var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Mr.Duke
August 13, 2009 7:57 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Sugar futures have had a big run up on the commodity markets in recent months.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
hungryhomer
August 13, 2009 7:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sugar shortage? Oh what a shame that would be. People would have to go without their sodas and chocolate bars. Oh, the agony. In any event, I would imagine that artificial sweeteners would pick up the slack. After all, people need to get their processed crap food somehow.

Reply
12 replies
\"user-pic\"
henrygates
August 14, 2009 12:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hungryhomer: Most sodas are made with HFCS, not sugar. Sugar is far better for you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
t0ph
August 13, 2009 9:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hungryhomer: Wow, Mr. Highfalutin Hungry Homer's sensibilities are offended? All those fat, ignorant, miserable red-state living folk stuffing their faces with Hershey bars and downing it with Coca Cola probably deserve it, huh?

Ugh...suck it, Trebeck.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
hungryhomer
August 13, 2009 9:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@t0ph: Uh oh, looks like Mr. Cranky needs a nap!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
t0ph
August 13, 2009 9:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hungryhomer: I just need something sweet, I get like this when my blood sugar goes down.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Persistence - Long viv revolisyon an konsomatè yo!
August 13, 2009 8:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hungryhomer: That's why I grow stevia in my back yard. 100% natural and much less harmful than sugar. I crush it in tea and coffee.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
August 14, 2009 12:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Persistence: I have NEVER heard of that. I just Googled it. That's neat. Do you squash it? Dry it? Can I get it at the health food store?

I wanna try it!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
August 15, 2009 3:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HogwartsAlum: just found this powdered stevia leaf accidentally: [www.wildroots.com]

[i love this online store by the way, fantastic service and prices for me consistently so far]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
August 13, 2009 10:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Persistence: sadly, just sweetening isn't what i need sugar for, and stevia [supposedly, according to my nutritionist] could make a hypoglycemic attack worse.... so you keep using stevia and leave the real sugars for me, thanks!
[and that's very cool about growing it in the backyard]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JulesNoctambule
August 13, 2009 9:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Persistence: Unfortunately for me, stevia doesn't do so well in baked goods. My business needs the real deal!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
veg-o-matic
August 13, 2009 8:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Persistence: Stevia is the s@#%! Plus, powdered stevia lasts for-ev-er.

Also: BINGO!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
August 13, 2009 8:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hungryhomer: they wouldn't have to go without shit, there isn't sugar in anything anymore!!


I mean I really wonder how there could be a shortage at all.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
August 13, 2009 8:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@The Porkchop Express: Exactly. Since when has anything made by Kraft, General Mills or Hershey had sugar in it? Just about everything these companies produce is loaded with corn syrup.

I find this blatant threat to be rather damning on these huge food conglomerates. They throw out a fear tactic (that was unfounded) then threaten to fire people and jack food prices. Of course they do this at a time when lots of people are unemployed and food prices are already straining people's finances.

This kind of threat to the public sounds like a good reason to boycott all of their products.

This is why you do not let a few companies control such a large section of the food supply.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jesse
August 13, 2009 8:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hungryhomer:

Most soda here in the US is sweetened with high fructose corn syrup, which is corn based.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hooray4Zoidberg
August 13, 2009 8:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hungryhomer: So I take it the hungryhome avatar is meant to be ironic?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Hooray4Zoidberg
August 13, 2009 8:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Aren't most of these companies primarily using high fructose corn syrup nowadays anyhow?

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
August 13, 2009 8:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hooray4Zoidberg: Yes. Their threat is flawed. So with no basis it is just a random threat at the public. Do what we want or we will jack food prices.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TVarmy
August 14, 2009 12:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: DEREGULATE SUGAR OR THE TWINKIES GET IT!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
August 14, 2009 12:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: i don't think this is about jacking prices. imo, it's major food producers taking on big sugar (finally). wall street's lobbying power doesn't hold a candle to sugar. some people say our embargo on cuba began & remains b/c of their efforts (american sugar farmers lost thousands of acres of land in the nationalization of the island). read about sugar, the everglades & political contribs. to see how dirty they really are.

also, manufacturers use HFCS specifically b/c US sugar is 2-3x more expensive than most of the rest of the world. think about it: how is a harvested, refined & processed product cheaper than a product that is simply harvested & refined? b/c sugar farmers succeed in maintaining control over the price of their product.

i think it's more of a \"please kill these ridiculous protectionist policies so that we can buy sugar on the global market, like anything else\" & personally, i hope they succeed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ChunkyBarf
August 14, 2009 12:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto: You are leaving ADM [en.wikipedia.org] (Link) out of the picture. They have a lot to do with determining the price of sugar ... and yes their lobbying power is enormous.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BroScience
August 13, 2009 8:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hooray4Zoidberg: yeah, what the heck are they talking about?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
veg-o-matic
August 13, 2009 8:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

North Dakota and the Great Lakes region are still in bidness.

