Originally Posted by Dewey
The low cost of HFCS is a reason that your second claim is true. If Cokes were $2 a can, Americans would consume fewer calories and be less obese.
Calories shouldn't be that cheap or enter the population in such large numbers in that form.
Originally Posted by Connemara
It's the consumer's fault for consuming the HFCS. If people truly thought it was awful, they wouldn't buy it and the market would take care of the rest.
I think Dewey's point is that prices don't reflect costs. Corn production is highly subsidized (and sugar is subject to quotas, hence the relative price differential). I'd blame agricultural policies that distort prices before blaming consumers for responding to those prices.
Or am I missing some sort of joke?
FWIW, I can def taste the difference between HFCS and sugar. I always thought I hated soda 'til I had it abroad a few years back.