Most farmers are pretty independent folks. Give them a farm program, let them grow what they want, and they’ll be happy. But within the framework of the USDA’s farm program, an urban-oriented Congress could say: “US citizens need more nutritious food so here is a list of the foods you are going to grow, and there will be no price support programs for food products not on the list.” A farmer probably would not like that.

Being responsive to the marketplace is one thing, but being responsive to a food and nutrition czar is another. However, the potential exists for the food and nutrition folks in USDA to collaborate with the commodity program folks across the hallway, and farmers could suddenly find their cropping plans a lot different than a corn/soybean rotation. Iowa State economists John Beghin and Helen Jensen provide a flavor of that scenario in their research that links Farm Policies and Added Sugars in US Diets. There is no secret that food consumption has changed in recent years to high fat and higher carbohydrate foods, and the nutrition industry has taken a critical view of corn sweeteners, specifically high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) that is found in thousands of food products.

HFCS is a liquid sweetener and easily added to foods and beverages. Because its prevalence in US foods began about the same time that health professionals began to notice trends toward obesity, HFCS took the blame and some food companies have been converting back to sugar. A loss of the sweetener market would be felt in the price of corn. With US farm policy addressing corn and sugar production, the role of farm policy is also brought into the debate about nutrition.

Beghin and Jensen say, “Although US farm policies have favored the substitution of corn-based sweeteners for sugar, two facts suggest a relatively weak link between the farm policies and resulting consumption today: first, the falling and relatively small farm value share of sweeteners in foods today, and second, experience with increased consumption of sweetened foods and beverages in other countries with different or no commodity programs.” The body cannot distinguish between sugars that are naturally in foods versus added to foods. However, per capita consumption has risen from 25 teaspoons per day in 1970 to nearly 30 teaspoons per day currently.

Over the years, consumption of all caloric sweeteners has increased 40 pounds per capita from 1966 to the current day, and most of that is from corn based sweeteners. The relatively low price of HFCS benefited food companies and has kept low the overall price of sweeteners. The low price of corn for many years also aided in the reduced cost of corn sweeteners, but corn value only represents 44% of the cost of HFCS production.

The Iowa State economists say US public policy has helped finance research and development that has increased production and lowered the unit cost of commodities such as corn and sugar. However, the price of corn has fallen twice as fast as the price of sugar cane and sugar beets as a result of the USDA-financed production research. Similarly, corn yields have grown faster from USDA research than sugar crop research. Regarding commodity policy, Beghin and Jensen say that has favored corn users and disfavored sugar users and promoted the use of HFCS.

Over the past 50 years, the farm value in retail foods has fallen from over 40% to about 20%, but in the past 25 years of HFCS use, the share of sweeteners in food prices has fallen dramatically from 25% to 5% in bakery and cereal products. For sugar prices, farm policy sets the price at the loan rate, but for HFCS, the government only sets the loan rate for corn, which is a distant correlation of price. Subsequently, the economists say the influence of farm policy on sweetener price and use is negligible for corn and small for sugar.

Internationally, the economists looked at prices of sweeteners, per capita consumption, and public policies that might impact production and use of sweeteners, vis-à-vis the obesity rate. They say Australia and the US have a high and rising prevalence of obesity, but opposite sweetener policies. The UK and France have the same sugar policy and prices, but have different sugar consumption patterns and different health outcomes. Therefore the economists say, “Caution should be taken in assessing the impact of sugar farm policy on health.”

Summary:
Due to a recent rise in obesity, particularly in children, sharp criticism has been directed at corn sweeteners, since their popularity has paralleled the nutritional change. However, criticism that farm policy has caused nutritional deterioration is unwarranted because policies in other countries do not share any correlation with the US situation, and US policy promotes more sugar use than corn sweetener use.