He said of his rule: “In thinking about and preparing this plan, I found myself guided by one simple proposition, which I believe will be instructive for our efforts over the next two years: ‘Are my efforts addressing job creation and the economy; are they reducing spending; and are they shrinking the size of the Federal Government while increasing and protecting liberty? If not, why am I doing it? Why are WE doing it?’”

 

Under this clear benchmark, sugar policy boasts a perfect score, which might explain why it remains so popular with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Here’s what we mean.

 

 

After nearly 20 years of shedding more than 100,000 U.S. jobs and closing sugar-producing facilities in rural America, the current sugar policy appears to have righted the ship.  In fact, fewer sugar processing factories have shut down under the Farm Bill passed in 2008 than in any previous Farm Bill. 

 

And according to a recent study of sugar related jobs in America, the sugar industry is holding steady at 142,000 jobs and $20 billion in economic activity, which means fewer sugar jobs are going overseas and the industry isn’t adding to an already staggering trade deficit.

 

But it’s not just sugar producers who have thrived since the 2008 law went into effect. Industrial sugar users— ironically among the only opponents of sugar policy—are recording record sales and revenues, increasing productivity, expanding U.S. operations, and adding jobs here at home. U.S. Census data show candy production jumping 2.5 percent since 2008.

 

 

Sugar policy doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime, which is one reason it is so popular in today’s difficult budget environment. It has run at zero cost since 2002, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture expects it to remain no cost through at least 2021.

 

This is in stark contrast to the sugar policy alternative floated by large food manufacturers during the debate of the last Farm Bill. They hoped to use taxpayer subsidies to drive down their ingredient costs in an attempt to boost corporate profits. That plan was projected to cost taxpayers $1.3 billion a year.

 

 

As a no-cost policy, the size of government needed to administer sugar policy pales in comparison to other policies. And given sugar’s importance to the U.S. food supply, this policy helps underpin the nation’s food security. This fact played out this year, as the United States has enjoyed sugar surpluses while the rest of the world suffered shortages. 

 

Producers in the European Union, for example, have warned U.S. lawmakers not to scrap its sugar policy and become too reliant on unreliable foreign suppliers—as the EU did.

 

As for the expansion of liberty, the poorest countries in the world remain some of the biggest supporters of U.S. sugar policy and are actively lobbying for its continuation in the next Farm Bill. That’s because it guarantees 38 developing nations access to the world’s most coveted market.

 

That’s a great question. A handful of lawmakers have introduced legislation to eliminate sugar policy and leave Americans susceptible to the whims of an unstable, unpredictable world dump market. Such a move would jeopardize our food security and harm the United States, just as it did Europe. 

 

Seems a steep price to pay considering the current sugar policy doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime, boosts rural economies, and supports good-paying U.S. jobs. Not to mention, Americans still spend less of their incomes on sugar than any country in the world.