It is worth noting that here, as is typical in politics, a focused interest (sugar growers) beats a diffuse interest (the general public). We would all benefit from ending this ridiculous practice. But we would individually benefit very little, and it isn't worth much from us to do so.<p>But it gets worse. Because there is a second layer of beneficiaries here. Corn growers. And they have great political power, as is seen in the subsidies they get and the ethanol additives that are legally require (which damage engines, and are a net negative on energy once you consider the costs of growing that corn).<p>Not the least among the advantages that corn growers have politically is the simple fact that they are important in Iowa. Which means that any national politician who dreams of being President, or of working with any other that has that dream, has very direct incentives to keep corn growers happy.
This debate has come up on HN repeatedly; it is again worth pointing out that HFCS is "HF" relative to "CS", not to table sugar. Table sugar is ~50% fructose, HFCS 55%.<p>The point isn't that HFCS is good for you --- it isn't --- but that a flight to "natural" sugars isn't a good response. The problem is hyperpalatable foods and (even moreso) liquid calories, not <i>which</i> sugar is being used.<p>HFCS alarmism probably works to the advantage of junk food companies, who can simply market equally unhealthful products built on table sugar as a premium alternative.
The page linked in the article is worth a couple of chuckles: "The US sugar industry is almost as important to our economic vitality as is a steady supply of affordable energy. Subjecting sugar to the unpredictable forces of global laissez faire capitalism would likely lead to 'dumping' by countries whose own sugar industries are much more protected than is ours."<p>In a sense, this quote isn't wrong. That's exactly what the sugar producing countries would do. The U.S. almost certainly does not have a competitive advantage in sugar production, and if the industry were deregulated domestic sugar production would end, and we'd become sugar importers. And that would be okay, because sugar isn't the strategically important commodity it once was.<p>But the same reasoning applies to steel and arms manufacturing too. The difference is, it wouldn't be okay if all our domestic steel production went overseas.
The government-backed sugar cartel in the US simply drove up the cost of (cane and beet) sugar, resulting in a comparative cost advantage for HFCS. I am surprised at how many people think HFCS is a corporate conspiracy, and are wholly ignorant of the government's role in the matter.<p>Here's a similar article with an interesting graph: <a href="http://mjperry.blogspot.ca/2011/01/big-sugar-cartel-cost-consumers-45b.html" rel="nofollow">http://mjperry.blogspot.ca/2011/01/big-sugar-cartel-cost-con...</a>
In the documentary King Corn [1] they suggest that HFCS is ubiquitous because of the government subsidies for growing corn. The surplus of corn was so large, they started looking for creative ways to use it all up. HFCS was one of those, as-is feeding it to livestock (which traditionally don't eat corn).<p>The subsidies are such that a cattle farmer can actually make a profit buy growing corn, selling it (with subsidies), then buying corn back to feed their own livestock.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1112115/" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1112115/</a>
I read researched this a few days ago.<p>You have to consider the taste, it tastes nicer because fructose has only 5 carbon in it's ring instead of 6 which leads to more pleasurable experience as it makes it fit better into the sweetness sensing in the mouth[1]<p>With Corn Syrup you get both glucose and fructose together whereas with sugar you just get sucrose. Another reason would be that more corn is grown in the US than sugar cane which makes it more efficient to produce corn syrup instead.<p>[1]<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23537367" rel="nofollow">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23537367</a>
Relevant: The Rise of Mexican Coca-Cola
<a href="http://kalinnacheff.com/2012/03/01/the-rise-of-mexican-coca-cola-and-why-it-tastes-better/" rel="nofollow">http://kalinnacheff.com/2012/03/01/the-rise-of-mexican-coca-...</a><p>An interesting point in the article:
"Coke suppressed demand for cane sugar formula because it would cost more to produce and consumers would not pay the extra cost."
>Once in a while I come across an animated debate on health benefits of sugar vs. high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). It is enzymatically produced mixture of glucose and fructose that approximately matches the chemical composition of sucrose, aka sugar. It is not this debate that is my concern;<p>Why are people discussing what the article specifically says it is not about?
There is an interesting conspiracy theory suggesting that New Coke was released to mask the switch of sugar to HFCS in the then re-introduced Coke Classic.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke#Conspiracy_theories" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke#Conspiracy_theories</a>
HFCS is almost in the same place as sugar if we look at it in terms of regulation.<p>Both are victims of price fixing through government subsidies. It doesn't matter if you don't contribute to the purchase of the product, as your tax dollars already fund its creation.
I skimmed the article, but I did not see mention of the U.S.'s petro-chemical-based agriculture. Without the outsized contributions that petro-chemicals make to the production process of corn and corn syrup (engine fuel, fertilizer, distillation, etc.), corn syrup and HFCS production would be much more directly (as opposed to externalized costs) expensive.<p>I guess we should also toss soil erosion into the mix. Productive topsoil is a finite resource, and modern agriculture -- while it has improved somewhat, recently -- is expensive in this regard.
Even though too much refined sugar is bad for you (there was very little tooth decay before 1850), I don't like ingesting HFCS because it makes things taste horrible. It doesn't taste the same as sucrose, which has much better flavour.<p>OTOH the more things have HFCS the fewer sugary products I eat, which is good for my health. Wouldn't work if everybody did that, of course.
What do you guys think of Stevia[1]? Has been recently approved in the EU for use as an all natural sweetener and I see products popping up here and there pretending to be based on it.<p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia</a>
The linked page on sugars.com is hilarious.<p>"sugar is an indispensable part of everyday life."<p>"The US sugar industry is almost as important to our economic vitality as is a steady supply of affordable energy. "<p>They could at least come up with some reasons that don't insult our intelligence.
I live in a state where Coke with sugar is widely available. The taste between that and HFCS is like night and day. Too bad the rest of the states do not have that choice.
The only thing i can't grasp... If sugar is such a certain deal, why there is even one person investing in a HFCS factory instead of yet another sugar came farm?