Taxing Sugar--Hypocrisy

The Post (Wonkblog) has a piece arguing the merits of taxing sugar, that is sugar instead of soda.

I'm sure one could find in back issues of the Post an attack on USDA's current sugar program, which sets import quotas for foreign sugar, as costing the American consumer millions of dollars in added costs for their sugar.  I'm also sure you won't find the food movement backing the sugar program as an instance in which government programs make Americans healthier.

(Note: I really have no brief for the sugar program; I just note the world is more complicated than advocates realize.)

Sugar Is Dead

Chris Clayton reports that Sens. Shaheen (D) and Kirk (R) are moving to abolish the sugar program. As they represent the centrists, and Tea Partiers have already said they don't want sugar with their tea, the tide is against sugar in the Senate.  However, look for Sens. Nelson(D) and Rubio (R) to join forces with Sens. Landrieu (D) and Vitter (R) in the fight to sustain the program.

[Updated: not to mention lobbying by American Crystal Sugar, a co-op of  MN sugar growers, which spends as much lobbying Congress as Cargill does. Via FarmPolicy. ]

The Power of the Food Movement?

According to this article (HT Farmpolicy), consumption of high fructose corn syrup is down by 11 percent from 2003 to 2008.  The only thing in the article to explain the drop is consumer, and hence processor, resistance.  I know corn prices jumped over the same period, so it might be that "pure sugar", nature's food, processed from sugar cane or sugar beets, became a better buy over the time period.  But regardless of the explanation, the food movement will take credit and thus become more powerful in the eyes of other players in the food arena.

Sugar, a Program Reformers Can't Stand

One of the farm programs which gets lots of criticism is the sugar program. It protects domestic sugarcane and sugar beet growers by supporting the price of sugar and limiting the allowable imports. The program dates way back, and has survived attempts to reform it. Today FSA published the final regulations for the program through 2012.

HFCS, Corn Subsidies and Obesity II

Tom Philpott channels a Tufts University study. Some sentences:

"Take them [farm program subsidies] away, I've argued more than once, and you'd still have a food system that mainly produces junk churned out by a few big companies...."

"Get this:

Today, HFCS represents just 3.5% of the total cost of soft drink manufacturing as measured by the value of shipments. Meanwhile, the corn content of HFCS represents only 1.6% of this value. Thus, the impact of corn prices on the final retail price of a food product is not as high as one might think.

That means even if you take away the 27 percent discount HFCS producers got for their corn, you'd only be adding a penny or two to the final price of a Big Gulp."

HFCS Debunked, It's Sugar Says the Times

Jane Brody in today's NYTimes says "sugar is sugar is sugar" and it's bad for you, regardless of whether it's high fructose or not. The column is the first of two.

High fructose corn syrup makes a convenient target for those who would blame our ills on big business, but the reality is we love sweets.

HFCS, Corn Subsidies and Obesity

An interesting study of the relationship among sugar usage, corn subsidies, and obesity from Iowa State. Its abstract:

Major changes in the use of US sweeteners have occurred since 1970, in both the amount and composition. Increased consumption of caloric sweeteners, especially in beverages, has been linked to excess energy intake and lower-quality diets. We examine how US farm policies (specifically agricultural research and development [R&D] expenditures and commodity programs) have affected the consumption and composition of sweeteners in the US diet. R&D expenditures have lowered the unit cost of most commodities and increased their use in food production, ceteris paribus, although corn has benefited more than sugar crops in the technical progress. Commodity programs have raised the price of sugar and decreased the price of corn; high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) became an inexpensive substitute for sugar in food beginning in 1970. However, the effect of this change in the price of ingredients has become less important
over time. Today the farm value share in sweetened food is very small (below 5%), and HFCS has become a specialized input in many food items. Countries with different or no commodity programs experience similar increases in consumption of added sugar. We conclude that the current link between the US consumption of caloric sweeteners and farm policy is tenuous, although historically the link was stronger.

I would have liked more research on the next to last sentence, but it's good to read.