High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010) • Hacker News Board

Re: High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010)

#71

Post by shawn-furyan » Sat, Jul 13, 2013, 10:23 PM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #61

btilly wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the free market and agriculture is that demand is highly inelastic. Therefore the natural price difference between a good year for a crop and a bad year isn't 10%, it is more like 10x, and lots of people get to be hungry from time to time. However if you can convince farmers to always grow extra, then the difference between a good year and a bad one is closer to 10%, and you never have famines. After…

This is mostly false. I'll try to explain. If subsidization of farmers to produce more than the market is predicted to demand in order to smooth out volatility and prevent famine is necessary (and it seems to me like a laudable goal), government can simply fund overseas farmers to overproduce, rather than its own. It would be less expensive than the current process in those cases where overseas farmers produce more c…

I'm not sure why this comment is getting downvoted. It seems to me to be on par in terms of quality with the rest of the thread.

Sure, there's no hard evidence given with any assertion, but there aren't really in the immediate ancestors either. This just seems to be an unpopular view, but I think that it's better to offer a counterargument than to downvote in that case, especially since downvoting visually deemphasizes the comment, which surely leads to fewer people reading it. To me, that outcome doesn't seem justified for this comment.

Re: High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010)

#72

Post by tanzam75 » Sat, Jul 13, 2013, 10:25 PM UTC

kansface wrote: post #51

kyllo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, if corn were not subsidized, corn syrup would probably not be wholly replaced with cane sugar, as cane sugar is much more expensive, a lot of it is imported, and it can't really be grown productively in most of the US--inside the US it's really only grown in Florida, Texas, and Hawaii. The 89 million acres[1] of corn harvested in the US would be partly replaced by some other starchy crop x, and high fructose c…

Sugar is only expensive because of the extreme tariffs the government places on it.

From 2008-2011:

- Average price of raw sugar, world market: $492.8 per tonne

- Average price of HFCS-55, US market: $528.1 per tonne (HFCS-55 has equivalent sweetness to sucrose.)

Sugar vs. HFCS is a natural experiment. Americans are the experimental group, and the rest of the world is the control group. In non-OECD countries, HFCS has less than 1% market share. Why would you pay more money for an inferior product?

And remember -- the price of high-fructose corn syrup includes subsidies. In a free market, with no corn subsidies and no sugar tariffs, HFCS would be at an even greater price disadvantage.

Source: OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook, 2011-2020, p. 132. http://www.oecd.org/site/oecd-faoagriculturaloutlook/4818429...

Re: High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010)

#73

Post by lbcadden3 » Sat, Jul 13, 2013, 10:35 PM UTC

High-fructose corn syrup and ethanol, with increasing push back against farm subsidies due to tax payers and trade agreements, these are the loopholes used.

I was recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the single biggest change I have made is avoiding products with hfcs, going very well and lost 30 pounds.

Re: High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010)

#74

Post by tanzam75 » Sat, Jul 13, 2013, 10:41 PM UTC

rdouble wrote: post #68

tanzam75 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The previous three comments, from three different people, all seem to think that we're stuck with corn syrup because we can't grow enough sugarcane in the US. But sugarcane is not the only way to produce sucrose! Sugar beets currently account for 55% of sugar production in the United States. [1] What's more, sugar beets will grow in relatively poor soil. Top four sugarbeet-producing states: Minnesota, Idaho, North Da…

Where beets are grown in MN and ND is actually some of the best land in the country. Sugar beet subsidies are an even bigger boondoggle than corn. As the beet welfare queens retire or die off their land is generally bought out by a larger concern and switched over to another cash crop like GMO free soybeans for the Japanese market.

If you were being paid more money to grow beets on land that could support soybeans, why wouldn't you grow beets? It's economically rational to the farmer who's getting subsidies -- even though it's economically irrational for the world as a whole.

