That’s not the history I’m familiar with regarding sugar tariffs.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-18/u-s-su...

It’s very amusing to me that the US subsidized domestic sugar production, and then also pays for diabetes and it’s related healthcare costs.

I’m confident that the future will look back and determine sugar to be one of the most costly habits of people.

You linked to an opinion piece that doesn't cite anything.

It criticizes that there are broad staple food import tariffs, but does not discuss the purpose of these policies, which is national food security.

The US has not experienced a food shortage, despite the normal incidence of crop failures in over a hundred years.

The fact that Americans suffer from food oversupply is absolutely a first world problem.

Sorry, I didn’t realize it was an opinion piece. I had just remembered reading multiple times that sugar tariffs were implemented to enrich domestic sugar producers. This seems like a better analysis:

https://ksr.hkspublications.org/2016/03/18/sweet-nothings-th...

Sugar, like all crop staples are supported by the government to ensure that crops are overproduced to protect against crop failure and famine.

Any article, like the one you just linked, that omits this fact is a horrible source of information.

I'm sure you HAVE INDEED read the misinformation about farm subsidies before - it is a popular lie.

This article talks a little bit more about current high food prices globally, and how it impacts US food security stockpiles....

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=4770135&page=1

Sounds like you didn’t read your own source then...

> It’s very amusing to me that the US subsidized domestic sugar production, and then also pays for diabetes and it’s related healthcare costs.

Subsidizing domestic sugar production by spiking the price of sugar... means less sugar consumption. What's the joke?