Raw sugar question

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No it's not. There is not a single shred of evidence that refined sugar
is worse in any way than other forms of sugar. In fact there is a lot of
evidence that there is no difference. Sugar is sugar, and the presence
of a few impurities that make it brown instead of white has no bearing
on how your body reacts to the sugar. Unfortunately there are a lot of
people who know less than nothing about biochemistry, digestion, and
physiology. They think that if something is labelled "unrefined" or
"natural" that automatically makes it better. The fact that you use the
word "obviously" is an indication of how successful these people have
been in spreading their dogma.

Personally, I prefer anything I consume to be less processed rather
than more processed, given the choice. We eat brown rrice most of the
time, for example, and when we do eat white rice, it's never Uncle Bens
or Minute Rice. We try to eat foods that are as close to their natural
form as possible.

Are you telling me it's a BAD thing to use less-processed sugar rather
than white sugar?? I disagree.

I never said that - why do you ask the question? Straw man.

This isn't about processed vs unprocessed in general. It is about
processed sugar vs unprocessed sugar. In some cases unprocessed foods
have real advantages. In other cases they don't. The informed consumer
learns the facts and chooses foods accordingly. The uninformed consumer
reacts in a knee-jerk manner to the terms "processed" and "unprocessed"
and buys foods based solely on their label without knowing if it makes a
difference or not.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

In article <[email hidden]>,

aem said:

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

Supposedly the chemicals used to bleach it white are toxic.....

I've no idea if that is true tho'.

It's very likely untrue, for the simple reason that sugar is not
bleached. No chemicals are added to it during the cleaning/filtering
process. At least according to the manufacturers. -aem

Did some googling:

http://www.sucrose.com/lref.html

Now I can inform my dad. ;-)

He swore that toxic chemicals were used to "bleach" sugar.

Arsenic to be specific.

Thanks for encouraging me to do the searches!
--
Peace, Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

~patches~ said:

Wrong, raw sugar has minimal chemical processing as opposed to the heavy
use of chemicals to process white refined sugar.

I would really like to know the source of your information about "heavy
use of chemicals." The sugar manufacturers' trade group states quite
unequivocally that white refined sugar is not bleached and is not
treated with chemicals. Rather, it is centrifuged, rinsed and
filtered. This is the list of companies that belong to the trade
group: http://www.sugar.org/aboutus/index.asp?id=65

And this is what they say:

"The sugar recovered from sugar beets or sugar cane is identical to the
sugar (sucrose) naturally present in the original plants. Removal of
plant materials surrounding the sugar is done with water and
centrifuging. Carbon filters absorb any remaining colored plant
materials..... Pure sugar crystals are naturally white, and no
artificial bleaching or whitening is necessary. ...: The refining
process simply separates natural sucrose from the plant material
without bleaching or chemical manipulation."

If you have contrary information please share it with us. -aem

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

Did some googling:
http://www.sucrose.com/lref.html

You found a more detailed site than I did. Cool.

Quoted message said:

Thanks for encouraging me to do the searches!

Thanks for having a positive attitude. -aem

In article <[email hidden]>,

aem said:

~patches~ said:

Wrong, raw sugar has minimal chemical processing as opposed to the heavy
use of chemicals to process white refined sugar.

I would really like to know the source of your information about "heavy
use of chemicals." The sugar manufacturers' trade group states quite
unequivocally that white refined sugar is not bleached and is not
treated with chemicals. Rather, it is centrifuged, rinsed and
filtered. This is the list of companies that belong to the trade
group: http://www.sugar.org/aboutus/index.asp?id=65

And this is what they say:

"The sugar recovered from sugar beets or sugar cane is identical to the
sugar (sucrose) naturally present in the original plants. Removal of
plant materials surrounding the sugar is done with water and
centrifuging. Carbon filters absorb any remaining colored plant
materials..... Pure sugar crystals are naturally white, and no
artificial bleaching or whitening is necessary. ...: The refining
process simply separates natural sucrose from the plant material
without bleaching or chemical manipulation."

If you have contrary information please share it with us. -aem

It was a surprise to me when I did the actual googling on refining
sugar, but aem is right...

As far as I am concerned now, the only real difference between white and
raw sugar is the flavor and color.

And I am a real advocate of raw and organic foods so I took some
convincing!
--
Peace, Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

"OmManiPadmeOmelet" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As far as I am concerned now, the only real difference between white and
raw sugar is the flavor and color.

Give the lady a Nobel prize!

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

Tsk!

Supposedly the chemicals used to bleach it white are toxic.....

I try not to use bleached anything - flour, paper towels, TP, etc. I
look for unbleached not only for my health after using/consuming the
product, but also the chemicals and energy that go into the bleaching
process. Perhaps its an incorrect assumption, but I'm hoping that raw
suage, being less processed, uses less energy and produces less
pollution/by-products that are bad for the environment.

Quoted message said:

Raw sugar also has some trace minerals to make it "worth" the calories
theoretically.

