Treat your sweetheart right this Valentine’s Day by avoiding corn-sweetened candies

By Caroline Melear?

Few things can ruin a lovely Valentine’s Day quicker than feeling underappreciated. But if you buy candy full of corn syrup, not only do you risk making your sweetheart feel ill on your special night, you also risk looking stingy by buying government-subsidized goodies.

In 2021 alone, the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) spent more than $70 billion propping up the corn industry. Since the 1970s, candy manufacturers have shifted significantly from cane sugar to high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), due largely to the artificially low price but also to increased availability as more agribusinesses shift to corn production to enjoy the benefits of federal subsidies. This distorts prices and manipulates the market, and it can even cause serious environmental issues that affect soil and water health along with other metrics. The effects are broad and wide ranging, including agricultural runoff contributing to dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere.

There are critical health issues to consider as well. Forty percent of U.S. adults are classified as obese. This leads to all sorts of serious health issues including diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. Though there is scant evidence to support the theory that corn syrup is inherently worse for our health than other sweeteners, modern shifts in public opinion on dietary health have pushed back on the excessive use of HFCS in favor of more natural, less processed sources like honey, maple syrup, and even cane sugar. These products are more expensive than their HFCS counterparts, however, and they are not necessarily accessible to all Americans. Even better, we should work to lower our consumption of sweetened products and ultra-processed foods. Unfortunately, the high prevalence of federal farm subsidies means these foods are artificially cheaper, making them a bigger part of the standard American diet and contributing to nearly 60 percent of the country’s daily caloric intake.

While this information may discourage you from buying a heart-shaped box of chocolates this Valentine’s Day, the extent of farm handouts may leave you with few subsidy-savvy gift options. Roses are a classic choice, but they, too, benefit from taxpayer subsidies. A nice bottle of wine? Nix that—grapes receive federal support. Even a fancy steak dinner would take some digging—you’d have to make sure the beef is grass fed and free of subsidized cattle feed. If all else fails, the safest bet might be jewelry, as neither gemstones nor gold receive federal subsidies. Shiny, sparkly, and subsidy-free—what could be better for a Valentine home run?