Free Market Sugar

Author: Jay Chauhan

Farm votes will matter in 2016

Republicans must have to lay down a competitive agriculture policy to win the farm votes. (Image Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons)

(Rick Manning, NetRightDaily) – The nation’s political eyes are on Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina for the beginning of the 2016 presidential selection process with the rural South and Texas following hot on their heels. It is obvious that agriculture issues play a heavy role in the presidential nominating process, but these issues also are important come November.

Toss up states like Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, and Minnesota have significant farm interests which can be the difference between being a Wikipedia footnote and living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for four years.

And a plethora of issues is on the table that demonstrates the chasm between rural concerns and the current Administration ranging from labor to environmental policy to tax policy.

On the labor front, farmers remember attempts by the Labor Department to apply child labor laws to family farms, effectively prohibiting farm kids from doing what generations of farm kids have done before them, work on the family farm. Putting 4H and FAA projects in jeopardy, the Daily Caller quoted Cherokee County Farm Bureau president Jeff Clark as decrying the since dropped Obama Labor regulation saying, “What would be more of a blow,” he said, “is not teaching our kids the values of working on a farm.”

While this misguided attempt at destroying the family farm through Wage and Hour regulations was stopped, it serves as a grim reminder that our nation’s agricultural way of life is one Administration’s regulatory scheme away from being destroyed.

On the environmental front, candidates are missing the boat if they are not hitting Obama regulations that impact everything from grazing lands and forestry to insect control to controlling every stream and puddle on the land through the EPA.

Simply focusing upon the EPA’s Waters of the United States regulatory effort and reminding rural America that their property that in many cases has been in their family for generations is at risk of being overrun by EPA bureaucrats overseeing every use of water and the land around it. WOTUS is so bad that the American Farm Bureau Federation has called it, “the biggest federal land grab – in terms of power over land use – that we’ve seen to date.”

Another existential threat to the family farm’s survival as we know it, is the restoration of the death tax at a 50 percent rate. The death tax guarantees that the generational transfer of farmland becomes more and more problematic as land rich, cash poor farming families are forced to either sell land to raise cash to pay Uncle Sam or borrow. Any candidate discussing their tax plans needs to include the permanent elimination of the death tax to end the taxman’s grip on the property deeds of farm families.

While there are many other regulatory and legislative assaults on the farming community one of the traditional conservative bugaboos that give the agriculture community pause is the persistent call to end farm supports, a position that is the right one philosophically but challenging politically. It is a battle that conservatives have lost for fifty years, not because it isn’t right, but instead because it is a tactically stupid frontal assault on the very constituencies who provide the GOPs majority in Congress.

Representative Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) has come up with a smarter way to both message about ending farm subsidies (in this case sugar) and actually accomplish the mission. Called the zero for zero approach, Yoho would have Congress end sugar subsidies, but only once other nation’s which subsidize sugar much more aggressively end their programs. Allowing U.S. trade negotiators to go into meetings with a new seriousness because Congress has already acted, gives them a strong hand in bringing nations like India and Brazil to a timetable for ending their price supports. A positive approach to helping restore free market forces into the agriculture industry.

Agriculture matters, and whoever wins the GOP nomination will need to dominate in the rural agriculture areas in key electoral states in order to win their electoral votes. Now it is up to the Republican presidential field to lay down a smart, competitive agriculture policy that allows America’s most important industry to thrive as we move ahead into the uncharted waters post-Obama, so they can lay the groundwork to mobilize these constituencies like never before.

Rick Manning is president of Americans for Limited Government.

The column was originally published at NetRightDaily.com.

January 22, 2016
Big Candy’s Big Lie Campaign is Big-Time Propaganda

Clockwise from top left: White refined sugar, unrefined sugar, brown sugar, unprocessed cane sugar. (Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons)

(Chuck Muth, Citizen Outreach) – A recent congressional briefing – sponsored by the Coalition for Sugar Reform, a front group funded primarily by the candy industry – succeeded wildly in perpetuating a modern-day version of The Big Lie.