Subsidies distort the market, and produce completely illogical results. You can't get rid of just one subsidy, because that just gives an advantage to the next-most-subsidized item. But remove all the subsidies, and things will return to an economically-rational state of affairs.

Re: High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010)

#75

Post by speeder » Sat, Jul 13, 2013, 10:41 PM UTC

Azulsky wrote: post #58

kyllo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, if corn were not subsidized, corn syrup would probably not be wholly replaced with cane sugar, as cane sugar is much more expensive, a lot of it is imported, and it can't really be grown productively in most of the US--inside the US it's really only grown in Florida, Texas, and Hawaii. The 89 million acres[1] of corn harvested in the US would be partly replaced by some other starchy crop x, and high fructose c…

Also grown in Louisiana. Corn is the US climate friendly equivalent of sugarcane. Sugar cane is the most harvested crop worldwide. Sugarcane has heavy import tariffs in the US as welfare for the domestic corn industry. Brazil has a 22% Ethanol requirement on its gasoline and all that comes from sugar cane.

By the way,.Brazil gasoline alcoholis are currently US corn alcohol.

US subsidies to corn and subsidies to.any ethanol.resulted that selling cane ethanol to US and buying corn ethanol turns a profit for fuel.companies. Yes, it is that bad, diesel.pollution with shipping and all.

Re: High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010)

#76

Post by speeder » Sat, Jul 13, 2013, 10:43 PM UTC

Groxx wrote: post #63

stephengillie wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another control on this is the Overall Allotment Quantity of sugar, which is the USDA-regulated quantity of sugar which can be sold in any year. If you have too much sugar to sell, you'll have to store it or dump it. This is to keep sugar's price high. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overall_Allotment_Quantity

That's an... interesting mechanism. I can't figure out what the goal is, aside from, as you said, keeping prices high (specifically for those two kinds of sugar, which seems extra weird) - is there another reasonable explanation?

Moorcock this is the official purpose, they never even feigned it being something'.else.

Re: High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010)

#77

Post by justin66 » Sat, Jul 13, 2013, 11:04 PM UTC

shawn-furyan wrote: post #71

justin66 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is mostly false. I'll try to explain. If subsidization of farmers to produce more than the market is predicted to demand in order to smooth out volatility and prevent famine is necessary (and it seems to me like a laudable goal), government can simply fund overseas farmers to overproduce, rather than its own. It would be less expensive than the current process in those cases where overseas farmers produce more c…

I'm not sure why this comment is getting downvoted. It seems to me to be on par in terms of quality with the rest of the thread. Sure, there's no hard evidence given with any assertion, but there aren't really in the immediate ancestors either. This just seems to be an unpopular view, but I think that it's better to offer a counterargument than to downvote in that case, especially since downvoting visually deemphasiz…

Thanks. I wonder what you'd like to see in terms of hard evidence?

Re: High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010)

#78

Post by prodigal_erik » Sat, Jul 13, 2013, 11:14 PM UTC

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #18

ck2 wrote: post #3

Stop giving out corn welfare to corporations and problem solved. It's the ONLY reason why it's so heavily used. Corn syrup and ethanol - two massively damaging products of a completely corrupt system that everyone refuses to change because of massive profits off taxpayers.

Thanks for the laugh. You know you've reached the pinnacle of "first world problems" when a phrase like corrupt system , which has historically been used to describe things like institutional discrimination and genocide, is now used to describe the "horrors" of agricultural subsidies and tariffs. I'm surprised that Amnesty International hasn't updated their corruption index accordingly, which would surely put every s…

Corruption is misuse of bureaucratic power for personal financial gain. I don't know why Amnesty International would spend a lot of time on that rather than the atrocities you speak of, and if they publish a "corruption index" I can't find it.