And thus begins the great 2009-2010 Red River Valley Sugarbeet Migration..

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
August 13, 2009 11:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@veg-o-matic: Dwight Schrute checked sugar futures and just called Michael and yelled \"I quit!\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
veg-o-matic
August 14, 2009 3:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Traveshamockery: haha.

I always knew one day I'd have to wrap up all my belongings in a sheet and make some sort of Grand Epic Trek somewhere.

If it's a long, dusty haul to North Dakota to seek my fortune sucking sucrose out of some tubers, so be it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
August 13, 2009 9:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@veg-o-matic: Good point. Between HFCS and beet sugar there is no shortage of sweeteners.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jesse
August 13, 2009 8:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@veg-o-matic:

The sugar beet industry is much of the driving force behind the tariffs for imported cane sugar.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
morganlh85
August 13, 2009 8:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, good thing then that nothing is actually made with SUGAR anymore. Good old CORN will get us through, right? lol

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Pop Socket
August 13, 2009 8:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The Fanjuls must have missed a payment to one of their pet congressmen.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
catcherintheeye
August 13, 2009 8:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

NYMEX Sugar No. 11 (which is the kind of sugar used in candy) futures as of today:

SUGAR #11 (WORLD) (USd/lb.) 22.210 -0.760

[www.nymex.com]

If there truly was risk of a shortage at this time, we'd see it here, and with a change of -0.760 today and with Mar 10 being the highest contract at 24.200, I think we're OK.

Interestingly, July 2010 has a lower rate than Mar 10 (22.070), which means that the markets are probably expecting there to be a glut of supply in July (I would assume - I'm not a sugar trader)

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
August 13, 2009 11:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@catcherintheeye: umm, the only problem i see with that is that you are using a global commodity market, but nationally, sugar is protected with both tariffs & quotas which aren't reflected in that ticker.

this reuters article does a little better job explaining it (imo) --> [www.publicbroadcasting.net]

basically, as long as we still have sugar to meet demand we are ok. we're f-ed if we hit the import quota though, b/c then sugar gets taxed out the bajing-jang. according to the article above, we seem to be ok b/c domestic supply has increased, but if that's wrong, we could see a huge run-up in price.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Garbanzo
August 13, 2009 8:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@catcherintheeye: You say \"USd/lb.\" which I interpret as \"US dollars per pound\", but actual prices (including at the link you posted) seem to be 1/100 of that -- around 22 US cents per pound.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catcherintheeye
August 13, 2009 8:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Garbanzo: You are right - I multiplied the contracts by 100 to keep consistent with Bloomberg.

Sorry for the confusion!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Persistence - Long viv revolisyon an konsomatè yo!
August 13, 2009 8:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Perhaps now that Johns Hopkins has proven that high fructose corn syrup makes you fat, they're concerned about the impending consumer demand for cane sugar.

[www.sciencedaily.com]

There's also a rumor floating around (don't remember if I read it here) that aspartame will finally be banned by the FDA.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
August 14, 2009 12:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Persistence: well, it is about time for that patent to expire, isn't it? that's how the sweetener industry works: sell us a fake sweetner (saccharin) until generics can come out, then stuff a rat full of 800 diet sodas to prove it's cancer-causing. voila! saccharin banned, aspartame wins total control of the marketplace.

rinse, repeat every 20 years. aspartame is actually a little late - it should have been banned a decade again when sucralose hit the market.

don't worry, we'll all get to revisit the drama again sometime around 2020. yay!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
techstar25
August 13, 2009 8:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Persistence: Huffington Post recently reported that aspartame may be banned soon. However like everything at HuffPo, the article was filled with rumors, speculation, wild assumptions, and no hard facts to speak of. ;)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
socalrob of the 24 and a half century
August 13, 2009 8:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This sounds more like a way to increase profits. Drop the terrifs so we pay less and we may not fire people or raise prices.


