Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The whole thing is just another government attempt at social engineering. Using the excuse that sugar leads to poor health, which leads to higher costs for tax payers opens all kinds of doors. Such as:
Banning skate boards because they cause injury
Banning bicycles because they result in more accidents and deaths than an automobile
Rock climbing
Hiking trails (might fall down and go boom)
Motorcycles
etc.
The government needs to do what it is responsible for and stay the h*ll out of social engineering.
There was actually very little truth in his post. Sugar is not being subsidized. Corn is being subsidized and chemically altered to be used as a cheap substitute for sugar.
Our government is the one that pushed HFCS as a cheap substitute.
Corporations were only too happy to jump on board to use it as an ingredient.
But once you add the sugar tariff it negates the subsidy.
Accidental Hedonist - Tariffs and Subsidies - The Literal Cost of High Fructose Corn Syrup (http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2006/01/24/tariffs_and_subsidies_the_literal_cost_o - broken link)
"Why is HFCS so much cheaper than cane sugar? The answer to that question may surprise you.
Because the government wants it that way.
The Federal Government accomplishes this in two major ways:
Sugar Tariffs
Corn and Sugar Subsidies
Add these two variables together, and the result is sweetener made from corn.
..
We inflate the cost of sugar, lower the cost of corn, and Archer Daniels Midlands buys an excessive amount of corn at excessively low costs in order to make HFCS."
sugar is a killer?????? so you are saying fruits are killers.??????loaded with sugar......................are you saying breads and carbs are killers?????? carbs become sugars..
sugar is not a killer for the brain and body
ANYTHING in excess is a killer, moderation is good
Aint that the truth. A girl at my old job was on a diet, and was telling about what she could/couldn't eat. She was telling me that natural fruits were a no-no, because they have sugar, but she could drink all of the diet soda she wanted because it has zero calories
But once you add the sugar tariff it negates the subsidy.
Accidental Hedonist - Tariffs and Subsidies - The Literal Cost of High Fructose Corn Syrup (http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2006/01/24/tariffs_and_subsidies_the_literal_cost_o - broken link)
"Why is HFCS so much cheaper than cane sugar? The answer to that question may surprise you.
Because the government wants it that way.
The Federal Government accomplishes this in two major ways:
Sugar Tariffs
Corn and Sugar Subsidies
Add these two variables together, and the result is sweetener made from corn.
..
We inflate the cost of sugar, lower the cost of corn, and Archer Daniels Midlands buys an excessive amount of corn at excessively low costs in order to make HFCS."
I understand the overall effect but stating that sugar was not subsidized was untruthful and misleading of you.
Aint that the truth. A girl at my old job was on a diet, and was telling about what she could/couldn't eat. She was telling me that natural fruits were a no-no, because they have sugar, but she could drink all of the diet soda she wanted because it has zero calories
But, this is the dumbing down of America.
That anyone can be made to believe a can full of chemicals is better for your diet than fruit is just astounding. And you know...these people honestly believe it because they either "read it" or someone told them.
I understand the overall effect but stating that sugar was not subsidized was untruthful and misleading of you.
Ok..go back and read my reply. I was replying to a poster who commented on "sugar subsidy" in a post that stated "corn subsidy".
People are confusing "sugar" with "HFCS" and think they are one in the same. They are not. I was not trying to get into the various commodity subsidies but to clarify that the sweetner in question is corn based and it's cheapness compared to sugar is based on subsidy.
You do understand and I'm sorry if I threw you off with my post but I was just trying to clarify that it was corn, not sugar that had the big subsidy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
