Author: Chuck Muth

(Chuck Muth) – Back in 2006, the European Union – tempted by the lure of artificially cheap, government-subsidized imported sugar – nearly destroyed its domestic sugar-growing industry, leaving sugar consumers at the mercy of weather and political turmoil in other parts of the world.

What remains of the EU’s domestic market was hammered by a heat wave that hurt production this summer.  Which means Europeans are having to import more sugar.  However, that imported, government-subsidized sugar is no longer “cheap.”

Brazil, the world’s #1 sugar exporter, has shrunk global supplies by shifting more sugar to ethanol production.  And India, the #2 global sugar producer, has slapped on sugar export restrictions.  And then there’s Russia’s war in Ukraine.

All of which has contributed to higher prices across the board.  As Mumbi Gitau reported for Bloomberg this week…

“Companies making candy, cakes and soft drinks are paying much more than normal to source sugar in the near term.  That’s squeezing their profit margins and even raising the risk of some going out of business, according to CIUS, which represents European sugar users. For consumers, it’s threatening yet more inflationary pain.”

European candy-makers are now calling on the EU “to temporarily lift import tariffs” to bring down sugar prices.  However, as Mr. Gitau points out, such a move would hurt domestic growers and producers “at a time when (production) costs have jumped.”

This is the same “solution” favored by American candy-makers who continue to pressure for the elimination of the current U.S. sugar policy of modest import tariffs and restrictions on the import of foreign, government-subsidized sugar.

From a recent article in the Daily Sentinel in Rome, NY…

“Sugar is, of course, an essential ingredient in most sweet treats. The vast majority of the sugar we eat is either grown on sugarcane or sugarbeet farms in the United States or refined from raw sugar by American cane sugar refiners.

“But corporate candy companies don’t want to ‘Buy American’ when it comes to sugar. Candy companies like Hershey have spent years lobbying Congress to weaken U.S. sugar policy and allow foreign sugar producers to flood U.S. markets with subsidized sugar.

“If Hershey is feigning concern about the supply of sugar now, imagine what will happen when they are completely reliant on cheap foreign sugar? Other countries don’t have our best interests in mind and are likely to raise prices or restrict supply once their American competitors have been destroyed.”

Current U.S. sugar policy is fair…and it works.  American candy-makers aren’t suffering the same shortages as those in Europe, while the cost of domestically-produced sugar has remained comparatively stable.

When something works, don’t fix it.  Just ask the EU.

Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-partisan grassroots advocacy organization

(Grayson Bakich) – It seems as though, for the past two years, every facet of American society is under attack. Agriculture and the nation’s food supply are critical targets, and an important product of that food supply is sugar. Environmental policies can end up doing more harm than good, as a recent comment by Congressman-elect Cory Mills (R-FL-7) suggests.

Rep. Mills, who recently flipped Florida’s 7th congressional district from Democrat to Republican, has long held the belief that the U.S. sugar policy was “paramount” to national security.

“Protecting and preserving the high standards of our national food supply and security that is undoubtedly anchored by our US sugar policy is paramount to our national security interests,” says Mills. As such, he contends that “any domestic or foreign threats – including attacks on our farmers by liberal environmental special interests – that look to weaken this policy should be swiftly stopped in its tracks.”

A September letter signed by Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rick Scott (R-FL) spells out this concern to US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. The letter states that all signers are in “strong support for U.S. sugar policy.”

Because of this, the letter asks, the Biden Administration (D) should not change course on US sugar policy. This is because there is a chance such a change will “create a glut in the U.S. market and collapse prices below grower costs of production, which would violate the spirit of U.S. sugar policy and ultimately drive family farmers out of business.”

But it is not just domestic kneecapping that threatens the American food supply. Later in September, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) made moves through the state legislature to prohibit Chinese buyups of Florida farmland. In February, a USDA health inspector received a death threat in Mexico, temporarily halting the importation of produce.

In January, Mills wrote an opinion for The Floridian, outlining the various issues Florida farmers face.

“The current economic agenda that Progressive Democrats are championing is not only driving up the cost of food but is crippling the American farmer across the country,” he wrote.

Mills also touches upon the foreign threat towards the conclusion, saying that “farmers are the heart of the U.S. economy and lawmakers need to focus on preserving the threat that exists from foreign governments like China that are actively trying to undermine our food supply.”

With President Biden saying he will do “nothing” to change his economic policy, we can only hope the next administration will better address the food supply issue.

