blend, Gnosis and Parabola, all for differing reasons (Stonehenge should be in our back pockets by now). Now it looks like WLT is fast becoming a “soft” puff piece for the environmental movement. Ok, I may be overstating that. It’s time to really think and do research outside our comfortable cubicles. —Erial, Malibu

Ed. reply: Stonehenge and the Rosetta Stone are two distinctly different occurrences. The meaning of Stonehenge has yet to be conclusively deciphered. It took 22 years after discovery for the Rosetta Stone to begin to be deciphered—ample time for the planet to be blown-up had it been a warning of some sort.

Correction and Praise

WLT neglected to credit Nani Velez for the makeup on the cover shoot of our June issue. Beautiful job, Nani!

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: