Delicious Sugar

Ezra Klein, writing yesterday about Obama and ethanol, argued that rather than subsidies for corn per se the "bigger problem is that Obama supports the 45 cent tariff on Brazilian sugar cane, which is about four times more energy efficient than corn as an ethanol base."

I'm not sure which is the bigger problem. It reminds me, though, that the ridiculous tariff on Brazilian sugar ethanol is just one small slice of the larger set of terrible sugar policies in the United States which are aimed at making sugar cane expensive in order to boost the fortunes of America's beet sugar producers and, indirectly, the high fructose corn syrup industry. What kind of justification one could mount for this perverse effort at sweetener autarky are couldn't quite say, but I have a longstanding dream of a politician handing out bottles of Mexican Coke (made with real sugar) at rallies, drawing vast crowds and powering a massive grassroots campaign for proper sugar.

Comments

I've read that back before the sugar tariffs, various Caribbean islands were known for the distinctive attributes of sugar grown there, much like wine or coffee from different regions (unrefined, obviously). Also, in the US "brown sugar" is usually just white sugar with molasses added, rather than actual unrefined sugar. Real brown sugar is tasty.

Posted by minderbender | July 9, 2008 11:17 AM

Big sugar took a huge hit when US Sugar agreed to sell all its Florida land to Florida. Losing Florida really hurts the sugar lobby.

Posted by crack | July 9, 2008 11:17 AM

This is an issue that's hard to get people to rally behind. One of the beefs I have with Obama is his his corn shilling. HFCS is largely responsible for how fucking fat our country is. Ultimately it comes down to personal choices, but you don't really have anyone of prominence advising that the way to lower health care costs is to stop sucking down Cokes filled with HFCS.

Posted by socctty | July 9, 2008 11:23 AM

Mexican Coke is one option, there's also Kosher Coke.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03192007/news/regionalnews/kosher__coke_a_big_hit_regionalnews_rita_delfiner.htm

Posted by beowulf | July 9, 2008 11:23 AM

Does this explain why Ambinder's plumping (ha!) for John McCain?

Posted by jjqx | July 9, 2008 11:25 AM

... and then there's Dublin Dr. Pepper.

Dublin, Texas, that is.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 9, 2008 11:26 AM

minderbender, rums and rhums from different islands, and even from different places on the same island, can taste very different from one another -- not just because they're distilled or aged differently, but because the cane itself has a distinct taste. But I think the taste differences result from "impurities" WRT the pure sucrose itself, and as you mention anything that's refined to 100% pure is going to taste the same.

Posted by Pesto | July 9, 2008 11:28 AM

It's hard to imagine how damaging the sugar tariff is to the US economically. As others have already pointed out, the health costs from pumping nearly every food available full of HFCS are terrible. The coke tastes worse. And of course the whole ethanol thing.

One of the joys of going to a real Mexican restaurant is getting a bottle of Coke imported from Mexico.

Posted by lfv | July 9, 2008 11:35 AM

Having finally tasted rhum agricole, I will never ever spend another penny on that crap that's called "rum," which is made from molasses by-products, not sugar-cane.

What's the difference? It's the difference between rubbing-alcohol and cognac, that's the difference.

St. James' "Royal Ambre" is affordable, at about $20.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 9, 2008 11:38 AM

What kind of justification one could mount for this perverse effort at sweetener autarky are couldn't quite say

I'll take a stab at that one.

Here in the US we generally aren't cutting down forests in order to grow corn because we cut down most of our forests long ago. In fact, we cut down so many forests to use for farm fields that today many of those fields are being used for new housing developments, retail strip malls, and parking lots.

In Central and South America on the other hand they've still got a gazillion square miles of forests that haven't been cut down! Of course, living up to our locust-like nature as humans the South Americans are busily cutting down their own forests to grown sugar-cane, coffee, and other crops.

So ... sugar-tariffs aimed at Central and South America may be helping to reduce the destruction of existing forest there while having no impact on de-forestation here in the United States.

That's the best I've got. FWIW.

Posted by Curt M | July 9, 2008 11:38 AM

"Kosher Coke" is a misnomer, because HFCS-laden Coke is kosher for 51 weeks out of the year. You really mean "Passover Coke".

Sugar-based soda is definitely tastier, but you shouldn't be drinking those empty calories either if you know what's good for you.

