RL33541
Sugar Policy Issues
September 06, 2006

Download Locations

Summary

The sugar program, authorized by the 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171), is designed to protect the price received by growers of sugarcane and sugar beets, and by firms that process these crops into sugar. To accomplish this, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) makes loans available at minimum price levels to processors, limits the amount of sugar that processors can sell domestically, and restricts imports. In support of the program, sugar crop growers and processors stress the industry's importance in providing jobs and income in rural areas. Food and beverage firms that use sugar argue that U.S. sugar policy imposes costs on consumers, and has led some food manufacturers to decide to move jobs overseas where sugar is cheaper. In a major policy change, the 2002 farm bill reactivated sugar "marketing allotments" that limit the amount of domestic-produced sugar that processors can sell. The level at which USDA sets the national sugar allotment quantity has implications for sugar prices. Accordingly, sugar crop producers and processors on one side, and sugar users on the other, seek to influence the decisions that USDA makes on allotment and import quota levels. The relationship between allotments and imports drew much attention during congressional debate on the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). The U.S. sugar producing sector argued that DR-CAFTA would let more sugar into the U.S. market than the program is designed to accommodate, and would require USDA to suspend marketing allotments. This, in turn, opponents argued, would depress prices enough to undermine USDA's ability to operate a "no-cost" program. USDA countered that this would not occur, but to secure sufficient votes, pledged to take specific steps to protect the program through FY2008 if imports do exceed this "trigger." To respond to the shortfall in domestic sugar output caused by the 2005 hurricanes and to rebuild sugar stocks, USDA (under a statutory exception) increased imports in FY2005, FY2006, and FY2007 to above the trigger level, without suspending allotments. Attention on sugar trade issues now turns to what will occur when free trade in sugar and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) -- a substitute and cheaper sweetener -- between the United States and Mexico takes effect in January 2008. To govern trade until then, a July 2006 agreement resolved two long-standing sweetener trade disputes. It provides for Mexican sugar access to the U.S. market equal to the amount of access that U.S. HFCS exports gain to the Mexican market. With Congress preparing to consider a new farm bill in 2007, key interest groups have begun to lay out their views on the future of the sugar program. Sugar producers/processors want to extend the current program, arguing that this course would maintain a viable industry, and also seek to have Mexico "manage" its sugar sales starting in 2008, as U.S. HFCS further displaces Mexican sugar use in its soft drink sector. Sugar users want changes to respond to such external pressures as unrestricted imports from Mexico, and seek to develop new policies that would work for both the producing and using sectors. Although various alternatives have been discussed, drawing increased scrutiny is the concept of changing the sugar program into an income and price support program similar to that available for other major field crops. This report, to be updated regularly, replaces CRS Issue Brief IB95117.

XML

Available Versions