Sir should consider the cost of food production vs sheer profit. It should not be financially inviable to eat healthily. 3000kcal/day for 300£/month should be the target. Ask HRH to inquire about the relatives who are skilled in this.
I am sorry,and thanks for this opportunity,,as a United Nations is divides by country,,United Kingdom as we life was still divide by continent (Europe,America,Asia,Australia,Africa),and this holy system may always protect and bless by all angel of Heaven and every God of this life happen,,may Heaven in the sky always guide us and guard our lifes forever❤❤thanks,sorry❤❤
This is the vestige of a public panic that refuses to go away, despite all parties to the original research being in agreement. HFCS is no better or worse for health than sucrose. It is only high in fructose when compared to regular corn syrup, which is actually much lower in fructose than sucrose. HFCS is a 50/50 mix of glucose and fructose, just like table sugar, and its effects on health are identical. Earlier concerns about heart risk were based on the incorrect assumption that the fructose research showing adverse cardiovascular outcomes applied to HFCS. That research did not actually study HFCS, only fructose, and then as the only carbohydrate in the animals' diet. When similar experiments were carried out using HFCS, the outcomes were not replicated. Cardiovascular outcomes were indistinguishable from other carbohydrate-based diets. The original researchers on both sides of this issue made co-presentations at research conferences presenting their data together, and the researcher who first suggested that HFCS was harmful stood next to his friend, whose work he had misinterpreted, and said so to the conference attendees. He presented his own data showing that HFCS was not in fact associated with cardiovascular risk, nor any increase in body weight or fatness.
Sir should consider the cost of food production vs sheer profit. It should not be financially inviable to eat healthily. 3000kcal/day for 300£/month should be the target. Ask HRH to inquire about the relatives who are skilled in this.
I am sorry,and thanks for this opportunity,,as a United Nations is divides by country,,United Kingdom as we life was still divide by continent (Europe,America,Asia,Australia,Africa),and this holy system may always protect and bless by all angel of Heaven and every God of this life happen,,may Heaven in the sky always guide us and guard our lifes forever❤❤thanks,sorry❤❤
If HFCS is still legal in the UK, it REALLY needs to be banned from the food supply.
This is the vestige of a public panic that refuses to go away, despite all parties to the original research being in agreement. HFCS is no better or worse for health than sucrose. It is only high in fructose when compared to regular corn syrup, which is actually much lower in fructose than sucrose. HFCS is a 50/50 mix of glucose and fructose, just like table sugar, and its effects on health are identical. Earlier concerns about heart risk were based on the incorrect assumption that the fructose research showing adverse cardiovascular outcomes applied to HFCS. That research did not actually study HFCS, only fructose, and then as the only carbohydrate in the animals' diet. When similar experiments were carried out using HFCS, the outcomes were not replicated. Cardiovascular outcomes were indistinguishable from other carbohydrate-based diets.
The original researchers on both sides of this issue made co-presentations at research conferences presenting their data together, and the researcher who first suggested that HFCS was harmful stood next to his friend, whose work he had misinterpreted, and said so to the conference attendees. He presented his own data showing that HFCS was not in fact associated with cardiovascular risk, nor any increase in body weight or fatness.
I think it's too late to do anything