Trust me -- reconstituted milk with coconut oil is not that great. That was what they served/sold to the U.S. Military in the chow halls and commissaries that sucked in South Korea.

We weren't supposed to drink the local milk because TB was "common" in the South Korean milk supply. The regs were setup in the early 60s.

The military could have setup a dairy pasteurizing and supply chain to military bases for about $250K anytime in the 70s or 80s from any of the bases in South Korea (probably at a profit). Not to mention that the milk sold on the local economy was now pasteurized.

But no -- that level of common sense didn't occur to them.

The base general (total "health nut") came in the late 80s and commissioned a study costing about $70K to see if they could replace the coconut oil with something else because of the high cholesterol. They didn't find a replacement oil.

So we were stuck with the crappy tasting fake milk until after I left SK, for the last time, in the early 90s.

Well, the government protects sugar prices as well.

And nothing will happen to price controls like this as they just get buried in the white noise of government stupidity.

@Jim P: "Trust me -- reconstituted milk with coconut oil is not that great. That was what they served/sold to the U.S. Military in the chow halls and commissaries that sucked in South Korea."

You're sure right about that! We had the same thing in Okinawa, about the same time you were in Korea. U.S. forces in Okinawa were provided filled milk from a plant on the island overseen by the 18th Services Squadron. Funny-tasting stuff, even after they started using (with considerable fanfare) some kind of grape seed oil.

It's when they sell it below cost that it becomes a problem

Um - problem for whom, exactly? What a jackass statement. Why do "journalists" never say to sources like this, "Excuse me, sir, but what exactly do you mean by that?"

That would assume they are acctually journalists and not goverment minted parrots

In the words of one contemporary Congressman, "The superiority of the white race is due at least to some extent on the fact that it is a milk-consuming race."

A contemporary of the 1938 case, or a contemporary-as-in-right-now Congressman? And if you're going to throw a grenade of a quote like that, why not name the fellow?

What Kevin said. A few brief attempts with Google turn up no such quote. Either he is seriously paraphrasing (in which case it does not belong in quotation marks), or he simply made this up. Either way, it typifies the modern standards of journalism.

The ironic thing is, a lot of people will argue to their dying breath that these regulations are intended to shield family farms and small dairies. The fact that exactly the opposite has happened won't faze them at all.

"Well, the government protects sugar prices as well."

True, and that's the cause of most of the HFCS use in prepared foods. Putting aside for a moment the possible health effects of HFCS, the fact is that the use of it would just about disappear if sugar was priced at market. But again, when you point this out to people, they will insist that market pricing would ruin the sugar producers, while at the same time they scream for a ban on HFCS.

Cousin Dave:

"Good News!"

"the fact is that the use of [HFCS] would just about disappear if sugar was priced at market. "

Noticed all the 'Throwback' or 'Classic' recipes for drinks, especially, showing up?

With the idiocy of the ethanol mandates, many farmers are growing and selling corn for wasteful fuel use, not for corn syrup.

So HFCS is now close to, or at parity, with the heavily tariffed sugar at times!