Comment by lolinder
21 days ago
Yeah, this is one of those places where because RFK Jr took the anti- stand there's an understandable assumption that it's more nutty anti-science stuff, but it's much less clear cut when it comes to fluoridation. Europe has much lower rates than the US, which is an outlier on these stats only approached by Australia, and before Utah the major high profile anti-fluoride stance was made by Portland:
https://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-30229-portland-voters-so...
To the extent this is a polarized left-right issue, it's only recently and only because everything is polarized right now.
I'd be happier if that broken-but-correct-2x-a-day guy banned HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup) instead. It is my personal hypothesis that it is the cause of 'sugar cancer' (general cases of bad sugars / imbalances of sugars in the body), including Diabetes.
Sucrose is 50% fructose, 50% glucose. HFCS has from 42-55% fructose (there are grades), the rest being glucose (well some 25% of HFCS is water, but simplifying to the nutritive parts)
In the body it's literally all the same with minor variations in ratios. Indeed, the revered Mexican coke with cane sugar...the sucrose is broken down to component glucose and fructose in the acidic environment [1], exactly as happens with HFCS variants, and it would have been the moment it hit your digestive tract anyways.
There is zero scientific justification for the weird focus on HFCS. Yes, glucose and grossly excessive amounts of fructose are a serious problem. Especially in forms that rapidly get absorbed and go off like a glucose bomb -- our bodies are not adapted to the extremely rapid intake of glucose forms of food we eat now, including ultra-processed foods fill with refined carbs.
The #1 source of glucose in most diets is white breads, rices and so on. White flour is 60-80% starch, while white rice pushes 90% starch. Starch is strings of glucose molecules, and indeed enzymes turn that starch to free glucose almost immediately when eaten. So from a glucose perspective flour is much worse than an equal amount of sugar.
And of course nutritive sweeteners in all their forms should be avoided. But table sugar isn't more wholesome or better than HFCS.
[1] - Fun video about the sucrose in Mexican coke - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY66qpMFOYo
Interesting hypothesis, is it based on anything specific? I think refined/added sugars in general are probably something best avoided, but admittedly still eat plenty. The idea that one sugar is materially worse than another feels off, but I can't quite put my finger on why.
Some sugars ingress faster than others to the bloodstream, causing higher insulin spikes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index
AFAIK, HFCS is one of the worst offenders.
1 reply →
Not a chance that will happen, given the corn production of America. We have the most productive land in the world for growing maize, and Lord knows we’ll find shit to do with it.
We grow lots of corn because it is very heavily subsidized and insured by the US government. At scale you are guaranteed to make a profit, even during bad weather years.
You can avoid HFCS without any cost. Avoiding fluoridated city water is costly.
Have you ever tried to purchase things in a US supermarket that lack HFCS? Chances are good you're looking at raw meats and vegetables and the like for a high effort meal made out of relatively high cost components.
1 reply →
sugar is as bad for you as HFCS, avoid both except in small amounts. Your taste buds will adjust
Fluoridated water was already a plot point in Kubrick's Strangelove from 1964.
Using certain family members as a personal rubric, fluoridated water has been a right-left issue for at least 2.5 decades. I think it’s been pretty polarized for longer, though it may have taken a long time to gain steam in mainstream “discourse”.
I'm not sure you can use personal anecdotes to come to any conclusions about broad trends. To look at some actual data, I took the 2008 and 2024 election results and compared them with fluoridation rates. The split is pretty even:
The top 10 most fluoridated states went 5/5 Rep/Dem in 2008 and 6/4 Rep/Dem in 2024. These were Kentucky, Minnesota, Illinois, North Dakota, Virginia, Georgia, South Dakota, Maryland, Ohio, and South Carolina. Hardly a blue wall.
The bottom 10 least fluoridated states with 6/4 Rep/Dem in 2008 and 6/4 Rep/Dem in 2024. These were Hawaii, New Jersey, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Louisiana, Alaska, Utah, New Hampshire, and Mississippi. Hardly a red wall.
The bottom three least fluoridated states are all hardcore blue: Hawaii, New Jersey, and Oregon.
I just don't see any evidence here that this has been a left-right polarized issue until this year. The distribution of fluoride by political leanings is just too random.
It's a great demonstration of the granola-to-libertarian pipeline. Jumping the gap in the horseshoe, so to speak.