Column #60 Loading

During the real Great Depression (1934) the sugar lobby got Congress to create a sweet deal for sugar farmers and politicians. They established a government mandated price for domestically produced sugar. It was a sweet deal until 1970 when high-fructose corn syrup grabbed a huge market share of the sweet stuff. In response, in 1977 the United States imposed a system of sugar tariffs and quotas that significantly increased the cost of imported sugar. This government meddling has been costly to consumers and taxpayers.

The U.S. Sugar Program is now a maze of government imposed price supports, import quotas, and tariffs that keep domestic sugar prices artificially high. This government “assistance” directly pads the pockets of farmers and indirectly pads the pockets of politicians in the form of political contributions. This sweetheart, crony capitalism loop is a national travesty.

By supporting sugar directly and grain crops indirectly with crop insurance, we get double doses of cheap sweet stuff that’s worse than cocain. And to think that parents give their children “sweet feeds” to keep them happy. All the while nutritional scientists tell us that sugar, corn syrup, other syrups and sweeteners along with foods high in carbohydrates (grain and seeds) are linked to many illnesses including metabolic syndrome, hypertension, CHD, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, insulin resistance, and obesity. Couple the “sugar” load with the ubiquitous Omega-3 deficiency (mostly from grain, seeds, nuts, oils, and grain-fed meats) and now you know why healthcare costs consume 18% of our nation’s GNP.

Amazingly some people want to eliminate sugar price supports so the sweet stuff will be cheaper. They believe cheaper sugar would lower the price of candy, pastries, frosted flakes, and other foods that we know are undesirable, and would spur the economy by employing more people in the manufacture of sweet stuff. But that’s ridiculous. Other than boosting employment for healthcare providers, switching food manufacturing from fewer healthy foods to more undesirable foods just shifts workers from producing one food to other.

Rather than ruining our nation’s health with more sugar, corn syrup, other syrups, very sweet fruit, grain, and seeds our government should treat those food groups the same as cigarettes. Tax them to the hilt!

With extra tax revenue, there would be money to give consumers tax breaks for buying the very healthiest foods such as green leafy vegetables (broccoli, kale, spinach, etc.), grass-fed meats, Omega-3 meats, and wild-caught seafood. Fruits would not be included in the subsidies because even most fruits are too sweet and deficient in nutrients to be considered healthy.

So imagine how consumers would respond to expensive oil, sugar, syrup, fruit, grain and seed products if the healthiest foods were less expensive. Then imagine the drop in healthcare costs to treat the thousands of chronic diseases attributable to bad foods. I think this would be a major win/win for the country.

What are the odds of this happening? Zero in the short term. But since governments use their tax codes to influence behavior, why not encourage and support politicians who might be open-minded to reversing tax codes and subsidies that are detrimental to health in general? In the meanwhile, it’s a good thing we are capable of making our own good decisions in spite of government meddling.

To your health.

Ted Slanker

Ted Slanker has been reporting on the fundamentals of nutritional research in publications, television and radio appearances, and at conferences since 1999. He condenses complex studies into the basics required for health and well-being. His eBook, The Real Diet of Man, is available online.

Don’t miss these links for additional reading:

U.S. Trade Policy Gouges American Sugar Consumers, The Heritage Foundation

Does Subsidizing Crops We're Told To Eat Less Of Fatten Us Up? NPR

Rubio: Our National Security Depends on Sugar Subsidies, National Review

History of Sugar, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia