The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

Special Report

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration reportedly is pushing Congress to limit overall subsidies for farmers. It won't be easy. Agricultural interests like the sugar industry constantly push for more. In its view, you can never get enough from consumers and taxpayers. Collect subsidies. Ban trade. Outlaw your competitors. Let the American people pay.

These aren't good times for the sugar lobby. Sales were down 4.3 percent last year and 1.8 percent in 2003. The industry was disappointed that the new federal dietary guidelines continue to recommend limiting sugar consumption.

Sugar Association president Andy Briscoe acknowledges that "sugar has an image problem." The Association is running ads touting the fact that there are only 15 calories in a teaspoon of sugar.

Opined Briscoe: "We stand firm in our assertion that every major scientific review, including the Institute of Medicine's macronutrient report, has concluded that there is not a direct link between added sugars intake and any lifestyle disease, including obesity."

That's true. Sugar doesn't cause obesity. Consuming too much sugar-laden food and drink causes obesity.

Which is why sugar substitutes are a godsend for many Americans. With most diets drenched in calories, Equal, Sweet 'N Low, and Splenda all offer a modest respite. Which is bad in the sugar lobby's view.

So the Sugar Association has done the American thing -- sued McNeil Nutritionals, Splenda's maker. The sugar lobby charged McNeil with false advertising and unfair competition for saying that Splenda is "made from sugar" and using the line, "What are little girls made of? Splenda and spice and everything nice."

Actually, sucralose is sucrose, chemically modified. And it seems doubtful that this creative take-off of the old rhyme is why McNeil is taking sales away from the sugar producers. With Splenda's yellow packet routinely sitting next to Equal's blue and Sweet 'N Low's pink ones, few consumers could believe that they are getting sugar.

Nevertheless, the sugar industry wants damages and injunctive relief. And the Sugar Association hasn't stopped with a lawsuit.

The sugar lobby also has asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate McNeil's supposedly misleading marketing campaign. Moreover, the Association hired the PR firm Qorvis Communications to create a website touting the "truth about Splenda."

Qorvis didn't put it quite that way, of course. Instead it announced that "a group of concerned consumers, led by sugar cane and sugar beet farmers across America" launched the website.

Ah, yes. Sugar cane and sugar beet farmers. They have done quite well over the years, mulcting the taxpayers for fun and profit.

THE CURRENT SUGAR PROGRAM was established in 1981. When he traded his support for another bill in return for the Reagan Administration's backing for the sugar payoff, then Rep. John Breaux (D-La.) famously opined that his vote was "rented," not bought.

The loan guarantee program has been costing around $200 million a year. Alas, outlays can go higher: in 2000 the Agriculture Department bought in excess of a million tons of sugar, which cost $1 million a month simply to store, and spent $465 million to pay farmers to destroy their sugar crops.

When Congress reauthorized the program in the 2002 Farm Bill, it cut penalties on farmers who forfeited their sugar, boosting industry winnings by another half billion dollars. In addition, Washington spends an extra $90 million a year to pay for higher-priced sugar-laden products as part of its feeding programs.

topics:
Trade, Law