Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pengaru 2131 days ago
Dumb, just tax fructose in proportion to how much is added. Ths US should do the same thing.
3 comments

If we just didn't subsidize its production, that would be a start.
Sure, but if the alternative is banning which is never a good approach, taxing it makes a lot more sense IMHO.

I'm no agriculture nerd but isn't much of the US particularly well suited to growing corn, regardless of subsidies?

It's a tough situation. Much of the idea behind agriculture subsides is to protect against black-swan events.
We could direct the subsidies more toward ethanol or whatever other corn product, and still be able to get to the raw corn in an emergency.
Doesn't crop insurance exist? Why the need to constantly subsidize?
You can't eat insurance money.

We are lucky to live in a age of a dramatic global decline in famine, but a large scale war or natural disaster could potentially unravel this progress in a devastating way.

Subsidies can do preventative tasks that insurance cannot -- like securing additional capacity of food stores and farm land that farmers wouldn't normally do unless they were being paid to do so.

True, but the US gov't stockpiles grain, oil and other things for those kind of events. I don't see how subsidies help in those scenarios either.
Yes, but much like the PPE stockpile, those are only a stopgap measure and aren't really enough to be a comprehensive solution on their own.
I'm not sure we're solving for much when a bottle of Coke has 100g of cane sugar instead of 100g of high fructose corn syrup.

Is it better? Maybe. Is it still too much sugar? Yes.

Fructose is far from the only unhealthy ingredient in junk food.
Fructose is arguably a poison indistinguishable from ethanol in some very consequential ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-alcoholic_fatty_liver_dise...