“Americans are paying twice as much as they should be for sugar,” claims Guy Bentley in a recent article published by the Daily Caller. “This hurts both the industries that use sugar, like candy manufacturers, and ordinary consumers in the form of higher prices in grocery stores.”

Bentley went on to maintain that the U.S. sugar program, which “has been in effect for 75 years,” is responsible for the loss of some 127,000 American jobs from 1997 to 2011 “because companies were forced to pay an artificially high price for sugar.”

Pravda’s editors would be quite proud of such propaganda.

First, the cost of sugar in the U.S. isn’t artificially high. The cost of sugar from foreign nations is artificially low, thanks to government subsidies that prop up their industries.

Secondly, the cost of American sugar is not only a true free-market price, it’s about the same as it was three decades ago when Ronald Reagan was president. As such, the sky-rocketing cost of a candy bar today is actually due to sky-rocketing taxes, sky-rocketing wages and benefits, and the cost of sky-rocketing government regulations and mandates.

Bentley went on to assert that in 2013 “the direct cost to taxpayers of the sugar program soared to $300 million because the Department of Agriculture was forced to buy up surplus sugar and remove it from the market to prop up sugar prices.”

And now, as Paul Harvey was wont to say, the rest of the story…

The anomaly in 2013 was due entirely to the Mexican government – which actually owns a piece of its sugar industry – abusing the NAFTA trade agreement to “dump” artificially cheap, government-subsidized sugar into the U.S. in an effort to collapse our own domestic market.

What happened next is what needs to happen globally in order to get rid of the U.S. sugar program.

U.S. and Mexican negotiators got together and hammered out a deal that struck a balance between the competing interests of the trading partners. It’s the sort of deal that not only assures a freer market, but a fairer one, as well.

Congress should follow this example and pursue Rep. Ted Yoho’s “zero-for-zero” proposal in which the U.S. will eliminate its sugar program in return for other global competitors simultaneously eliminating theirs. At which point Big Candy would no longer have need for their Big Lie campaign.

Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach and the publisher of www.NevadaNewsandViews.com. He personally blogs at www.MuthsTruths.com.

November 30, 2015
Big Candy Launches “Surge” Against Rubio, U.S. Sugar Program
Candies and chocolates are the best end products of sugar. (Image Courtesy: Pixabay)

(Chuck Muth) – Candy-makers and confectioners – intent on importing artificially cheap, foreign subsidized sugar – have recently ratcheted up PR efforts to kill the U.S. sugar program, including shooting at the presidential campaign of Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio.
- “Marco Rubio owes his political existence to Big Sugar,” declares Alan Farago in the Huffington Post.
- “Marco Rubio needs to get past his sugar problem,” opines Timothy Carney in the Washington Examiner.
- “Marco Rubio’s Billion-Dollar Sugar Addiction,” blares National Review Online.
- “Rubio and Big Sugar,” the Wall Street Journal editorialized.
- “Rubio’s position aligns with that of the sugar industry,” wrote Tom Hamburger of the Washington Post.
- “Marco Rubio’s continued defense of the economically indefensible US sugar program,” intoned Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute.
- “Rubio has consistently voted for and defended the federal sugar program,” wrote Steve Benen of MSNBC.
- Mary Clare Jalonick of U.S. News and World Report reports that Rubio “has consistently voted to maintain the sugar program.”
- Blogger Greg Sargent wrote that “Rubio is solely interested in keeping the sugar subsidy program because it keeps people employed in his state.”
You’d almost think this “surge” of attacks was being coordinated by some special interest!

The amazing thing about the criticism, however, is the claim that it’s the cost of sugar that’s costing American consumers more money when, in fact, the cost of sugar today is about where it was some 30 years ago while the cost of a candy bar has skyrocketed.

Meaning the burden taxpayers are shouldering for Hershey bars is coming from somewhere other than sugar.

Indeed, the WSJ editorial claimed that “The U.S. candy industry has been hollowed out as companies have fled to places like Guatemala and Thailand where they can remain competitive by buying sugar at world-market prices.”