Posted by phil | July 9, 2008 11:41 AM

I see no reason to prefer McCain to Obama, but jeez, the manner in which the Obama groupies are willing to overlook the myriad of evidence that Obama is a run of the mill political hack, with decent oratorical skills, given how low the standard is, continues to be striking. The guy is a subsidy whore, plain and simple, and he'll likely govern like a subsidy whore, just like it was likely that a guy like Bush, who made his pile via subsidy, would do the same. Obama also promises to increase the complexity of the tax code as well, which will only strengthen the power of the rent-seekers.

Posted by Will Allen | July 9, 2008 11:43 AM

The Sugar Raj is the product of Southern Senators, from the 50s on, to protect Southern corporate sugar farmers. Pure and simple.

It isn't just tariffs, the reason I call it the Sugar Raj is that if you as a small-time sugar cane or sugar beet farmer want to show some entrepreunerial spirit and start raising those crops, you can't. You need to be grandfathered in. The system is a travesty and utterly absurd.

Posted by David | July 9, 2008 11:52 AM

I tried an imported Mexicab coke a couple months back, and really wasn't impressed.

Posted by bob mcmanus | July 9, 2008 11:54 AM

This

the manner in which the Obama groupies

is about where I stopped reading. Thank you for regurgitating.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 9, 2008 11:55 AM

the manner in which the Obama groupies are willing to overlook the myriad of evidence that Obama is a run of the mill political hack, with decent oratorical skills, given how low the standard is, continues to be striking.

That's because Obama is clearly an above average political hack with very good oratory skills, which is how he managed to get to a nomination so quickly.

Posted by Brad L | July 9, 2008 11:57 AM

I agree with Bob McManus. I also felt the same way about Canadian Kit-Kats, which I was assured were amazing. I guess I am such a sugar whore that I can't tell quality.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | July 9, 2008 11:59 AM

I tried an imported Mexicab coke a couple months back, and really wasn't impressed.

Try Mexican Pepsi, after drinking a half-liter of silver tequila. It'll blow your mind.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 9, 2008 11:59 AM

IIRC, cane sugar in this country is even highly advantaged over beet sugar, despite both refined products being virtually identical. If that's true, then kicking out the props for cane sugar could open up entire areas of the country for sugar beet production.

Speaking of sugar beets, if cane is better than corn for the creation of ethanol, would sugar beets also be better than corn too?

Posted by LFC | July 9, 2008 11:59 AM

David, don't underestimate the work of midwestern senators to protect their sugar beet constituents as well. There are a lot of farmers in the Minesota, the Dakotas, and elsewhere in the midwest, who can sit on the the porchs of their 7000 square foot homes, overlooking several thousand acres of beets, while perusing marketing pieces for expensive vacations, due to the fine work of their senators, in making sure everyone pays higher prices to sweeten food.

Posted by Will Allen | July 9, 2008 12:01 PM

Mmmm, here is who the Fanjul family has given money to this year, unfortunately, a lot of democrats benefited from the Sugar Raj's largesse:

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/donor_lookup.php?name=fanjul

Posted by David | July 9, 2008 12:02 PM

Obama is a run of the mill political hack, with decent oratorical skills

And what a relief it will be to have a run of the mill political hack, with decent rhetorical skills, as president, isntead of the dangerous nutjob incumbent or the equally wacky McCain.

Posted by rea | July 9, 2008 12:03 PM

Funny thing about Mexican Coke? Well, not coke itself, but the Mexican Sugar Cane industry?

It is only viable right now thanks to ridiculous government spending, much like the French insane agro-subsidies. To protect some romanticized version of an antiquated national industry that has refused to modernize precisely because of ridiculous subsidies.

Well, that and the typical Mexican Government spending corruption and corporativism.

Posted by torteya | July 9, 2008 12:04 PM

And what a relief it will be to have a run of the mill political hack, with decent rhetorical skills, as president, isntead of the dangerous nutjob incumbent or the equally wacky McCain.

No reason to concede moron's "point." He obviously didn't read the link:

"Look," [Obama] said, "I've been a strong ethanol supporter because Illinois ... is a major corn producer."

Yeah. American politicians talk like that all the time, right?
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 9, 2008 12:11 PM

Brad L., I'd say that Obama getting the nomination as quickly as he did was mostly due to greatly superior organizational performance than his competitor's bloated, creaking, bureaucracy. This is no slam on Obama; I think it is a good argument as to why Obama is preferred to McCain.

Perhaps my standards as to what constitutes good oratory are out of whack, but I've really seldom heard a speech by an American politician which I thought was exceptionally good. People used to speak very highly about Reagan's skills, but I was rarely moved to think I was hearing anything exceptional. Obama is certainly a lot better than the current occupant of the White House, but you can't damn with fainter praise than that.

Posted by Will Allen | July 9, 2008 12:13 PM

Back when I lived in San Diego, I'd occasionally smuggle in copious amounts of Coca Lite from Mexico. Mmmm. So much better than what you can get here.

Posted by Jennifer | July 9, 2008 12:13 PM

Will Allen: That may be the case, though, as a guy from South Dakota, I have never heard Daschle, Johnson, or Thune talk about sugar (or Conrad or Dorgan for that matter). That doesn't mean they don't probably support it. I am sure they do. But if you look at that list of donations the Fanjul family makes, you won't see too many midwesterners on there, though it is true some are there. Here are the 2006 numbers:

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?capcode=t6dz3&name=Fanjul&employ=&cand=&state=&zip=&all=N&old=N&c2008=N&c2006=Y&c2004=N&sort=N&page=&page=1

In any case I think the midwestern senators are complicit, but this system was set up a long time ago and needed big actors, those sugar beet farmers scattered across N. Dakota and Minn. didn't have the critical mass, whereas the few corporate sugar cane corporations in Florida did have the incentives to bust through the collective action problem and protect them some sugar! The fact that southern democrats were conservative and needed to be bought off in the cold war era helped them win this sort of shit, as well as the enormous power that committee chairs held.

Posted by David | July 9, 2008 12:15 PM

Yes, actually, Texan they do. Nothing is more common than a Senator speaking of his support for a subsidy due to the fact that his constitutents will benefit from the subsidy. That's how Senators get re-elected. They purchase votes with other people's money, and tell the vote sellers what they will pay for the votes. How stupid are you?

Posted by Will Allen | July 9, 2008 12:18 PM

I too like HFCS Coke better than Passover Coke.

I have nothing else to add to the conversation.

Posted by Cliffy | July 9, 2008 12:19 PM

I looked into it and Conrad does appear to talk about sugar. In SD, however, you never hear politicians mention sugar, they mention corn, wheat, and cattle, but not so much sugar, because the farms hardly exist there. Here is a list of who receives sugar pac money:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/pacrecips.php?cycle=2006&ind=A1200

Posted by David | July 9, 2008 12:27 PM

Yeah, david, I think the beet farmers are more prevalent in Minnesota, which would be consistent with two Minnesota Congressmen being near or at the top of that list.

Posted by Will Allen | July 9, 2008 12:32 PM

Yes, actually, Texan they do.

Cite please.

Maybe I'm used to GOD!!! GUNS!!! GAYS!!! Republicans down here in Texas, but in my experience subsidy politicians doing anything BUT talking about the actual vote --> kickback economy, preferring to talk about GOD!!! GUNS!!! GAYS!!!, or waxing stupid about the small family farmers we pretty much don't have any more.

Given Obama's openness about why he's doing it, where's the ginormous sin? And where are these groupies who supposedly thought such a sin (should it be demonstrated) was impossible? Do you see these groupies all the time, or only when the moon is full?

If imaginary groupies keeping being imaginarily disillusioned, entirely within the confines of your own imagination, is it going to matter so much as sweet fuck all come November?

... sorry, rhetorical question. I hate it when I do that.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 9, 2008 12:37 PM

I read somewhere that the increase in the cost of inputs for making HFCS (corn, of course) is actually pushing the price of HCFS to a level equivalent to sugar, which could lead to the re-popularization of sugar. Has anyone else seen this? Is it possible that ethanol over-production actually has positive externalities?

Posted by Marshall | July 9, 2008 12:48 PM

Texan:

Cite please

Are you serious? How about you do a modicum of research.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/11759541.html

That quotes Tim Walz MN-01, who I happen to like and donate to, saying he has nothing against rice and cotton but he prefers corn and soybeans. I
wonder why?

You think its hard to find Senators/Representatives who claim credit for bringing a project to their state or district? Or explaining their votes to their constituents based on the benefits to the district?

Posted by crack | July 9, 2008 12:58 PM

The assumption that all Senators uniformly hold illiberal trade preferences is empirically unsupported. Farm consolidation in the US has led to the growth of large agribusinesses that aggressively seek external markets for exports. Senators pander to these interests, too:

http://finance.senate.gov/press/Gpress/2005/prg042406a.pdf

Posted by Marshall | July 9, 2008 1:07 PM

Texan, here's Tom Harkin....

"Today, in Iowa and elsewhere, rural communities face enormous challenges. Half of America’s rural counties lost population from 2000 to 2005. In Iowa, 66 percent of rural counties lost population over the last decade. In many places, the loss of population and jobs has created a negative cycle that feeds on itself. In the new farm bill, we have an opportunity to help reverse this destructive dynamic."

Harkin is saying that his constituents in Iowa will benefit from subsidies, so he supports subsidies. How is that any different from Obama saying he supports etanol subsides because a lot of his constituents grow corn?

As to groupies, when people change their middle name, or major newspaper outlets run columnists who write things like this......

"Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul."

...it is purely imaginary to say that the groupies are imaginary.

Finally, I never wrote that Obama had committed a "ginormous sin". Did you see those words because the moon is full? Or are you simply dishonest?

Posted by Will Allen | July 9, 2008 1:14 PM

Grand Moff Texan,

Amen on rhum agricole, although there are some delicious rums out there, too. Brugal from the Dominican is very good, and inexpensive, to boot. Ron Zacapa from Guatemala is expensive but wonderful.

I also like the St James Royal Ambre rhum agricole. I prefer rhum blanc, which preserves more of the fresh, grassy taste of the cane than aged rhums. St James's rhum blanc is great, as are La Favorite and Neisson (which is my personal favorite right now). There's a liquor store near me that sells 1 liter of La Favorite 50% for $23, and a liter of Neisson 50% for $25, which are both good deals given how much you get and how little you drink at any sitting!

And for more cane-sugary goodness, you can buy Petit Cane cane syrup for making a 'ti punch.

Posted by Pesto | July 9, 2008 1:16 PM

I love Mexican Coke, too-- it's less sticky-sweet than the HFCS crap-- but at least at my local international market, some of the Cokes still have corn syrup according to the labels. Must be different bottling plants or something... anyway, I've learned to only buy the ones with the larger square ingredient labels for that reason. An added bonus is that I consume fewer sodas overall since finding these, because regular Cokes are even less appealing when the real-sugar ones are available as a treat.

Posted by latts | July 9, 2008 1:21 PM

I oppose all subsidies of course, and would support the tariff free importation of foreign sugar, but has anyone actually ever done a blind taste test which empirically establishes that people can discern the difference between cane sugar and HFCS in many heavily processed foods? I don't find it hard to believe that a difference could be detected in many cases, but I find it less believable that the same could be said regarding, say, two Twinkies made with different sweetening agents.

Posted by Will Allen | July 9, 2008 1:27 PM

Why is there so much disdain for farmers? They are always fat and rich and can often be found sitting around because, you know, they don't really work. They grow food. You like food. If you are paying "too much", grow it yourself. Make yourself a kick ass loaf of bread and eat the shit out of it. I'm sure you will save a ton of money.

Posted by dotbol | July 9, 2008 2:33 PM

Dotbol: because the romanticized image of the humble, small-town family farmer is bullshit, a smokescreen to cover corporate agribusiness that lives almost entirely off of subsidies, cutting corners, & (in the case of certain recently-maligned vegetables...) migrant might-as-well-be-slave labor.

By all means, if someone really is one of those humble, hard-working farmers that cares about what they're growing and doesn't have a leash on them w/ some faceless multinational holding the other end, I salute them. I'd also like them to say hi to the few remaining indigenous folks here for me.

Posted by b-psycho | July 9, 2008 5:06 PM

Most people can't tell the difference between corn syrup and sugar sweetened foods. I agree that the protectionist sugar tariffs and corn subsidies are awful, but let's not propagate mythology like high fructose corn syrup making people fat (why would different isomers of simple sugar make a damned difference?!).

Posted by Joel | July 9, 2008 5:29 PM