3 ms·
You don't need a tax. Just get rid of the massive subsidy that HFCS gets. edit: I had meant the indirect subsidy through corn subsidies. I agree that there sho
by shonn 12y ago
You don't need a tax. Just get rid of the massive subsidy that HFCS gets.
edit: I had meant the indirect subsidy through corn subsidies. I agree that there shouldn't be much of a distinction between HFCS and sugar (fructose) from other sources.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y agoI don't think HFCS gets any subsidies. Corn gets subsidized and there are very high tariffs on imported cane sugar. HFCS is metabolically identical to white sugar and bobos singling it out are misguided.
- protopete 12y agoHFCS is metabolized primarily by the liver, unlike sugar. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full
- a8da6b0c91d 12y agoHFCS is equal parts fructose and glucose, exactly the same as sugar. Your link indicates no distinction. HFCS is produced by running corn starch through an enzyme process identical to one that happens in your pancreas. Corn starch is broken up into glucose and then half the glucose is converted to fructose. Personally I find HFCS drinks have a mild metalic aftertaste whereas sugar doesn't. I don't know what causes it. But HFCS is metabolically exactly the same as white sugar. And neither are "bad" for you.
- enraged_camel 12y agoIt's the amount that matters. HFCS is cheaper to produce thanks to corn subsidies and cane sugar tariffs, therefore more of it goes into food, and it goes into more types of food. The tax I proposed above is a way to offset this effect.