I've read that our farm subsidies allow us to sell our stuff overseas for less than the local minimum price.

We sell sugar in Haiti and put local farms out of business. Haiti is a poor country with political instability directly related to poverty.

We sell corn in Mexico and cause Mexican farmers to come here to build our housing (that we can't pay for and subsequently abandon.)

Whether it actually saves anyone in the US a penny or two is not really the point when it can be seen as a type of negative foreign aid that comes back to bite us later on.

Where have all the horses gone?

We do NOT dump sugar in Haiti. We dump rice. Which is even worse since it's their subsistence crop. When the US restored Aristide to power, we made is as a condition that Haiti had to liberalize their rice market so we started dumping Miami rice and driving off their farmers. Now look at Haiti. THanks Clinton and free traders!

Sugar is the ONLY supply management program we have, which is why the free traders, food processors and food corporations hate it. we only produce what we need, a price is set due to the limiting of imports, and so very importantly, we do NOT export sugar and we do NOT dump on the world markets. The EU DOES dump sugar, which is devastating for many developing countries, and of course, we dump just about every other commodity (corn, poultry, cotton, etc). The sugar program means it is cost-free to the government--no subsidies are needed and sugar growers are paid fairly, and most of the sugar processors in the US are unionized, supplying good paying jobs in otherwise basketcase areas like the Red River Valley in MN and parts of ND. yes, there is a problem with the sugar barons in FL and the Everglades, but in general, our farm programs would be much healthier if they emulated our sugar program, which is why the sugar program gets threatened in every trade agreement.

the neoliberal right wing economists whine that because sugar prices are so "artificially" high that is costs consumers millions. well last time i checked at the grocery store, sugar was still pretty damn cheap. and my candy bar cost a decent amt, as it should, cause it's bad for me! the world price for sugar is also so artificially low because of Brazil and all the slave labor they use on their sugar plantations--surely NOT a sustainable model!

if corn had emulated the sugar program, who knows if HFCS would ever have been developed. but sure as heck ADM's profits would have taken a hit.

As a consumer, i do not mind paying a fair price for sugar and allowing farmers and processors to make a fair living while also ensuring we do not undercut third world farmers. this is what food sovereignty is!

I've read this article 3 times. I understand the points, but don't understand why anyone would focus on HFCS+obesity+subsidy link. You can splice and dice into infinity and beyond.

Personally, I think it's not just HFCS but the amount of processed foods one consumes every day. That's just one item.

WHat about the Commodities Market? Sure, corn producers get their subsisdies by that corn still goes to the highest bidders, no? Who then process the heck out of it for various non-nutrient dense foods.

And then there's fat: if you're not getting good fats into your body EACH meal, then your liver will work day and night to produce it. In this sense, artificial sweeteners (diet soda) are to blame as well.

Avoiding this nonsensical non-nutrient dense foods is easy: if it's in a box, it's been processed, and therefore you're putting your body and health at risk.

HFCS is demand driven.  The demand is driven by our desire to consume fructose.  Fructose is the molecule that HFCS and Sugar have in common and the reason why Australian and US obesity rates are similar.

Subsidies of sugar and HFCS do not create the demand, but they do grease the wheels.  The mystery is why a product which we are hard-wired to demand requires subsidies at all - its the food equivalent of subsidizing gasoline production.

The real result of subsidization can be seen in every crack house in America.  Subsidies have wrecked the economies of the equatorial sugar producing nations leaving them with little choice but to turn to the next most lucrative crops, heroin and cocaine.