Todd Landry, a farmer who conjures big stands of sugar cane from the muddy fields of southern Louisiana, has been struggling lately against droughts and freezes and hurricanes. In January he will confront another peril: expanded sugar imports from Mexico.
"Will we have a flood of sugar coming across the border?" Landry wondered in a Cajun drawl. "Survival is on our minds every minute of every day."
Landry and other sugar producers think they have spotted a life raft, and its name is ethanol. Taking a cue from Midwestern farmers who have improved their lot by selling corn to ethanol distilleries, sugar cane and sugar beet farmers want an ethanol deal of their own, paid for by US taxpayers.
A little-noticed provision in the new farm bill working its way through the US Congress would oblige the Department of Agriculture to buy surplus domestic sugar resulting from the expected influx of Mexican sugar next year. Then the government would sell it, most likely at a steep discount, to ethanol producers to add to their fermentation tanks. The Bush administration is fighting the measure.
Sugar producers say the cost would be relatively low and the plan would help keep prices at a level they consider fair. As a side benefit, the deal would allow the nation to produce more ethanol to mix with gasoline, displacing some foreign oil, they say.
But ethanol producers are unenthused. And the plan is drawing fire from opponents of agricultural subsidies and from long-time critics of the sugar industry, who complain that producers already have one of the best deals in the nation's agricultural sector.
"It's a tax burden without a benefit that distorts both the ethanol market and the food-ingredient market," said Richard Pasco, counsel for the Sweetener Users Association, a lobby group for food companies that use sugar. "And guess who will pay the price? Taxpayers and consumers."
ASSUMPTIONS
The Congressional Budget Office calculates the cost at US$660 million over five years, relatively cheap as farm programs go. But that is an estimate based on assumptions about how much sugar will come across the border. In truth, no one is sure.
"The US Department of Agriculture would be taking on a limitless commitment to buy any quantity of sugar offered at a guaranteed price, and that would get very expensive, very quickly," said Robert Thompson, a University of Illinois professor of agricultural policy.
At issue is part of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the trade pact meant to create a common market among Mexico, Canada and the US. Though it was adopted in 1993, some of its more controversial provisions are only now taking effect.
One of them will soon open the US to unlimited sugar imports from Mexico -- the biggest crack in years in the wall of price supports and protectionism that the government, at the behest of the sugar industry, has erected against foreign competition. That system includes quotas to limit domestic production and tariffs to limit imports, resulting in a market price for sugar in the US that is typically twice the world market price.
The provision of the trade pact will work in both directions, with the US able to export to Mexico a form of corn syrup often used as a sweetener. That sweetener, much cheaper than sugar, could displace some sugar use in Mexico, making more available to ship to the US. Amid uncertainty over what will happen, the nation's 12,000 sugar cane and sugar beet farmers are appealing to Washington for an insurance policy.
"If Mexico decides to overproduce and send that to our market, they have the potential to eat up our market," said James Simon, general manager of the American Sugar Cane League.
Sugar cane grows only in warmer states, with production concentrated in Florida and Louisiana. Farmers in some northerly states grow sugar beets. In southern Louisiana, still recovering from hurricanes Katrina and Rita, cane is cultivated on 170,000 hectares and has been a mainstay of the economy for generations.
Across a big swath of the state, the sweet smell of molasses wafts on the breeze in autumn, social life revolves around sugar fairs and festivals, and old sugar kettles decorate flower gardens. Whitewashed mansions, stately but not always well maintained, are shaded by live oaks draped with moss.
ONSLAUGHT
People fear the loss of a way of life with the onslaught of Mexican sugar. Louisiana's farmers and mill workers say sugar is in their blood, in part because few crops grow so well in the difficult climate, punctuated in recent years by powerful hurricanes that ripped crops from their roots.
"Sugar farming has been my whole life," said Michael Comb, 48, general manager of the Louisiana Sugar Cane Cooperative in St. Martinville. "I was eight years old when I got on a tractor in a sugar field. It's all I know."
Sugar farmers see the ethanol proposal as the beginning of a much larger national commitment to producing energy from cane. Brazil, famously, has displaced much of its gasoline by turning cane juice into ethanol. Sugar prices in the US are far too high for that -- and this country imposes a steep tariff that discourages ethanol imports from Brazil.
But the US sugar industry believes that with new technology, the pulp left over after juice is pressed from cane could eventually become an automotive fuel source.
The proposal under consideration in Washington "could be a bridge for greater things for sugar," said Anthony Joe Judice, 61, who works fields along the muddy waters of Bayou Teche, near St. Martinville. "It's like an engagement to a future marriage."
The sugar ethanol provision has won approval in the US House of Representatives. With the support of Democratic Senator Tom Harkin, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, it may get through the Senate despite opposition from the administration and the food industry.
The measure would be grafted onto an existing sugar policy so complex that even many farmers have trouble understanding it.
The government limits the supply of sugar through production quotas and import restrictions, and it uses financial mechanisms to set an effective price floor.
The system does not cost taxpayers money directly, a point of pride for the industry. But it costs consumers money in the form of higher sugar prices. The system has been subjected to withering criticism for decades, but the sugar lobby has clout on Capitol Hill. Sugar producers donated US$2.7 million in campaign contributions to House and Senate incumbents last year, more than any other group of food growers, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington group.
The new farm bill would retain much of the existing system, which sugar producers defend on the ground that virtually every country with a domestic sugar industry has strong protections. But it would add more guarantees, including one that would ensure US producers capture 85 percent of the market no matter how much sugar comes in from abroad.
SELL AT A LOSS
To carry out that policy, the government would buy excess sugar and sell it at a loss to ethanol producers. They ferment corn starch to ethanol, but adding a little sugar can speed the reaction. Mark Keenum, the Bush administration's undersecretary of agriculture for farm and foreign agricultural services, said that administering the ethanol program would be "very cumbersome."
Keenum said that the Agriculture Department would end up buying sugar at US$0.22 a pound (454g) and selling it to ethanol producers for US$0.04 to US$0.07 per pound.
"You can easily do the math and look at the loss potential," he said.
He added that the department tried selling sugar to the ethanol industry in 2001, but ethanol producers were interested in buying only about 10,000 of the approximately 100,000 tonnes made available to them, even at a low price of US$0.04 per pound.
Ethanol producers, who could be forced to invest in new equipment to process sugar, say they do not think much of the idea.
Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association, said: "In today's grain-based biorefineries, the amount of sugar you could introduce into the process would be fairly small."
Keenum said the Agriculture Department did not want to be forced to sell only to ethanol producers, arguing that it might get a better price selling sugar for animal feed, pet food or industrial alcohol. On that point, the sugar lobby is willing to negotiate.
The sugar producers say that whatever its costs, the new farm bill is needed to save their industry.
"We don't like the government spending money, but if they are going to give away our market to foreign imports then we have to look for alternatives," Simon said.
"We're confident we can get this farm bill passed and that will keep our heads above water until we're able to realize the full opportunities of energy production from sugar cane," he said.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS