• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • End the U.S. Sugar Program

    The Depression-era sugar program was supposed to end in 1940. Instead, the Senate may soon vote on whether to extend it to 2017.

    The sugar program inflates sugar prices by capping the amount that food manufacturers and consumers in the United States can buy from producers in other countries. If a bakery or a candy company wants to import more sugar than the amount Congress has dictated, it must pay a prohibitively expensive 15.36 cents per pound for raw sugar. A 15-cent tariff on top of the current world sugar price of 20 cents per pound works out to a whopping 75 percent tariff rate.

    Last month, Americans paid 49 percent more for raw sugar than if they were allowed to freely import it. Clearly the sugar program is not a “no-cost” policy, as sugar producers assert, since it increases prices for everyone who buys sugar or products that contain sugar.

    Sugar producers have invested heavily in lobbying activities and political donations to keep the sugar program in place. Sugar accounts for just 1.9 percent of the value of total U.S. crop production, but sugar producers fund 55 percent of crop-related political action committee donations and 34.2 percent of crop-related lobbying expenses.\

    According to the American Sugar Alliance, seven out of 10 Americans prefer to buy homegrown sugar, even if foreign sugar is cheaper. Let’s find out if that’s true: Congress should let Americans choose how they want to spend their hard-earned dollars. Ending the sugar program would be a good start.

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to End the U.S. Sugar Program

    1. Bobbie says:

      the country and government should've graduated from 1940. It's again, their disrespects to liberties! Government control will pull anything out of thin air to distort! Sugar is more healthy for the body then their misleading claims to insist by government controlled coercion, it isn't.

    2. occamsedge says:

      You are of, course correct. This is a wasteful subsidy. But it is extremely small, and even insignificant considering the scope of things that need to be done to restore our country.

      In my own order: 1) Entitlement Reform, including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SNAP, and so on. Yes, I know that Medicare and Social Security reform hit me right between the eyes, but it must be done. 2) Eliminate the current tax system. "Reform" is not good enough. I have worked under a 20% flat tax in Taiwan, and it works so well that they have surpluses, not deficits.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×