Bitter Battle Over Sweetness

Why on earth would Congress at a time when food prices are soaring rush to raise artificially the price of a basic supermarket staple? Yet that is just what is happening to sugar. Moreover, the congressional effort is designed to bail out far fewer than one-half of 1% of the nation's farmers, specifically 11,000 sugar-beet growers and 1,800 raisers of sugar cane.

These entrepreneurs are already supported by an amendment to last year's farm bill, which was designed to raise U.S. prices of sugar to 13.5-c- per Ib. But that has not been enough for the growers, who contend that they cannot make a profit at that price. So last week the House wound up subcommittee public hearings on a bill that would use import quotas and fees to set a floor price for sugar of 17-c- per Ib. The same bill has been put forward in the Senate by Idaho Democrat Frank Church, and it has 34 cosponsors.

The Administration argues that the bill is highly inflationary, will hinder U.S. relations with exporting countries, notably the Philippines and the Dominican Republic, and will fan protectionism in the U.S. The White House estimates that the measure will cost consumers an extra $700 million a year, a figure that Church's supporters and Government sugar experts claim is exaggerated. In any case, the bill is opposed by the Consumer Federation of America as well as candy and soft-drink makers and other big users of sugar; it is supported by the farmers and most of Big Labor.

President Carter has threatened to veto the bill if it passes, but instead of fighting any price fixing, he has come forward with a halfway measure. It would pay subsidies to farmers and, in effect, boost sugar prices to 14.4-c- per Ib. This proposal would cost the public an extra $120 million in direct payments, plus possibly millions more to underwrite federal support if sugar prices fail to rise high enough to enable farmers to redeem their Government loans. The Administration proposal has so little support on Capitol Hill that no Congressman has agreed to sponsor it. Because it would keep the price of sugar lower than the Church bill, the President's proposal does have the enthusiastic backing of big sugar users like the Coca-Cola Co., which is headed by Jimmy Carter's old friend, J. Paul Austin.

Why all the fuss now about sugar?

U.S. growers say that they cannot survive in a market that is about as quiet, orderly and predictable as a sailors' bar on Saturday night. Crop failures sent world prices soaring to 65-c--c- per Ib. in 1974, and overproduction has made them plunge to about 8-c-. Late last year the Administration signed the International Sugar Agreement, which would use buffer stocks and export restraints to keep prices between 15-c- and 19-c- per Ib. But the ISA deal must be ratified by the Senate; and Church, who represents a big beet-grower constituency, has kept the agreement bottled up in the Foreign Economic Policy Subcommittee, of which he is chairman. He plans to hold the treaty hostage until some legislation is adopted that will give sugar growers firmer price guarantees.

While the battle drags on, the only thing certain is that the consumer will pay more, and nobody in Washington is giving any thought to freeing up the market to bring down the price.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.