Florida born and raised, Grayson Bakich is a recent recipient of a Master’s Degree in Political Science at the University of Central Florida. This column was originally published in The Floridian.

(Ripon Advance News Service) – The Biden administration must continue to prioritize America’s sugarcane farmers over foreign sugar suppliers, according to U.S. Rep. Garret Graves (R-LA).

“Agriculture is a critical part of Louisiana’s economy and sugarcane in particular results in $3 billion annually in economic value and supports 16,000 direct and indirect jobs,” Rep. Graves said in an Oct. 24 statement. “But when other countries illegally subsidize their sugarcane production and undercut prices in the United States — this is salt in the wound for our local farmers that are already struggling through the crippling prices of fuel, fertilizer, transportation, and labor.”

Rep. Graves reiterated that concern when he recently joined his fellow co-chairs of the Congressional Sugar Caucus in opposing any increase in the tariff-rate quotas for sugar or additional access provided to Mexico for the 2021-2022 marketing year.

“We are asking the Biden administration to ensure the United States doesn’t allow subsidized, foreign sugarcane to enter our markets and further undermine Louisiana’s sugarcane farmers,” he said.

In a Sept. 27 letter sent to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack and U.S. Commerce Department Secretary Gina Raimondo, the congressman and his colleagues wrote that any additional increases for the upcoming 2022-2023 marketing year should wait until April 2023, once more is known about the current sugar beet and sugar cane crops.

There’s no need to rely on Mexico, the members wrote, because the USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates for August projects the current stocks-to-use ratio at 14.4 percent.

“That suggests we will have more than 1.8 million tons of sugar stocks on hand leading into the fall sugarcane and sugar beet harvest season,” wrote Rep. Graves and his colleagues. “USDA has determined that a stocks-to-use ratio of at least 13.5 percent is adequate to supply the U.S. market. Thus, the U.S. sugar market is adequately supplied by USDA’s own measure.”

Additionally, according to their letter, the Biden administration in July raised import access from Mexico and from America’s WTO trading partners.

“Given that USDA has already undertaken both of those actions and that we now have ample current sugar stocks relative to use, there is no need for additional actions at this time,” wrote the lawmakers, who included U.S. Reps. Dan Kildee (D-MI) and Mike Simpson (R-ID).

(Gerard Scimeca | Townhall) – Winston Churchill’s quote imploring the forces of freedom to “never give in” has endured for more than 80 years as the marquee speech for stirring inner courage against those demanding we “yield to power.”

Churchill’s words today live on in our hearts, as well as on coffee mugs, internet memes, and of course countless inspirational posters suitable for framing.

It would be comforting to see such a placard on the walls of organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the CATO Institute, or Citizens Against Government Waste, free-market groups at the forefront of a movement within conservative circles embracing a position of complete surrender on a key matter of U.S. trade and agriculture.

With hearings for the 2023 Farm Bill already underway in Washington, the consequences of this stance take on critical importance at a time of global economic and supply chain uncertainty.

For all of the conservative movements’ rightful paroxysms regarding open borders, it is perplexing why those who champion free markets wish to throw open the trade border to an avalanche of heavily subsidized foreign sugar from nations such as China, India, and Brazil, among others.

Such a policy would surely spell the end for U.S. farmers who would not be able to compete against a heavily subsidized foreign product sold at or below cost. We would further wave goodbye to the 151,000 jobs our domestic sugar industry supports, and the $23 billion it presently contributes to our economy.

Our nation’s current sugar policy is ably designed to maintain a consistent supply and price for sugar by limiting foreign imports and it has worked wondrously. Sugar today is cheaper than it was in the last century and consumers and domestic food producers have never had to suffer damaging and uncertain disruptions in supply.

As important, we have protected our world-class farmers from predatory nations seeking to capture domestic market share through dumping, a fact even the feckless World Trade Organization has acknowledged. Yet none of this impresses some who consider any form of government assistance to be protectionist and anathema to a free market.

Some falsely claim the U.S. subsidizes its sugar industry, but in fact our policy of import quotas, price floors, and interest-bearing loans to farmers does not cost U.S. taxpayers a dime. Some anti-sugar groups are, however, subsidized by domestic food producers, confectioners especially, who would love nothing more than to have access to unlimited quantities of cheap, foreign sugar to pad their profits.

