Add a Sweeter Taste to Free Trade
I think High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is pretty much evil. The rise in use (see graph to the left) of HFCS rises eerily parallel rise in obesity in this country. Now scientists haven't proven anything yet, but loads of studies are being done (that's fine, it;s how science is supposed to work).I happen to be of the school of thought that anything "natural," i.e. found in nature, or in use for a really long time. This makes cane sugar a much more attractive product to me than HFCS (crystalized sugar was around in India 2500 years ago).
Now I could assume that most people share my feelings at least insofar as they prefer to eat things they can pronounce or that don't have a need for acronyms. Why the switch then? HFCS is easier to mix, being a syrup, and it has a longer shelf life than cane sugar. But there is a third reason: The Government.
Wikipedia (with citations):
Because of a system of price supports and sugar quotas imposed since May 1982, importing sugar into the United States is prohibitively expensive. High fructose corn syrup, derived from corn, is more economical since the American price of sugar is artificially far higher than the global price of sugar[8] and the price of #2 corn is artificially low due to both government subsidies and dumping on the market as farmers produce more corn annually.[9][10]
In fact, the agribusiness lobby has spent a lot of money keeping the price of sugar high (near to totally impossible to grow in the US) and the price of corn low. Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) is one such agribusiness. According to CATO:
ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30.
Firms like ADM not only cost taxpayers money, but they also keep trade more restricted. Sugar was one of the major products specifically exempted in NAFTA and CAFTA. For example, one of the major provisions of CAFTA is "duty-free import and elimination of subsidies on agricultural products (not including sugar). [Emphasis mine]"
So there you have it. The government helping Americans fatten themselves and big business.
Another side issue is that agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA hurt the cause of real free trade by masquerading as free trade while still being government-controlled trade operations. This allows them to pass with enough restrictions and loopholes to essentially establish corporate welfare. And this hurts American consumers and international business owners/farmers.
| Permalink | 
