Just removing subsidies on corn would solve the core problem. There are lots of things corn is used for that shouldn't be corn that also get fixed by that.
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
98 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
1454 readers
75 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Pet food
No, because just banning things rarely achieves the desired results.
And whether itβs cane sugar or high fructose corn syrup, too much sugar in general is the problem, much more so than the subtle differences between the two.
From a practical perspective, cane sugar just tastes better.
That is true
The downside of HFCS isn't the syrup itself, but the fact that it is so cheap and is easily able to be added to make things taste "better" for basically no cost.
I would end the corn subsidies in America. They make bank anyway
Not ban. No.
However, I would tax it at exactly the same rate as the corn and farm subsidies lower its cost, to make its actual price reflect reality.
Let's just tax it. Last time I've looked (a while ago) HFCS was at about $400/t. Just add a tax of $800/t that solely goes to programs fighting obesity.
No, why would I? I'd end the US corn subsidies for basic economics reasons, and it would become less of a thing as a result, but it's not a bad technology itself.
No, because, it does not fix the root problem.
Also, banning things isn't the way to fix things.
I would also be a hypocrite for changing to legalize pot, while also chanting to ban corn-based sugars.
They enacted a ban on plastic grocery bags here two years ago to eliminate all the extras being blown across fields. Didn't help, I still see them blowing down the streets, and lots of people re-using their bags because they're so much more convenient (plus a lot of people would rather just pay the small tax to use the plastic bags). Who knows, maybe in twenty years all of the bags will be gone, but it's been a huge hassle for everyone both as consumers and for the stores to re-work their checkout lines because it takes so much more time to use these bags.
We also have a nearby town where they started taxing people for sugary drinks like sodas. Last I heard, it hasn't changed the amount of purchases by any noticeable amount. People just do their shopping in another town and local stores miss out on the profits.
I imagine for the high fructose, the same thing will happen. People will just pay the tax and not care. This really comes down to being just another tax on the poor which doesn't have any affect on people who make more money. These bans are slowly taking away every option that poor people can afford, when if anyone really cared about changing people's habits they would make healthier choices the same price or cheaper than the unhealthy ones. Since I make a decent wage, my wife and I tried eating healthy for a couple months. It nearly broke us because good foods cost so much more. I'm not talking about buying all organic, rather just trying to change the type of foods we ate. My wife did a ton of research to find things that we both thought sounded tasty, and they really were good, but we had no money left over to do anything fun so we spent the whole time sitting at home watching TV.
tl;dr -- Real change comes from making healthy choices cheaper, NOT by making unhealthy choices more expensive.
Our city banned plastic bags, and it's completely changed the city. Sure, there's still plastic trash, but there's virtually no plastic bags stuck in trees or blowing in the street. Noticed this over the past 8-10 years.
Yeah same, except it was later overturned where I live and they came right back. Luckily, at lesser numbers, because more of us were used to bringing our own by then.
Exactly my opinion, banning won't solve the problem, and there can be valid uses for it. Best solution would be requiring a holistic approach to things, as in requiring proving that any substance used with harmful effects is the best choice in that particular use and that the use case is a valid use case in the first place for the society
I think we just need a way to incentivize corporations to provide healthy alternatives as well (and not just HFCS, but high sugars in general, etc). Not sure of the best approach, but the bigger issue is that when every corporation is pushing cheap sellers that are addictive, its no wonder most people eat them. Like, McDonalds alone isn't responsible, but corporations in general because their basically saying they can't be held responsible for being successful. But they're putting so much money into being successful and trying to be successful, that it's difficult when you have such large entities pushing that way but then saying "it's not our fault people are going in the direction we push"
Incentivizing a company to do anything besides turn a profit is impossible. You must beat them into submission so that the only choice they have is to conform with the overall public health policy. Removing subsidies on Corn would be a good idea to specifically address HFCS in everything. An even better idea would be to just socialize food production and remove the profit from it and instead prioritize healthy affordable food for the citizenry.
I mean, if we're talking about impossible things, changing the world economic structure is one of them.
You can't socialize food production without socializing the entire economy of the world. Many countries rely on food production as their number one source of income. So you can't just socialize one industry. Let alone getting the world to play along.
An incentive could be "offer healthy alternatives otherwise something bad will happen." It requires meddling with the system and ignoring the free market, but sounds like I don't think you'd disagree with disruption in the free market.
One country, the US, could absolutely take it's food off the world market and if I had the power to "ban" HFCS, I would 100% socialize US food production.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Why? Itβs just sugar packaged differently and a harmless substance.
No, people should discipline themselves to eat responsibly. If you don't want to eat HFCS don't buy shit that contains it.
I wouldn't ban it but I would ban subsidized corn. The thing is, humans want a sweetener and sugar is just as bad if not worse. Actually the history of sugar is worse then the history of any drug or evil empire. More humans have suffered because of sugar that anything else ever created by man.
I feel like landmines and rape and staphylococcus (and drug resistant variants after that) could give sugar a run for its money if we are talking about the worst things of all time xD
If you want to see for yourself the absolute horror that is sugar, i suggest this CBC documentary
Thanks, I'll have to check it out!
As someone with fructose intolerance, yeah I would as it gives me diarrhea.
I mean, not ban, but certainly restrict.
It can stay but I'd like to restrict the packaging size of highly processed food and food that's otherwise extremely unhealthy.
For example breakfast cereal. Wtf? How does that even exist? Why was I allowed to eat a fucking bowl of that in the morning as a child?
Because being poor takes all your time. It's way quicker to let everyone get a bowl of cereal versus making food for an hour to find that nobody ate half their plate anyway.
We weren't poor I just annoyed my poor mom to get me cereals because of the toys.
We weren't poor I just annoyed my poor mom to get me cereals because of the toys.
Old and lower class* then lol.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yes, my brother's allergic and I don't want him to have to worry about it anymore.
Is the corn industry in USA not heavily subsidized, and then that product needs to be justified so HFCS was one that they figured they could squeeze $$ out of?
Itβs horrible for you, why produce it at all when the only reason it exists is to justify the government giving tax payersβ money to that bloated industry?
yes
Yea, but Iβm fructose intolerant and in itβs in nearly everything so Iβm biased
Can I ban surculose instead? Both are bad, but the distinct lack of regulation on surculose baffles me.
No because things shouldnβt be banned unless they cause unavoidable harm.
That's a bit glib. A pest control company can sell a chlorine gas spray just because it says it on the label?
load more comments
(3 replies)
Pretty sure it's already banned here but if it isn't then I absolutely would.
HFCS is a better alternative to sugar for the US. Not necessarily health wise (they both are about as equally terrible for you in the amounts Americans consume them), but in a logistical way. The other sources of sugar are sugarcane, which are only farmed in parts of 3 US states, and sugar beets, which are only farmed in 11 US states. Corn is farmed pretty much everywhere in the US, and we produce a lot more of it. This ensures that we have a much more stable supply of corn, which is important for a widespread staple ingredient in most US foods. This also means the US is not reliant on foreign imports for HFCS since it's produced domestically, ensuring US food security if a major exporter of sugar has to halt exports. This also gives the US an excuse to farm even more corn, increasing the supply of corn and making our supply more stable in the process. Outside of HFCS, corn is used in everything from animal feed to gasoline and batteries, which means running low on corn one year due to an unstable supply would devastate the US; HFCS helps prevent that. Federal corn subsidies also help make HFCS a much cheaper option than conventional sugars, keeping food prices lower which helps people afford to eat. The main argument against HFCS is the serious health effects that it causes when eaten in high amounts, but regular sugar which would replace HFCS in most foods causes the same problems in the amounts they are consumed while being significantly more problematic logistically for the US
Interesting read on obesity, and why sugar might not be the culprit we think it is.
Sure, I don't care. Don't think I ever had it.
As an American, that's crazy to think about. It's in almost everything in the US.
It's just sugar with more fearmongering, though.
It is just sugar, but it's not fear mongering. The reason it is in everything is because of our agricultural policies and manufactured food always uses sugar and salt to "short-circuit" our taste-buds that evolved for survival.
Sure, why not. Gotta ban something.
I wouldn't ban HFCS, I would just remove added sugar and HFCS from grocery items that don't need sweeteners or cconventionally never had sweeteners in them (it adds a lot of unnecessary calories, makes it harder for diabetics to shop, and usually tastes worse than unsweetened versions).
For example, I found pita bread with sweeteners in it (why? And yuck). Or most jarred tomato based pasta sauces (they typically make the sauce taste too sweet).
This seems to be a mainly American problem, though.
view more: next βΊ