6 ms·

I think the point is why do we have a sugar protection racket.

by smokeyj 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago
We might, but if ending it simply routed the market from corn syrup to cane sugar, what difference does that make for consumers? It seems like the most you'd be able to say is that it might make junk food cheaper.
- ksherlock 13y ago
  There are people who seek out and drink Mexican coke since it contains sugar (see also pepsi throwback). There were also jobs lost as the candy industry moved from the US to Canada and Mexico.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Sure, but far more jobs would be lost if we corrected the more serious problem, which is the country's addiction to energy-dense sweetened drinks.
- smokeyj 13y ago
  > what difference does that make for consumers? They would now have choice. Why is it the role of government to exclude entrepreneurs from competing?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Isn't this a little bit like complaining how unfair life is for tobacco companies?
    - smokeyj 13y ago
      How is that?
      - tptacek 13y ago
        They would have a choice between two extremely unhealthy alternatives.
        X-Istence 13y ago
        I don't see how this is a problem ... or something to be worried about.
    - hornetblack 13y ago
      I'm not sure 'essential but over-consumed' nutrient is comparable to 'cancer causing addictive drug'.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        Obesity is also correlated with cancer. Metabolic syndrome includes elements of physical dependence.
      - base698 13y ago
        More comparable than you'd think... http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/11/survival-strategy-of-cancer-cells/ http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/11/survival-strat... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/ Evidence that sugar is addictive in the same way as are narcotics and cancer cells in blood with elevated sugar grow much faster.
- tolmasky 13y ago
  I'm a little rusty on this subject (I might come back later and link some sources/videos), but my main issue is not with HFCS vs table sugar, but just the fact that HFCS is in everything nowadays. This is partially because of corn subsidies by the government (which makes HFCS cheaper than its "actual" price). However, this is also because at one point in this country we decided that fat was bad (with a bad study), and we thus took it upon ourselves to remove fat from our diets, and in fact largely succeeded. Yet all the things we were trying to prevent (like heart disease), went UP. What happened was manufacturers replaced the fat in many products with HFCS. Its to the point now where you go to the store and many brands of bread contain HFCS, its almost inescapable. I certainly don't want that replaced with normal sugar, I just want the price of HFCS to be accurate, and for the government to stop making drastic declarations in nutrition that can lead to these really strange and unexpected consequences.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    >>> This is partially because of corn subsidies by the government (which makes HFCS cheaper than its "actual" price). Both sugar and corn are heavily subsidized, but sugar AFAIK is subsidized by tariffs (i.e. higher prices for the consumer) and corn by transfers. I have no idea why - probably "biofuels" fiasco has a lot to do with it, but not sure if it is the main cause. >>> for the government to stop making drastic declarations in nutrition that can lead to these really strange and unexpected consequences. You mean, the government to stop regulating what we eat and trying to protect us from ourselves? Fat chance.
- qb45 13y ago
  Dude, let me quote something: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. People have a fsckin' right to eat unhealthy and who the hell are you to fix prices of their food so that they can't? That's one thing. Another one is that such schemes are really, pragmatically bad as they make people involved in them make political decisions which protect their unfair advantage at the cost of goals important to the general public. Do you really want people to vote for whomever promises to pass bills giving them most benefits at the cost of others? Well, I know that people sometimes do that anyway, but IMO it shouldn't be encouraged with successful examples lasting for two centuries. And at last - people are pretty capable of getting what they want. If you make it slightly more expensive, they'll simply pay. More expensive - they'll switch to worse alternatives (HFCS, anyone?). Even more - illegal production. Outright ban - sugar mafia. I mean, the US already tried to "fight alcoholism" some time ago and it almost worked.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    The Declaration of Independence is not a governing document of the United States. "If you make it slightly more expensive, they'll simply pay" does not seem like a statement that comports with economics.
    - qb45 13y ago
      The Declaration of Independence is a statement of people who successfully fought a world power and founded country which became a world power. I think this counts more than a majority vote in parliament, not less.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        In the frictionless vacuum of a message board debate, you can imagine there being several portions of the US Constitution that could be placed into conflict with the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps we don't have to pay income tax after all!
- nobodysfool 13y ago
  I don't think it would make that much difference. The corn industry is subsidized by the govt anyway, so i am pretty sure corn syrup would still be cheaper.
- BrianEatWorld 13y ago
  When I worked at USDA, it was noted that it likely would have led to cheaper biofuels in the United States to the extent that such extensive legislation and tax breaks wouldn't have been needed to jumpstart ethanol in the US. So on the consumer end, as far as consumers are taxpayers, it would have meant paying for zero support programs instead of two. If you want to go out on a limb, cheaper ethanol leads to cheaper petrol due to a substitution effect, so potentially it would have made all food products marginally cheaper thanks to lower shipping costs. The linked article is a good one though. It is a funny subject to bring up in the bureaucracy because as economists, we all knew the harm it did, but as bureaucrats, we also knew that the policy wasn't going anywhere.
- baddox 13y ago
  It may not be a big change in the scheme of things, but if less government involvement in an industry can be accomplished without any noticeable effects to that industry, then isn't it almost true by definition that the government involvement should be decreased?
- fragmede 13y ago
  > might make junk food cheaper. You mean might improve profits for junk food companies?
triplesec 13y ago
It's since become a corn product protection racket, I believe. And probably due to pork barrel politics in the Midwest

I think the point is why do we have a sugar protection racket.

by smokeyj 13y ago

I think the point is why do we have a sugar protection racket.

