Because yeah, sugar just isn’t cheap enough in America.
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2025
4 points (100.0% liked)
Videos
15412 readers
671 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Jesus fucking Christ. Can you dress these Trump-loving assholes up in different clothes already? This is alt-right dipshittery that is "JUST ASKING QUESTIONS" all over again.
Be more mindful of the dumb shit you watch online, and stop posting this crap. Stop doing exactly what they want you to do.
yup. watched it through to the end just to be sure. instant hard downvote for the free-market bullshit dressed up as everyman populism.
summary
Why Does This Industry Get Special Privileges?
This video explores how the sugar industry benefits from government interventions that create monopolistic advantages for a few corporations, resulting in higher consumer prices and negative health impacts due to the substitution of sugar with harmful alternatives like high fructose corn syrup. It highlights the cycle of lobbying, concentrated benefits for a small group, and dispersed costs for consumers, ultimately advocating for a free marketplace without political interference.
Key Points
Government Intervention in Sugar Prices
The U.S. government has been intervening in the sugar market for decades, establishing high tariffs on imported sugar from countries like Brazil and Mexico. This intervention is ostensibly to protect American farmers but primarily benefits a small number of large corporations in the sugar industry who lobby for these advantages.
Impact on Consumers and Businesses
The tariffs lead to higher prices for sugar, which are passed on to consumers. This not only affects individual shoppers but also drives food manufacturers to relocate production overseas due to increased input costs, threatening domestic jobs across various sectors reliant on sugar.
Alternatives to Sugar
As industries face higher sugar costs, many are turning to alternatives such as high fructose corn syrup, which has its own health risks. This substitution highlights the unforeseen consequences of government policies aimed at supporting the sugar industry.
Concentrated Benefits vs. Dispersed Costs
The video discusses the concept of concentrated benefits for a few corporations versus dispersed costs for everyday consumers. While the costs of lobbying and tariffs are often invisible to individuals, the corporations enjoy significant financial gains, which perpetuates the cycle of cronyism.
Need for Political Change
The call to action is to elect representatives who prioritize free markets over crony capitalism. The goal is to establish a system where consumer choice drives the economy, rather than government interventions that favor specific industries.
*sigh*
the first massive red flag (among many) is the claim high fructose corn syrup is worse for you than e.g. cane sugar. any added sweetner is likely bad for you, but there is zero hard evidence that HFCS is somehow worse. you can find lots of easily readable information on this. here is an example.
what is true is that dirt cheap sweeteners like HFCS get put into dirt cheap, garbage "food". thats the real issue - but its not touched by this video.
as with any good propaganda there is a ribbon of truthiness through the video, but the video concludes with libertarian talking points about consumer choice regulating the market. bullshit! consumers generally buy whats available and what they are told to buy.
the video offers a completely biased and simplified view of societal interaction with large producers when a multitude of options are not only available, but needed.
as @just_another_person@lemmy.world pointed out, this is pure maga entry-point pablum wrapped in a slickly produced, minimalist package designed to give you the "lets just talk, bro" vibe. its as destructive as the added sugar they claim to rail against.
humans (as opposed to AI summarizers), watch it if you wish, but recognize that this is not accidental propaganda - this is weaponized propoganda that begins the mental hijacking process and culminates in the shutting down of independent thinking.
/rant
Fructose is bad for you
https://doi.org/10.3945/an.112.002998 # Fructose: It’s “Alcohol Without the Buzz”
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2010.41 # The role of fructose in the pathogenesis of NAFLD and the metabolic syndrome
https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.21371 # Isocaloric fructose restriction and metabolic improvement in children with obesity and metabolic syndrome
your links redirect to targets that do not allow Tor exits without javascript (sigh) :-(
so... not arguing that fructose (or sucrose for that matter) is good in any way. glucose is likely the healthiest energy dense sweetener (human bodies are literally built to run on it) - but lets face it - its not "sweet enough" for general commercial use.
the tangent that we seem to be on is unrelated to my general criticism of the video, but its a fun covo, so lets continue anyway.
HFCS has fructose and sucrose bound together. as soon as it hits the stomach its instantly split into its constituant parts and becomes exactly like sugar. we can talk about fructose to sucrose ratios, but in most cases its almost exactly the same ratios as sugar. the video claims that HFCS is worse than sugar... that is not backed by fact at all. both are processed additives that in excess (the american diet) will likely kill you early.
I am in agreement that almost any added sweetener is bad for you. period.
however, what I am really attempting to point out is that the video is full of bro-science, conjecture and belief parading as fact and made more virulent by a sliver of truth that all good propaganda contains. to my mind the video is absolutely a political propaganda piece wrapped up in bro bullshit, masquerading as something else - its a generic libertarian and Robert F. Kennedy lovechild.
Oh yeah, the video is protectionist bullshit.
Food Glucose is not healthy for humans in any circumstance. Humans can produce glucose from fat and protein in a process called gluconeogenesis. no external sugar is required. In fact the human body does not store glucose, the only glucose is in the blood, and then only five grams. Any excess glucose is converted into fat. Excessive glucose drives high insulin levels which drive insulin resistance who causes most long term health issues: high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, PCOS, ed, etc
Fructose is worse then glucose, as the above papers indicate: by itself it causes fatty liver disease, increased insulin resistance, accelerated tumor growth, it metabolises using the same pathways as alcohol.
Oh yeah, the video is protectionist bullshit.
yup 👍
the rest of your reply suggests that we are probably on the same wavelength, with the addition that sane glucose supplementation has been very effective in high energy output activities.
the best thing you can do for your health right now is to minimize or eliminate added sweeteners from your daily life - tough, but doable.
...and avoid propaganda videos :-)
edit: just noticed some of the communities you moderate. looks really interesting. joined.
sane glucose supplementation has been very effective in high energy output activities.
That's a really interesting area of active research. There are some really compelling papers that fat adapted athletes do not need to carb load. get the same performance. If you're interested, I can dig up those papers for you. The issue is full fat adaptation can take 6-12 weeks for people, so most of the short term studies don't see the differentiation. This does not give the fat athletes an advantage in raw power, except they don't hit the wall. There was one paper showing higher vo2 Max sustained for longer, which is quite interesting
If you're interested, I can dig up those papers for you.
absolutely! perhaps post in your community?
thanks for the excellent back and forth.
Sure, they are pretty niche: https://hackertalks.com/post/7986045 - The take away from this paper is after a 6 week adaption phase a keto athlete had a higher time to exhaustion then a high carb athlete even with carb loading.
https://hackertalks.com/post/7986695 - Here is the good one, looking at oxidation of HC vs LC - the available energy comes from fat (hence not needing to carb load)... The smoking gun though... look at the sustained VO2Max levels....
That is so much more energy available!
https://hackertalks.com/post/7987142 This paper shows better energy utilization in 5km runs, but importantly no disadvantage vs high carb runners. This paper introduces the theory that the runner bonk/wall is not running out of energy but a dip in blood glucose, which a low carb athlete will not experience.