Comments on: How will the sugar policy crisis shake out?

By: Bobby

Bobby — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:59:16 +0000

I Studied sugar in my commodity markets economics course in 1985, and came to the conclusion that this was quite the mess of stinky poo. There was not much of that American Free market enterprise thing in evidence, and a lot of protecting the big producers from competition. Doesn’t look too different today, even with the competition of HFCS. Taught me the important lesson of “money shapes politics”, and I still dream of government by the people, for the people, instead of the “money talks” system of corporate-controlled-government of today’s America.

By: Michael Jo Mayer

Michael Jo Mayer — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:50:30 +0000

I agree as to the solution: eat less sugar. I have substantially reduced my intake of refined sugar and HRCS and have found that I have far more energy and much better bowel movements. I do get a fair amount of sugar, natural sugar, from fruits (as I eat grapefruit everyday and also enjoy an assortment of berries, bananas, and apples). Every now and then I also sweeten my green tea with a little honey or agave nectar. Overall, I have felt much better after slashing my refined sugar consumption (while also slashing my meat consumption).

On thing that I would like to know is how much of the sugar money goes to smaller farmers? I know that it is said that only about two cents out of every $1.50 order of french fries goes to the potato farmer.

By: Amy S

Amy S — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:55:05 +0000

I am concerned lowering the prices of sugar will result in people eating more sugar. Because that is how economics works when the supply rises, prices drop and consumption rises.

Making sugar or HFCS more accessible (by increasing tariffs or production) only creates incentives for making it an additive in foods. Those who research these additives the least are the poor and uneducated, who are desperate for lower costing products. These are also the families with children who are most likely to become obese.

What is objectionable is that any subsidies are paid to the industry, get rid of those. Limit the amount of sugar produced or imported (no different than the way alcohol is limited), recognizing that it is in every way addictive and deadly as other legal but restricted goods (cigarettes, alcohol). Then let the market determine the price, instead of subsidizing a guaranteed price. Take away the subsidy and it becomes the end consumer instead of the taxpayers who pay for consumption of sugar. Don’t eat alot = don’t pay alot.

This in no way is to be misconstrued as a “quota per person” on sugar, but let it become more expensive and it will become a greater economic choice for people to make.

Full disclosure – I love a PayDay bar every so often, but the prices have come down so far it’s a quick and easy choice to only pay $.25 cents for a days worth of sugar.

By: Janet Camp

Janet Camp — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:17:52 +0000

The sugar debacle is just another example of how entrenched the lobbyist system has become. To top it off, they’ve had themselves (or their money, anyway) declared “free speech”. It really is wrecking the country.