- Agriculture.com Community
- Announcements & Forum Help
- Farm Business
- Young & Beginning Farmers
- Cattle Talk
- Crop Talk
- Hog Talk
- Machinery Talk
- Machinery Marketplace
- Shops, buildings and bins
- Ask the SF Engineman!
- Precision Agriculture
- People & Rural Life
- Ag Forum
- Women In Ag
10-12-2017 10:35 AM
Health advocates are generally shocked to learn that sugar is actually more expensive in the US than the world market since we maintain a quota to subsidize domestic producers. But still it is dirt cheap as a flavor enhancer in about any prepared food- along with salt and trans fats.
Of course the corn growers are now a part of the sugar lobby as HFC slipped in under the quota umbrella and it went from a 3 or 4 state lobby bloc to 15-20.
I have a simple national nutrition plan that has 0% chance of passing. Eliminate food stamps and make an abundance of cheap, healthy stuff- rice, dry beans, oatmeal, frozen and canned vegetables, available at no cost to the extremely poor and on a sliding subsidized cost scale to those with better means. Nobody needs to go hungry but if they choose to use their meager cash to go to the bodega and buy chips and pop, not my problem. There's a role for traditional extension to teach people how to build good meals around those basics with stuff they can buy.
But here is a short list of the lobbies that would oppose it:
Banks- the bridge cards are big business for them
Numerous commodity groups- livestock, sweeteners
All the soda and junk food companies
3020s "picking winners and losers" argument is always essentially about preserving the priveleges of the legacy stakeholder- even if those priveleges came about as result of previous government policy.