Re: High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010)

#79

Post by ufo » Sat, Jul 13, 2013, 11:15 PM UTC

speeder wrote: post #75

Azulsky wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also grown in Louisiana. Corn is the US climate friendly equivalent of sugarcane. Sugar cane is the most harvested crop worldwide. Sugarcane has heavy import tariffs in the US as welfare for the domestic corn industry. Brazil has a 22% Ethanol requirement on its gasoline and all that comes from sugar cane.

By the way,.Brazil gasoline alcoholis are currently US corn alcohol. US subsidies to corn and subsidies to.any ethanol.resulted that selling cane ethanol to US and buying corn ethanol turns a profit for fuel.companies. Yes, it is that bad, diesel.pollution with shipping and all.

The problem in Brazil is more structural and political than it has to do with US corn subsidies. Through Petobras, the government kept gasoline prices artificially low for a long time and that severely hampered the ethanol producer because here in Brasil the ethanol prices are tied to the gasoline ones (an important part of the ethanol demand is the flex fuel cars that can choose between both fuels and if ethanol is above 70% of the cost of gasoline then gasoline becomes more cost effective).

So basically the ethanol infrastructure got all messed up to the point were it couldn't even keep up with the domestic supply. If it were not for that then brazilian ethanol would actually be able to compete with some of the american ethanol because sugar cane gives higher yields and nowadays you can charge a premium for being more environmentally friendly.

Re: High-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain than sugar (2010)

#80

Post by btilly » Sat, Jul 13, 2013, 11:35 PM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #61

btilly wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the free market and agriculture is that demand is highly inelastic. Therefore the natural price difference between a good year for a crop and a bad year isn't 10%, it is more like 10x, and lots of people get to be hungry from time to time. However if you can convince farmers to always grow extra, then the difference between a good year and a bad one is closer to 10%, and you never have famines. After…

This is mostly false. I'll try to explain. If subsidization of farmers to produce more than the market is predicted to demand in order to smooth out volatility and prevent famine is necessary (and it seems to me like a laudable goal), government can simply fund overseas farmers to overproduce, rather than its own. It would be less expensive than the current process in those cases where overseas farmers produce more c…

This is mostly false. I'll try to explain.

I don't believe it is false. Instead of explaining again, can you provide specific verifiable assertions and citations? I'll make it easy, I'll give you specifics to refute.

If subsidization of farmers to produce more than the market is predicted to demand in order to smooth out volatility and prevent famine is necessary (and it seems to me like a laudable goal), government can simply fund overseas farmers to overproduce, rather than its own. It would be less expensive than the current process in those cases where overseas farmers produce more cheaply. In many cases they'd still be subsidizing their own farmers.

Is your argument truly based on the assumption that government generally solve problems in efficient ways??

The truth is that it is easier for most governments to justify giving subsidies to their own citizens rather than foreign countries. Also self-sufficiency on food is seen by many as a security issue, and therefore there is a resistance to relying on others.

That said, different countries use different solutions. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/may/10/chi... for a news article indicating that China is taking exactly the efficient approach that you suggest.

Pretty much the only thing that would be untenable would be the current practice of paying "farmers" who own land to not produce. As far as I can tell everyone who doesn't receive that money hates the practice, so maybe we should just stop doing it. Which brings me to...

The USA pays people to keep land ready but unused so that production can rapidly improve. The European Union instead accumulates surpluses - aka the famous "butter mountains" and "milk lakes". Those are just different means to the same end - ensuring that there won't be a major famine.

> After repeated bad experiences, every country with the capability has decided that they want farmers to grow extra in normal years.

They haven't really. It's not like we ever had a vote on it. The current process is just a powerful lobby exercising their considerable power.

No, YOU never got to vote on it. It was before your time. That doesn't mean that I am wrong.

The European Union's policies were explicitly adopted as a reaction to famines after WW II. (Which in turn were significantly lessened thanks to major US intervention.) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy for confirmation.

The US policies started earlier, and were motivated by the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. http://stateimpact.npr.org/oklahoma/2012/11/16/ken-burns-dus... is one of the first links that I came to which can verify that.