March 2015

Sugarbeet and sugarcane growers made their annual visits to Capitol Hill in late February and early March to educate and discuss with congressional members and staff key issues of interest for our industry.

First, the farm bill has been written. . . farmers have made business decisions based on the contents of the bill. . . and now it must be defended. Attacks on farm policy against sugar policy, crop insurance and other important tools used by farmers are likely to come through the appropriations process that will play out in the coming months. Our request of everyone we visited was to vote against any attack on any of the farm policies. We are reminding offices that with a resolution of the Mexican trade problem, our policy is predicted to cost “$0” for the next 10 years by USDA. While the sugar users argued that they were paying substantially higher prices for sugar during the farm bill consideration, prices were driven by global shortages and not by the U.S. sugar policy.


Read our entire issue and back issues. Click here.

---

Second, Mexico unfairly dumped sugar into our market, harming taxpayers and sugar producers. It was a case that outraged our industry as it caused a $259 million blemish on a no-cost program and harmed growers to the tune of about $1 billion in lost revenue. As an industry, we would not tolerate it and thus took action to solve the problem through the use of antidumping and countervailing trade remedies — and we believe we have successfully accomplished that objective.

Third, Mexican subsidies and dumping are not an anomaly in the world market, but rather the norm. We have outlined the vast array of sugar subsidies around the world and note that if all subsidies were removed, inefficient producers would go out of business, world prices would strengthen significantly, and our efficient American farmers would compete without a sugar policy.

Fourth, we need a national uniformity labeling bill to address foods whose ingredients derived from biotechnology are not required to be labeled unless there is a health or safety issue. Specifically for sugar, there is no difference between sugar grown from biotech, conventional or organic production. With the protein and DNA removed during refining, it is no different than sugar produced from nonbiotech beet and cane.

A huge “Thank You” to all of the grower-leaders who walked miles of hallways to deliver your message to all the new staff and members of Congress. Also, a big “Thank You” for your support of your political action committees that allowed our growers to, in turn, show our support for those who support a strong domestic sugar industry.

At this year’s USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum in February, a representative of the National Confectioners Association presented their sweetener needs and a perspective of U.S. sugar policy. Here are their top priorities:

1. Consistent top-quality [sugar] is a must.
   
2. Reliable, timely supply essential (just-in-time delivery).
   
3. Larger users tend to buy for- 12 THE SUGARBEET GROWER March 2015 ward (provides security and predictability in pricing).
   
4. Often use multiple suppliers (competitors provide the best quality, service and price).
   
5. Need supply of both cane and beet sugar.
   
6. Geographic diversity (spread out the risk of market disruption and provide proximity to user manufacturing facilities).
   
7. Need both domestic and imported refined sugar supply.
   
8. Year-round supply.
   

What is interesting is that there’s a desire to have all of these benefits — but, they want sugar prices at such low levels that it would drive producers out of business and take away the things they desperately need. It makes no sense at all.

Sugar users also argue against any type of limitations on imports from Mexico even when the Mexicans are dumping unfairly into our market. Essentially, they are saying that if countries want to cheat in a trade agreement, we should simply ignore that if it gives us products at lower prices. I challenged the speaker and asked, “How does our nation move forward with negotiating future trade agreements that sugar users want if we don’t address cheating and enforce the agreements we already have?”

That is precisely why there is a lack of support for trade agreements that impact sensitive industries like sugar and can harm hard-working, taxpaying American citizens. Agreements correctly negotiated and effectively enforced give both confidence and support for trade negotiations.

Read our entire issue and back issues. Click here.