Have a Coke and a Smile

You guys in the US ever go to Mexico and drink a Coke?  Remember how good it tasted compared to American Coke?  That’s because it’s made from sugar, and Coke in China is also made from sugar.  In the United States and other western nations a chemical called “high fructose corn syrup” is used instead.  Why?  You can thank America’s first socialist president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for that.  With the introduction of federal price supports for agricultural goods, which began in earnest under his administration, we use tax money and tariffs to artificially inflate the cost of countless goods.  Sugar is the best example, it’s an order of magnitude more expensive than it would be if left to the free market.  So sugar producers get subsidized to keep their products worth making, and the consumer pays significantly higher prices at the grocery store.  (I believe that sugar is about ten times more expensive than it would be if market forces, not government, were setting the price.)

So why high fructose corn syrup?  Simple, it’s cheaper than sugar.  It wouldn’t be if there were no price supports for sugar, but the government has made it so that sugar is artificially high, creating a demand for a cheaper alternative.  The main group lobbying for these high sugar tariffs is a corporation called Archer Daniels Midland.  They have no sugar factories, but they spend more money lobbying in favor of price supports than any other group. 

Why should ADM, a company with no sugar factories, care so much about sugar tariffs?  It should be obvious—ADM are the makers of, among other things, high fructose corn syrup.  There’s absolutely no reason that Coca Cola couldn’t be made with sugar, as it used to be, except for the artificially high price caused by government interference in free trade.

And some people wonder why I hate government.  I think I’ll go drink a Coke with sugar in it.

Oh, and for those of you who have weight problems, I am absolutely convinced that one of the reasons for the epidemic obesity issues that are currently plaguing the west is the switch from sugar to high fructose corn syrup.

Update: Since this appears to be such a hot topic, here’s a couple of additional links to read up on.  Here’s a 1995 article hosted on Opensecrets.org.

Our story begins with the trail of political money in Washington—the millions of dollars given in myriad ways to finance political campaigns and influence national policy-making. The trail continues to Florida, where the federal government support program has enriched a few families at the expense of all consumers while inflicting unprecedented environmental damage. This study goes well beyond the simple examination of the cost of sugar price supports, demonstrating that at the end of the road, the public is holding the bag—paying for everything from higher sugar prices to the multimillion-dollar cleanup of the Everglades.

Over the past decade, the Center for Responsive Politics has documented the ever-increasing flow of dollars from corporate interests and wealthy individuals to the campaign coffers of members of Congress. As the cost of elections has steadily increased, these contributors have become ever more important to lawmakers—incumbents and newcomers alike. None among them is a more astute player in the game of “money politics” than the sugar industry.

Since 1979, sugar-related interests (sugar cane, beet, and corn sweeteners) have invested more than $11.9 million in the campaigns of candidates for federal office and political parties. One estimate has perhaps another $1.3 million invested in state lawmakers in Florida by pro-sugar forces. Sugar interests have fielded battalions of lawyers, lobbyists, public-relations specialists, and scientists in the nation’s capital and in Tallahassee to maintain the status quo.

And here’s a 2006 article from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

As is true with many government programs, the sugar program’s benefits are concentrated and the costs are diffuse. It principally benefits large sugar cane producers in Florida and Louisiana and sugar beet farmers in 14 upper-Midwestern and Western states. For those who benefit, the rewards are significant—the General Accounting Office estimated in 1991 that 42 percent of the sugar grower benefits went to only 1 percent of all sugar farms, or 150 farms. Some 33 sugar farms received over $1 million in annual benefits.

No wonder the sugar industry wants to keep such a sweet deal.

This is why I always get a chuckle when many people in the US assume that corporations support the generally conservative idea of limited government.  (Though it’s debatable whether this is still a conservative ideal at all, given the profligate spending of the Bush years.) Corporations love huge, massive, intrusive government, because it enables them to use government’s powers of coercion to manipulate the markets to their advantage.

For more info, just go to Google and search for sugar price supports.

Dude I can’t even read shit like this anymore.  I just can’t take it.  Luckily where I live you can buy just about any gun imaginable faster than a set of car tires. Sometimes I want to stock up, move to a mountain hideaway, and chill until the revolution.  Ugh.

you know if we kill the price supports, and switched over to sugar, that would free up that much more corn for ethanol or even reduce demand! thus lower prices at the store and on the farm.

Sugar is basically run by the Florida mob - every time you eat something sweet, you are contributing to a decades-long history of corruption, murder, and dirty politicians.

The hell with using corn for ethanol - the absolute best source of ethanol known to man is, you guessed it, sugar cane. Or at least it would be if the price weren’t so artificially inflated.

For those of you interested in real Coke, I started doing some research on Passover Coke (real Coke - with sugar, not HFCS - is distributed in certain areas for a few weeks leading up to Passover because it’s not grain-based) and after some poking around, found that you can get real Coke all year round from Costco. Costco, at least here in AZ, carries glass bottles of Coke imported from Mexico, in all it’s sugary glory. I’m not a big Coke drinker, but this stuff is like mother’s milk.

The switch from sugar to corn syrup might be a factor, but I think a larger factor was the switch from doing actual work to sitting in a car, then sitting at a desk, then sitting in a car, then sitting in front of a TV. We’re sitting our way to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and overall poorer health.

