| One-Sided Post |
 |
| The Sugar Beat |
|
It’s not unusual for the Washington Post to editorialize in favor of the elimination of U.S. sugar policy. Even though such action
 would lead to demise of the U.S. sugar industry in favor of subsidized foreign producers, the Post has taken that stance for decades—just like a handful of Congressmen continue to introduce the same unpopular anti-sugar bills year after year. It’s also not unusual for responses to these negative editorials to go unpublished. That’s why we wanted to share four responses to the newspaper’s latest attack.
Dear editor:
The Federal Reserve recently released a paper that stated, “In 2010, rural America was at the forefront of the economic recovery.” Why then would the Washington Post editorialize for the elimination of a policy that’s so essential to many rural communities? Especially considering sugar policy hasn’t cost taxpayers anything or added to the federal deficit while keeping consumer prices relatively flat since the 1980s.
The sugar industry helps generate $10 billion in economic activity and supports 146,000 jobs, ranging from farmers in the Red River Valley to delivery truckers who bring sugar to DC store shelves. That’s a pretty solid return for a taxpayer investment of $0.
Eliminate U.S. sugar policy while the rest of the world lavishes protections and subsidies on its producers, and the economic recovery taking place right now will be hurt—and that hurt will be felt from coast to coast.
Sincerely,
Larry Combest
Former House Agriculture Committee Chairman
---
Dear editor:
USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack likes to say, “If you have trouble with Hugo Chavez providing your oil, how do you feel about him providing your food?” Judging from Sunday’s editorial attacking sugar policy, some don’t think that’s such a bad idea.
Sugar is a vital ingredient in the U.S. food supply, and handing its production over to foreign producers would be a recipe for disaster.
The world sugar market is so volatile that 80 percent of the sugar grown around the globe is never traded on it. It is simply a dump market for surplus sugar, and all sugar-producing countries have policies in place to guard against the dump market, which would otherwise drive domestic farmers out of business.
America has a sugar policy, but unlike many other countries, ours doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime. And it supports an industry that employs 146,000 people.
For proof that this policy is needed, just look back at the days following Hurricane Katrina when disruptions in the Gulf region forced us to import refined sugar. That sugar wasn’t easy to find, and when it arrived, it wasn’t fit for consumption by American standards.
Sincerely,
Russ Mauch
North Dakota Sugarbeet Farmer
President, American Sugarbeet Growers Association
---
Dear editor:
Your editorial Sunday on sugar got it wrong when it depicted a troubled U.S. candy industry. That sector is doing just fine, thank you. The candy business proudly boasted in 2008-- as the recession was harming other industries--that its profit margins averaged more than 35 percent.
According to U.S. Census data, U.S. manufacturers of confectionary products grew by 6.4 percent from 2002 to 2009. Any job loss in that sector is due to increasing efficiency, not falling production.
As a former USDA official who follows the confectionary business closely, I can say that the candy companies that left America years ago did so to escape U.S. wages, worker benefits, and U.S. taxes. Sugar policy had little, if anything, to do with it.
I can also say that flight to low-wage countries in the sector appears to have run its course. Many U.S. sweetened-product manufacturers are opening new factories or expanding old ones.
This is a far cry from your doomsday portrait suggesting that sugar policy be eliminated. The Congress apparently knows better and has continuously supported no-cost sugar policy.
Sincerely,
Peter Buzzanell
--
Dear editor:
Sunday's editorial on U.S. sugar policy has at least one basic concept wrong. The policy helps employment in poorer sugar-producing countries, rather than harming it.
U.S. sugar policy tracks a 1994 agreement that guarantees 38 developing countries dependable, even if limited, access to the U.S. market at U.S. prices. The U.S. market is an appealing alternative to the world sugar market, where subsidies and trade distortions introduced by a handful of major producers have left prices for years at a time below the cost of production, and more volatile than the price of oil.
Absent U.S. sugar policy, sugar farmers in the U.S. and in many developing countries would be displaced in the U.S. market by exports from mega-producer Brazil, whose giant sugar-ethanol agro-industrial complex enjoys strong government support.
That is why the sugar industries I represent, including those of such countries as Jamaica, the Philippines, Zimbabwe, and the Dominican Republic, support U.S. sugar policy and oppose misguided efforts to dismantle it.
Sincerely,
Paul Ryberg
President, International Sugar Trade Coalition
[PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION] |
Audio & Video
|
|