Sweeteners, NAFTA, and the Everglades: Connecting Economics, Policy, and Environment
Background
Sugar and Sweetener Industries in the United States
Sugar originally came from New Guinea, moving westward into India and China. In the fourth century B.C., it finally made its way to Europe. Eventually the Spanish started growing sugarcane and then brought it to their American colonies (mostly the United States and Mexico today) where they found it flourished in the naturally good growing environment. It became an extremely profitable cash crop and is part of the reason for the Spanish empire's power and wealth. Today the sugar industry (particularly sugarcane) is spread throughout the world, but continues to be a major industry in the Americas. The U.S. is one of the only major growers of sugar beets. The temperate climate of the United States makes it less viable to grow sugarcane than in places of warmer climate. The global sugar market generally refers to simply "sugar" which is the product after processing of one of the three main sugar crops including sugarcane, sugar beets, and corn. Most of the world's sugar production continues to come from sugarcane.
Sugar Crops in the US
Sugarcane accounts for approximately 46% of domestic sugar production in the U.S. Sugar beets account for the other 54%. In the 1980’s, the United States produced approximately 6 million tons of sugar. That figure has increased in the 2000’s to approximately 8.3 million tons. The main reasons for the significant increase are increases in technology and harvesting and processing techniques. There has also been some increase due to acreage increase as it has become less profitable to grow some other crops in regions where beets or sugarcane flourish.
Yields of these two crops vary from year to year, but over time both crops have seen an increase in yield due to varietal improvements and other technological advances. The number of farms growing sugar crops has decreased in recent times, but the average acreage of each sugar producing farm has greatly increased. The trend in U.S. sugar farms is toward large factory-type farms, as is the case with many of the agricultural markets in the U.S.
Sugarcane
Sugarcane is a tall grass that is grown in tropical or subtropical climates. It has a limited growing area in the United States because of the temperate climate in most regions of the country. It takes 1-2 years for a sugarcane crop to mature, each planting yielding approximately 4 harvests. Sugarcane acreage in the United States has increased from 285,000 acres in the first half of the 1980’s to approximately 370,000 acres in the 2000’s.
Since 1960, the United States has not imported sugar from Cuba. The sugar production in Florida has consequently gone up significantly since 1960. Florida is the United States’ biggest producer of sugarcane. The fertile soils along Lake Okeechobee in southern Florida allow for organic farming of sugarcane. The growing season is relatively long and the winters are usually quite mild.
Louisiana is the northern-most sugarcane producing state. Most of the sugarcane farming that occurs in Louisiana takes place in the Mississippi River delta. There has been some recent expansion northward in Louisiana because of decreases in profits of growing other crops such as rice and soy. Production has increased in Louisiana overall, due to increase in growing area as well as better technology.
Texas is another large producer of sugarcane for the United States. All of the sugarcane grown in Texas is grown in the lower Rio Grande valley in the southernmost part of the state. In Texas, there is a significant threat from hurricanes and frosts, both of which could completely decimate a crop. Texas has less acreage and production of sugarcane than either Louisiana or Florida.
Hawaii rounds out the large producers of sugarcane in the United States. Production has decreased significantly in Hawaii due to loss of processing plants and increased demand for land for real estate and other businesses. The state now only grows sugarcane on approximately 21,900 acres.
Sugarcane cash receipts reached $755 million in 2005/06 and $897 million in 2006/07. Sugar crops (both sugarcane and beets) account for approximately 1% of all agricultural moneys earned by farmers in the United States.
Raw sugarcane price has recently ranged from 19.09 cents a pound (year 2000) to 22.14 cents a pound (year 2006). U.S. sugar prices are well above the world prices. World sugar prices have averaged around 10.01 cents per pound in the 2000’s.
Sugar Beets
Sugar Beets are a root crop and the second leading crop for U.S. sugar production. Beets are grown in temperate climates and are a sturdier crop compared to sugarcane. U.S. sugar beet land ranges from the hot climate of the Imperial Valley of California to the much colder regions of Minnesota, Montana, and North Dakota.
The U.S. has 11 sugar beet producing states. The major beet producing states can be divided into three major regions including east of the Mississippi River, the Great Plains, and the Far West. Farming techniques vary from region to region, but in general, the eastern beet farms rely on rainfall for crop watering while western farms use irrigation. Both crop yields and cost are higher in the western regions.
