Sugar Producer

30 Sugar Producer JANUARY 2016 "It will not be doubted that with reference either to individual or national welfare, agriculture is of primary importance," said President George Washington. And this gem came from Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Washington: "Agriculture is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals and happiness." Similar quotes by great leaders have been sprinkled throughout the history of our proud nation ever since, and their words make clear just how important farmers and ranchers are to America's economy, security and way of life. It's little wonder then that our Founding Fathers—many of whom were farmers themselves—made it a priority to invest in agriculture through research, education and sound policies that promote food production. And it also explains why the majority of lawmakers today strongly support the five-year farm bill that gives agriculture a chance to weather Mother Nature's wrath and global markets wrecked by foreign government manipulation. But not everyone sides with past presidents or historical precedence when it comes to investing in agriculture. There is a small, but well-funded collection of anti-farmer lobbying groups like Heritage Action, the Environmental Working Group and Americans for Tax Reform that want to rip apart farm policy and with it America's commitment to its agricultural heritage. Ironically these same groups sometimes use agriculture's history against it. For example, they routinely spew the same old sound bite about U.S. sugar policy being a "Depression-era program." As if succeeding for decades should be seen as a strike against sugar. Don't forget, some pretty important policies came out of the "Depression era" – Social Security, FDIC insurance on bank deposits and electrification of farms and rural communities, just to name a few. If sugar were a "Depression-era" policy, that would be nothing to be ashamed about. But sugar policy is much older. While the fuller framework of today's sugar policy finds its origins in the Jones-Costigan Sugar Act of 1934, essential elements of U.S. sugar policy date all the way back to the first year of George Washington's presidency. That policy began directly benefitting American sugar farmers when the Louisiana Purchase brought sugar-producing regions into the new nation. These historical core policies would largely remain in place until World War II, when sugar was rationed and the U.S. government looked to sharply boost supplies any way it could in order to help feed hungry civilians and our GIs fighting in the European and Pacific theaters. Following the war, Congress passed another law—the 1948 Sugar Act—which aimed to promote production at home, no doubt in hopes of avoiding future shortages of the essential ingredient. That law was extended in 1961, 1962, 1965 and 1971, and it remained in effect until it was repealed in 1974. For the first time in the country's history, America was without a sugar policy in 1974—mirroring the exact situation for which agricultural critics are again clamoring. But the results were not good, and U.S. consumers got burned by the unpredictability of the subsidized foreign sugar market. So the USDA took administrative action in 1975 to again implement a policy designed to smooth the price spikes for U.S. consumers brought on by the world's heavily subsidized dump market. And sugar policy was officially reauthorized by law in the 1977 farm bill. When the authority lapsed from 1979 to 1980, American consumers got burned once again, and once again sugar policy was reintroduced in the 1980 farm bill to ease the pain. No- cost sugar policy has been an implied and ultimately express objective of farm bills ever since. So what does the future hold? It's impossible to know. Agriculture's critics are more vocal than ever before, and they are willing to use misinformation to achieve their end goal. They do not care that today's farm policy accounts for less than one quarter of 1 percent of federal spending, or that sugar policy operates without taxpayer cost. They only want to destroy, and their two main targets are crop insurance and sugar policy—arguably the two safety net components that matter most to beet farmers. "Agriculture's critics are more vocal than ever before, and they are willing to use misinformation to achieve their end goal." FROM THE ASA By Phillip Hayes | Director of Media Relations A Proud History Worth Continuing

• Cover