While George Santayana reminded us of the consequences of not remembering history, there is sadly no analogous proverb regarding those who remember history quite well, yet nevertheless remain determined (and doomed) to repeat it. The anti-sugar coalition on the right is fully aware of what happened just 15 years ago when the European Union (EU) let down its guard and removed import quotas from foreign-subsidized sugar.

Predictably cheap sugar flooded their market and decimated their domestic producers. The party ended when prices began to steadily rise to meet the demand left from the absence of a domestic sugar industry. When the hangover subsided, the EU reversed course and ramped up their domestic sugar production through significant subsidy support and strict import limits.

There is simply no excuse for advocating America follow this path of certain ruin and its consequent price and supply uncertainty, especially in the midst of an ongoing supply chain crisis where our nation is awakening to the pitfalls of relying on foreign producers of commodities and durable goods.

The Farm Bill should echo a bi-partisan recognition that food security is national security, and that what is good for farmers is what will keep food on the table. The final legislation should affirm our opposition to predatory foreign trade that takes aim at our farmers, our rural communities, U.S. businesses and consumers, and our long-term economic well-being.

In a corrupt and distorted global sugar market, the U.S. should pronounce clearly that we will trade fairly only when other nations trade fairly. Much is at stake in the coming Farm Bill and maintaining our resolve against hostile trade policies has consequences beyond sugar itself.

The groups that seek to reward adversaries that aim to do us harm are not advancing the cause of free markets; they are waving the white flag. Surrender, like defeat, is a bitter taste we can do without.

Mr. Scimeca is an attorney and serves as Chairman and co-founder of CASE, Consumer Action for a Strong Economy, a free-market oriented consumer advocacy organization.

(Russell Nemetz | Land & Livestock Report) – Life is sweet and profits are up for American confectioners, in part due to the reliability of America’s sugarbeet and sugarcane growers and the stability provided by U.S. sugar policy.

A new study by the University of Tennessee did the math on candy profits: Over the past 10 years, candy corporations posted high profits and a nearly double the return on investment compared to an average publicly traded U.S. firm.

In addition to big profits, Big Candy is projecting big growth. The National Confectioners Association projects that U.S. confectionary sales will reach $44.9 billion by 2026, a more than 20% increase from 2021’s $36.9 billion in sales.

“It’s insulting that multi-billion-dollar corporations are posting high profits while crying poor to Congress as they try to dismantle the policy that protects my farm,” said Nate Hultgren, a sugarbeet grower in Minnesota and President of the American Sugarbeet Growers Association.

“Family farms like ours across the nation work hard to provide candy and other food companies with sugar, sometimes working 24 hours a day to get the job done. Farming is volatile, unpredictable, and expensive. Farmers are essential to the nations’ food security.”

The study analyzed the profits and risk of several major sugar-using firms and compared their financial returns and risk metrics to other agri-businesses and a benchmark of all U.S. firms.

The high profitability and low volatility of the industry can be attributed, in part, to U.S. sugar policy, which provides a reliable supply of domestically produced sugar and the flexibility to ensure that supply always meets demand.

Findings include:

The median return on investment for sugar-using firms over the past 10 years was nearly double that of all firms (11.3% vs. 6.1%) and almost double compared to other agribusiness companies (11.3% vs. 6.6%).

Over the past 20 years, sugar prices in the U.S. have been more stable than sugar prices in the volatile world dump market.

“Big Candy says that purchasing American-made sugar is a financial burden and they need unlimited cheap foreign sugar to survive, but that’s just not true. Just look at their profits! If our critics were successful in weakening the current sugar policy, my farm might not survive. Who will candy companies turn to when American sugar farmers have been driven out of business?” said Bryan Simon, a sugarcane grower in Abbeville, LA.

U.S. sugar policy supports U.S. farmers by providing loans to store sugar, which are repaid with interest, and leveling the playing field for American producers while providing preferential market access to nearly 40 countries. The U.S. is the third largest importer of sugar in the world.

U.S. sugar policy is authorized in the Farm Bill and is designed to cost taxpayers nothing.

(Seton Motley) – You can think the political birth of Donald Trump was spectacular.  You can think it was catastrophic.  Or anywhere in between.

But there is no denying that all things DC and its government – and all things political and policy – must be looked at through the prism of two epochs: Pre-Trump and Post-Trump.

For all of his very many flaws – Trump has been a revolutionary, transformational force.  If America’s political landscape is an Etch-A-Sketch – NO ONE has shaken the excrement out of it more than has Trump.