The most productive region in the U.S. for sugar beet production is in the Red River Valley of western Minnesota where approximately 750,000 acres are dedicated to the growing of beets. These 750,000 acres account for about 54% of U.S. beet land. The cold winters in this region make storage of beets after harvest much easier and long lasting.
The efficiency of the operation is therefore much higher here than in warmer climates.
Michigan represents the second largest beet producing region in the U.S. Here approximately 170,000 acres are dedicated to beets. This acreage accounts for approximately 12% of U.S. beet acreage.
The Upper Great Plains region (north central Wyoming, Montana, and western North Dakota) and Central Great Plains region (southeastern Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska) account for about 192,000 acres of beet planting, approximately 14% of the national total.
Idaho, Washington State, and Oregon account for another 15% of beet production.
California is the final large beet region accounting for just 52,000 acres.
New technology involving the de-sugaring of molasses has allowed for a great increase in the productivity of beet farming.
Cash receipts for sugar beets totaled $1.19 billion in the 2005-2006 crop year and increased to $1.53 billion in the 2006-2007 crop year.
U.S. beet prices have ranged from 20.8 cents a pound in 2000 to approximately 33.1 cents a pound in 2006. These prices are far above the world price on sugarcane of approximately 10.01 cents per pound.
High Fructose Corn Syrup
An alternative sweetener to sugar is high fructose corn syrup or HFCS. HFCS is derived from the wet milling of corn. U.S. corn refiners produce corn syrup by converting corn starch into syrup that is high in dextrose. Several processes are then used to convert the syrup into a higher grade sweetener. Demand for HFCS comes primarily from the beverage industry.
Production of HFCS has increased from 2.2 million tons in 1980 to approximately 9.2 million tons during the 2000’s. During the 2000’s HFCS has replaced higher priced sugar for some uses. Approximately 5 percent of the U.S. corn production has been used in making HFCS.
The U.S. and Mexican corn markets are both massive. The U.S. heavily subsidizes corn along with sugarcane and sugar beets. NAFTA has had a major effect on the Mexican consumer as cheaper imported U.S. corn has had devastating effects on the Mexican corn industry, causing massive unemployment and overall degradation of the economy. HFCS is not the main corn product shipped to Mexico and is still largely used internally by U.S. manufacturers.
American Trade in Sugar
Little to no United States produced sugar reaches the global market. The price supports, tariffs on foreign imported sugars, and subsidies paid to farmers make it nearly impossible for United States sugar producers to make more capital by shipping overseas. Overall, the quantity of US sugar exported is negligible.
The U.S. does import some sugar from countries that can produce it more efficiently. The same is true of ethanol from sugarcane. International tariffs limit import, but some importation does still occur to balance the market. In general, tariffs and other restrictions create a market price for U.S. sugar below that of imported sugars.
The global sugar market outside the U.S. market consists of several large producers including, but not limited to China, Pakistan, Brazil, South Africa, Thailand, India, and Mexico. Mexico sees the greatest impact from the U.S. sugar markets. NAFTA has played a major role in the relationship between Mexican and United States sugar markets.
Mexican Sugar Industry
Sugar is the 5th most abundant crop grown in Mexico. The source of Mexican sugar is sugarcane because of the semi-tropical climate through most of the country. Mexican sugar industries employ over 300,000 people. About 2.2 million people depend on the Mexican sugar industry for a living.
Mexican sugarcane farming is far less efficient than in some more developed nations. The average cane farm is just 4 hectares and there are over 158,000 individual growers. Comparatively, there are about 6500 growers in Queensland, Australia, with the average farm size of about 85 hectares.
Inefficiency would shut down the Mexican sugar industry if the government did not provide some support for growers and processors. Domestic prices are kept high enough to support the industry through several legal policies. For instance, growers are only allowed to supply a certain amount of cane per year. Any excess must be stored or exported. That way, the supply stays low and the domestic price for sugar stays high. Mexican sugar prices are nearly double that of U.S. sugar and therefore well above international prices.
There are some major issues arising in the Mexican sugar industry. The infrastructure of the sugar processing plants is not well organized and does not promote high production. The government had to take control of many processing plants in 2001 because sugarcane growers were not receiving their payments. Three factors caused this crash in the Mexican market; an influx of HFCS from the U.S. after NAFTA was instated, increased imports of cheap international sugar, and the U.S. quota remaining below the additional 250,000-ton minimum that Mexico had hoped would be negotiated.
