Only to a limited extent, I fear. For example, you have to understand an awful lot of things about ingredients to get near knowing what the relative abundance of various sugars is even likely to be. I am not convinced that all sugars can validly be treated as being equivalent so this can be important.
There are lots of different sugars - simple and complex. And the way they are handled by our guts, including the bacteria and fungi, and the rest of our bodies can have profound effects.
How the f*ck would you know? You smoke, so you can't taste anything.
How do "wholly engineered" molecules (whatever that may mean) differ from any others?
I don't like the taste of saccharin and aspartame, but stevia isn't too bad.
It would be nice if you stopped pressing the return key 20 times after you type your name. It's not a typewriter you're using, OK?
Smoking makes it more likely for lung cancer to develop.
However lung cancer is not the worst risk of smoking. Heart disease kills more. Then there are the limb loses and stuff like that.
Given there are rather more non-smokers than do, the figures still show a substantial bias towards smokers.
But yes, I thought the occurrence of lung cancer for non-smokers was somewhat lower than that.
*loud applause*
In message , bert writes
So tick the heavy smoker box?
">>>>>>
Passive smoking in the past? Exhaust gases/industrial pollutants?
Just because it's "natural" doesn't make it safe. Strychnine and cyanide are "natural".
Most plants are loaded down with toxins to prevent being eaten. We have just adjusted to some. And some we must cook.
Agreed on the taste front. But even stevia simply does not "work" in all the other ways that sugars do. For example, the change of texture. Or, when making coffees with things floating, the change in density.
Xylose is interesting because it is a sugar but seems to have a lower calorie level, using different metabolic pathways, and is used in quite a number of "diet" products. We ourselves have made lemon curd using it
- my assessment is that it was the finest LC I have ever eaten. Far nicer than when made with standard packet sugar. But there are questions over how much is safe for human consumption.
On Friday 10 January 2014 23:17 Tim Streater wrote in uk.d-i-y:
As opposed to "natural" (and I do mean edible natural).
On Saturday 11 January 2014 07:43 harryagain wrote in uk.d-i-y:
I think we can all assume we are talking about natural edible compounds.
The difference between natural and synthetic is that the effects of the natural compounds are generally well known. Some of the synthetics are too new to have long term data.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I can taste things very well.
IOW less than 5% of budget.
An article in The Lancet a couple of years ago suggested a possible 73% increase in obesity by 2030, at an additional cost of around £2bn.
You are the one who thinks they can do something, I am waiting for you to come up with a practical suggestion of what, given that, short of rationing, they cannot control what people choose to eat, nor how much.
Colin Bignell
...
There is evidence from recent conflicts that the stress of war is a significant factor in the incidence of heart disease.
Colin Bignell
In message , Nightjar writes
Significant tax on sugar?
I doubt it will win any votes.
Taxing fat didn't work in Denmark
There is also evidence that the effects of severe stresses such as occur in abuse or other things (war, bereavement, etc.) can cause thyroid disease. Further, that those who suffer that then go on to affect their children with the same issues.
I doubt it have much effect. The processed food manufacturers will be paying wholesale prices, which seem to hover around £400 per tonne, or
0.04p per gram. Few people in the UK have a daily intake of more than 200g of sugar a day, so a 100% tax on sugar would increase the daily cost of eating by 8p or less.Colin Bignell
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.