I agree with your assessment of price controls. I think they’re all dumb, including minimum wage. No minimum wage would give people an incentive to improve themselves, and no welfare would be an even bigger incentive. Might be a good reason for people to quit sitting so much.

Hows that different from anything else you buy SO?

I see no clear evidence that HFCS is notably worse than consuming equal amounts of sugar.  There is a correlation with the the advent and use of HFCS and obesity in America, but causation has not been established.  By the way, HFCS is 55% fructose and 45% glucose while sugar is 50/50 (and bounded together in a single molecule).  However, when used in an acidic liquid like Coke, sugar molecules break apart, so the primary difference in the two cokes is that there is 5% more fructose floating around in it and 5% less glucose.

Same for avacodos...they are a buck eighy nine here...outragous

I was just talking about this with my wife this past weekend. Bill Maher is frequently going on about this topic too.

As someone who is allergic to high fructose corn syrup.  Yes it would be nice to bring back sugar.  Fructose is not just in soda it’s in almost EVERTHING. I can only drink on soda with sugar in it. I have found a couple of brands in specialty stores.  If you have never tried it I would recommend finding some and giving it a swig. 

Also fructose does make you fat, but how about that fat China kid with the coke.  Must be all the MSG’s making him fat.

<quote>Hows that different from anything else you buy SO?</quote>

If you are referring to agricultural products, then it isn’t much of the time.  We can thank FDR for most of the idiocy surrounding government involvement in farming…

I live in southern California, so the beauty of having real Coke with sugar is always nearby- thank you Mexico! (And overall our fruit pricing and quality is better than most of the country-so no complaints there). I have to say HFCS may be a contributing factor, but Belcatar struck it right on the head. The sedentary lifestyle is HUGE with the health issue. For some people to think otherwise is ridiculous.

We can thank FDR for most of the idiocy surrounding government involvement in farming…

The man’s been dead for 63 years.  Are you saying that the 36 years of Republican administrations we’ve had since then were powerless to reverse anything that FDR did?  Why not blame the guy who invented farming?

Christ, don’t get me started on that fucking HFCS crap.  While I have switched to drinking Coke Zero in order to control my blood sugar (not diabetic, but didn’t want to get that way, either), a local grocery chain here in the Twin Cities carries Mexican Coke in the Hispanic food aisle, and I will pick up a bottle or two from time to time.  Such sweet goodness.  It does go for $1.45 a 500ml bottle, though, which is comparable to around $1.70 for a 20 oz bottle.  That is about a 35% premium over what 20 oz bottles actually sell for here.

Oh, and for those of you who have weight problems, I am absolutely convinced that one of the reasons for the epidemic obesity issues that are currently plaguing the west is the switch from sugar to high fructose corn syrup.

Is there any scientific basis for statements like this? I’ve heard this stated many times mainly by hippies when I was in the Peace Corps (ironic eh?), but I’ve never seen anything to actually support this _but_ belief.

There’s no causative evidence, no.  And I didn’t say it was *the* cause, I said it was *a* participating cause.  I think the main factor is the increasing use of technology which enables us to lead sedentary lifestyles.  However, there were a few main factors which, I believe, are the main issues at hand.

1.  The “food pyramid,” which was introduced (if memory serves) in the early 70s.

2.  The introduction of HFCS to the detriment of sugar.  Add to this the introduction of artificial sweeteners, which made drinking soft drinks “okay” again.  However, the sodium content and other chemicals in diet sodas have their own issues.  (Before I cam to China I started limiting myself to 5 cans of diet soda a week and I lost almost 20 lbs.)

3.  The introduction of cable TV and video games.  Before these came into being there were 3 TV networks and a few local channels.  If there was nothing on your options were go go and play or read a book or engage in some other activity.  Now there are channels aimed specifically at every age of child.  They can sit on their asses all day and watch TV that caters to their interests.  Add in video games.  When I was a kid we had the Cloecovision, Intellivision, and the Atari 2600.  We also saw the introduction of computers like the VIC-20 and the TRS-80.  I had an Atari and a VIC.  This provided yet another activity I could engage in where I sat on my ass at home.  The computer options available today are infinitely more luring than anything that I had available to me, and video games are fucking amazing and get better (and this more appealing) at an exponential rate.

4.  The “child abduction/molestation hysteria” of the 80s.  No longer were parents content to let their kids do what I did in the 70s, which was go way the hell away from home with my friends and ride bikes for hours.  Now it’s “play in the yard where I can see you.” If you’re playing in the yard, doing something lame, it doesn’t take much of a genius to figure out that you can go inside and play Xbox or watch 438 TV stations.

So the reasons are myriad, and thus the solutions are complex.  But with the correlative, if not causative, evidence available today, it’s my own personal feeling that HFCS is a contributing factor.

And I say this as a guy who used to weigh 430 lbs and now weighs about 236.

I’m not a big Coke drinker, but this stuff is like mother’s milk.
Posted by Moxie on 03/26 at 02:48 AM[/quote
Hah.. the user name is fitting.

Posted by Miguelito  on  03/31  at  02:03 PM

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.