3 ms·

Rather than a tax on sugary food how about we cut subsidies that make simple carbs artificially cheap?

by voisin 2y ago

bumby 2y ago
I believe the "artificially cheap simple carbs" is a secondary effect, with the primary effect of making corn cheap due to national security reasons. So before removing the subsidies, you'd want to have a plan for managing that risk.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- slothtrop 2y ago
  The subsidies predate the "great grain robbery" where farmers sold large stockpiles to the Russians, which helped Nixon secure election victory. Before that, as part of the New Deal, was the Agricultural Adjustment Act which literally paid farmers to destroy livestock and not use land in order to boost prices for farmers. Strictly speaking, I don't think this was a case of national security. Today it's just a case of entrenched interests: large key midwestern farmers would stand to lose money, whether you have a tax or reduce subsidies. They stand to gain more by not mitigating obesity rates. Mind you they could diversify away from corn. If consumers eat whole grains or meat instead of sugar, that's still money for farmers. But it would entail growing pains.
  - bumby 2y ago
    I think tradition is certainly part of it, but I think that take misses some important nuances. A few: - agriculture isn't necessarily fungible. Land that is used for one product isn't immediately capable of being used for another, or at the same value (monetarily or calorically) - A large part of corn production is used for feedstock. That means there would be systemic issues in the production of meat if it had major disruptions. That's another reason why you can't just swap corn for meat production. - subsidies sometimes trade efficiency for stability. This isn't always a bad thing. A volatile market can make farmers lose their hat. A significant amount of farmers are generational, meaning there aren't a lot of people starting out unless they grew up farming. - corn isn't just about food. Part of the national security element is fuel (ethanol). Again, recognizing the inefficiencies, this is more about stability. Other agricultural products can be used for fuel (e.g., soybeans for diesel) but the distribution of fuel needs and agricultural capacity is not in their favor. - I'd put this in the "tradition" bucket but there are political concerns. Politicians have to place nice with places like Iowa because of how political primaries are structured.
    - slothtrop 2y ago
      > agriculture isn't necessarily fungible. Land that is used for one product isn't immediately capable of being used for another Key word being "immediately". That's right, but substitutions do exist. Hence, growing pains. > A large part of corn production is used for feedstock. That means there would be systemic issues in the production of meat if it had major disruptions. That's another reason why you can't just swap corn for meat production. Globally, soybeans are more often used, and these can (and do) grow in the US. Notwithstanding, you can just keep growing corn without subsidy - meat prices would go up. That could be politically contentious, but less total meat consumption could lead to better health outcomes. > subsidies sometimes trade efficiency for stability Leaving aside the question of balance, pros and cons: Farmer stability is not inherently contingent on corn subsidy. Even if we wanted to keep subsidies as a constant, you can subsidize something else. > part of the national security element is fuel (ethanol) This doesn't require subsidy. The US produces more than half of the world's ethanol fuel. Notwithstanding that, fossil fuel extraction has also grown through fracking. I don't see the security angle at all.
      - bumby 2y ago
        I think we disagree that soil is fungible for growing crops. Even if I were to steelman your stance, it still requires considerable inputs to do so. All of this ends up making food cost more. Similarly, I think making HFCS more expensive isn't likely to make foods less calorically dense. What it will do is make them more expensive as manufacturers put use more expensive alternatives. I do think your ethanol stance is a circular argument. The US produces a lot of ethanol because of the subsidies, so it doesn't make sense to point to that production level as a reason to get rid of subsidies. Fracking is a good counterpoint, but also a politically contentious one if your stance is that the US should ramp up fracking to offset agricultural subsidies. I certainly agree that subsidies have inertia that's hard to overcome. (My favorite example is the alpaca subsidy that was implemented for warm-weather clothing for the Korean War that stayed on the books until the 1990s). I also agree they need to be tailored to the current environment. The bulk of your point seems to be we can get rid of subsidies in exchange for higher and less stable food prices. Historically, our food is quite cheap today but I find the idea that the proposed solution to obesity is to make food more expensive not very palatable (ha). I personally don't think that is a good tradeoff because my position is it's calories and not HFCS that is the largest contributor to the obesity problem. My OP was not saying "keep subsidies" but rather "be aware of the systemic effects of getting rid of subsidies". I think there are lots of arguments to get rid of corn subsidies, but I find the obesity one pretty weak. So the simple solution of "just get rid of subsidies" will create all these negative consequences that need to be managed for something that isn't likely to move the needle much on obesity. That doesn't seem like a great tradeoff and I'd label it as one of those simple solutions that sounds great as a sound byte but isn't particularly pragmatic. Going back to the original point, if your goal is to make food more expensive to curb obesity, there are probably more straightforward and effective ways of doing so that don't have all those additional factors. The only way that take makes sense to me is if you think there is something unique about HFCS that leads to obesity compared to other sweeteners when controlled for calories. I don't think the science supports this.
  - jermaustin1 2y ago
    Most corn is actually farmed for meat production (beef, pork, and poultry) not human consumption. I doubt the farmer cares if their corn goes to a human or a cow, so long as they get the best price, and uncle sam fills in the rest.
anigbrowl 2y ago
Any politician that does that will be subject to a relentless disinformation campaign alleging they're taking food from hungry families, regardless of any factual basis or quality of outcomes.

Rather than a tax on sugary food how about we cut subsidies that make simple carbs artificially cheap?

by voisin 2y ago

Rather than a tax on sugary food how about we cut subsidies that make simple carbs artificially cheap?

I believe the "artificially cheap simple carbs" is a secondary effect, with the primary effect of making corn cheap due to national security reasons. So before removing the subsidies, you'd want to have a plan for managing that risk.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
slothtrop 2y ago
The subsidies predate the "great grain robbery" where farmers sold large stockpiles to the Russians, which helped Nixon secure election victory. Before that, as part of the New Deal, was the Agricultural Adjustment Act which literally paid farmers to destroy livestock and not use land in order to boost prices for farmers. Strictly speaking, I don't think this was a case of national security. Today it's just a case of entrenched interests: large key midwestern farmers would stand to lose money, whether you have a tax or reduce subsidies. They stand to gain more by not mitigating obesity rates. Mind you they could diversify away from corn. If consumers eat whole grains or meat instead of sugar, that's still money for farmers. But it would entail growing pains.
- bumby 2y ago
  I think tradition is certainly part of it, but I think that take misses some important nuances. A few: - agriculture isn't necessarily fungible. Land that is used for one product isn't immediately capable of being used for another, or at the same value (monetarily or calorically) - A large part of corn production is used for feedstock. That means there would be systemic issues in the production of meat if it had major disruptions. That's another reason why you can't just swap corn for meat production. - subsidies sometimes trade efficiency for stability. This isn't always a bad thing. A volatile market can make farmers lose their hat. A significant amount of farmers are generational, meaning there aren't a lot of people starting out unless they grew up farming. - corn isn't just about food. Part of the national security element is fuel (ethanol). Again, recognizing the inefficiencies, this is more about stability. Other agricultural products can be used for fuel (e.g., soybeans for diesel) but the distribution of fuel needs and agricultural capacity is not in their favor. - I'd put this in the "tradition" bucket but there are political concerns. Politicians have to place nice with places like Iowa because of how political primaries are structured.
  - slothtrop 2y ago
    > agriculture isn't necessarily fungible. Land that is used for one product isn't immediately capable of being used for another Key word being "immediately". That's right, but substitutions do exist. Hence, growing pains. > A large part of corn production is used for feedstock. That means there would be systemic issues in the production of meat if it had major disruptions. That's another reason why you can't just swap corn for meat production. Globally, soybeans are more often used, and these can (and do) grow in the US. Notwithstanding, you can just keep growing corn without subsidy - meat prices would go up. That could be politically contentious, but less total meat consumption could lead to better health outcomes. > subsidies sometimes trade efficiency for stability Leaving aside the question of balance, pros and cons: Farmer stability is not inherently contingent on corn subsidy. Even if we wanted to keep subsidies as a constant, you can subsidize something else. > part of the national security element is fuel (ethanol) This doesn't require subsidy. The US produces more than half of the world's ethanol fuel. Notwithstanding that, fossil fuel extraction has also grown through fracking. I don't see the security angle at all.
    - bumby 2y ago
      I think we disagree that soil is fungible for growing crops. Even if I were to steelman your stance, it still requires considerable inputs to do so. All of this ends up making food cost more. Similarly, I think making HFCS more expensive isn't likely to make foods less calorically dense. What it will do is make them more expensive as manufacturers put use more expensive alternatives. I do think your ethanol stance is a circular argument. The US produces a lot of ethanol because of the subsidies, so it doesn't make sense to point to that production level as a reason to get rid of subsidies. Fracking is a good counterpoint, but also a politically contentious one if your stance is that the US should ramp up fracking to offset agricultural subsidies. I certainly agree that subsidies have inertia that's hard to overcome. (My favorite example is the alpaca subsidy that was implemented for warm-weather clothing for the Korean War that stayed on the books until the 1990s). I also agree they need to be tailored to the current environment. The bulk of your point seems to be we can get rid of subsidies in exchange for higher and less stable food prices. Historically, our food is quite cheap today but I find the idea that the proposed solution to obesity is to make food more expensive not very palatable (ha). I personally don't think that is a good tradeoff because my position is it's calories and not HFCS that is the largest contributor to the obesity problem. My OP was not saying "keep subsidies" but rather "be aware of the systemic effects of getting rid of subsidies". I think there are lots of arguments to get rid of corn subsidies, but I find the obesity one pretty weak. So the simple solution of "just get rid of subsidies" will create all these negative consequences that need to be managed for something that isn't likely to move the needle much on obesity. That doesn't seem like a great tradeoff and I'd label it as one of those simple solutions that sounds great as a sound byte but isn't particularly pragmatic. Going back to the original point, if your goal is to make food more expensive to curb obesity, there are probably more straightforward and effective ways of doing so that don't have all those additional factors. The only way that take makes sense to me is if you think there is something unique about HFCS that leads to obesity compared to other sweeteners when controlled for calories. I don't think the science supports this.
- jermaustin1 2y ago
  Most corn is actually farmed for meat production (beef, pork, and poultry) not human consumption. I doubt the farmer cares if their corn goes to a human or a cow, so long as they get the best price, and uncle sam fills in the rest.

anigbrowl 2y ago

Any politician that does that will be subject to a relentless disinformation campaign alleging they're taking food from hungry families, regardless of any factual basis or quality of outcomes.