People might be buying less right now of this crap, so if you raise prices even less will sell, and it just creates a vicious cycle. At least thats how I see it.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Jesse
August 13, 2009 8:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@socalrob of the 24 and a half century:

That's the argument the US sugar industry is using. Food companies are simply wanting to lower their input prices so they can increase margins.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheFlamingoKing
August 13, 2009 8:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@socalrob of the 24 and a half century:
@Jesse:
Pretty weak understanding of free market economics here...

Tariffs automatically raise the price of goods artificially. So the price is inflated currently because of the government intervention.

If tariffs were removed, the companies could get their sugar at the lowest price globally without interference. Thus, they could offer the same product at the same price, and pocket the profit.

However, in a free market, any one of the competitors could choose to lower their price in response. Consumers have choice as to whether they want to pay for the product, or switch to other alternatives. So if even one company lowers their price, all must in response or risk losing business. The loss of business most often offsets any gains they would have from profit-taking off the cheaper sugar. So they'd lose business in the long run, which is not in the best interest of the ownership or employees.

If none of them lower prices because they have some arrangement between companies to artificially drive up prices, that's called collusion, and anti-trust lawyers should bust that deal up and fine the companies. That's part of government's job. But even if they don't, all it takes is one company to break the collusion, whether it's new or part of the alliance, and the deal is done anyway.

Typical for a Consumerist article to imply the natural reason for any corporate activity is to rip them off, though.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
harvey_birdman
August 14, 2009 12:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

American Sugar Alliance appears to be a front for home grown Corn Producers. So of course they would oppose the lowering of tariffs, as that allows them to continue selling us HFCS instead of importing real sugar.


ASA is owned by Combest Sell & Associates, which is closely aligned with Monsanto Company and the Minnesota Corn Growers.


[www.muckety.com]


They have a biased point of view and I would be automatically suspicious of anything they say on this issue.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
socalrob of the 24 and a half century
August 13, 2009 10:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheFlamingoKing: @Jesse:
I also understand tariffs and free markets work, although I do not have an accounting degree so it might not be as well of an understanding.


Either way, companies these days, in america at least, seem to be wanting to generate profits over quality, and artifically keep prices high (sometimes not always) to do that. When companies become less dictated by their stockholders, prices will drop to a more managable level. My oppinion at least.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jesse
August 13, 2009 9:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheFlamingoKing:

I understand how tariffs and free markets work (I have an accounting degree) and do agree that the argument that the sugar industry is using is bogus.

Another force you have to consider are large customers such as \"The Great Satan\" (a.k.a. Wal-Mart) who tend to be price hawks and use their purchasing power leverage to get the price down.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
edguitar
August 13, 2009 8:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

In the meantime GOvernor Crist decided to flood the sugar plantations in south FL, hey now is a great time to lift the cuban embargo and get sugar for cheap

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
August 13, 2009 11:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@edguitar: There's no way Cuba could provide even a fraction of the sugar that would be required if the US really ran into a major sugar deficit. They're not producing thousands of tons of sugar right now just hoping we'll drop the embargo.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
trujunglist
August 13, 2009 11:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Traveshamockery:

There are other countries that use sugar and probably get it from Cuba.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
August 13, 2009 8:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@edguitar: Because that was previously a wetland. Wetlands not only supply oxygen and whatnot, they also contributes lower destructive forces of hurricanes.


I'm with you on the embargo. But people have spent so much time calling him a commie, that now he can't touch that issue.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Persistence - Long viv revolisyon an konsomatè yo!
August 13, 2009 9:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: If he's the statesman I hope him to be, he will make great changes at the risk of losing popularity. Sometimes one must put the needs of the country above the need for re-election.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jesse
August 13, 2009 8:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's interesting how much of an impact ethanol has had on the sweetener industry.

Brazil is a huge sugar supplier of cane sugar to the gobal market. But their sugar output hasn't been increasing to meet demand since more sugar cane production has been going towards making ethanol.

Here in the United States, food companies use a lot of high fructose corn syrup. But that's getting more expensive since corn prices have shot up over the past couple years (although they are down this year) due to more corn being allocated to make ethanol.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
ARP
August 13, 2009 8:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jesse: Corn ethanol is a waste. Both conservatives and republicans don't like it. However, they both want breadbasket votes, so they both keep on pushing it to all our detriment.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ARP
August 13, 2009 8:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: Meant Liberals and Conservatives. Although you can argue, that Republicans aren't really conservative anymore.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
edguitar
August 13, 2009 8:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jesse: which is really dumb because ethanol made from corn is more expensive than sugar cane ethanol

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jesse
August 13, 2009 8:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@edguitar:

Ethanol producers can't use sugar cane because of the import tariffs.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
edguitar
August 13, 2009 8:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jesse: There are suganr plantations in FL, LA, GA and HI they dont produce ethanol because they dont get the same breaks as corn farmers

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Sudonum
August 14, 2009 1:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@edguitar:
Cane growers get plenty of breaks of their own they're the beneficiaries of the tariffs. Ethanol from cane is still in it's infancy here in the US, unlike Brazil. [en.wikipedia.org]

Here's an article about a company that is pioneering the effort here [greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com] and they're using a different type of sugar cane that is is \"more fiber than syrup\" than the cane that is refined into syrup.

