Skip to comments.America vs. the Sugar Lobby [call to action]
Posted on 06/20/2012 11:48:16 AM PDT by iowamark
Its not often conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans, pro-growth conservative groups and the Teamsters agree on something. In fact, its almost unheard of.
But when it comes to the federal governments sugar program one of the most egregious corporate welfare handouts in a long list of wasteful programs these strange bedfellows have found common ground.
For years, the federal government has kept the price of sugar high by capping domestic production, imposing a de facto government price floor, and mandating that USDA buy excess sugar to sell to ethanol producers at a loss. The U.S. government also places exorbitant restrictions on sugar imports. The cumulative effect of all these special protections is an artificial increase in the price of sugar for Americans relative to other countries.
As a result, American consumers pay more for products containing sugar, and U.S. manufacturers of sugar consuming products are at a competitive disadvantage. Not surprisingly, many of these manufacturers have closed their doors or moved their factories to Canada and Mexico where sugar costs less than half the price. The Department of Commerce agrees, finding that for every one job protected by the sugar program, three others are lost in sugar using manufacturing industries.
This week, Congress has an opportunity to roll back many of the sugar programs excesses. Along with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), I have offered two amendments to the 2012 farm bill targeting the wasteful sugar program.
The first would eliminate the sugar program completely. In a rare demonstration of bipartisan common-sense, this amendment almost survived a tabling motion last week by a margin of just four votes. This week, the Senate will vote on an alternative amendment that will reform the sugar program rather than eliminate it. While this measure does not go as far as I would like, it will still save taxpayers $72 million, help bring down the price of sugar and save American jobs. Perhaps most importantly, it will finally begin to weaken the stranglehold the sugar lobby has on American consumers and our tax dollars.
We need only a handful of senators to change their votes in order to pass this historic reform. Thats where you come in. Check out your senators vote here, and pick up the phone. Your voice is louder than the sugar lobbys as long as you stand your ground and make yourself heard.
|Not Voting - 4|
How Big Sugar gets its way
As one of Floridas top agricultural commodities, sugar has a lot to lose from regulations and a lot to gain from agricultural legislation. So the top companies spread campaign donations fairly evenly between Republicans and Democrats across the country, and are often rewarded with support.
During the 2010 cycle, U.S. Sugar donated $12,400 to then-Rep. Allen Boyd, while PACs and individuals working with Flo-Sun gave $16,000 and American Crystal Sugar gave $10,000. Sugar companies have also given heavily to Reps. Dennis Ross, R-Lakeland, and Tom Rooney, R-Stuart. Ross second-largest contributor has been Flo-Sun; individuals working for the company donated at least $13,000 to his campaigns since 2009.
It is no surprise, then, that Boyd (before losing his 2010 reelection bid), Ross and Rooney have all crusaded against environmental regulations. The three have been especially vocal about the EPAs numeric nutrient criteria, which could potentially affect agricultural interests including sugar, whose nutrient-laden effluent often makes its way into state waterways, causing noxious algal blooms and fish kills.
According to OpenSecrets, Big Sugar gave more than $4.2 million to federal candidates and party committees during the 2008 election cycle alone, 63 percent of which went to Democrats.
Companies with ties to Florida Crystals (which has contributed nearly $4.5 million to campaigns since 1991) gave at least $100,000 to now-Gov. Rick Scotts gubernatorial campaign. The head of Florida Crystals also hosted a large campaign fundraiser for Scott only four weeks after he blasted the companys rival U.S. Sugar over its role in a planned Everglades restoration project.
Well thank goodness because sugar is absolutely killing you,”they” scientifically prove sugar causes every ill known to man. So.. I will take your sugar share, and I prefer mine highly refined.. what the heck? 105 pound mother of four.. self professed sugar-a-holic. To those people that endorse a diet solely of fruits and vegetables, I will enjoy your bacon and steaks. Thank you for your contribution. Just how long do “they” propose we can beat that 100 Percent mortality rate of being alive.
Sugar was killing me, so I choose to no longer consume it. If you choose to eat sugar, one of two things that feed cancer, that is absolutely your option. I don’t think me or Big Gov should tell you how to eat. You’ll have to pry my steak and my butter from my cold dead hands though.
Um according to my elementary understanding of food, most of it is broken down into glucose.. um so whatever makes you feel immortal. Butter is semi- sacred with the steak and bacon too... I just don’t eat and drink more than 1500 calories a day. As a true hypothyroid, I have zero metabolism so I must, absolutely must count every calorie, including sugar. Fruits are far too sugary and calorie laden for me on on a regular basis, because I would rather ea t steak. Cancer? I made peace with my life a long time ago, but I have seen how difficult it is in my everyday work and network. Glad you are better. Hope I am wrong about glucose for ya.
Marxist Cuban Rubio is on the Yea side.
Watch “Sugar: The Bitter Truth” on YouTube. The doctor explains how your elementary teacher is wrong.
Also cut back on sugar, with good results. In reasonable amounts, sugar is fine (and yummy), but a couple-o-cans a day habit might be bad for you.
Still, the health effects of eating or drinking sugar is besides the point, both when it comes to sugar subsidies and quotas (yeah, supporting selected non-essential crops is a key function of federal government!) as well as Bloombergian nannyisms (banning large sodas, etc.).
People are responsible for their own health, and unless they are being deceived, the government should simply butt out.
Watch Sugar: The Bitter Truth on YouTube. The doctor explains how your elementary teacher is wrong.
The sooner you realize that Lustig is agenda driven, and is just another charlatan with something to sell, the sooner you'll quit believing in the nonsense he spouts. Lustig's less than elementary understanding of human nutrition and physiology is inexcusable for someone with his training.
Actually sugar does feed cancer, as does hydrogenated oils. But hey like I said, people are free to eat as they choose. I choose to eat well and enjoy my food and my life.
All cells use sugar. Especially brain cells. Maybe you need more?
Are you thinking glucose? Because glucose does not do what sucrose and fructose do. As I suggested in a previous post on this thread, there is a great YouTube video in which a doctor lays it all out. I can only suggest that you watch, but my guess is that many won’t. Somebody suggested that he is agenda driven, but this is a completely free video in which he tells exactly how to end the obesity epidemic. I don’t see what he’s getting out of it. If the video had fees attached I might see that. The doc does comment about certain substances being banned but yet HFCS is not, but he never comes out and calls for a ban on it. All of the info that he presents is cited, so he is not pulling figures out of his behind.
Glucose isn't sugar?
Because glucose does not do what sucrose and fructose do.
You know that there is glucose and fructose in sucrose?
there is a great YouTube video in which a doctor lays it all out.
Yeah, he sounds pretty confused.
Good grief. If you get cancer, eliminate all carbohydrates from your diet. Let me know how that works out for you.
....as does hydrogenated oils
Face palm. Apparently, you'll believe anything.
I see you don't realize that sucrose is made up of glucose and fructose. You also don't realize your body eventually converts fructose to glucose. No wonder you are so confused.
All of the info that he presents is cited, so he is not pulling figures out of his behind.
You don't even grasp that sucrose is half glucose so how would you have any idea if what Lustig is saying is true? You wouldn't. Lustig is pulling all sorts of stuff from his behind, and you don't have enough understanding of the subject to know whether it's true or false. That's unfortunate but nor surprising. It should, however, give you pause the next time you come to a thread like this offering your opinion as fact.
So you didn’t watch it huh? Whatever others want to do is their choice, but I know the quality of my life has greatly improved because of this. Ask anybody on the paleo diet as well, there are some FReepers who are, and they can tell you the same thing. Or people can continue eating what Moochie and Big Gov suggest, along with the doctors who only get paid if you are sick. I really enjoy not going to the doctor any more! If you really trust those guys so much, search cancer and hydrogenated oils at webmd. Cheers and have a blesses day!
Still don’t understand what sugar is?
Or that your cells use it? LOL!