Trump single-handedly finished realigning the voter landscape to its new normal.  The Republican Party has finally, fully become the Party of the working and middle classes.  (The DC GOP’s steadfast refusal to admit or adjust to it notwithstanding).

A brash, billionaire playboy from Queens, New York – effortlessly engendered the passionate support of blue collar and Christian Americans by the tens of millions.  And Trump has Blacks and Hispanics – of all income levels – for the first time in many decades reconsidering their historic, mindless, mass support of the Democrat Party.

Thanks to Trump, the Democrat Party is now relegated to cobbling together a truly bizarre coalition of voters.  Out-of-touch billionaires and millionaires too wealthy to be affected by the Party’s awful policies.  And voters in dystopian big cities: People devastated for decades by the Party’s awful policies – but who bizarrely continue to vote for them anyway.

A key component of Trump’s popularity with Average Janes and Joes?  His America First policies that protected what was left of our domestic production – and fostered its re-expansion.

Which is antithetical to DC’s decades-long, bipartisan, America Last approach.

DC Made ‘Protectionism’ a Bad Word – It Is Not:

“Domestic manufacturing was a key component in what had at that point made US the most prosperous and powerful country in the history of the planet.  Nixon’s China visit began DC’s move to end all of that.

“DC pulled the plug on our economy.  Millions of companies – and tens of millions of jobs – poured out.  And DC did it – because they were paid to do it by the businesses looking to flee this country.

“There was no Rust Belt in 1972.  DC did that.  What were once prosperous manufacturing regions of our nation became hollowed-out husks of destitution and despair.  DC likes to act as if this just accidentally happened.  Absolutely not.  Their awful, globalist, America Last policies actively did it.”

The Real Protectionism: Defending DC’s Crony Globalist Fake ‘Free Trade’:

“America’s small businesses – which can’t move overseas – have to stay here. And get pummeled by ever-expanding domestic government.

“And get pummeled by the relocated-globalist-big-business-robber-baron subsidized-and-protectionism-protected goods and services – being brought in unfettered to compete against them.

“These small domestic businesses very often can not endure the relentless pummelings – and succumb and go under. Thereby costing us millions of additional gigs.

“All of this has for decades – been DC’s definition of ‘free trade.’ It has absolutely nothing to do with actual free trade, free markets – or freedom of any sort.

“And this is what DC conservatives are in the midst of defending.”

Speaking of DC conservatives being on the wrong side of things – behold the Farm Bill.  For the latest iteration of which – DC is currently gearing up.

Farm Bill Season Arrives: What’s the Outlook for 2023?

For out-of-touch DC conservatives (and the always annoying libertarians) still mired in Pre-Trump mindsets?  It almost certainly means they will deliver more of the same wrong – in which they’ve been engaged for decades.

• The Case Against the Farm Bill – The Heritage Foundation
• No Farm Bill, No Problem – American Enterprise Institute
• Farm Bill Analysis: Conservatives Should Oppose – National Taxpayers Union
• Farm Bill Follies – Competitive Enterprise Institute
• The Next Farm Bill Will Probably Stink Worse and Cost More – Reason Magazine

Food production – is just another manufacturing sector.  In fact, the most important one of all.  Because before you do anything else – you gotta eat.

And we’ve been doing the exact same stupid things to food manufactures – that we’ve been doing to all other manufacturers.

Too many regulations.  Too many, too high taxes.  And idiotic trade policies.  And almost inarguably, the most damaging thing to domestic producers – is imported government subsidies.

Importing Government Subsidies: The Worst of Fake ‘Free Trade’:

“Tariffs and import limits – reduce our foreign sales. Which of course damages our domestic producers…to a degree.

“But other countries’ subsidies – are stealth weapons killing us from within. They are an innumerable armada of Trojan Horses – which we have been willingly bringing inside our gates….

“I’m all for free trade. Right up until it hurts our nation.

“When the health of free trade and our nation are in conflict – the nation must prevail…

“Oh – and importing government subsidies…isn’t free trade.”

So, for example, when the entirety of the planet engages in a subsidy trade war….

• Brazil Sugar Industry Receives Massive Government Subsidies
• Thailand’s Cabinet Approves Subsidy Rates for Sugar Cane Farmers
• India to Maintain Sugar Export Subsidies

And we long ago unilateraly disarmed in this regard…:

“As Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.) noted, the 2014 (Farm) bill…’eliminated direct payments [to farmers]….’”

