April 26, 2004
Maximizing shareholder value
More bad press for corn syrup
Looks like High Fructose Corn Syrup is getting more bad press. Yahoo/Reuters writes that a new Study Blames Corn Syrup for Rise of Diabetes in US.
I am not a big fan of the whole Atkins craze, but maybe all this negative energy towards carbohydrates will cause some push back against the corn syrup pushers. I doubt that this would improve things in a healthy and balanced way -- it will probably fuel the development of more artificial sweeteners. So far, I see no change in the trend to remove real food from our tables and replace everything with cheaper chemicals that are less suited for the human body.
Posted by Mayhem at April 26, 2004 01:47 PM
What'll probably be the nail-in-the-coffin of our mass-nectarization via corn syrup will be... wait for it... Free Trade Agreements.
Already, international arbitration bodies set up via the World Trade Organization and NAFTA have ruled that certain U.S. agricultural and manufacturing subsidies are violations of these agreements.
Eventually, the U.S. is bound to sign onto one that makes its corn subsidies vulnerable.
Corn syrup is ubiquitous in the U.S. not because it is a superior or cost-effective sweetener, but because we've got a great deal of surplus corn from a heavily-subsidized industry. (See also: ethanol)
Not to pick nits here, but if something is subsidized and consequenty overproduced, then it creates a cost superior product in the end.
Regardless, I agree with you -- the US is under increasing pressure to kill off all farm subsidies. I think its going to take a while before that happens, but I wonder what the landscape will look like when it does happen.
Do you know if it is cheaper to produce corn or sugar beets in the absence of susidies? I wonder if sugar is actually cheaper to produce and if there would be a switch back to it... Probably just wishful thinking...
Government subsidies will only create a "cost superior" product if A) you ignore the cost of the subsidies, or B) if the subsidies lead to a more efficiently-produced product (research subsidies improving production methods, or subsidies that change the cost of production through economy of scale effects). But in this case, if the subsidies were withdrawn, corn syrup would be less cost-effective than cane sugar (at least from what I've read; I'm not an expert on agriculture costs and can't evaluate the data independently) - so "A" is probably the answer here. So corn syrup isn't really cost-superior, only "cost-superior" in the same way that every other government free lunch is really a "free lunch" by just hiding who's actually paying for it.
I see what you mean.
However, cane sugar it won't be -- sugar beets are cheaper since they grow in temperate climate. But even then, I don't think that the US will switch back to sugar if the farm subsidies ever go away.
Corporate amerika will find some other cheaper and more evil sweetener.
Its a real toss-up as to which is worse, the damage caused by surplus carbs via corn syrup, or the 'unkown' consequences of artificial sweeteners.
I'd settle for the artificial sweeteners as the lesser of two evils - but its still not good.