Maybe not really worth the calories, but if it's got anything at all,
that's better than the nothing-but-empty-carb-calories that white sugar
gives you!!

Quoted message said:

On the rare occasion I eat pancakes or waffles, I like raw sugar on them
for the flavor and texture. It does not taste the same as bleached. It
has more "personality".

Agreed. I initially began buying it, as I said, as a
decoratiing/sprinkling sugar for baking. Then began using it on yogurt
or fruit dips. It grew on me and I thought I'd explore other ways to
use it. See what I think.

And besides - since I have to go to the Health Food Store to get it, it
HAS to be good for me, right? <note sarcasm here>

"~patches~" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Raw sugar is less chemically processed than white refined sugar. Some
of us prefer to not ingest unnecessary chemicals [comment directed at
the ill informed DK].

OK, I'll bite - what "unnecessary chemicals" do you think are
present in refined sugar, as the consumer would purchase/use
it, that are not present in the "unrefined" or "raw" types?

Quoted message said:

Here's a link describing the different types of sugars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_refined_sugar

Nope, nothing there that would address the above
question...

Bob M.

aem said:

Jude said:

[snip]
Anyone who's used raw sugar have anything to
say about how it bakes, which was my actual inquiry??

You should expect "raw sugar" to bake identically to white sugar.
Chemically, they are both sucrose.

Yes, but according to several sources I've found ( I can link them if
anyone wants). white refined sugar is 99.9 % sucrose, whereas turbinado
sugar is listed as 96 - 98% sucrose. So manye a little bit better since
it's a little less sucrose per teaspoon? Or is that just wishful
thinking, or too minute a difference to me significant?

Quoted message said:

Is it bad to use unfiltered/uncleaned sugar? No, the impurities are
not harmful; it just costs more. Is there any benefit from using raw
sugar? Maybe it meets a psychological need....

What about less processing = less pollution and less energy use =
better for the environment? That seems to meet my psychological needs
to feel like I'm living gently on this planet.

Reg said:

I've substituted turbinado for brown sugar in different
recipes and couldn't tell the difference. Several cakes
and some cookies.

Thanks. That;s what I was looking for. I'll give it a try.

Quoted message said:

Don't forget there's rec.food.baking, too.

LOL - they scare me over there! They'll explain it to me in chemical
terms and be all scientific and stuff! =)

"~patches~" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Wrong, raw sugar has minimal chemical processing as opposed to the heavy
use of chemicals to process white refined sugar. Some of us prefer to
avoid unnecessary chemicals.

The use of chemicals in processing a product does not
imply the presence of those chemicals in the finished product.

Common table salt, by the way, is made up of chlorine (a deadly
gas) and sodium (a metal which will react explosively when exposed
to water). Based on that, do you try to have zero salt in your diet?

EVERYTHING is "chemicals." The question is whether or not
you're actually consuming a significant level of a chemical which
is bad for you.

Bob M.

~patches~ said:

Raw sugar is less chemically processed than white refined sugar. Some
of us prefer to not ingest unnecessary chemicals [comment directed at
the ill informed DK]. To answer your question Jude, I substitute the
raw for refined. If the recipe calls for extra fine, I just grind the
raw a bit in the food processor. It can be ground into powdered sugar
if you want. HTH and don't worry about the ney sayers 😉

Here's a link describing the different types of sugars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_refined_sugar

Thanks, Patches. i was thinking about you when I wrote this post,
knowing that your household does not use refined sugar. Guess I shoulda
posted it as a PING!

Jude said:

Quoted message said:

Raw sugar also has some trace minerals to make it "worth" the calories
theoretically.

Maybe not really worth the calories, but if it's got anything at all,
that's better than the nothing-but-empty-carb-calories that white sugar
gives you!!

Here's where we differ. There comes a point where a marginal
benefit is so small quantitatively that it becomes insignificant.
If you were choosing between cars, would it matter that one
gets 35 miles per gallon and another gets 35.001?

Further, would you pay twice as much to get that extra 0.001?

Turbinado sugar is considerably more expensive than white or
brown sugar. That's a lot of money to spend for a miniscule
amount of additional trace minerals.

--
Reg

Bob Myers said:

The use of chemicals in processing a product does not
imply the presence of those chemicals in the finished product.

But, where do they go? Do they remain present in the enviroment in
which we live? Oh goody, an excuse for manufacturers to use more
chemicals! I still stand by my opinion that less processing is a good
thing. In this case, perhaps not affecting you nearly as much through
ingestion as through enviromental abuse. As afr as i'm concerned, the
less anything is processed, the shorter the procedure, the less
pollution/consumed enerrgy for production/cost expended in processing.
All porbably good for our earth and our ecenomy.

Quoted message said:

Common table salt, by the way, is made up of chlorine (a deadly
gas) and sodium (a metal which will react explosively when exposed
to water). Based on that, do you try to have zero salt in your diet?

EVERYTHING is "chemicals." The question is whether or not
you're actually consuming a significant level of a chemical which
is bad for you.