We might, but if ending it simply routed the market from corn syrup to cane sugar, what difference does that make for consumers? It seems like the most you'd be able to say is that it might make junk food cheaper.

ksherlock 13y ago
There are people who seek out and drink Mexican coke since it contains sugar (see also pepsi throwback). There were also jobs lost as the candy industry moved from the US to Canada and Mexico.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Sure, but far more jobs would be lost if we corrected the more serious problem, which is the country's addiction to energy-dense sweetened drinks.
smokeyj 13y ago
> what difference does that make for consumers? They would now have choice. Why is it the role of government to exclude entrepreneurs from competing?
- tptacek 13y ago
  Isn't this a little bit like complaining how unfair life is for tobacco companies?
  - smokeyj 13y ago
    How is that?
    - tptacek 13y ago
      They would have a choice between two extremely unhealthy alternatives.
      - X-Istence 13y ago
        I don't see how this is a problem ... or something to be worried about.
  - hornetblack 13y ago
    I'm not sure 'essential but over-consumed' nutrient is comparable to 'cancer causing addictive drug'.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Obesity is also correlated with cancer. Metabolic syndrome includes elements of physical dependence.
    - base698 13y ago
      More comparable than you'd think... http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/11/survival-strategy-of-cancer-cells/ http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2011/11/survival-strat... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/ Evidence that sugar is addictive in the same way as are narcotics and cancer cells in blood with elevated sugar grow much faster.
tolmasky 13y ago
I'm a little rusty on this subject (I might come back later and link some sources/videos), but my main issue is not with HFCS vs table sugar, but just the fact that HFCS is in everything nowadays. This is partially because of corn subsidies by the government (which makes HFCS cheaper than its "actual" price). However, this is also because at one point in this country we decided that fat was bad (with a bad study), and we thus took it upon ourselves to remove fat from our diets, and in fact largely succeeded. Yet all the things we were trying to prevent (like heart disease), went UP. What happened was manufacturers replaced the fat in many products with HFCS. Its to the point now where you go to the store and many brands of bread contain HFCS, its almost inescapable. I certainly don't want that replaced with normal sugar, I just want the price of HFCS to be accurate, and for the government to stop making drastic declarations in nutrition that can lead to these really strange and unexpected consequences.
- smsm42 13y ago
  >>> This is partially because of corn subsidies by the government (which makes HFCS cheaper than its "actual" price). Both sugar and corn are heavily subsidized, but sugar AFAIK is subsidized by tariffs (i.e. higher prices for the consumer) and corn by transfers. I have no idea why - probably "biofuels" fiasco has a lot to do with it, but not sure if it is the main cause. >>> for the government to stop making drastic declarations in nutrition that can lead to these really strange and unexpected consequences. You mean, the government to stop regulating what we eat and trying to protect us from ourselves? Fat chance.
qb45 13y ago
Dude, let me quote something: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. People have a fsckin' right to eat unhealthy and who the hell are you to fix prices of their food so that they can't? That's one thing. Another one is that such schemes are really, pragmatically bad as they make people involved in them make political decisions which protect their unfair advantage at the cost of goals important to the general public. Do you really want people to vote for whomever promises to pass bills giving them most benefits at the cost of others? Well, I know that people sometimes do that anyway, but IMO it shouldn't be encouraged with successful examples lasting for two centuries. And at last - people are pretty capable of getting what they want. If you make it slightly more expensive, they'll simply pay. More expensive - they'll switch to worse alternatives (HFCS, anyone?). Even more - illegal production. Outright ban - sugar mafia. I mean, the US already tried to "fight alcoholism" some time ago and it almost worked.
- tptacek 13y ago
  The Declaration of Independence is not a governing document of the United States. "If you make it slightly more expensive, they'll simply pay" does not seem like a statement that comports with economics.
  - qb45 13y ago
    The Declaration of Independence is a statement of people who successfully fought a world power and founded country which became a world power. I think this counts more than a majority vote in parliament, not less.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      In the frictionless vacuum of a message board debate, you can imagine there being several portions of the US Constitution that could be placed into conflict with the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps we don't have to pay income tax after all!
nobodysfool 13y ago
I don't think it would make that much difference. The corn industry is subsidized by the govt anyway, so i am pretty sure corn syrup would still be cheaper.
BrianEatWorld 13y ago
When I worked at USDA, it was noted that it likely would have led to cheaper biofuels in the United States to the extent that such extensive legislation and tax breaks wouldn't have been needed to jumpstart ethanol in the US. So on the consumer end, as far as consumers are taxpayers, it would have meant paying for zero support programs instead of two. If you want to go out on a limb, cheaper ethanol leads to cheaper petrol due to a substitution effect, so potentially it would have made all food products marginally cheaper thanks to lower shipping costs. The linked article is a good one though. It is a funny subject to bring up in the bureaucracy because as economists, we all knew the harm it did, but as bureaucrats, we also knew that the policy wasn't going anywhere.
baddox 13y ago
It may not be a big change in the scheme of things, but if less government involvement in an industry can be accomplished without any noticeable effects to that industry, then isn't it almost true by definition that the government involvement should be decreased?
fragmede 13y ago
> might make junk food cheaper. You mean might improve profits for junk food companies?

triplesec 13y ago

It's since become a corn product protection racket, I believe. And probably due to pork barrel politics in the Midwest