In the 2000's, Mexico started raising tariffs and taxes on soft drinks and other products that used HFCS as opposed to sugar. Mexican processors for HFCS were hurt by this maneuver and the prices of domestic sugar rose as expected. The supply of domestic sugar stayed the same while demand rose, causing an overall lowering of Mexican sugar available for export.
Tariffs set by the United States on Mexican imported sugar are supposed to reach zero in the near future. In a completely free market, however, Mexican sugar will likely remain in the Mexican market for some time. Domestic prices in Mexico are higher than in the U.S. and therefore producers can make a greater profit in a Mexican market than by exporting to the U.S.
Pre-NAFTA Sugar Markets
Mexico
Mexico had been a deficit sugar producer in pre-NAFTA years, meaning it typically produced more than it consumed. For five out of six years from the 1988/89 to the 92/93 seasons it had a significant sugar surplus. This trend was likely to continue as the U.S. Congress and Mexican government assured it would. At this time Mexican producers were not able to capitalize these surplus supplies because of American sugar tariffs. Mexico's sweetener industry was mainly based on its own sugar production since imports of high fructose corn syrup and other corn sweeteners were minimal.
United States
The United States is the world’s fifth largest sweetener producer and fourth largest consumer and net importer, as of 2005. The U.S. imposed substantial tariffs on sugar imports in order to protect the American sugar industry. However, domestic sugar supply did not always meet the domestic demand. Only a minimal share (about 7,000 tons) of the U.S. sugar import quota came from Mexico. Sugar prices in the U.S. were on a steady decline in the years before NAFTA. With beet processing plants and sugar refineries exiting the poor market, growers of both crops cooperatively bought these factory businesses and consolidated the sugar industry.
NAFTA and the Sugar Industry
What is NAFTA?
The North American Free Trade Agreement is a treaty to eliminate regional trade barriers between Canada, the United States and Mexico. The agreement came into effect on January 1, 1994 and was to gradually come into full effect over the next fifteen years, ending in a complete trade bloc by 2008.
Sugar Industry - Provisions of NAFTA
General Provisions
The original NAFTA sugar provisions intended to open the Mexican market to American High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). This involved Mexico substituting sugar with HFCS, allowing displaced sugar to be exported to the U.S. This was arranged by several quota increases throughout increments of time. From 1994-2000 Mexico could increase its sugar exportation to 25,000 tons of displaced sugar (three times as much as before). Starting in 2001 and lasting until 2007, Mexico could export all sugar surplus production and have a reduced tariff on second-tier (over-quota) exports. In 2008, the free market was set to begin.
Side-Letter Debate
In November 1993, before NAFTA was signed by all parties, debate arose regarding the amount Mexico was allowed to export, the definition of surplus, and the second-tier tariffs. The U.S. wanted to limit the 2001-07 access to only 250,000 tons of surplus production, as compared to allowing the entire surplus to be exported. The definition of surplus was also disputed as the U.S. wanted to change it to be sugar production minus sugar and HFCS consumption. The last alteration was to eliminate the second-tier tariff phase-out. These changes were actualized in the final NAFTA draft.
Consequences of NAFTA
Mexican Markets
Pros
Through NAFTA, Mexico can ship more duty-free sugar to the United States. Since American sugar prices are higher than those of Mexico, Mexican sugar producers and exporters capitalize on this price competition. Since NAFTA was incepted, Mexican sugar production has swelled by 33%.
Cons
Local Mexican consumers are at a disadvantage from the duty-free sugar trade. In Mexico, there is a reduced supply of sugar because of the increased exportation to the US. This reduced domestic raises domestic sugar prices, so Mexican consumers had to pay more for the same product. Furthermore, NAFTA permitted Mexico import more American High Fructose Corn Syrup, a cheaper sweetener which displaced domestic sugar on the beverage market . In this sense, NAFTA allowed Mexico to raise its exports, but caused it to raise its number of imports as well. The Mexican government took several defensive measures to combat the flood of American HFCS (See “Mexico Protecting its Sugar from HFCS”).
American Markets
Pros
American consumers benefit from NAFTA, as the influx of sugar from Mexico is cheaper and more available than American sugar.
