1) The profit margin on soda is massive, and HFCS is only a small portion of the cost. 2) What corn subsidies? We are talking about Australia. I am no expert i

1) The profit margin on soda is massive, and HFCS is only a small portion of the cost. 2) What corn subsidies? We are talking about Australia. I am no expert in Australian economics, nor agricultural policy, but my understanding after a bit of searching is that they do not subsidize corn https://farmers.org.au/blog/farm-subsidies-in-australia-the-facts/ https://farmers.org.au/blog/farm-subsidies-in-australia-the-... You could argue that the US subsidy is effecting Australia through the global market. However, to the extent that this is relevent, Australia'a recourse would be a tarif on such products entering the market; at which point you might as well tax that which you want to discourage. 3) The problem is not high fructose corn syrup. It is sugar water. Granted, the exact composition of the sugar does have some effect. For a given amount of sugar, excess free fructose is probably worse for you than roughly equal proportions of fructose and glucose. Having said that, fructose tastes sweater for a given amount of sugar. So I'm not sure how it plays out in general. Having said that, according to the FDA, HFCS is either 42% or 55% fructose, which is lower than I would expect. (Actually. HFCS-42 sounds like low fructose. Most natural food has a 50-50 split.). https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/high-fructose-corn-syrup-questions-and-answers https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/high-fruct... Having said that, I did find fairly consistent reporting that sodas are closer to 60% fructose. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899900714001920 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089990071...