Prosecutors indicted 4 starch sugar companies, saying they moved prices together for about 8 years. The article said the confirmed cartel size was 10 trillion 1,520 hundred million KRW. It said the key point was that companies known to hold around 90% of the market agreed on the timing and size of price changes. This starch sugar is widely used as an ingredient for snacks, drinks, and dairy products. According to the article, after the cartel, starch prices rose up to 73.4%, and fructose prices rose 63.8%. It also said the consumer price index for corn syrup rose about 39%, which was bigger than the overall consumer price increase. The companies are said to have disguised it by giving different proposal ranges to each client or adjusting the timing of official letters. On the same day, in the first trial of the sugar cartel case, suspended prison sentences or fines were given. At the end of the article, it said that separate from the criminal trial, civil lawsuits claiming damage from price distortion are also ongoing.
원문 보기The real starting point of the snack price news is 'starch sugar'
When we see news that snack prices went up, we usually think of sugar prices or flour prices first. But in this case, the more important word is starch sugar products. Starch sugar products are sugars made by breaking down starch from plants like corn, and ingredients like corn syrup, glucose, fructose, and liquid fructose are included here. If you understand this first, you can see why the price moves of a few raw material companies can shake the prices of snacks and drinks as a whole.
Starch sugar products are not just ingredients that make things sweet. Because they mix easily as liquid, they are convenient for mass production in factories, and they also help control thickness, gloss, texture, and preservation. Simply put, if sugar is a 'sweetness button,' starch sugar products are closer to an ingredient sold as sweetness plus texture and processing convenience together. So they can go into different food groups at the same time, like snacks, soda, yogurt, bread, and sauce.
This structure is important. If a raw material is used in only one or two products, even if the price goes up, the ripple effect is limited. But for a raw material like starch sugar products, which becomes a common base material for many processed foods, the story is different. It is like touching the building foundation, not just one floor, so if the raw material market moves around a small number of companies, it can affect many items that consumers buy often.
Starch sugar products are not just a substitute for sugar, but a key raw material widely used across processed foods.
So news about raw material cartels is connected not only to one company, but to overall everyday prices.
Sugar and starch sugar products may sound similar, but their roles are quite different
Both make food sweet, but from a food company's view, they are used differently. If you know this difference, you can better see why the cartel impact in the starch sugar market is large.
| Comparison item | Sugar | |
|---|---|---|
| Main ingredient | Mainly sucrose from sugarcane and sugar beet | |
Starch sugar products Glucose, fructose, and corn syrup types made by breaking down starch like corn | ||
| Form | Mainly solid | |
| Main function | Mainly for adding sweetness | |
| Products used a lot | Confectionery, baking, and home cooking | |
| Price ripple effect | It may be limited depending on the item | |
Why did food collusion keep happening again and again?
If you look at only this case, it may seem like a chance event. But if you look at the bigger flow, similar problems have happened many times in the Korean food industry, especially in raw materials or popular food markets.
Step 1: In 2001~2011, the ramen 4 companies collusion suspicion became a representative case
When one company raised prices first, a pattern where other companies followed became a problem, and in 2012 the Fair Trade Commission imposed a total surcharge of 1,354 hundred million KRW. This was when more people felt that food collusion was 'a problem directly connected to my daily life.'
Step 2: In 2021~2025, the sugar 3 companies case showed again the problem of oligopoly in raw materials
The 3 sugar companies were sanctioned for agreeing several times on the timing and size of price increases. It became even clearer that the risk of collusion grows in the basic raw materials market, not only in finished products.
Step 3: In 2026, here is why the starch syrup 4 companies case was called 'one of the biggest ever'
This time, about 8 years, a transaction scale in the 10 trillion KRW range, and ripple effects reaching snacks, drinks, and dairy products all overlapped. That is why this is seen not as one-time price coordination, but as a long-lasting structural problem.
If you look at the numbers, you can see why this case is called 'one of the biggest ever'
This is a reference comparison that places surcharges and confirmed transaction scale on the same axis. Since legal penalty amounts and transaction scale are mixed together, it should not be seen as a direct comparison, but as a way to get a sense of how big this case is.
