Wednesday
April
23
2014
4:57 am
Weather
  Home
  Local News
  State / National / World
  Sports
  Opinion / Letters
  Business
  Arts / Entertainment
  Lifestyle
  Obituaries
  Calendar
  Submit Event
  Comics / Games
  Classifieds
  DJ Designers
  Archives
  Advertise With Us
  About Us
 
 
 
 

Check out our archive of Dining Guides - Yum!

OP-ED: Cashing in on Uncle Sam’s sweet tooth
September 16, 2013, 05:00 AM Los Angeles Times

Federal efforts to protect growers of sugar beets and sugar cane epitomize everything that’s wrong with U.S. farm programs. At times they’ve artificially raised the price of sugar, costing consumers billions of dollars; at other times they’ve stuck taxpayers with the bill for the surplus sugar production they’ve promoted. The fact that the sugar program is likely to survive the latest rewrite of the farm bill unscathed is a testament to how limited the bill’s “reforms” are.

Sweeteners are ubiquitous in processed foods, and sugar is the most popular by far. There are two primary sources in the United States: sugar beets, which are grown in parts of California (mainly in Imperial County) and 10 other states, and sugar cane, which is grown only in Hawaii, Texas, Louisiana and Florida. According to the most recent national data, there are 155 sugar beet farms in California — all in the southeastern corner — and two sugar refineries.

Like the rest of the agriculture industry, beet and cane growers enjoy considerable protection from the federal government that’s not contingent on their incomes. But while other farmers are typically offered subsidized crop insurance (taxpayers cover roughly 60% of the cost) and guarantees against steep reductions in revenue, beet and cane farmers are also protected by import and production quotas that limit supply, deter competition and inflate prices.

Their trade associations argue that the sugar program offsets foreign governments’ sugar subsidies, which trump American farmers’ superior productivity. ...

The rationale behind the sugar program is the same one used to justify every federal farm subsidy: To ensure a reliable food supply, farmers should be protected against the unpredictable and potentially ruinous swings in harvests and crop prices, not to mention unfair foreign competition. The most straightforward way to do so would be a means-tested system that helps farmers who run into financial trouble. There’s limited sensitivity to need in U.S. farm programs, however. As a result, their benefits flow overwhelmingly to the largest — and, consequently, most durable — agribusinesses. According to economist (and farm program critic) Vincent Smith, 10 percent of the farm operations collect 60 percent of the $23.5 billion in annual farm subsidies.

Both of the competing farm bills passed by the House and Senate would eliminate the egregious direct-payment program, which pays cash to farm owners based on their acreage even in times of record profits.

The unusually high farm profits in recent years have given Congress a golden opportunity to try to wean agribusiness from federal subsidies and market-distorting protections. But lawmakers seem incapable of making meaningful changes even to a program as flawed and costly to consumers as the one that protects sugar beets and sugar cane farmers regardless of their potential to thrive without Uncle Sam’s help.

 

 

Tags: sugar, program, farmers, their, which, federal,


Other stories from today:

OP-ED: Japan must deliver on Olympics
November elections heat up
OP-ED: Cashing in on Uncle Sam’s sweet tooth
 

 
Print this Page Print this Page  |  Bookmark and Share
<< Back
 
Return To Archives
 
  


 
 
 
Daily Journal Quick Poll
 
What do you think of the Warriors' proposal to move to Mission Bay?

Smart, a better location
Still like the waterfront arena concept
Wish they would stay in Oakland
Anywhere in San Francisco is good
How about the Burlingame waterfront?

 

 
Tabbed Structure - Regular
  • The Daily Journal's office is located at:

    800 S. Claremont St., Ste. 210,
    San Mateo, CA 94402
    Phone: (650) 344-5200
    Fax: (650) 344-5290

    Email:
    news [at] smdailyjournal.com

These are currently our most viewed stories
To Report News - Click Here
 
 
 
 
 
Warriors formally announce plans for new arena in Mission Bay
The Golden State Warriors today formally announced their plans to build a new arena in San Francisco..
Biden: Russia must 'stop talking and start acting'
KIEV, Ukraine — U.S. Vice President Joe Biden warned Russia on Tuesday that "it's time to stop tal..
High court upholds Michigan affirmative action ban
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Michigan's ban on using race as a factor in colle..
More >>  
 
 
  
 
  
 
©2014 San Mateo Daily Journal
San Mateo County name change notice