Maybe the government could discourage the use of high-fructose corn syrup through food stamps.

[LoZoccolo]

I'm not really advocating this, but I had an idea that I'm leaving up for comments:

As we know, there has been a study linked high-fructose corn syrup to obesity such that the weight gain was actually disproportionately high compared to other sources of calories. There are two things that I think are true with respect to this problem as a political issue:

1. If you simply ban the stuff people will shoot it down because it's too easy to get people riled up with disinformation when they think that their soda is threatened.
2. State governments are in effect large purchasers of food through food stamp programs.

If the state governments were to demand quality product for the money spent and ban the purchase of certain foods and drinks that contained relatively large amounts of high-fructose corn syrup when other foods and drinks of the same type contained little or none, that would be one way to influence the use of this food additive without banning it. If the producers had to adjust to providing healthier food in order to tap the food stamp market, it would benefit people even outside that market.

Some possible difficulties with this plan:

1. Depending on how much money they are saving by using high-fructose corn syrup rather than sugar, the soft drink manufacturers alone might be highly incentivized to fight this and may be able to employ a lot of resources before it became a waste of their money.
2. The soft drink manufacturers might even be able to find allies on the left which view the diminished choice of recipients of food stamps as a greater problem than the effects of high-fructose corn syrup.

[iamjoy]

1. It Is Not Just Sodas

High fructose corn syrup is in juice drinks and soups, too. It's in solid foods as well - cereals, fruit snacks, baked goods, etc.

They ought to tax the stuff, but they never will. The big agri-businesses will run a campaign against it by saying how it will hurt the corn farmer - portraying the corn farmer as some family trying to eke out a living from the land. People will fall for it because they aren't aware that agri-business has already destroyed the family farmer.

[Retrograde]

13. and in bread, mayo, peanut butter

it sneaks in in a lot of foods. I try to avoid the stuff, but if you're going to buy processed foods it gets pretty hard to do.

[hughee99]

2. That would make a whole bunch of repukes happy, here's why...

Their argument for a lot of things (HCR, global warming, etc...) has been that the government is looking to get more power and make you more dependent on their services, and they will eventually use this power to tell you what you can and can't do.

They would absolutely love to point to this as an example of the government using a program to tell people what they can and can't do. "Sure, this is just food stamps, wait until government in charge of your health care or your carbon footprint" they'll say.

[fishwax]

10. repukes already want the government to tell people what they can and can't buy with food stamps

[libodem]

3. We ought to cut the farm subsidies that grow corn

it's welfare for corporations. I'm not so sure that corn in general is good for humans although I think the high fructose corn syrup is absolute poison. Corn is for pigs. It just fattens you up.

[bridgit]

4. And why not, its all been traded away for convenience and for too many already too late

http://www.conagrafoods.com

[unabelladonna]

5. food legislation?

it's almost impossible to find food that doesn't have HFCS. i read labels(trying to avoid it) and noticed that it's added to food that shouldn't even have sweeteners. why did it even replace sugar? at least sugar is natural....maddening.

[stray cat]

6. Just get rid of subsidies to farmers for corn

[Retrograde]

14. not as long as Iowa has the first caucus (n/t)

[ThatPoetGuy]

16. Here we have it, ladeeeez and gennelmen.

Just get rid of subsidies to corn.

It bears repeating.

And if that won't fly in the corn belt, just increase subsidies to sugar cane.

[Luminous Animal]

7. No ketchup for the poor! To the ramparts, liberals!

[Pharlo]

8. If you are forced to used SNAP for purchasing food,

you will buy the CHEAPEST product available. The CHEAPEST products available contain high fructose corn syrup. I'm talking breads, cereals, crackers..... So, forcing people who NEED the financial assistance to purchase more expensive staples is NOT going to help them much, is it? If I watch sales, I can get 2 loaves of bread for a dollar, but it has high fructose corn syrup. However, I cannot purchase a loaf of bread around here that does not contain HFCS for less than 3 dollars. And, that loaf of 3 dollar bread has fewer slices in it. Now, if I were on SNAP, and had children that inhaled bread, I'd get the six loaves of cheap bread before I'd get the expensive bread.

So, yes, let's hit the people who can least afford it with further hardships if they want to try to purchase food for their families.

Just out of curiousity, do you naively think that the government, out of the kindness of its heart, is going to increase the SNAP funds to purchase the costlier items? I certainly don't. Personally, I suspect they'd lower the available SNAP funds first.