What we have been doing – is further undercutting and undermining our farmers.

It is through this prism – the Post-Trump prism – that we must look at what little is left of what will become the 2023 Farm Bill.

The Farm Bill must be considered – as an infinitesimally small part of a complex global matrix of anti-America trade, tax, regulatory and subsidy policies.

Except DC conservatives seem poised to steadfastly refuse to adjust their perspective.  Old World thinking – in this, the New World.

So we now quote the Bible – specifically Matthew 7: 3-5:

“3) Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

“4) How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?

“5) You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

There are logs in eyes all over the world.

And DC conservatives – in response to a barely perceptible speck in ours – are looking to blind us.

And starve us out.

How inordinately Pre-Trump of them.

Mr. Motley is the founder and president of Less Government

(Mario Lopez) – While headlines focus on deep partisan divisions and the accompanying rhetorical bombast from all sides, Congress has managed to move some pieces of bipartisan legislation this year.

That approach soon will be necessary for the periodic reauthorization of the farm bill. Usually, this bill has been passed under less confrontational auspices in Congress between the two parties, but it now comes up at a time when food security issues are in the limelight.

The farm bill is a gigantic package of legislation that affects a variety of key industries beyond what laymen would consider strictly agriculture, from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for lower-income families to programs that make up the farming safety net.

The 2023 version of the farm bill comes at a time of major challenges for farmers, many of whom face supply chain disruptions, drought conditions, increases in interest rates for loans, price spikes for fuel, transportation and production materials, and — like American families — the general effects of high inflation.

It is no wonder that farmers’ pessimism continues to grow, according to Purdue University’s Ag Economy Barometer, a monthly survey and analysis of economic sentiment among farmers. In recent editions, about half of survey respondents “expect their farms to be worse off financially a year from now,” including a record high of 51 percent in the July report.

The food and agricultural trade effects of Russia’s war in Ukraine, which has been a major exporter of agricultural and food commodities, has reinforced the national security implications of issues with food supply issues that the COVID-19 pandemic also brought to the forefront.

Indeed, the national security implications of agricultural and food supply policy are weighing heavily in the farm bill’s pending reauthorization, with strained relations between China and the U.S. adding to the growing pile of concerns regarding the need for ensuring an abundant and safe food supply for America. Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas) recently touched upon this theme, saying, “When you look at a farm bill, I hope that we can all look at this as a national security issue.”

The farming safety net and related agricultural trade policy has been a source of tension during previous farm bill hearings and debates. One program that has earned bipartisan support is U.S. sugar policy, which was approved with a historic bipartisan margin of 141 House votes the last time it was reauthorized.

While some economic conservatives would prefer a more immediate move to a market free from government intervention for commodities such as sugar, others prefer a more step-by-step approach, especially given the nature of the global sugar market. Some governments, such as India and Brazil, subsidize their sugar production and then dump the excess sugar on the global market at prices far below the cost of production. These factors contribute to sugar — a vital commodity in overall food production — being one of the most distorted commodity markets in the world. Still, American trade commitments make us the third largest importer of sugar in the world.

The good news for free-market defenders and proponents of less government interference is that loan programs embedded in our sugar policy are designed to not cost American taxpayers any money — in fact, sugar producers who receive loans pay them back with interest.

There have been proposed paths that could take us toward a freer market — the most notable one pushes for countries that trade in sugar to eliminate all tariffs and subsidies before the U.S. would repeal existing sugar policies, resulting in a truly free market. In the meantime, however, American sugar producers contribute $23 billion to the American economy each year.

With geopolitical uncertainty and conflict on the rise, and the correlated sense that food security and national security go hand in hand, the coming farm bill may be one bright spot in a congressional environment that is often hindered by partisan discord.

Mario H. Lopez is president of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, a public policy advocacy organization that promotes liberty, opportunity and prosperity for all Americans. This column was originally published in The Hill.

(Jason Schatzke and Lance Neuhaus) – Recent headlines might give the impression that inflation is under control, but inflation and other threats to agriculture are putting our farms and our food security at risk. Farmers need strong federal farm policies. The stakes have never been higher.

Summer is beautiful on the farm. Our crops are planted, and we normally get to take this season to enjoy the hard work that comes with growing the food that feeds America. This summer, though, we can’t sleep at night.