Or,w hether they are dumping said chemicals into the groundwater or the
air.

aem said:

~patches~ said:

Wrong, raw sugar has minimal chemical processing as opposed to the heavy
use of chemicals to process white refined sugar.

I would really like to know the source of your information about "heavy
use of chemicals." The sugar manufacturers' trade group states quite
unequivocally that white refined sugar is not bleached and is not
treated with chemicals. Rather, it is centrifuged, rinsed and
filtered. This is the list of companies that belong to the trade
group: http://www.sugar.org/aboutus/index.asp?id=65

The research is out there, you just have to know where to dig. My
reference to *bleaching* was in respect to other foods not sugar as I
thought I stated. I also mentioned things like preservatives in
relation to other foods not sugar. The same point remains why put all
this [censored] in your body if there is a way not to.

Quoted message said:

And this is what they say:

"The sugar recovered from sugar beets or sugar cane is identical to the
sugar (sucrose) naturally present in the original plants. Removal of
plant materials surrounding the sugar is done with water and
centrifuging. Carbon filters absorb any remaining colored plant
materials..... Pure sugar crystals are naturally white, and no
artificial bleaching or whitening is necessary. ...: The refining
process simply separates natural sucrose from the plant material
without bleaching or chemical manipulation."

Directly from their FAQ. Surprisingly, I have *never* heard of a huge
company or collection of companies ever clouding the truth, have you?
All these huge companies are always completely and 100% honest all the
time 😉

Quoted message said:

If you have contrary information please share it with us. -aem

I have several articles all from very reputable, scientifically, peer
reviewed sources. I'm not about to post the entire articles either. I
could when I have time post the citations for those who might just
possibly have access to them. I'd put my faith in those before I would
some FAQ put out by the producers of the product.

Quoted message said:

JudeThinksGoogleSucks said:

~patches~ said:

Raw sugar is less chemically processed than white refined sugar. Some
of us prefer to not ingest unnecessary chemicals [comment directed at
the ill informed DK]. To answer your question Jude, I substitute the
raw for refined. If the recipe calls for extra fine, I just grind the
raw a bit in the food processor. It can be ground into powdered sugar
if you want. HTH and don't worry about the ney sayers 😉

Here's a link describing the different types of sugars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_refined_sugar

Thanks, Patches. i was thinking about you when I wrote this post,
knowing that your household does not use refined sugar. Guess I shoulda
posted it as a PING!

No problem Jude. It works well for us so I hope it works well for you.
I don't buy mine at the health food store either. The grocery stores
carry it as there is a rather large demand for raw sugar. HTH 🙂

Bob Myers said:

"~patches~" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Wrong, raw sugar has minimal chemical processing as opposed to the heavy
use of chemicals to process white refined sugar. Some of us prefer to
avoid unnecessary chemicals.

The use of chemicals in processing a product does not
imply the presence of those chemicals in the finished product.

So where do the chemicals go? I grow my produce organically and I buy
organically whenever possible. Those chemicals from processing get
into your food one way whether by air or water if not directly into the
food itself. Did you know that one way to remove the tomato skins when
commercially processing is using lye. Yep, that really nice caustic
stuff. Even if it is entirely out of the end food product where does
the waste water go? Ever lived near a canning plant? Ever seen the
effects of the chemicals used in processing foods and what they do to
the environment. Eating healthy involves a lot more than just *oh well
they use these chemicals but they aren't in the product* bs.

Quoted message said:

Common table salt, by the way, is made up of chlorine (a deadly
gas) and sodium (a metal which will react explosively when exposed
to water). Based on that, do you try to have zero salt in your diet?

A zero salt diet would be impossible as most foods have naturally
occuring salts necessary for proper cell function. No, I do not use
common table salt.

Quoted message said:

EVERYTHING is "chemicals." The question is whether or not
you're actually consuming a significant level of a chemical which
is bad for you.

The point is, why consume a chemical that *could* be bad for you and
that is using chemical at it's broad term meaning preservative,
bleaching agent, artificial anything, etc. How a do we know what that
level is. Are we to believe the much revered FDA? I don't think so.
I'll take my chances with avoidance of this [censored], thanks. We all make
our choices and I've made mine.

Quoted message said:

Bob M.

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

As far as I am concerned now, the only real difference between white and
raw sugar is the flavor and color.

And I am a real advocate of raw and organic foods so I took some
convincing!

Perhaps price too.
Common sense seems to fly out the window with some folks on this stuff.
I dunno...?
Goomba

In article <[email hidden]>,

aem said:

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

Did some googling:
http://www.sucrose.com/lref.html

You found a more detailed site than I did. Cool.

Quoted message said:

Thanks for encouraging me to do the searches!

Thanks for having a positive attitude. -aem

I try... ;-D
--
Peace, Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

In article <[email hidden]>,

Doug Kanter said:

"OmManiPadmeOmelet" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As far as I am concerned now, the only real difference between white and
raw sugar is the flavor and color.

Give the lady a Nobel prize!

I wish. <lol>
--
Peace, Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson