6 ms·

I think the issue is less about corn syrup sugar vs cane sugar, gram for gram, and more about the subsidization of corn and low cost of corn syrup creating an i

I think the issue is less about corn syrup sugar vs cane sugar, gram for gram, and more about the subsidization of corn and low cost of corn syrup creating an incentive to use more sugar in processed food products.

treis 2y ago
It's not like sugar is expensive. No more than a few cents worth in a 2L bottle of soda.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Sugar Price Supports and Taxation: A Public Health Policy Paradox - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5464749/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5464749/ | https://doi.org/10.1097/NT.0000000000000217 https://doi.org/10.1097/NT.0000000000000217 Summarized (per hombre_fatal's request): For over 80 years, U.S. government policies have protected domestic sugar production, resulting in elevated sugar prices and an annual cost of $1.4 billion to consumers (as of 2013). These higher prices, combined with federal support for corn production, have fueled the widespread use of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as a cheaper alternative. HFCS production is driven by advanced technology and heavy corn subsidies, allowing it to dominate processed foods and beverages. The rise in HFCS use and overall sweetener consumption has contributed to increased intake of "empty calories," linked to obesity. Efforts to address the issue include taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) aimed at reducing consumption and funding nutrition education. However, these taxes face challenges, such as consumer compensation by shifting to other high-calorie foods and lack of evidence on long-term impacts on obesity. Nutrient-specific excise taxes at the point of purchase are hypothesized to be more effective. Additionally, U.S. sugar prices surged during 2009-2012 due to global weather-related production declines, but HFCS remained a slightly cheaper option. HFCS's affordability is rooted in subsidized corn production, which also benefits livestock industries by reducing feed costs.
  - gruez 2y ago
    I'm not sure what your point is. The argument isn't that corn syrup isn't being subsidized, it's that on a absolute basis the subsidy doesn't matter. If there's only 10 cents worth of sugar in a 2L bottle of coke, switching to sugar is unlikely to change the consumers buying habits.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      The point is it makes sense, at scale, with the existing systems in place around subsidies (corn) and price protections (sugar). > switching to sugar is unlikely to change the consumers buying habits. If this is the case, why has it not happened yet? The argument "the cost delta is not material enough to matter" comparing corn syrup to sugar, but the evidence based on participant actions leads us to conclude that is not the case. Edit: @gruez: I agree with regards to consumer demand for the foods in question, I was refuting the point "It's not like sugar is expensive. No more than a few cents worth in a 2L bottle of soda."
      - gruez 2y ago
        >The point is it makes sense, at scale, with the existing systems in place around subsidies and price protections. I'm not refuting that, I'm only saying that in the context of public health, cheaper corn syrup being subsidized doesn't make a difference when it comes to consumer behavior. That doesn't mean that producers are going to be dumb and buy sugar when corn syrup is so much cheaper. Consumers aren't going to stop drinking coke because it costs 1% more, but the beancounters at coca cola are certainly going to care if they're spending 50% (made up number) more on sweeteners if they don't have to.
      - daedrdev 2y ago
        The delta does not matter to the consumer. They might pay <5% more, hardly a dent in demand would follow. The producer has a small profit margin so it does matter for them, since production and logistics cost a lot.
    - smnrchrds 2y ago
      > If there's only 10 cents worth of sugar in a 2L bottle of coke, switching to sugar is unlikely to change the consumers buying habits. It matters enough that it determines where things get manufactured though. > There are two prices for sugar: the price you pay in the U.S., and the price you pay almost everywhere else in the world. > The price in the U.S. is about 15 cents a pound higher than the price in the rest of the world. That costs Spangler Candy an additional $3 million a year. > The higher U.S. sugar price is spelled out in U.S. law. You can find it right here, in the latest version of the farm bill, which says the U.S. government shall guarantee a minimum price for sugar that is not to drop below 22.9 cents per pound. > Because of the higher price here, lots of candies that used to be made in the U.S. — Life Savers, candy canes — are now made overseas. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/04/26/179087542/the-lollipop-war https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/04/26/179087542/the-...
  - hombre_fatal 2y ago
    Jeez, at least summarize it or state your personal take-away first. If you're going to dump text, I think it's good etiquette to frame it with what you think that text is doing for the discussion so it's not just an exercise for the reader.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- alkonaut 2y ago
  Here (EU country) the same sweeteners that are used in diet soda is found to replace up to half the sugar in some common non-diet sodas, to reduce costs. Because while its not much, it's a lot more than the cost of water+sweetener. This has been an unpleasant surprise to people whose stomachs don't like the sweetener and who didn't notice the changed recipe on the label...
gorkish 2y ago
I agree this is the actual issue; I don't agree with allowing the argument to manifest itself by bozos who use misinformation and pseudoscience to reframe it as a chemical/biological danger or even a taste/quality issue as it is neither of those.
drewcoo 2y ago
Cheap corn syrup does not incentivize more sweetening. No one is rewarded more for putting more of an ingredient that costs money in a product. "Richardson, you effectively raised costs! Here's your bonus. Congratulations!" The heightened demand for that product may be an incentive, though.
- hombre_fatal 2y ago
  I don't get why people act like we're talking about saffron when it comes to sugar. It's dirt cheap and costs cents per pound. Corn syrup could disappear overnight and nothing would change about how much junk food we eat, how much we produce, nor how sweet it is.
  - fastball 2y ago
    So you think producers are putting corn syrup in food just for kicks?
    - femiagbabiaka 2y ago
      No, ostensibly it's cheaper at scale. But from a consumer's perspective, it doesn't matter that they're using that instead of sugar. There's a much larger conversation to be had about the misinformation surrounding sugar and carbohydrates, but anyways..
    - southernplaces7 2y ago
      No. They're doing it because it's marginally cheaper and more convenient in the aggregate, but if they didn't and stuck to cane sugar, the practical difference on the consumer side in terms of consumption and price per product would be essentially nil or close enough not to matter.
      - alkonaut 2y ago
        It's not about displacing other sugars. It's a cheap substitute for things not sugar. The argument about corn syrup is misplaced, it should be about sugars in general in US processed food. But corn syrup just happened to be that sugar.
gonzobonzo 2y ago
The people arguing against high fructose corn syrup specifically are doing so under the misguided notion that sugar is somehow healthier. You see something similar in the seed oil discussions. There are good reasons to promote excessive sugars in general, but specifically targetting high fructose corn syrup is like that old joke where someone asks if we should ban adding dihydrogen monoxide to foods.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- qwerty456127 2y ago
  > something similar in the seed oil discussions Isn't difference between oils way more serious than between cane sugar and corn syrup?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- bagels 2y ago
  "There are good reasons to promote excessive sugars" What are the good reasons to promote excessive sugar?
  - gonzobonzo 2y ago
    Sorry, that should have been "discourage" or "promote avoiding."
- marzell 2y ago
  We make corn that isn't even considered a food, legally. We subsidize that using a lot of tax dollars, to the absurd point that we pay farmers to NOT grow corn and leave fields empty. Everyone is paying for way more corn than is needed through taxes, while people claim this keeps costs low (it's more, you are just paying it in taxes). And then we come up with excuses to use more of it, like corn syrup and ethanol. This is absolutely absurd.
dehrmann 2y ago
The incentive is to produce tasty food that makes as much money as possible. Food is so cheap in the US that I doubt that was the limiting factor. Like, we make cheap candy that is 99% sugar.
- elcritch 2y ago
  It's not all that tasty. After visiting Europe I always find American foods to be grossly sweet. It's a race to the bottom that you only notice if you get out of the cycle for a bit.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    Because it's actually better or because of confirmation bias or because as a "visitor" your diet is not representative of what people who live their eat on a normal day/week?
    - gambiting 2y ago
      As a single point of anecdote - as a European visiting America, I also found American candy just insanely sweet. Like, way more than what I'm used to, and it definitely didn't make me go "wow this is tasty". I guess you're used to what you know, but there is something to it.
      - ziml77 2y ago
        You want real sweetness insanity? Try sweet tea. You will feel so dehydrated after sipping it you'll be begging for a glass of water.
      - tharkun__ 2y ago
        I do agree that our sweet here in NA is sweeter. From a taste perspective however, it's a lot about whatever you are used to, like you say. After more than a year of Keto and not having had any bread, I ate some wheat bread again for the first time. Nothing sweet on top. Just bread (with butter on top). It tasted sweet! And it wasn't even your typical North American floppy toast white bread but just regular, proper wheat bread like you might eat in France in your neighborhood corner bakery (here they usually call it "artisan bread" now). That sweetness went away really quickly after eating bread more regularly again but it surprised me nonetheless and makes your point on getting used to things. Another NA example is cup cakes. There are cup cakes and then there are US cup cakes. I really don't like cup cakes at all. I avoid them. It's a tiny bit of cream with a ton of sugar. Just disgusting. They do the same with actual cakes. You can't buy a proper cake with cream based frosting and some tactful addition of sugar. It's a tiny amount of cream with a load of sugar on a tasteless body of (in many cases overly dry) sponge cake.

treis 2y ago

It's not like sugar is expensive. No more than a few cents worth in a 2L bottle of soda.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
Sugar Price Supports and Taxation: A Public Health Policy Paradox - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5464749/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5464749/ | https://doi.org/10.1097/NT.0000000000000217 https://doi.org/10.1097/NT.0000000000000217 Summarized (per hombre_fatal's request): For over 80 years, U.S. government policies have protected domestic sugar production, resulting in elevated sugar prices and an annual cost of $1.4 billion to consumers (as of 2013). These higher prices, combined with federal support for corn production, have fueled the widespread use of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as a cheaper alternative. HFCS production is driven by advanced technology and heavy corn subsidies, allowing it to dominate processed foods and beverages. The rise in HFCS use and overall sweetener consumption has contributed to increased intake of "empty calories," linked to obesity. Efforts to address the issue include taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) aimed at reducing consumption and funding nutrition education. However, these taxes face challenges, such as consumer compensation by shifting to other high-calorie foods and lack of evidence on long-term impacts on obesity. Nutrient-specific excise taxes at the point of purchase are hypothesized to be more effective. Additionally, U.S. sugar prices surged during 2009-2012 due to global weather-related production declines, but HFCS remained a slightly cheaper option. HFCS's affordability is rooted in subsidized corn production, which also benefits livestock industries by reducing feed costs.
- gruez 2y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is. The argument isn't that corn syrup isn't being subsidized, it's that on a absolute basis the subsidy doesn't matter. If there's only 10 cents worth of sugar in a 2L bottle of coke, switching to sugar is unlikely to change the consumers buying habits.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    The point is it makes sense, at scale, with the existing systems in place around subsidies (corn) and price protections (sugar). > switching to sugar is unlikely to change the consumers buying habits. If this is the case, why has it not happened yet? The argument "the cost delta is not material enough to matter" comparing corn syrup to sugar, but the evidence based on participant actions leads us to conclude that is not the case. Edit: @gruez: I agree with regards to consumer demand for the foods in question, I was refuting the point "It's not like sugar is expensive. No more than a few cents worth in a 2L bottle of soda."
    - gruez 2y ago
      >The point is it makes sense, at scale, with the existing systems in place around subsidies and price protections. I'm not refuting that, I'm only saying that in the context of public health, cheaper corn syrup being subsidized doesn't make a difference when it comes to consumer behavior. That doesn't mean that producers are going to be dumb and buy sugar when corn syrup is so much cheaper. Consumers aren't going to stop drinking coke because it costs 1% more, but the beancounters at coca cola are certainly going to care if they're spending 50% (made up number) more on sweeteners if they don't have to.
    - daedrdev 2y ago
      The delta does not matter to the consumer. They might pay <5% more, hardly a dent in demand would follow. The producer has a small profit margin so it does matter for them, since production and logistics cost a lot.
  - smnrchrds 2y ago
    > If there's only 10 cents worth of sugar in a 2L bottle of coke, switching to sugar is unlikely to change the consumers buying habits. It matters enough that it determines where things get manufactured though. > There are two prices for sugar: the price you pay in the U.S., and the price you pay almost everywhere else in the world. > The price in the U.S. is about 15 cents a pound higher than the price in the rest of the world. That costs Spangler Candy an additional $3 million a year. > The higher U.S. sugar price is spelled out in U.S. law. You can find it right here, in the latest version of the farm bill, which says the U.S. government shall guarantee a minimum price for sugar that is not to drop below 22.9 cents per pound. > Because of the higher price here, lots of candies that used to be made in the U.S. — Life Savers, candy canes — are now made overseas. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/04/26/179087542/the-lollipop-war https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/04/26/179087542/the-...
- hombre_fatal 2y ago
  Jeez, at least summarize it or state your personal take-away first. If you're going to dump text, I think it's good etiquette to frame it with what you think that text is doing for the discussion so it's not just an exercise for the reader.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
alkonaut 2y ago
Here (EU country) the same sweeteners that are used in diet soda is found to replace up to half the sugar in some common non-diet sodas, to reduce costs. Because while its not much, it's a lot more than the cost of water+sweetener. This has been an unpleasant surprise to people whose stomachs don't like the sweetener and who didn't notice the changed recipe on the label...

gorkish 2y ago

I agree this is the actual issue; I don't agree with allowing the argument to manifest itself by bozos who use misinformation and pseudoscience to reframe it as a chemical/biological danger or even a taste/quality issue as it is neither of those.

drewcoo 2y ago

Cheap corn syrup does not incentivize more sweetening. No one is rewarded more for putting more of an ingredient that costs money in a product. "Richardson, you effectively raised costs! Here's your bonus. Congratulations!" The heightened demand for that product may be an incentive, though.

hombre_fatal 2y ago
I don't get why people act like we're talking about saffron when it comes to sugar. It's dirt cheap and costs cents per pound. Corn syrup could disappear overnight and nothing would change about how much junk food we eat, how much we produce, nor how sweet it is.
- fastball 2y ago
  So you think producers are putting corn syrup in food just for kicks?
  - femiagbabiaka 2y ago
    No, ostensibly it's cheaper at scale. But from a consumer's perspective, it doesn't matter that they're using that instead of sugar. There's a much larger conversation to be had about the misinformation surrounding sugar and carbohydrates, but anyways..
  - southernplaces7 2y ago
    No. They're doing it because it's marginally cheaper and more convenient in the aggregate, but if they didn't and stuck to cane sugar, the practical difference on the consumer side in terms of consumption and price per product would be essentially nil or close enough not to matter.
    - alkonaut 2y ago
      It's not about displacing other sugars. It's a cheap substitute for things not sugar. The argument about corn syrup is misplaced, it should be about sugars in general in US processed food. But corn syrup just happened to be that sugar.

gonzobonzo 2y ago

The people arguing against high fructose corn syrup specifically are doing so under the misguided notion that sugar is somehow healthier. You see something similar in the seed oil discussions. There are good reasons to promote excessive sugars in general, but specifically targetting high fructose corn syrup is like that old joke where someone asks if we should ban adding dihydrogen monoxide to foods.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
qwerty456127 2y ago
> something similar in the seed oil discussions Isn't difference between oils way more serious than between cane sugar and corn syrup?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
bagels 2y ago
"There are good reasons to promote excessive sugars" What are the good reasons to promote excessive sugar?
- gonzobonzo 2y ago
  Sorry, that should have been "discourage" or "promote avoiding."
marzell 2y ago
We make corn that isn't even considered a food, legally. We subsidize that using a lot of tax dollars, to the absurd point that we pay farmers to NOT grow corn and leave fields empty. Everyone is paying for way more corn than is needed through taxes, while people claim this keeps costs low (it's more, you are just paying it in taxes). And then we come up with excuses to use more of it, like corn syrup and ethanol. This is absolutely absurd.

dehrmann 2y ago

The incentive is to produce tasty food that makes as much money as possible. Food is so cheap in the US that I doubt that was the limiting factor. Like, we make cheap candy that is 99% sugar.

elcritch 2y ago
It's not all that tasty. After visiting Europe I always find American foods to be grossly sweet. It's a race to the bottom that you only notice if you get out of the cycle for a bit.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  Because it's actually better or because of confirmation bias or because as a "visitor" your diet is not representative of what people who live their eat on a normal day/week?
  - gambiting 2y ago
    As a single point of anecdote - as a European visiting America, I also found American candy just insanely sweet. Like, way more than what I'm used to, and it definitely didn't make me go "wow this is tasty". I guess you're used to what you know, but there is something to it.
    - ziml77 2y ago
      You want real sweetness insanity? Try sweet tea. You will feel so dehydrated after sipping it you'll be begging for a glass of water.
    - tharkun__ 2y ago
      I do agree that our sweet here in NA is sweeter. From a taste perspective however, it's a lot about whatever you are used to, like you say. After more than a year of Keto and not having had any bread, I ate some wheat bread again for the first time. Nothing sweet on top. Just bread (with butter on top). It tasted sweet! And it wasn't even your typical North American floppy toast white bread but just regular, proper wheat bread like you might eat in France in your neighborhood corner bakery (here they usually call it "artisan bread" now). That sweetness went away really quickly after eating bread more regularly again but it surprised me nonetheless and makes your point on getting used to things. Another NA example is cup cakes. There are cup cakes and then there are US cup cakes. I really don't like cup cakes at all. I avoid them. It's a tiny bit of cream with a ton of sugar. Just disgusting. They do the same with actual cakes. You can't buy a proper cake with cream based frosting and some tactful addition of sugar. It's a tiny amount of cream with a load of sugar on a tasteless body of (in many cases overly dry) sponge cake.