Sugar subsidies

Via Boortz comes a link to this article which discusses the sugar industry's reaction to artificial sweeteners, notably Splenda, and also addresses government subsidies of the sugar industry and how it results in artificially high prices, additional costs to taxpayers, and other related deleterious effects.

On a recent trip to Victoria, British Columbia, the Geekette and I went into a shop selling various souvenir items and assorted snacks. I purchased a Coke because I had heard that in Canada (as well as in Mexico and other countries) it is made with real cane sugar. Here in the United States, high fructose corn sweetener is used instead. What I had heard was correct and, indeed, the taste was noticeably different than the Coke we have down here. (I also learned that in Canada Mountain Dew has no caffeine due to some sort of law or regulation dictating that only brown-colored drinks such as colas can contain caffeine.)

So why is this? The artificially high price of sugar from the aforementioned subsidies is the cause. Soft drink manufacturers can't afford to pay the price for sugar and sell their products at a competitive price. Therefore they turn to a less expensive alternative that may not taste as good, but is good enough. This brings me to a point that the linked article did not address.

Enter Archer Daniels Midland. As the leading manufacturer of high fructose corn syrup, it is in the best interest of their bottom line for sugar prices to remain higher than the price of an equivalent quantity, in terms of sweetening ability, of their product. Therefore they lobby heavily, backed by large political contributions, to keep the sugar subsidies going. It's a double-whammy. The sugar industry makes inordinate profit on what they sell and ADM makes an inordinate profit on what they sell. It's a clear example of why this kind of corporate welfare is so damaging to the economy and so unfair to taxpayers and consumers.