Oh, puh-lease.

Does anyone really believe candy-makers are relocating to third-world countries because of a 10-cent difference in the global cost of sugar rather than the huge gulf in labor costs, taxation, benefit mandates and government regulations?

Rubio’s position on the U.S. sugar program is fair, reasonable and defensible. “I’m ready to get rid of the loan program for sugar as long as the countries that export sugar into the U.S. get rid of theirs as well,” he declared at a Heritage Foundation forum this summer.

Tit-for-tat. Zero-for-zero. You drop yours, we’ll drop ours.

Makes perfect sense, despite the impressive surge of outrage coming from Big Candy’s PR machine.

Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach and the publisher of www.NevadaNewsandViews.com. He personally blogs at www.MuthsTruths.com.
November 19, 2015
What Wayne Gretzky can teach opponents of the U.S. Sugar Program

(Chuck Muth, Citizen Outreach) – If you’re part of the establishment wing of the GOP you’re in near-panic mode these days as anointed presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s campaign continues in its political death spiral. Which may explain recent attacks against upstart Sen. Marco Rubio on an otherwise obscure issue that really only benefits one special interest…

Big Candy.

In a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, the nation’s leading financial newspaper raised a stink about the U.S. sugar program; an issue that even CNBC couldn’t find a way to inject in the last presidential debate. And according to the editorial, Bush has said “he favors phasing it out” while Rubio, “the fresh-faced champion of limited-government conservatism,” doesn’t.

But like the recent “fabricated” story about fellow GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson and his West Point “scholarship,” that’s not exactly true.

Indeed, in slamming Rubio for his support for this important program to U.S. sugar farmers, the Journal acknowledges that Rubio, too, favors phasing out the program. Just not unilaterally – as, apparently, Bush is now willing to accept. Rather, only when foreign governments simultaneously phase out their own direct government subsidies for their own sugar industries.

The subtle difference here is that the Journal hath decreed that such a day will “never” come. But there’s simply no objective reason to accept such pessimism. As the saying goes, never say never. And as another saying goes, those who say it can’t be done should get out of the way of those who are already doing it.

Indeed, as we learned in a recent House congressional hearing, after Mexico was caught “dumping” heavily-subsidized sugar into the United States – collapsing our domestic market and costing taxpayers money under the program for the first time since NAFTA’s passage – an agreement has since been reached to assure not only free trade in sugar between the two nations, but fair trade as well.

This bears repeating, especially because it directly contradicts an assertion by the Journal in its editorial: It’s not that the price of U.S. sugar is artificially high; it’s that the price of Mexico’s sugar is artificially low.

Wayne Gretzky

The Mexico example lights the way for U.S. negotiators to pursue and strike similar win-win deals with other foreign sugar producers, especially Brazil, India, and Thailand. “We’ll drop our sugar program if/when you drop yours.” Zero subsidies/protections for zero subsidies/protections – exactly as Rep. Ted Yoho, Florida Republican, has proposed in a House resolution.

As the great Wayne Gretzky once said, “You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.” So it’s not that zero-for-zero can “never” happen. It’s that Congress needs to take a shot at it.

Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach and the publisher of www.NevadaNewsandViews.com. He personally blogs at www.MuthsTruths.com.

November 10, 2015
Halloween is over, but Sugar Program Scare Tactics continue

Sugar skulls are the most common recipe in Mexico during Halloween.

(Chuck Muth, Citizen Outreach) – Well, another Halloween has come and gone, but not before opponents of the U.S. sugar program once again tried to scare the bejeepers out of members of Congress with frightening tales of consumers being fleeced over the cost of sweets dropped into the bags of costumed trick-or-treaters knocking on the door.

But like most spooky stories, such tales are exaggerated for effect, not grounded in reality.

To hear propagandists for the candy industry tell it, consumers paid through the nose for the chocolate bars and lollipops they handed out at the door Saturday night thanks to the U.S. sugar program. And indeed, the cost of those goodies is much higher today than it was thirty years ago.