I live in cane country in Louisiana, lately I've noticed that some cane fields have been planted this last season with something other than cane (they don't plant cane, it just grows back after they cut it and burn the fields). I'm not sure what it is since I'm not much of a horticulturist. Looks like it might be a bean crop of some type.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
edguitar
August 14, 2009 6:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Sudonum: That is probably rice that is what they use to rotate cane fields in FL. I know sugar companies get paid a lot to produce just sugar but I'm sure tey don't get as much breaks when it comes to ethanol at school (in south FL) we propose the idea to US crystals to let us produce some ethanol they said it wasn't a viable idea they just don't wanna hear much of the sugar base ethanol

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
geeky_reader
August 13, 2009 8:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe they're worried about meeting the high (and more expensive) demands for non-HFCS products.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
hegemonyhog
August 13, 2009 11:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: You can't do that without basically raising the price on everything we eat.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
August 13, 2009 8:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Trick or treat, suckahs!

Which reminds me that the local Savers store has its huge Halloween costume display already set up as you walk in the front door.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
LastError
August 14, 2009 3:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: Our local Walmarts and Targets already have Christmas stuff out in the aisles.

The big Halloween push is not even out yet: they hold off until back to school is done and THEN the candy drops right in to where school supplies are now.

When the candy is done, more Christmas stuff.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BytheSea
August 13, 2009 10:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: I'm flashing on Haloween this year: blocks and blocks of turned off porch lights and some rednecks with shotguns scaring off the kids who think they be gettin they spensive sugar.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
balthisar
August 13, 2009 8:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, a shortage isn't related to quantity available per se; it's whether that quanity is available at the market price. Whether we like it or not, it's a world market, and (not having fact-checked the article) it would appear that the market price is lower than what the tarriff-protected US industry is asking. Lifting the tarriffs won't increase supply; it will lower costs, which is always a good thing, unless you're a tarriff-protected, US sugar producer.

I'm from Michigan, and so I've already seen the loss of manufacturing jobs; I guess the loss of sugar-producing jobs is next. It sucks, but you have to do the right thing regardless of the consequences.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
quail
August 13, 2009 9:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@balthisar: We've been paying a higher price for sugar than the rest of the world for a very long time. It's not a new development. When the tariff first went into place, numerous candy manufacturers closed shop in the USA and went elsewhere to produce their products.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Skater009
August 13, 2009 8:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hey - That is what we get for moving the sugar production to other countries. So it the corporations own fault . remember Hawaii folks.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
CFinWV
August 13, 2009 8:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hungryhomer: Well you know, if this *does* happen the repercussions are worse than people just not having food that causes you to stick your nose up in the air. Think about it, chief.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Overheal
August 13, 2009 9:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Let them Eat Cake. Raise the fucking candy prices. Maybe when an apple is 5 times cheaper than a snickers we'll see the average diet take a dramatic shift.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
lawnmowerdeth
August 14, 2009 3:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Overheal: Thanks, food police! Maybe you should mind your own business instead!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
August 14, 2009 12:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Overheal: It does cost more to eat healthy. Processed food is cheaper. That is exactly the opposite of what it should be, but since people don't have time/space/knowledge to grow their own, what are ya gonna do?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
August 13, 2009 11:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Overheal: Yes, government should definitely abuse tariffs and other protectionist tactics to cut down junk food intake. Right.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
hegemonyhog
August 13, 2009 11:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Traveshamockery: Well, the reason we have so much junk food is because we keep corn prices artificially low.

