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.
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.
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.
Counterargument: the UK's Soft Drinks Industry Levy.
In 2018, the British government introduced a tax on soft drinks with a sugar content of more than 50g per litre. The tax isn't particularly onerous, at 18p or 24p (22¢ or 29¢) per litre depending on the sugar content. The industry response was immediate - the majority of drinks were reformulated to reduce their sugar content to below the threshold, which is precisely what the government intended. Although initially controversial, the levy is now regarded as a clear victory for public health, with no significant economic impact on industry.
Even if the purchasing habits of consumers are price-inelastic, the decisions of manufacturers most certainly aren't.
It completely killed my soft drink buying habits. So it was either a success or failure depending on how you look at it.
I can’t stand the reformulated sweetened drinks. The flavour profile and aftertaste is completely different. I wasn’t a huge consumer of soft drinks to start with, but now I consume absolutely zero.
Unfortunately they didn't take the opportunity to reduce the sweetness. Here in Norway I can buy flavoured water without any sweeteners at all, neither sugar nor artificial. But when I visit the UK all I can find is either plain water or something sickly sweet.
It's certainly made me buy less UK Dr Pepper in Australia (I find artificial sweeteners generally unpleasant). Many places down under that sell it are now stocking US Dr Pepper instead, which suggests it sells rather better.
I don't think this had the desired effect for me (or maybe it did). When I have a coke, or other soft drink it's generally because I want the sugar and caffeine, for instance part way through a long drive or during a night out. Generally I drink water, tea and a little coffee. I don't really want to be eating/drinking any artificial sweeteners. I have a hunch that this is not good for you and adjusts your taste to wanting more sweet things, so I tend to avoid. Regular Coca Cola still tastes ok, but now all promotions tend to be on sweetened drinks. Drinks such as Irn Bru have been ruined, as there is now no full sugar version available.
I avoid the reduced-sugar ones. Actually these days I tend to buy the little miniature 150ml Coca-Cola cans. Original recipe but only 15g sugar as there's just less of it. Portion size is just as important as concentration!
> 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.
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."
>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.
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.
On the other hand, it's demonstrably proven that food producers will switch from sugar to corn syrup rather than pay extra for cane sugar, so consumers are deprived of a choice.
What good would that choice do them? You can choose to buy products made with sucrose, but ceteris paribus, the sucrose product won't be healthier. This is a little like asking whether consumers can choose to buy less-sweetened food, and, of course they can.
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...
