Government policies promoting sugar, in no small part, got us into this mess. Without the government’s recommendations to avoid dietary fat that led to increased sugar consumption, many Americans would probably be thinner, or at least less obese. And then there are the subsidies.
The Kling theory of public choice is that government acts to subsidize demand and restrict supply. In this case, it subsidizes demand with food stamps and restricts supply with measures against imports.
Eh. For all the elite bragging about global perspectives, Americans are often too parochial in their analysis. People love sweets and are getting fat all over the world, correlated more with wealth and culture than current, local policy. Sure, prices and purchasing power matter, but I think Reynolds and Taubes are exaggerating the impact of government diet advice.
I agree this is one of those things in which a libertarian has to find a reason to blame the government for all bad things. And I did not see any points about trade restrictions on sugar to keep the price higher. Otherwise:
1) Sugar and carbohydrates are cheap goods compared to other foods. The long shelf life and ease of selling in small or big packages helps as well.
2) I always believed for Generation X (born 1970) we learned to avoid cigarettes and replaced it with Soda as cheap quick fix. Although not perfect, it is still a good trade for our generation. (I used to drink 4 – 6 sodas a day.)
3) Size inflation and marginal/average cost of sugar products. I remember when the Big Gulp (32 oz) was a big deal. Now for $.10 more (with $.015 cost) you can get a 44 oz.