The Crux of the HFCS Argument

It’s not often I get to say “I was right!”. However gauche it may be to do the following, I’ve had a bad week and could use a little self-congratulations in order to make me feel better.

In 2006, I said this:

The rise in obesity is a direct result of over-production of a government subsidized sweetener.

In 2009, Alicia Harvie, a Masters candidate in Agriculture, Food, and the Environment at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy and a Research Assistant, along with Timothy A. Wise the Director of the Research and Policy Program at the GDEI said this in their policy brief Sweetening the Pot: Implicit Subsidies to Corn Sweeteners and the U.S. Obesity Epidemic (NOTE: PDF):

“While this (corn subsidies) may not have reduced soda prices to an extent that would account for rising consumption, there is little doubt U.S. agricultural policies have indirectly subsidized a sector that may be contributing to health problems.”

Okay, it’s not quite the same position, but it’s close enough for jazz. And if I could figure this out, it shouldn’t be that big of a problem for the rest of the nation to make that correlation. HFCS may not be, in of itself, less healthy than cane sugar. But adding HFCS to a diet already rich in sugar is just begging for problems.

via U.S. Food Policy