• About Us
  • Activity
  • Advertising
  • Books
  • Business
  • Contact
  • Entertainment
  • feedback
  • Government
  • Home
  • Interviews
  • Members
  • National
  • Nevada
  • Nevada News and Views
  • Newsmax
  • NN&V Ads
  • Opinion
  • Politics
  • Polls
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe
  • Subscription Confirmation
  • Survey
  • Survey
  • Terms of Service
  • Today’s Top 10
  • Travel
  • Travel
  • Travel
  • Welcome!
  • Yop Poll Archive
Nevada News and Views
  • Home
  • Muth’s Truths
  • Politics
  • Government
  • Entertainment
  • More
    • Nevada
    • Opinion
    • Business
    • Travel
    • News
    • Sports
  • Facebook

  • Twitter

  • Pinterest

  • RSS

Business

Why the U.S. Should Not Follow the EU’s Failed Sugar Policy Experiment

Why the U.S. Should Not Follow the EU’s Failed Sugar Policy Experiment
N&V Staff
July 1, 2019

(Chuck Muth) – Free-market conservatives continue to push for Congress to eliminate the current U.S. sugar program – which imposes measured tariffs and quotas on imported sugar from nations that provide substantial subsidies to their own domestic sugar industries – despite the fact that such universal disarmament would inevitably harm U.S. farmers.

Fair-market conservatives argue that U.S protections should only be lifted after foreign competitors eliminate their price-distorting subsidy programs which give them an unfair advantage in the global marketplace.

So, who’s right?

Well, a new report released by the American Sugar Alliance (ASA) looks at how a universal disarmament policy has worked in the European Union – and it’s not a pretty picture.

As ASA notes, it’s now been 13 years since the EU “first began tearing down its sugar program.”

The result?  83 sugar mills have closed and 120,000 jobs have been lost.

The kicker?  “Subsidies remain prevalent as prices plummet below the cost of production.”

The study, authored by UK sugar policy expert Patrick Chatenay, reports that “EU sugar now operates with fluctuating, distorted and most often depressed world market prices, influenced by widespread government interventions.”

In other words, after the EU laid down its arms, its competitors kept theirs.

“Europe is often held up as a model for sugar reform, but the facts tell a much different story,” said American Sugar Alliance Chairman Ryan Weston. “European taxpayers continue to spend millions propping up the sugar industry while farmers face bankruptcy.

“Simply put, unilateral disarmament doesn’t work. A free sugar market will only be realized when every nation agrees to put an end to unfair subsidies that threaten highly efficient U.S. producers.”

And that’s the heart-and-soul of Rep. Ted Yoho’s (R-FL) “Zero for Zero” proposal.  If adopted, the U.S. would eliminate its modest sugar industry protections, but ONLY after foreign competitors eliminate their generous sugar subsidies.

It’s the only policy that makes sense – and the failed EU experiment with universal disarmament proves it.

Prev postNext post

Related Items
Business
July 1, 2019
N&V Staff

Related Items

More in Business

Myth-Buster: Sugar Policy Misconception Debunked

N&V StaffFebruary 23, 2021
Read More

Cheat Sugar, Not Cheap Sugar, is the Problem

N&V StaffFebruary 16, 2021
Read More

India Battling Sugar Subsidy Addiction

N&V StaffJanuary 25, 2021
Read More

Trump, Biden and U.S. Sugar Policy

N&V StaffJanuary 11, 2021
Read More

GUEST COMMENTARY: How the Whiskey Industry Could Point Way for Sugar Sector

N&V StaffDecember 14, 2020
Read More

What Congress Can Learn from Vietnam on Sugar Policy

N&V StaffDecember 8, 2020
Read More
Scroll for more
Tap

Subscribe Free By Email

Looking for the best in breaking news and conservative views? Let Chuck do all the work for you! Subscribe to his FREE "Muth's Truths" e-newsletter.

* indicates required
Nevada News and Views
Nevada News & Views is an educational project of Citizen Outreach Foundation, a non-partisan IRS-approved 501(c)(3) organization. It is not associated or affiliated with any political party or group. Nevada News & Views is accessible by the public at no cost. It funds its operations through tax-deductible contributions from donors and supporters and does not accept government money or grants.

TAGS

Featured Article Nevada Politics Muth's Truths business government Government Opinion Obama News Donald Trump GOP Republicans Ron Knecht Adam Laxalt

Copyright © 2021 Citizen Outreach | Maintained by VirtualAlly

Vetoed Nevada bill that would have created legislative oversight of corporate tax breaks could be revived next session
Taxpayer-funded union ‘release time’ challenged in Arizona, Texas, other states