When raw material prices go up, snack prices rise like this too
This is a reference comparison that puts together the increase ranges mentioned in articles and related reports. It shows that some of the rise in raw material prices can shrink before reaching consumer prices, but since these are different indicators, they should not be read as a 1-to-1 match.
Why consumer price pass-through is different even with the same cost increase
Even if raw material prices go up, snack prices do not always rise by the same rate. If you look at the variables below, you can understand why some products go up quickly, while others go up later or rise less.
| Variable | When the price pass-through gets bigger | |
|---|---|---|
| Brand power | When there are few substitutes and many loyal customers | |
Point for readers to understand The more famous the brand, the easier it is to pass the increase on to consumer prices. | ||
| Competition level | When the market has weak competition | |
| Share of raw material cost | When raw materials take a big share of product cost | |
| Whether substitutes exist | When it is hard to switch to other sweeteners or recipes | |
| Distribution bargaining power | When distributors do not absorb the increase | |
This is how collusion is hidden, and this is how investigators find it
Many people easily think, 'If the prices are the same, it is collusion, and if they are different, maybe it is not.' In reality, even if the results are not exactly the same, it is still a problem if there is an agreement or coordination to avoid competition.
| How companies hide it | Clues investigators look at | |
|---|---|---|
| Unofficial contact, secret meetings, messenger and verbal contact | On-site investigation, search and seizure, email and messenger forensics | |
Why is it important Even without a direct agreement document, traces of contact remain | ||
| They do not make the price exactly the same, but adjust the timing and range | Analysis of simultaneous price increases and similar adjustment patterns | |
| They disguise it by making the proposal range different for each client | Compare the timing of official letter sending, proposal format, and internal report materials | |
| Destroying documents, keeping records to a minimum | Securing file metadata, identical typos, and call and business trip records | |
| Explaining it outwardly as if each side decided on its own | Leniency (self-reporting) and insider statements | |
What is different about administrative fines, criminal punishment, and civil lawsuits
The question, 'It is collusion worth 10 trillion KRW, so why does the punishment look weak?' becomes clearer when you look at how the system works. In Korea, collusion sanctions focus on administrative penalties, so the scale seen in the news and the level of punishment felt in court can seem different.
| Type | What kind of procedure is it | |
|---|---|---|
| Administrative fine | An administrative penalty that the Fair Trade Commission imposes on a company | |
What are the limits Even if there is a legal upper limit, reductions and adjustments can make the deterrent effect feel weak | ||
| Criminal punishment | A procedure where prosecutors indict and the court decides fines or prison terms | |
| Civil lawsuit | A procedure where victims claim compensation for damages | |
| Leniency | A system that reduces or waives penalties if a cartel participant reports it first by choice. | |
So this news is a bigger story than just 'one bag of snacks'
Up to this point, you can see that this news is not simple enough to read as just 'a snack company got greedy.' The key point is that the raw material market is controlled by a small number of companies, that raw material spreads into many processed foods, and that even if they get caught, the system does not automatically lead to refunds for consumers, and all of this is tied together as one package. If you understand this, then even when similar price news comes out next time, you will not just hear 'costs went up' and move on.
When you read news like this later, it is good to look at three things together. First, is the item in question a finished product, or is it a basic raw material like sugar or starch syrup? Second, is the market an oligopoly market concentrated in a few companies? Third, does the penalty end with a surcharge, or does it continue to criminal trials and civil lawsuits? If you look at these three things, you can judge the impact and limits of the case much more clearly.
In the end, this news is closer to an example that shows how the cost of living in Korea is shaped, rather than just the price tag of one bag of snacks. You need to look at competition in the raw material market, the price pass-through structure, and the real possibility of consumer relief together to finally see the full picture. Even understanding just this part will make you feel much less lost next time you read news about food price increases.
Before 'snack prices went up,' first look at 'what happened in which raw material market.'
News about collusion is not just about one price problem. You need to read the oligopoly structure and the penalty structure together to understand the meaning clearly.
We will tell you how to live in Korea
Please give lots of love to gltr life