Of that $2 billion with a B, 43% comes from corn processing - 22% "BioProducts" (ethanol) and 21% "Sweeteners and Starches" (corn syrup & high fructose corn syrup). There are other products the corn turns into, too - all the ingredients you can't pronounce on food labels: crystalline dextrose, xanthan gum, sorbitol, astaxanthin, etc. Together, the "Sweeteners and Starches" were worth $431,000,000 in profits (not revenues) in FY 2006.

How much of the high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) market do they have? Ummmmm.... a lot of it. From what I found online, they had 33% of HFCS 42 and 25% of HFCS 55, then they bought out Minnesota Corn Processors, who had 30%. I couldn't find a good source that had their market share after the merger took place in 2002, so estimate ADM has between 1/3 and 1/2 (or more?) of all of the HFCS sold in the US.

Some Fun HFCS Facts & History

Don't mistake HFCS for something natural because it has the word "corn" in it. The process to make HFCS was invented in the late 1960's: using enzymes, first, cornstarch is processed into glucose, and then some of the glucose is processed into fructose. HFCS either contains 42% fructose or 55% fructose (known as HFCS 42 or HFCS 55, respectively). Manufacturers prefer HFCS to sugar because it is cheap, it travels easily as a liquid, it gives baked goods a delightful browned look, and it preserves shelf life. To the consumer, HFCS 55 tastes as sweet as sucrose.

Is HFCS metabolized the same as sugar? I'm not sure. I can't tell if industry is pulling some bullcrap similar to what they do about global warming... you know... "the jury is still out" or "there is no evidence that HFCS is metabolized differently than sugar"... I am not a food scientist. I'll give you both arguments.

Sugar (sucrose) is a disaccharide - a molecule made from 2 sugars, glucose and fructose. When you eat sucrose, the glucose and fructose split apart in your digestive tract, and you digest each of them. The pro-HFCS argument is that HFCS 55 is 55% fructose and 42% glucose (plus some polysaccharides), and it is basically the same as eating sucrose, except it's half-pre-digested for you.

The anti-HFCS argument revolves around a hormone called leptin that tells your body you are full. Apparently glucose triggers leptin production, fructose does not. Furthermore, HFCS contains more fructose than sugar, and the fructose in HFCS is more immediately available to you because it's not bound up in the sucrose molecule.

Think what you want about that - and add more info in the comments if you've got it.

Church Chat

How conveeeeenient that corn prices have fallen steadily since the 1970's. Corn prices today are artificially low because government subsidies encourage overproduction. In 1974, corn sold for over $3/bushel (over $12/bu in 2006 dollars). By 1976, the price sunk to $1.50/bushel ($5.04/bushel in 2006 dollars), which was the price floor. Already, farmers were losing money because their costs of production exceeded their revenues (one factor was that many had gone out and bought new tractors - at the suggestion of the government - just a few years before, and they were still paying for them). Since then, the government has removed the price floor. During the 2005 harvest, corn fetched a price of $1.35/bushel.

How conveeeeenient that corn prices fell while sugar prices have remained high. Throughout all of our Republican presidencies, sugar is the only commodity to retain its price support system. The price of sugar isn't naturally high, it's artificially high. Now that Brazil uses sugar for ethanol, the world price of sugar rose - I heard this anecdotally on Al Franken so I hope I'm getting my numbers right - from $.07/lb to $.18/lb, and U.S. price-supported sugar prices are still higher than that!

How conveeeeenient that ADM got into HFCS production right as corn prices began to fall. According to USDA ERS data, per capita consumption of HFCS rose from nothing in the 1960s to 59.2 pounds per capita in 2004. Because corn was so cheap and sugar prices were artificially high, HFCS competed well with sugar.

HFCS consumption hit a milestone when both Coca-Cola and Pepsi gradually switched from 100% sucrose to 100% HFCS in their soft drinks in the early- to mid-1980s.  At the same time our HFCS consumption was growing, sucrose consumption fell from 101.8 pounds per capita in 1970 to 61.5 pounds per capita in 2004. Sucrose and HFCS consumption together rose by about 20 pounds from 1970 to 120.7 pounds per capita in 2004. Isn't that special?

(An additional resource is CSPI - "America: Drowning in Sugar")

ADM's History of Charitable Giving

I'll tell you how convenient it is. It takes about the internet skills of a fifth grader to locate ADM's history of campaign contributions, at least for the past 16 years (Opensecrets.org only went back to 1990).

Looking at their contributions between 1990 and 2006,  they gave a total of $7,778,389, with 57% going to the Republicans, 43% going to the Democrats. However, unlike many big donors they gave much more ($1,970,060) in contributions in 2002 mid-term elections than they did in the presidential election year 2004 ($102,175). The reason? The 2002 farm bill. ADM knows what it is doing.

Where did all that money go in 2002? Most of the nearly $2 million went to PACs. The remaining $179,810 of their contributions that went to individual candidates was strategically scattered around Capital Hill in small amounts like $1000. They gave to the Dennis Hastert, to the Chairman of the Senate ag committee, Tom Harkin, to other Senate ag committee members, like Max Baucus and Pat Roberts, many Illinois politicians such as Rep. Timothy V. Johson (R-IL), Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL), Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL), and anyone else you can think of.

How Convenient Is It For The Rest Of Us?

ADM didn't just do a SWOT analysis and magically realize that investing in HFCS was the way to go back in the early 1970's. Corn prices were through the roof back then! They have a track record of paying to get what they want from Washington - from both parties. (I found this blog post with more info but I haven't found other sources to corroborate it - I recommend checking it out.)

It's not convenient for corn farmers. They are hurting. The government told them to plant from fencerow to fencerow. They planted a ton of corn and bought new tractors, then prices fell.

It's not convenient for us. We're too fat to fit on airplanes because we've been gorging on an extra 20 lbs of added sugars each year. Our children are fat too, and many are Type II diabetics (the type that used to be called "Adult Onset").

Unfortunately, we can't afford $2mil in campaign contributions for each farm bill to turn things around. We just vote. We're just citizens. What do we count? (Diebold, don't answer that.)