re: Corn Lobby already whining about Costs changing to Pure Sugar vs HFCS.

quote:

---

Corn farmers can go straight to hell. We’re already subsidizing their asses with the ridiculous, costly and damaging ethanol subsidies.

---

People always forget why these things started. Ethanol was pushed because at the time oil was pushing $150 a barrel and about to break everyone. They were looking for something to stretch the gallon further at the time and the shale revolution hadn’t happened yet. Now, it’s unnecessary.

HFCS started because domestic sugar production couldn’t keep up with demand and tariffs made imported sugar unviable. Naturally the food/beverage companies turned to other options. It’s only been relatively recently that we’ve seen a substantial increase in sugar acreage to meet this demand.

Even with all that, though, the main use of corn is still for livestock feed. The meat that you eat. The consolidation in the meat processing industry needs to be addressed. It’s not right or sustainable.

quote:

---

Feed was 200-250 a ton then started skyrocketing as grain prices went up. I’d be fine with eliminating ethanol. Get grain prices down so we can profit at a lower fish price and compete with imports. To help farmers, go after the BigAg monopolies that rape farmers on input costs of chemicals, equipment and service, and seeds. Allow farmers to hold grain to use as seed for the next season. I understand the seed companies research is expensive and they trademark the varieties but maybe allow farmers to pay the seed company a usage fee if they hold grain over for themselves. Allow a farmer to hold up to 50% of his seed needs from the previous crop. There has to be a way to reduce costs and make farming profitable at lower grain prices

---

Catfish farmers need better lobbyists. Why do you think corn farmers have all these programs? Lobbyist

quote:

---

We’ve pretty well done that with cigarettes. Yes, there is a sin tax on them, but the marketing demonization had a WAY bigger effect on curbing smoking

---

That is only half the story. The groups that started in the late 60's specifically filed a complaint with the FCC under the fairness doctrine to get free time for antismoking advertising. Consumption dropped and tobacco companies sought approach Congress directly to remove all cigarette advertising, which was followed by an increase in consumption.

Then the battle moved to individual states, where several states, starting with Minnesota in 1984, began state-funded anti-smoking media campaigns. It gets more extensive with how involved the government actually was with regards to tobacco, but ultimately, you are making the opposite point you intend to make here. If we follow the model that was used against tobacco, then it will absolutely require citizens to seek government intervention.

quote:

---

don't drink cokes for health reasons; I drink them for the taste. Cane sugar wins that battle hands down!

---

Couldn’t you just buy soda that use cane sugar?

quote:

---

If you drink 100 calories of Coke made with real sugar, you could do lawn work for a few hours and burn it all off.

If it's made from HFCS, nothing short of an ultramarathon will burn it off. HFCS goes straight to your liver and body fat, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

---

LOL @ this retarded slop.

At the end of the day pop is bad for you. But hey keep spouting bs

I never said it was good for you. You're putting words in my mouth.

Read a little
LINK

I am so over the mfering “corn lobby”
Between them and the “sugar lobby” they have damn near killed us all

frick the corn farmers.

hug a cane farmer.