The announcement by Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida that his state will pay $1.75 billion to buy out the 187,000 acres of sugar cane grown by U. S. Sugar Corp. around Lake Okeechobee is being welcomed--correctly--as great news for the cause of improving clean water flow south into the endangered 1.5 million acre Everglades National Park.
But isn't it also potentially good news for the some 40 friendly countries, including many in Latin America, that have had trouble breaking the U.S. sugar quota all these years? The biggest thing the United States could do to help the people in certain tropical lands of limited export potential would be to end the tariff-rate quotas that artificially prop up the sugar industry in the U.S. That industry is not a very big employer, but it has huge political clout. The new Florida deal is bound to reduce that clout.
Every farm bill that seeks to end agriculture quotas finds an agile lobby opposing increased sugar imports. Cane growers in Louisiana, Hawaii and Texas, and sugar beet growers in the Mountain West, are among the foes of relaxing quotas, but some of the most weighty political opposition has come from Florida.
There will still be 300,000 acres of sugar cane in production in Florida after U.S. Sugar phases out its production over seven years. But mighty U.S. Sugar has been the key to Florida's anti-free trade mood on this issue, just as Florida has been key to sugar protectionism in Congress.
The sugar issue makes the U.S. look like a hypocrite on free trade. As the sugar lobby weakens, the free trade lobby--including not only many allies in warm climates, but also the huge domestic confection, soft drink, cereal and baking industries--should grow relatively stronger. And free trade may become more feasible.
Leave a comment