Hacker News Reader

Comment by enraged_camel | Hacker News Reader

A 10 cent tax per gram of added sugar or HFCS for every product. Implement this and watch obesity rates plummet.

(This is not a serious suggestion, but I think it would still be interesting to brainstorm the implications of such a tax.)

View on HN

You don't need a tax. Just get rid of the massive subsidy that HFCS gets.

edit: I had meant the indirect subsidy through corn subsidies. I agree that there shouldn't be much of a distinction between HFCS and sugar (fructose) from other sources.

I don't think HFCS gets any subsidies. Corn gets subsidized and there are very high tariffs on imported cane sugar.

HFCS is metabolically identical to white sugar and bobos singling it out are misguided.

HFCS is metabolized primarily by the liver, unlike sugar.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/895.full

HFCS is equal parts fructose and glucose, exactly the same as sugar. Your link indicates no distinction.

HFCS is produced by running corn starch through an enzyme process identical to one that happens in your pancreas. Corn starch is broken up into glucose and then half the glucose is converted to fructose.

Personally I find HFCS drinks have a mild metalic aftertaste whereas sugar doesn't. I don't know what causes it. But HFCS is metabolically exactly the same as white sugar. And neither are "bad" for you.

It's the amount that matters. HFCS is cheaper to produce thanks to corn subsidies and cane sugar tariffs, therefore more of it goes into food, and it goes into more types of food. The tax I proposed above is a way to offset this effect.

How do you define added. If you have pure apple juice, it has 35g in an 8 fl. oz. serving (using the Martinelli's in my pantry as an example). There is no sugar added, but it clearly has plenty of sugar. What happens if instead of adding the sugar to the apple juice, I were to just reduce the amount of water instead? I'm still not adding any sugar, but the concentrate would clearly have more sugar than not. How is this much different than producing maple syrup, which is pretty much designed to be sugar?

In this case, "added" would mean "extra," as in any amount you add on top of what is produced once the apples are converted into juice.

I agree that some stuff already has a high amount of sugar in it naturally, but I think in the grand scheme of things they make up just a small minority of all products. My concern is for more common stuff, like bread. Why does bread have to have high-fructose corn syrup in it again? The answer is that it doesn't.

You need a small amount of sugar for the yeast.

Does US bread have more than that?

Yeasts are perfectly capable of splitting starches, you don't need any sugar.

Yes. Here's a higher end "grocery store shelf" bread maker:

http://www.pepperidgefarm.com/FreshBreadsGateway.aspx

2 to 4 grams of sugar per slice is typical there. That sort of bread is prepared at large regional bakeries.

Decent grocers will also have a fresh bakery, with somewhat more variety to the product, and probably breads with little added sugar.

If you live in a decent size town, there will also be one or more store front bakeries that uses a shorter list of ingredients (I almost said they are more traditional, but I'm sure they are mostly using big mixers and nice ovens and the like).

satisfying a taste and product differentiation is the main driver. the body loves sweets, salts and fat and who wants wheat bread when you can have honey wheat bread.

Some blame comes down to the producer and marketing trends, gluten is a good example. Up until recently, gluten free had no regulation with using that on packaging. http://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/guidancedocuments...

When discussing this with friends, I use the example of sodas being marketed as caffeine-free, rather than caffeine added. They are all caffeine free to start.

I think that if you introduced a tax like this, food producers would be more adept at reading the rules and determining what is "added". They could also simple start substituting in artificial sweeteners or the like to maintain some of the taste. There are people who thing that aspartame or other zero-calorie sweeteners are worse than sugar.

It would mean diet drinks would be cheaper than non-diet drinks. They can still read the label.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com