Think Tanks

Think Tanks

“Government interference in the sugar market hurts consumers and food manufacturers by driving up the price of sugar, reducing export opportunities by giving other countries an excuse to impose similar penalties on U.S.-made products, and weakening the U.S. economy. This Depression-era program, which was supposed to end in 1940, should be abolished.”

—Bryan Riley, Jay Van Andel Senior Policy Analyst, The Heritage Foundation, “Abolish the Costly Sugar Program to Lower Sugar Prices,blog post,
December 5, 2012

“Food manufacturers that use a lot of sugar are at a competitive disadvantage in the United States because federal import barriers on sugar substantially push up prices for that production input.”

—Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policy Studies, CATO Institute
“Hostess Bankruptcy: What Role Did Policy Play?,” blog post
November 16, 2012

“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.”

—The Heritage Foundation, “End the U.S.
Sugar Program,” blog post, June 6, 2012

“Under this central planning scheme, the federal government restricts the sugar supply, fixes the domestic price at high levels and keeps out competition. Despite record world prices for sugar, the program continues to impose unnecessary price supports, strict production and marketing controls and outdated import quotas. The program is counterproductive, antithetical to a free market economy and has long outlived its usefulness.”

Fran Smith, Board Member and Adjunct Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute, “Sugar Program Isn’t Sweet for Consumers or the Economy,”
Op-ed in The Daily Caller, April 19, 2012

“Government interference in the sugar market hurts consumers and food manufacturers by driving up the price of sugar, threatening competitive farmers and ranchers by jeopardizing export growth, and weakening the U.S. economy by diverting resources from more competitive uses. This Depression-era program, which was supposed to end in 1940, has outlived its intended lifespan by 72 years. It should be abolished.”

—The Heritage Foundation, “The U.S. Sugar Program: Bad for Consumers, Bad for Agriculture, and Bad for America,” Policy Brief, April 18, 2012

“The sugar program is a central planning system that makes consumers pay more for many foods and beverages, means real jobs lost in sugar-using companies, and shuts developing countries out of important markets.”

—Christine Hall, Competitive Enterprise Institute,
March 30, 2011 

“The federal government has been meddling with sugar production since 1934. Today’s convoluted system of supply controls, price supports, and trade restrictions benefits domestic sugar producers at the expense of consumers and utilizing industries. In other words, sugar producers “win” and the rest of the country ‘loses.’… The federal government engages in a lot of activities that are difficult to defend. But when it comes to sugar, the government’s protections are clearly indefensible.”

—Tad DeHaven, Cato@Liberty, Blog Post, March 30, 2011

“The sugar program diverts billions of dollars from American consumers to the “Big Sugar” cartel and would understandably make sense to the members of the American Sugar Alliance. But that very costly program certainly doesn’t make any sense at all for the millions of American consumers and thousands of U.S. businesses who were burdened last year alone with $4.5 billion in higher sugar costs.”

—Mark Perry, American Enterprise Institute, “Sugar Policy: Sweet Deal for Producers, Sour for Consumers,”
Blog Post, January 24, 2011

“These policies impose a burden on consumers through higher prices. In recent years, USDA data show that U.S. sugar prices have been more than twice world market prices.”

—Cato Institute, June 2009

“A ripe target for reform is the sugar program, which protects sugar growers and inflates domestic sugar to twice the world price. This racket costs U.S. families about $2 billion annually, hitting them whenever they buy chocolates, breakfast cereal and the like.”

—Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policy, Cato Institute, “Why Congress Should Repeal Sugar Subsidy,”
Op-ed in Investor’s Business Daily, June 20, 2007

© Copyright 2017