But now let’s snap out of the nightmare and wake up to reality.

The cost of the sugar that went into the candy that went into those trick-or-treat bags has remained virtually unchanged over the last three decades, while the cost of the treats themselves have, indeed, skyrocketed. That’s a fact, not a tale from the crypt.

So if the cost of sugar in the U.S. has remained virtually unchanged over all these years, why are consumers paying so much more today for Milky Ways, Snickers, M&M’s and Hershey bars?

Because the cost of labor to manufacture those sweets has gone up. Because the cost of employee benefits has gone up. Because taxes have gone up. Because the cost of compliance with government regulations has gone up. Because the cost of other ingredients have gone up.

Because the amount of profit-taking by candy companies has gone up.

The truth behind the reasons for retaining the minimal trade restrictions associated with the U.S. sugar program is that foreign governments continue to distort the world sugar market with direct government subsidies that force American farmers to play against a stacked deck.

Take Mexico, for example. Not only does our NAFTA partner heavily subsidize its sugar industry, it OWNS part of it. And the only reason the U.S. sugar program cost U.S. taxpayers any money at all in 2013 was because Mexico was dumping artificially cheap sugar on the U.S. market.

Indeed, after the U.S. government investigated Mexico, it found proof that our “friends” had, indeed, been guilty of violating trade laws and corrective action has been taken.

That’s a good thing. But the problem is that Mexico is but one guilty party. Plenty of other foreign governments continue to distort the market.

And until all governments agree to simultaneous subsidy disarmament, U.S. farmers will continue to need minimal protection from such international spooks and goblins.

Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach and the publisher of www.NevadaNewsandViews.com. He personally blogs at www.MuthsTruths.com.

November 3, 2015
Indian Sugar Program “Helping” Farmers to Death

(Chuck Muth, Citizen Outreach) – If you think the U.S. sugar program is bad, you should take a look at the sugar industry mess in India.

At least in the U.S. you don’t have farmers committing suicide over government agricultural policies.

According to a recent Business Standard report, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is planning a ‘Raita Chaitanya Yatre’ (farmer’s rally) to “pressure the state government to address problems being faced by farmers in the state and provide immediate help to them.”

Nalin Kumar Kateel MP said last month that the rally’s purpose “was to wake the state government ‘out of slumber’ on the issues of farmers.”

“Many farmers in the state,” Kateel noted, “especially sugarcane farmers, have committed suicide in the last few months burdened with loans as their crops failed due to drought.”

Indeed, according to an October 18 article in The Hindu, Maruti Manpade, president of the Karnataka Pranta Raitha Sangha (KRRS), a farmer’s movement, said the government’s importation of sugar “was one of the reasons for the suicide of sugarcane growers in the State.”

“While farmers are in distress following the crash in the price of sugar, the BJP’s State unit is holding rallies against the Congress government,” Manpade told the paper. “Instead of playing petty politics and shedding crocodile tears for farmers, [the BJP should] do something to help the farmers.”

Manpade went on to accuse the government “of not forming an alternative agriculture policy for helping farmers” and “said that the visit of Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi to the State would not prevent farmers from committing suicide but a comprehensive alternative farming policy would.”

Of course, it’s well-intentioned but ill-advised government programs designed to help farmers that are causing the problems in the first place.

Which brings to mind something Ronald Reagan famously once said…

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

When it comes to agricultural policies, the best way for the governments of both India and the United States to “help” is to simply stop helping.

Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach and the publisher of www.NevadaNewsandViews.com. He personally blogs at www.MuthsTruths.com.

October 28, 2015
Ag Committee Hearing: Foreign Subsidies Jeopardizing Free Trade and Harming American Farmers

(Chuck Muth, Citizen Outreach) – The House Committee on Agriculture conducted a hearing on October 21 exploring how foreign government meddling in various agricultural markets was hurting U.S. farmers while making a mockery of the notion of “free trade.”