So really, the reason we eat so much shit is because of government pork. Or, well, government corn.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Persistence - Long viv revolisyon an konsomatè yo!
August 13, 2009 9:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Overheal: AMEN! My mother never let me have a soda (which I ONLY got at my grandparents house which was 6 hours away) before noon AND I had to buy any candy I wanted with my own money (which I actually had to earn) AND donuts, only after church every other Sunday! Damn sugar junkies! Get off my lawn!!!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
morlo
August 13, 2009 9:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Overheal: When that happens foie gras will be cheaper than apples, and people will get even fatter, unless diamonds are cheaper than foie gras, in which case people will be starving, since they will be too distracted by the shiny piles in the supermarket.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
MauriceCallidice
August 13, 2009 9:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: \"Since when has anything made by Kraft, General Mills or Hershey had sugar in it?\"

I just checked a box of General Mills cereal: number two ingredient is sugar. Hershey's Special Dark Miniatures: number one ingredient: sugar.

I don't have any sweet Kraft products handy to check, but you're clearly not correct in suggesting that these companies only, or even primarily, use HFCS for sweeteners in all their products.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
brianary
August 13, 2009 10:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MauriceCallidice: Rii-ght. Because you checked two things. Nothing beats a non-representative, non-random, tiny sample of anecdotal evidence.

Check your bread, fruit snacks (where appropriate), soda pop, yogurt, orange juice, trail mix, &c.

Actually, I dare you to buy only non-HFCS stuff on your next grocery shopping trip, just to see if you even can.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
henrygates
August 14, 2009 12:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@brianary: They also smear it all over the vegetables in the produce department.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MauriceCallidice
August 13, 2009 11:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@brianary: \"Because you checked two things. Nothing beats a non-representative, non-random, tiny sample of anecdotal evidence.\"

When something is stated as an absolute, even a single (non-random) data point can refute it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
August 13, 2009 11:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@brianary:

Actually, I dare you to buy only non-HFCS stuff on your next grocery shopping trip, just to see if you even can.

But it's made from corn! And it's fine in moderation! ;)
Reply
\"user-pic\"
MauriceCallidice
August 13, 2009 10:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@brianary: I didn't say there wasn't any HFCS in their products. bohemian implied that none of their products contained any sugar. It took my 5 seconds of label checking to prove that incorrect.

Yes, lots of consumer products use HFCS. But lots also use sugar. Sometimes as the primary ingredient. It's simply wrong to claim that it isn't used by major corporations, and therefore the cost of sugar is a non-issue.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
JeromeEso
August 13, 2009 9:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So there is not sugar shortage, the sugar companies are just trying to blackmail the government and scare consumers with high prices so they can get rid of tariff charges?

Let them charge more. People need to eat less junk food and maybe that will help some diets.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
August 13, 2009 11:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JeromeEso: They're scared that they will have to pay for everyone's healthcare ... hence the pre-emptive attack on sensibility.

Bring back rationing. There, that'll work.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Triterion
August 13, 2009 9:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, the sugar tariffs were originally created to protect our own sugar refineries by making local production relatively cheaper, so if they reduce the tariffs they will also cause the loss of US jobs that refine the sugar! Thus nullifying their own point! The price of sugar would go way down though, that's a tough one.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Triterion
August 13, 2009 9:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Triterion: P.S. I wrote that while eating an ice cream cone.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
August 13, 2009 11:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Triterion: It least it wasnt't a 3 liter bottle of Mountain Dew (my favorite source of HFCS).

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Homerjay. Good and good for you.
August 13, 2009 9:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So it's true- First you get the sugar. Then you get the power. Then you get the women.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
kaceetheconsumer
August 14, 2009 6:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rectilinear Propagation: I recall it as \"weeeeeeemen.\"

So maybe Homer meant a Nac Mac Feegle. Which would be beautifully wrong.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
quail
August 13, 2009 9:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Actually, high tariffs were put into place back in the last century to help the Florida sugar cane market. It actually gave a monopoly to the Fla sugar cane manufacturers and put big money into their pockets. Because of the tariffs and the high cost of sugar in the USA, relative to the rest of the world, numerous candy manufacturers closed shop in the US and went to produce their products elsewhere. There's a good argument that high fructose corn syrup's wide spread use wouldn't have gotten out of hand if American's paid world prices for their sugar and not the inflated price caused by the tariff and sugar cane cartel in Fla.

The sugar tariff's been hurting the food industry in the US for ages. It's time for its demise.

And it's probably a good time to call for it too, since sugar cane fields in Fla are past their prime of productivity.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
August 13, 2009 11:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@quail: Just tax the HFCS and be done with it. HFCS and sugar have been hurting children's teeth for ages. That, and contributing to the obesity problem for ages. Let's not become dependent on foreign energy in the form of sugar.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
mauispiderweb
August 13, 2009 10:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

HC&S is still in business here on Maui ... acres and acres of sugar cane and no import tariffs. You'd think they'd be doing well, huh?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
emona
August 13, 2009 10:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I use sugar in my tea. I was under the impression candy bars used corn syrup.

