In article >, Julia Altshuler > wrote:
>I've heard enough people say that they prefer the taste of cane sugar
>over high fructose corn syrup in sodas and other products that I'm
>wonder what the advantage of HFCS is to producers. Is it less
>expensive, more available, easier in the manufacturing process, some or
>all of the above?

It's the *voters*. Corn is a big industry in the US. Therefore the
price of cane sugar is kept artificially high to ensure HFCS can
compete.

For example, the current US raw sugar price is over 21c/lb
<http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Sugar/data/Table04.xls>
whereas the world raw sugar price is under 12c/lb
<http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Sugar/data/Table03.xls>

Many countries would be very happy to export cane sugar to you at
just a few cents above the current *world* price (I'm sure Brazil,
India, and Australia would) but are limited by quotas.

It has to be acknowledged that the quotas do permit the holders to
sell to you at the *US* price, and that's very profitable for them.
But it's a trivial quantity, and a high price for SFA is still a
return of SFA in the scheme of things. They would do *much* better to
be allowed to sell into your market at a lower price without quotas;
and you would then have cheaper *real* sugar. :-)

>I've been on a black cherry soda kick this summer and have been trying
>different brands. So far I seem to like IBC and Polar more than the
>Adirondack and Boylan. I'm not sure I can taste the difference because
>there are other variables. I'll have to wait until spring to try the
>national brands in their cane syrup version and try them side by side
>with the HFCS version.

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID