A Sweet Deal That Leaves Costly Cavities

I'm writing about US sugar production. Believe it or not, I'm not the first. I didn't find it, but I'm sure there's an article from some paper complaining about it when it was "temporarily" instituted in 1934. Regardless, I believe examining this example from Stigler's perspective can help us to understand the durability of such poor policy. In some ways, the sugar industry is climbing an uphill battle at maintaining this domestic advantage. According to one paper FOR the American Sugar Alliance, less than .1% of America's employees and about .1% of America's economy comes from the US sugar industry. Additionally, the median per capita income of those in the industry is likely low and the occupation is located in rural areas. However, the US sugar industry does have an extremely cohesive oppositional presence to the reduction or elimination of these subsidies. While not every politician supports this (A 2013 Senate amendment to scale back the program garnered 45 votes), 46 percent of House members received money from American Crystal Sugar in the 2014 election cycle. With an estimated $1.9 billion annual cost, there is clear incentive and means to fund whoever needs be funded in order to perpetuate this cycle. This combined with the long-standing tenure of the sugar lobbying presence and the high number of candidates supporting these measures, makes it is difficult for voters to understand and effectively vote in their best interest on this particular issue. Maybe confectioners will make headway in reducing their input costs, but given their working relationship with the sugar industry, they may ultimately decide against confronting the status quo.