In opening remarks, Committee Chairman K. Michael Conaway noted that when it comes to government subsidies, “in many cases what foreign countries are doing is patently illegal under their World Trade Organization commitments.”

“Our government,” Conaway declared, “must begin to take on those who are cheating on their trade commitments. These actions by our foreign competitors are undermining our trade agenda and, as we will hear in testimony today, cheating by foreign countries is also causing serious injury to our nation’s farmers and ranchers.”

Such “cheating” is especially pronounced in the global sugar market.

Jack Roney, director of economics and policy analysis with the American Sugar Alliance, testified to the “tremendous distortion” in world sugar prices due largely to government “price protection” for foreign sugar farmers. He further charged specifically that India was in violation of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.

In addition, the day before the hearing the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) “affirmed that Mexico’s sugar industry had harmed American producers by selling subsidized sugar onto the U.S. at below market prices – a practice known as ‘dumping’.” (Source: Agri-Pulse)

The unanimous ruling “means that an agreement signed by the U.S. and Mexican governments to establish a trading structure that caps Mexican imports and stop Mexico’s abuses will remain in effect for at least five years,” according to the American Sugar Alliance.

“U.S. sugar producers want NAFTA to operate as intended and to foster free and fair sugar trade between Mexico and the United States,” said Phillip Hayes, a spokesman for the U.S. sugar industry. The ITC ruling “helps accomplish that goal by upholding the governments’ agreement and addressing the unfair trade practices that were injuring American farmers, workers, and taxpayers.”

“I hope that one day our trade agenda is able to zero out subsidies, tariffs, and other trade barriers around the world, including here at home,” Chairman Conaway concluded in his opening remarks at the congressional hearing. “But, until that day becomes a reality, we cannot and we will not unilaterally disarm America’s farmers and ranchers.”

What he said.

Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach and the publisher of www.NevadaNewsandViews.com. He personally blogs at www.MuthsTruths.com.

October 26, 2015
Christopher Columbus’ Objective: FREE Trade Routes

(Seton Motley) – Monday was a federal holiday. By that we mean: Government bureaucrats have the day off – the people who pay them do not. For people addled by Political Correctness (PC) – it was “Indigenous People Day.” For We the Sane – it was Columbus Day.

Christopher Columbus

Columbus is of course Christopher Columbus. The Italian man funded by Spaniards who in 1492 established the European New World connection that led to us today. (The Vikings got here first – but their imprints eventually withered away.)

Columbus set off to find… a new route to the East Indies (the Old World’s name for much of south and southeast Asia). Oops. He thought he had (or never wanted to admit he hadn’t) – which is why the people he found here were called “Indians.” No matter the confusion, what he did was perilous and visionary – and what he found special and important. Thus his legacy – and his Day.

Why did Spain’s King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella decide to sponsor Columbus? Because competitive European free trade was driving the day – and Spain wanted to improve and increase its share. Trade with Asia was then a great and growing enterprise. Columbus stumbled upon the New World – while seeking a faster route to Asia by heading west.

Columbus’ discovery augured a huge, centuries-long trade boom. As the Asian relationship increased its ascendancy – and the New World began blossoming and bearing fruit. The Trade Triangle was born. Yet again – we see that actually free trade is a very good thing.

And on Columbus’ second trip to the New World – he brought sugar. Which was quintessential Trade Triangle. Sugar is not an America’s indigenous crop – it is Asian. And the Europeans brought it. Trade – boom.

“Noting sugar cane’s potential as income for the new settlements in the Americas — Europeans were already hooked on sugar coming from the Eastern colonies — Spanish colonizers snipped seeds from Columbus’ fields in the Dominican Republic and planted them throughout their burgeoning Caribbean colonies. By the mid 16th-century the Portuguese had brought some to Brazil and, soon after, the sweet cane made its way to British, Dutch and French colonies such as Barbados and Haiti….

“During those three centuries, sugar was by far the most important of the overseas commodities that accounted for a third of Europe’s entire economy….”