I will stipulate that when everyone who wants a full time wage living job has a full time wage living job, THEN we can start worrying about trivialities like restricting corn syrup in their diets. Until then, I'm sure they prefer to be able to feed their families even if the evil food contains the wicked HFCS.

Personally, I TRY to avoid HFCS as much as possible. It is not always easy. I don't drink soda, I've had to give up juices, because I can't afford the organic 'non HFCS' containing juice at five dollars for eight ounces. I watch the bread I purchase, the peanut butter I buy (once again another price level completely between HFCS and non HFCS containing product). Pretty much across the board, I TRY to not purchase HFCS items. Sometimes, you can't get an item without HFCS without paying through the nose. Not something a person depending on SNAP for food can afford to do.

Personally, I believe that if the government seriously wanted to curtail the use of HFCS in foods, they could simply remove corn subsidies. Once again, however, this will affect the people who can least afford it - the people on SNAP will still be forced to contend with higher food prices as the cheap HFCS is removed from prodects and replaced with something most likely equally as toxic to our long term health.

Even if you limit this ban to soda and candy/chips, you are, essentially, saying to anyone who needs to apply for SNAP funding that in your personal opinion, you think they are too stupid to make their own food selections and ought not be allowed to buy a bag of cheap chips or cheap candy for their kids as a treat. 'A non HFCS containing substitute' is, most likely, going to be priced completely out of the budget for a family requiring SNAP assistance.

[mrcheerful]

11. Which btw is most likely whats behind the OP's post, sugar coated

the poor need to be forced into buying food I think they should be eating type. Only this time so I don't get called out on my crap I'll sugar coat it as looking out for their health. Hey OP, why don't you demand that food stamps are increased so the poor don't have to turn to cheap foods that are unhealthy that they are forced to buy because if they bought healthy they would starve to death after 4 or 5 meals? Oh yeah thats right its easier to call the poor out because they dare to buy crap that you have decided as bad for them.

[enlightenment]

17. Thank you - a thoughtful response to

another holier-than-thou OP.

[drm604]

9. Add trans-fats to the list.

I don't have a problem with the government deciding that food subsidies (food stamps) should be limited to purchasing healthy food, or at least food that doesn't contain things like hfcs and trans-fats. It's simply wise use of tax dollars.

[Robb]

12. You could accomplish the same thing

...by removing corn subsidies and using the savings to offer tax incentives to businesses that produce inexpensive "staples" without HFCS -- and target SNAP users with lower-cost, government-subsidized goods that are more nutritious.

Oh, the red-baiting we'd endure, though....

[nashville_brook]

15. why not tax the fuck out of the corporations pouring the shit into our food?

[Fla_Democrat]

22. that's worked well with cigarettes

I say let's give it a try. :smoke:

[nashville_brook]

25. instead of a "sin tax" we could call it the "evil fuck tax"

to clarify --tax the corporations who enhance their bottom line with shortcuts and lies.

[unabelladonna]

18. my question is......

why in heaven's name are sweeteners added to soups and bread? foods that if anything should be salty (my preference). do people actually enjoy sweeteners in their chicken noodle soup?

...and this is merely a subsidy for corn growers because they're more powerful than the sugar growers? help! i'm really curious.

[Desertrose]

19. Maybe to make sure we are all addicted to the taste.....

....worked pretty well so far I'd say.

[Codeine]

20. When HFCS gets banned and everyone is still overweight,

what will the next target for dietary hysteria be?

[dembotoz]

21. no no no no no no no no no

and a few more.
no no no

a person should be allowed to eat what a person wants to eat

rich, poor, thin, fat.

I am all for food education.
I am all for food inspection and safety measures.
I am all for making good wholesome food available at a lower cost.

But in the end, I do not want some fool jerk off at the store telling me i have to put back an item i want.

[unabelladonna]

23. i agree

everyone should be allowed to eat whatever crap they choose but it's really difficult to find ANYTHING that doesn't have HFCS. i'll have to spend more time reading labels or...heaven forbid....cook from scratch.

[mrcheerful]

24. Even then unless you grow everything your cooking and use it fresh from your garden

you are still going to end up with a intake of HFCS of some sort or another. Even home canned foods, like tomato's, add sugar to keep the acid taste low from the tomato, which is high in acid. Which has lead to some folks believing sugar takes acid out of tomato made foods, so there are folks out there adding sugar to any foods with tomato's in them.