I'm echoing the comments from above - who fucking cares? Raise the price. Maybe if a Snickers cost $3 mom will give Junior an orange instead when he wants a sweet treat.

Then again, the only really sugary thing I eat is chocolate covered cashews from the bulk bin. THOSE use sugar, but I'm already paying $6 a lb and would gladly pay $6 more, God help me.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
brianary
August 13, 2009 10:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

US corporations manufacturing a crisis (interestingly, the only thing we still manufacture in the US anymore). Anything to avoid paying a living wage to Americans.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
valleyval
August 13, 2009 10:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@brianary: Not trying to be a jerk but it's actually not that hard to buy food without HFCS.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
NoPornstar
August 14, 2009 4:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@valleyval: I'm with you. Several brands of bread are now going HFCS-free, I noticed recently, and I can manage to find yogurts, sodas and other foods without it, no problem. It's easier at places like Whole Foods, but I can find HFCS-less products at Super Target, too. Plus, I buy a lot of unprocessed foods - meat, fresh veggies, fruit, rice - or just make my own soups and cookies, etc.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jblaze1
August 13, 2009 10:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The reason that HFCS was invented (and primarily used) in the USA is the sugar tariff.

Why would the Sugar Association, who's members benefit from the tariff say there is a shortage? That is counter-intuitive.

Poor reporting consumerist.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
August 13, 2009 11:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There's no shortage. Just pay the tariff and average it into the cost of the junk food. Or better yet, reduce the sugar content.

Sheesh ... I think these corporate executives need some quality bonding time ... with some prison bars.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
SilverBlade2k
August 13, 2009 11:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oh, no, what a crime. If the price of sugar increases, people may actually have to switch to healthier foods due to cost.

We can't let this happen /S

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
hegemonyhog
August 13, 2009 11:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oh, is this like when all the food manufacturers had to raise prices because of the gas crisis, and then kept the prices high when gas prices fell in half?

This is like that, isn't it. Hot damn!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
ShariC
August 13, 2009 11:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The commenters who are talking about sugar as if the price mainly is going to factor into sweets are being a bit myopic. Sugar is used in a vast variety of goods including some staple foods like bread (since some sugar is generally required for the yeast to feed on in bread making). Sugar prices going up will affect the cost of much more than just candy.

Granted, sweets use more sugar than other foods, but you're likely to see price increases across the board, not just on candy bars. Also, frankly, can we give the idea that everyone is scarfing down candy and getting fat a rest? Cheap refined carbohydrates are generally responsible for the obesity epidemic among the poor. If you think they can afford to snaffle down Hershey bars on a daily basis, then you've never really been poor. The way in which commenters jump on every single opportunity to fat bash or to deride American eating habits is getting tedious and adds nothing to the discussion. It's reached the same levels as the compulsion to say Starbucks tastes burnt every time a post about that particular company crops up.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
August 14, 2009 1:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ShariC: THIS

Clearly, most of the people here don't read the labels on the food they're buying. Which shouldn't be surprising since the fat bashers are the same people who always insist that people don't need to know the nutritional information for food at restaurants. Looks like making assumptions about what's in your food works just as badly in a Kroger store as it does in a Subway.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Greasy Thumb Guzik
August 14, 2009 12:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Come to the newly reopened & remodeled Dominick's in Chicago at 6623 N. Damen.
Sugar is 99¢ for 4 lbs. Limit 4. Until Aug 26.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
henrygates
August 14, 2009 12:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I hope they succeed and can expand the sugar soda market, because Coke made with sugar is awesome.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
LastError
August 14, 2009 3:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sugar is so much better for people, relatively speaking, than HFCS or Aspartame.

Freeing actual real sugar from the tariffs should have been done decades ago. Maybe we wouldn't have the epidemic of diabetes and obesity.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
golddog
August 14, 2009 3:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

We need science to start concentrating on genetically modifying dogs and cats so that when they metabolize their food, they poop out pure sugar. That will solve this crisis. Get on it Monsanto.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
stlemur
August 14, 2009 10:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

You know what would help lower sugar prices?

End the US embargo on Cuba. Cuba produces 3.2 million tons of sugar a year; the total annual US demand is about 12.8 million tons.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Fo34rd
August 15, 2009 6:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Its made up like all the other shortages to create chaos and drive the price up making more money for our Corporate masters...

Reply
");