We both grow sugar crops — sugarbeets in North Dakota and sugarcane in Texas — among other commodities. We are certainly no stranger to the challenges that come with trying to navigate Mother Nature or cyclical crop markets. But this year, the disasters keep piling on.

It started with planting. In North Dakota, we were a month late in getting seed into the ground, due to an unseasonably cold and wet spring. The planted crop is looking promising, but the loss of crop protection tools has made growing sugarbeets more challenging and increased the cost of controlling pests, as we have to use less effective products more often. We also had to hire additional labor to even come close to planting our expected number of acres, which meant additional costs.

Texas, on the other hand, is dealing with such bad drought conditions that some of our neighboring farmers gave up entirely on trying to plant a crop this year. On our farm, we had to purchase additional water to irrigate our crops, adding as much as $700,000 to our farm expenses this year.

Now, our bills for tractor and truck fuel, along with the fertilizer we need for our crops, are skyrocketing. Some of our costs have increased upwards of 100 percent. In North Dakota, our fuel costs are projected to be up $280,000 over 2021 and fertilizer costs are up more than $500,000 over 2021.

In Texas, our fertilizer costs have risen from $180 per ton in 2021 to more than $700 per ton this year. We are making sacrifices everywhere just to pay the bills.

We are both members of grower-owned sugar cooperatives so when we harvest our crops this fall, that sugarcane or sugarbeet will head to our respective cooperatives, where the sugar will be extracted. Higher transportation and production costs at our cooperatives will reduce the prices we receive for our crop. We’re all working hard this year to just break even.

Like all of America’s farmers, we’re willing to do what it takes to get the job done and feed people across our nation. But as the number of farmers in America continues to dwindle, we need to take our food security seriously, especially as other nations are confronted by growing food scarcity and hunger.

The past few years have dealt agriculture some heavy blows, but thanks to the stability provided by federal farm policies and a sugar policy that costs taxpayers nothing, we have been able to navigate these challenges — so far. Both of our farms have been in our families for several generations, and we want to keep the legacy of farming alive for our children.

If we value a strong food supply, we need America and Congress to continue supporting our farmers, now and in the future.

Jason Schatzke farms sugarbeets, corn, soybeans, black beans, sunflower and wheat in North Dakota. Lance Neuhaus farms sugarcane, citrus, cotton, corn, onions and vegetables and raises cattle along the Rio Grande River in South Texas. This column was originally published in The Hill.

(Judson Phillips) – When the military action between Ukraine and Russia kicked off in February, experts began warning of food shortages.  Sanctions and counter sanctions have wreaked havoc on global trade, particularly in grain.  In the Middle East, there are food shortages because of this.

Fortunately, Americans are not seeing any food shortages yet.

The most important word is yet.

The last two years, even before Ukraine, have shown the fragility of the international supply chain.  For Americans, we don’t have to worry about food shortages yet.

But depending on what Congress does next year, that could change. America depends on sugar as an essential part of foods from sweets to breads to sauces and sugar farmers support over 151,000 jobs in the United States.  Sugar is one of the leading crops in the United States. Sugar farmers employ over one hundred and fifty thousand people. That’s just the direct employees. That does not count the number of people employed in companies that support the sugar farming industry.

Sugar is one of the most important components in America’s food.

The problem is other sugar producers around the world use “free trade” as an excuse to dump sugar and if they had their way, they would do it in the United States. Unfortunately, there are too many conservatives who would invoke “free trade” to dismantle the protections for American farmers and allow the dumping of sugar into the American market.

Dumping sugar onto the world market and into the United States is not simply something that might happen. It is happening now. In December 2021, the World Trade Organization sanctioned India for its massive subsidies of sugar and the fact that India simply dumped six to seven million metric tons of sugar onto the world market.  The World Trade Organization noted that this dumping action drove the price of sugar around the world below the cost of production.

The term for this kind of action is predatory pricing. Produce so much of a product that the glut drives the cost of the commodity below the cost of production. In the case of farmers who do not receive subsidies, such as American sugar farmers, it becomes impossible to stay in business and that is the goal of this kind of dumping and predatory pricing.

The real threat America and her farmers face is not simply an economic threat. It is a matter of national security.  As we have watched supply chain disruptions over the last two years, it doesn’t take a vivid imagination to think about a world where American farmers are forced out of business by foreign sugar producers, who then raise prices or refuse to sell sugar at all. The cost of food goes up and if there are glitches in the international supply chain, cost becomes irrelevant when product is completely unavailable.