BOOM. Sugar was such a wealth engine – the Old World called it White Gold. So successful still is this transplant that: “Today more sugar is produced in Brazil than anywhere else in the world….”

What isn’t nearly as successful today – is the global trade environment. In Columbus’ day – it was just about a free market Xanadu. Peoples from many nations trading almost totally freely – with little if any government impediments to the omni-directional commerce. Quite the contrary – governments like Spain’s actively sought out new and better ways to trade.

Now – we have nations acting in confused, contradictory fashion. On the one hand, governments have trade departments and officers seeking new opportunities. But sadly, that is the much weaker hand. The other, much stronger hand is actively undermining trade and commerce.

That hand is over-taxing and over-regulating its domestic producers – rendering them far less competitive. That same hand is simultaneously – in Crony Socialist-fashion – subsidizing and favoring certain industries amongst the uber-regulated. And that hand is over-taxing and over-regulating imports – making the global marketplace an ever more tenuous place.

Just about every government on the planet is doing lots of this domestic and international meddling. It needs to stop. Thus are born free trade deal negotiations.

I mentioned sugar – because sugar is one of the most government-gummed-up markets on the planet. Brazil is the world’s biggest producer – and probably its biggest Crony Socialist, anti-free market meddler.

Brazilian sugar subsidies? $2.5 billion a year. That certainly helped them achieve their Number-One-in-the-World status. Brazil cuts checks to farmers. And gives farmers “loans” – for which they never actually seek reimbursement. And gives them breaks on their government-retirement-program taxes. And on, and on, and….

All of which makes it all the harder for the rest of the world’s sugar farmers – including ours. Sadly, most of the rest of the world’s governments have responded in kind – including ours. Meeting more government with more government. Lather, rinse, repeat – and the resulting global sugar market is anything but free.

Thus are born free trade deal negotiations. We need to sit down with Brazil – and everyone else who produces sugar. And start tearing down the government walls impeding actually free trade. Where we as much as humanly possible zero-out all of this government. Something Florida Republican Congressman Ted Yoho calls – in his resolution calling for this less government approach – “zero-for-zero.”

The Congressman is absolutely correct. So were Ferdinand, Isabella – and Columbus. Let’s get back to those halcyon free trade days. On sugar – and every other commodity anyone trades anywhere on the planet.

Seton Motley is the founder and president of Less Government. This column was originally published on October 13, 2015 at RedState.com.

October 16, 2015
TPP provides light at end of the sugar subsidy tunnel

(Chuck Muth, Citizen Outreach) – Critics of Rep. Ted Yoho’s “Zero for Zero” resolution who say it can’t be done should heed the wisdom of getting out of the way of people already doing it.

Z4Z – in which the United State would eliminate its sugar program of relatively minor import restrictions and tariffs in return for other nations simultaneously eliminating their own, far more aggressive direct subsidies to sugar famers and producers – needs to be negotiated.

“Wishing” is not a realistic means to the end.

An example of how this could, if Congress pursues such a course, resolve much of the world’s problem in the heavily distorted sugar market is the recently finalized Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.

Under the agreement – with give and take on both sides – Hal Conick of Confectionery News notes that “Australia would be allowed to provide an additional 65,000 metric tons of sugar to the US” which will be duty free and with no quota tariff.

“In addition,” Conick notes, “US export tariffs to Vietnam, which currently stand at 20%, will be eliminated by 2026.” And Canada will be allowed to export “an additional 9,600 metric tons of refined beet sugar as part of the agreement.”

While most U.S. sugar producers, given their druthers, would have probably preferred that things stay just the way they are, they accepted the deal because it wasn’t so egregious as to drive them out of business. But that was the end goal of candy makers, who clearly wanted more.

“Of course we wanted more, but this is what we’ve got,” said Rick Pasco, president of Sweetener Users Association (SUA). “There will be future opportunities with trade agreements.”

And that is exactly the point of Rep. Yoho’s Z4Z resolution. Everything is and should be negotiable, including the subsidies of our trading partners.

