Posted on 01/18/2006 3:44:25 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
TWIN FALLS, Idaho -- Sugar producer groups are still awaiting word on whether sugar will be part of a World Trade Organization deal to allow unrestricted access to U.S. markets by 50 least-developed countries, officials said.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which is leading the Doha round of WTO free-trade talks, is still considering what to exclude from the deal, said Jack Roney, director of economics and policy analysis for the American Sugar Alliance in Arlington, Va.
The United States adopted the proposal last month at the WTO ministerial conference in Hong Kong, where world agricultural subsidies were addressed. The deal calls for the United States to open all but 3 percent of its approximate 1,700 tariff line-items to duty-free and quota-free access to poor countries, he said.
“We’d prefer this is not in place at all,” Roney said.
But the alliance hopes sugar is ultimately included in the 3 percent of items that will remain off limits under the pact. If it isn’t, the alliance would probably have to oppose the trade deal if it went to Congress, he said.
“This is a serious threat,” he said.
That’s because the 50 least-developed countries produce a combined total of 3.3 million metric tons of sugar a year and export a total of 983,000 metric tons a year. If all that sugar came to the United States, it would lower market prices.
Jeff Henry, who grows sugar beets in the Eden-Hazelton area, said that would seriously damage U.S. sugar producers.
The U.S. program depends on the government regulating sugar sales to ensure adequate returns to producers, rather than paying subsidies, according to the Alliance. That much sugar coming into America duty-free would threaten the no-cost operation of the sugar program.
The issue is a major concern for producers, said Luther Markwart, executive vice president of the American Sugarbeet Growers Association in Washington, D.C.
Further, countries could work the system by selling all their homegrown sugar in the United States, then buying back the sugar they need from the “world market.”
That market consists of subsidized sugar from Europe and other countries, sold for standard prices in those countries, that exceeds their needs and is dumped for barely half the cost of production to save on storage costs.
But American negotiators recognize the deal is a major issue for sugar, said U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman at a Dec. 19 press conference in Hong Kong.
“We do have a program in place where we think duty-free access could create a problem, and that’s one reason we wanted to have some flexibility,” Portman said. “The other major issue I think would be textiles.”
Portman said negotiators believe they left enough space in the proposal to deal with any concerns in Congress. He said the United States hopes to wrap up the Doha round of WTO talks this year.
Sugar news.
Better ping the Toddmeister too. B-P Well, I just did out of common courtesy of pinging becaue if mentioning a specific Freeper by name.
We might finally have soda pop that uses sugar again.
I'm all for it. There is no need to protect Big Sugar.
Give me a break Hedgetrimmer. Calling sugar beet growers an "industry" is besmirching the term industry. It's not viable without a huge albeit indirect subsidy paid by us all. Travel overseas a little bit and see how much better Coke is with sugar in case you have forgotten.
Since the elimination of the Sugar Act nearly 40 years ago, the price of sugar in the US has not decreased. Reduction of sugar production in the US over that period has not meant cheaper prices because of the professed cheaper "world market" prices. As it turns out, even relocation of candy manufacturing offshore ostensibly because of cheaper sugar, in reality, was to get away from expensive US labor laws and rules.
Bottom line, US sugar cannot compete with foreign sugar because of US laws, not because of direct production costs.
Sorry. The sugar industry in America is very heavily subsidized. We pay twice the world market price and slap 100% tariffs on the sugar we import to protect a handful of powerful sugar farmers.
But that's okay with hedgetrimmer. She doesn't care that US citizens get screwed for the benefit of a few farmers.
I say remove all subsidies and tariffs from sugar, and do it yesterday. I don't want to eat anything made with corn syrup ever again. Cheap sugar for all! Free the sugarcane!
-ccm
Give me a break.
If raw materials are 50% less and that is the vast majority of what a piece of candy is made of, labor is a minor cost.
Do you think each piece of taffy is handmade and formed?
Since both corn syrup and sucrose are made up of glucose and fructose, how can High Fructose Corn Syrup be any more responsible for obesity than sucrose?
Hmmm...I don't remember being consulted on any farm bill that tripled the cost of sugar for American citizens.
And you "free traders" repeat over and over, its the "consumers" you care about, not citizens.
Wrong, I care about American citizens who consume sugar. Make up any new facts defending the sugar subsidies lately?
How exactly do these government mandated higher prices benefit US citizens again?
Go ahead. The 2007 farm bill is being written right now. Get going.
You mean I should tell my Congressman that I don't like high priced sugar? What are you going to tell your Congressman? Will you ask for higher prices? For the farmers?
Then it is deserved. If the industry refuses to change and remain competitive, then good riddance.
Protectionism and isolationism only cost consumers -- you and me -- more money.
Lower the price of sugar and you might have all the candy, gum and other businesses who went to Canada come back. Taxes COULD be lowered on all of us too, but I won't hold my breath.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.