Taxes don't sweeten sugar policy

Your Aug. 15 editorial about sugar and ethanol left me scratching my head.

Despite common mischaracterization, America's sugar program is not a subsidy
program and it operates at no cost to the government. Yet, the
Herald-Tribune implies that America's no-cost sugar program is somehow
impeding this country's ethanol production.

You referred to U.S. corn and Brazilian sugar policies. Yet, you never
inform the reader that those alternatives are riddled with taxpayer
subsidies.

Corn farmers will receive nearly $9 billion in government subsidy payments
this year, or about $24 million a day from U.S. taxpayers. On top of this, a
federal tax credit promotes ethanol production and tariffs block foreign
ethanol. And Brazil's sugar industry is even more subsidized.

We don't make ethanol from sugar in America because we would have to compete
with these other subsidized systems, not because we are not efficient.
Changing the sugar program to a sugar subsidy system would end up harming
Florida sugar producers and burdening taxpayers.

I also wanted to set the record straight on the misleading statements about
U.S. sugar prices. Grocery shoppers in other developed countries pay 30
percent more for sugar than we do in America. Simply put, U.S. sugar policy
does not hurt consumers.

If you don't believe me, just look at a bag of M&M's. Today, that bag costs
72 cents and it contains about two cents of sugar. If farmers gave Mars its
sugar for free and Mars decided to pass this savings along to consumers, the
bag of M&M's would still cost 70 cents.

U.S. sugar policy works and Congress should extend this policy. It doesn't
cost taxpayers a dime and it helps support 30,000 Florida jobs.

Robert E. Coker

The writer is senior vice president of public affairs for the U.S. Sugar
Corporation, Clewiston.