Americans only understand food on demand. The concept of not being able to get the food of their choice from grocery stores or restaurants is simply incomprehensible.

One of America’s top priorities must be the protection of our domestic food supply.  Imagine for a moment, actual food shortages in the United States.  If you think that is far-fetched, remember the toilet paper shortages of a couple of years ago? That was an inconvenience, but it would be nothing compared to not being able to get food for yourself or your family.

People lined up at stores for toilet paper.  While not having toilet paper is an inconvenience, it is nothing like not being able to get food for yourself and your family.  We would see riots in the streets and a destabilizing of the American government.

Food security must be protected.

Thankfully, there is a policy in place to support American sugar farmers.

American sugar farmers must be protected.  Early next year, Congress will take up work on the bi-annual Farm Bill, a piece of legislation that must be reauthorized every five years.  The Farm Bill is the mechanism that Congress uses to set policies to support American sugar farmers.  Congress must continue U.S. sugar policy in next year’s bill.

Failing to protect American sugar farmers could literally mean failing to protect our national food supply.

Judson Phillips is the Associate Director for TheTeaParty.net and founder of Tea Party Nation. This column was originally published by Townhall.com on September 5, 2022.

(Chuck Muth) – The Farm Bill is reconsidered and reauthorized every five years.  It’s the largest food-related piece of legislation considered by Congress.  And it’s up again next year.  But partisan disputes and sniping have already begun.

And it’s likely to get worse.

If Democrats retain control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, the 2023 version of the Farm Bill is likely to dramatically tie the hands of farmers and ranchers in the name of climate change.

But our national security is tied to the ability of farmers and ranchers to produce the food we eat. As President Donald Trump said, “We want our products made, grown and raised right here in the USA.”

If, as expected, Republicans take over either or both the House and Senate in November, they’ll work to unleash the full potential of American agriculture. Republicans must begin making the case now that the Farm Bill must focus on steps to improve food security, not Democrat pet projects.

One of the most contentious fights brewing is over Democrat desires to infuse “climate” provisions in the new legislation. This is on top of the nearly $40 billion in reconciliation funding earmarked for agricultural climate projects the Democrats just pushed through the Senate on a party-line vote.

The Farm Bill is a textbook example of government command-and-control, touching nearly every aspect of farmers’ lives and livelihoods.  And if Democrats control this process, that command-and-control is virtually guaranteed to become out-of-control.

Global warming activists hope to use the Farm Bill to bestow upon the USDA (Department of Agriculture) new bureaucratic powers to fight “climate change.”

“Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee are eager to bolster money for climate and disaster relief in farm bill talks next year,” reported Meredith Lee in Politico last December.  “Strengthening the bill’s climate provisions would cement the Agriculture Department as a central player in government efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions for years to come.”

USDA Undersecretary Robert Bonnie seconded that emotion, declaring that inserting climate change mitigation measures in the Farm Bill is “really important” to the Biden administration.

But Patrick Creamer, communications director for Senate Agriculture Committee Ranking Member John Boozman (R-AR), objects.

“The world is currently experiencing a global food crisis,” he noted in an interview. “Farmers are struggling to keep up with record-high input costs such as fertilizer and diesel fuel.  Spending billions on experimental pilot programs and duplicating private market incentives to boost organic and urban agriculture will not get us out of this mess.”

It bears repeating, food security is national security. American farmers and ranchers are facing incredible financial stresses while feeding our country during a time of heightened global conflict.

Is piling on unnecessary regulations and green mandates that will make food more expensive and drive some farmers out of businesses really the smartest move? Do we want to rely on foreign adversaries like China or Russia for our basic food supplies?

The answer seems obvious, but maybe not to bureaucrats in Washington, DC. Farm Bill funding must support farmers, not climate activists. Otherwise, we’ll be begging Russia for wheat, China for rice, and India for sugar.

Sounds like a common-sense idea.  But when has common sense ever dictated policy decisions in Washington, DC – especially for a Farm Bill?

However, hope springs eternal.  As journalist Saul Elbein noted in a column back in May, “Radical reform is unlikely in any farm bill, and this coming bill – likely presided over by a Republican Congress – least of all.”

Let’s hope he’s right.

Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-partisan grassroots advocacy organization, and former executive director of the American Conservative Union