Rather than pursuing futile efforts to eliminate the U.S. sugar program unilaterally – leaving our domestic sugar industry vulnerable to a greatly distorted and artificially cheap global market – Congress should pursue trade agreements on sugar through the World Trade Organization (WTO) or other appropriate vehicles.

It’s not a question of whether or not such agreements could be negotiated.

It’s a question of whether or not policymakers are willing to stand up for America’s farmers and demand real subsidy reforms abroad.

As TPP has shown, where there’s a will, there’s a way.

Mr. Muth is president of Citizen Outreach and the publisher of www.NevadaNewsandViews.com. He personally blogs at www.MuthsTruths.com.

October 15, 2015
End Global Subsidies to Lower Food Bills

(Matthew Kandrach, 60 Plus Association) – Next to healthcare and medicine, no budget item hits seniors in the pocketbook more than food. While fixed incomes remain fixed, grocery bills do not, and receipts at the checkout counter are getting a lot bigger these days.

Take the price of chocolate, one of life’s small pleasures, for example. The cost of a Hershey bar reached an all-time high $1.49 this year.

It’s the exact same iconic candy bar that our parents grew up paying a nickel for in the ‘40s, ‘50s, and ‘60s. And since the 1980s, when a Hershey bar still only cost 35 cents, its price has regularly and rapidly increased.

The fact that seniors’ dollars aren’t stretching quite as far in the candy aisle is not all Hershey’s fault. Confectioners are dealing with the same high taxes, out-of-control healthcare costs and regulatory burdens we’re all facing.

But these international companies are dealing with the world’s most volatile commodity market, too. A global market that has been grossly manipulated by, you guessed it, government policies.

World average sugar prices are all over the map, fluctuating over the past couple of decades from lows of 3 cents per pound to highs of more than 60 cents. This makes proper planning much harder for food companies that depend on sugar, which includes bread, sauces, drinks, canned foods, ready-made meals, and dozens of other food staples.

So what can be done about it? Europe thought it had the answer in 2006 when it announced an end to its egregious sugar policies and urged others to follow suit.

But the plan backfired. Europe acted in isolation without anyone else following its lead. The EU sugar industry was gutted, 120,000 people lost their jobs, dozens of factories were left in ruin and consumers were forced to pay more for sugar.

Foreign suppliers — many of which are controlled by foreign governments — didn’t ship Europe enough sugar to meet its needs and food prices skyrocketed as a result. There were even press accounts of sugar rationing in some European stores.

Europe responded with billions in bailouts, tariffs and a new subsidy package for farmers remaining in the industry. Those subsidies will soon reach $665 million a year and economists predict it will likely add unneeded sugar to the already topsy-turvy the global market.

In other words, the EU government tried to correct a problem it helped create with more government largess that will ultimately make the underlying problem even worse.

Europe isn’t alone, either. Other major sugar producers are ramping up subsidization. Brazil is busy bailing out its struggling industry in hopes of maintaining a stranglehold on global exports; Thailand has used more than $1 billion a year to boost its production; and India is intentionally breaking international trade rules with illegal subsidies meant to flood the market.

The fact is, food manufacturers and grocery shoppers will never get a fair shake as long as governments are manipulating commodity markets. And no government will ever act as Europe did and unilaterally disarm in fear of the consequences.

The only workable solution is a global cease-fire in subsidies. An accord where trade-distorting policies are outlawed and free markets can begin to form.

Congressman Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) has a resolution, nicknamed the zero-for-zero sugar policy, which proposes to do just that. His idea is to target foreign sugar subsidies then roll back U.S. sugar policy as a means to achieve real global reform.

It is not unilateral disarmament, which would ultimately lead to U.S. job loss and reward bad actors without addressing the problem. It is a less-government idea that puts a little bit of common sense back into global commodity market.

That’s something all seniors should support the next time they suffer sticker shock at the grocery store.

Matthew Kandrach is Vice-President of the 60 Plus Association. This column was originally published by NetRightDaily.com.

October 9, 2015