 Did you ever think you'd see the day that a group of farmers begged Washington not too send them subsidy checks?Probably not, but that's the crux of the sugar policy debate currently unfolding on Capitol Hill. Multinational food companies are aggressively lobbying lawmakers to shove $1.3 billion a year in sugar subsidy checks down farmers' throats. The only problem: Sugar farmers want taxpayers to keep the money. An article in the Jan. 22 edition of BusinessWeek described the battle this way: “That's right: The sugar lobby has said ‘no thanks' to a proposal that would send hundreds of millions of dollars its way. And astoundingly, there's still pressure on Congress to give sugar producers the money they don't want.” The sugar industry instead wants Congress to adopt a sugar policy like the current one—a program without government checks that hasn't cost taxpayers anything. “Sugar farmers had rather receive their returns from the market instead of U.S. taxpayers,” explained an American Sugar Alliance fact sheet sent to lawmakers this week. “The current sugar policy debate is unlike any before,” said Dalton Yancey, the chairman of the American Sugar Alliance, a trade group that represents U.S. sugar producers. “In past, food manufacturers wanted to eliminate our industry and depend on imports,” he said. “But they were burned by the poor quality of imports last year and now they want us around so badly they're demanding that Congress break out the checkbook.” The tainted imports Yancey refers to came in after Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma temporarily interrupted domestic sugar supplies. When barge loads of refined sugar arrived from Mexico, food manufacturers quickly noticed that metal shavings, hunks of burlap, and rodent feces made the sugar inedible. U.S. companies had to re-refine the sugar so it could be used, adding to delays and cost. So why aren't industrial sugar users happy with the current no-cost policy? “Because they are always looking to boost their bottom lines,” Yancey said, “and if taxpayers-funded subsidies can lower sugar prices by even a penny, then the food manufacturers are all for it.” But, you shouldn't expect to find cheaper products on the grocery store shelves if the big food companies are successful in selling the sugar subsidy scheme. As the American Sugar Alliance points out, companies tend to pocket ingredient cost savings instead of passing them along to consumers. “Manufacturers pay less for sugar today than they did in 1990, yet the prices of chocolates, ice cream, and other sweet treats have climbed by as much as 50%,” read the fact sheet sent by sugar producers to Capitol Hill. Makes you wonder why anyone but food manufacturer executives would support the $1.3 billion sugar subsidy proposal. Especially after the American Sugar Alliance pointed out that $1.3 billion a year would cost U.S. taxpayers $108,333,333 every month; $25,000,000 every week; $3,561,644 every day; and $148,317 every hour.
|
|||