Cons
American sugar producers hurt from the Free trade Agreement. Mexico grows a surplus of sugar, while the American industry is quite small in comparison. American sugar producers are not able to compete as well with cheap and abundant Mexican sugar. In order to protect domestic sweetener industries, Washington passed the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 to protect American sugarcane, sugar beets, and processors. The FAIR Act provides price-support loans to these producers, and placed restrictions on imports.
High Fructose Corn Syrup Dilemma
As the markets liberalized, the United States was able to export more of its High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) to Mexico. High Fructose Corn Syrup is a sweetener derived from corn, a highly subsidized and prominent crop of the United States. HFCS is a cheaper sweetener than sugar, and has been substituted for many products, especially in sodas.
Mexican sugar producers are hopeful that the increasing demand for ethanol will offset this market advantage, as the price for corn raises, so will High Fructose Corn Syrup.
Since NAFTA, the Mexican government has attempted measures to protect its domestic Mexico sugar industry. In 1998, Mexico imposed high anti-dumping duties on all American high fructose corn syrup, but the United States challenged these duties and the World trade Organization overruled them.
In 2001, expanded sugar production and increased importation of American HFCS brought and even greater excess to Mexico’s exportable sugar market. This incredible surplus in the market led to bankruptcy for many Mexican sugar mills, which is now known as the 2001 Sugar Crisis. Following this crisis that was caused by NAFTA policies, Mexico put a 20% tax on all beverages that were not made with cane sugar (ie, replaced with HFCS) in 2002. Temporarily this benefited American sugar as well, because it encouraged Mexico to consume more of its excess sugar so that there was less to export to the United States. Yet, this tariff reduced American HFCS exports to Mexico drastically, hurting the US corn industry. This tariff was eliminated by another World Trade Organization court ruling in 2003.
These two measures by Mexico hit the American High Fructose Corn industry hard. Prior to the anti-dumping duty in 1997, American exports to Mexico were worth $63 billion; in after the 20% tax was installed in 2003 the exports were valued at a mere $1.5 billion.
Current Trade: Post NAFTA
Sugar Production: Who has the advantage?
The U.S. is among the most efficient sugar producers in the world whereas Mexico is below the world average. American efficiency can be accounted to the large percentage of grower-owned refineries, technological advantages and subsidy programs. Mexico has a geographical advantage for growing sugarcane with its warmer climates; however it does not have the proper infrastructure to do so efficiently. Government land redistributions restricting the size of the average sugar-cane farms to about 10 acres and outdated technology adds to inefficiency.
Sugar Trade after 2008
In 2008, the U.S. sugar industry was vying for the renewal of trade restrictions with Mexico. The industry decided to abandon these efforts on behalf of other American agricultural industries that would suffer from the trade restrictions. There is currently a domestic sugar supply shortage in the U.S. Mexico predicts its sugar exports to the U.S. will increase greatly in the year 2009, from 500,000 tons in 2007/08 to between 700,000 and 1 million tons of sugar in 2008/09.
Debate Over Free Trade in the Context of the Sugar Industry
In favor of free trade
• Profit from comparative advantage, as in, most regions in the US should be growing sugarcane in the first place; it is better suited to Mexican soils and climate.
• Allows sugar cane and other sweetener crops to be grown on land that is best suited for the crop. This saves fragile land, like the Everglades, from agriculture.
• Reducing governmental subsidies will save government spending and allow for equal trade.
• Allow the American land previously used to grow sugar cane to be used as a crop that can be competitive on the world market, like soybeans.
• Consumers can buy cheaper sugar, because there would be zero trade restrictions on sugar importing.
• It benefits American candy producers and similar industries that can buy cheaper sugar.
Against free trade
• Hurts American sugarcane growers, because they cannot compete with cheaper Mexican sugar
• The flood of American HFCS allowed in by NAFTA will devastate the Mexican sugarcane market, because it cannot compete with the cheaper sweetener.
• Mexico does not have sufficient infrastructure (transportation, mills, etc) in order to be efficient in sugarcane production and therefore properly compete with American sugar.
Sugarcane Production in the Everglades
Overview
Florida is the primary United States producer and processor of sugarcane, followed by Louisiana, Hawaii, and on a much smaller scale, Texas(1).In the 2000-2001 season, production exceeded two million metric tons of raw sugar, representing roughly one-half of the US total from cane(2). Sugar beets included, Florida accounts for 24% of US sugar production(3). Sugarcane cultivation is concentrated on 420,000 acres of the 700,000 acre Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) situated at the Southern shore of Lake Okeechobee(4). Extensive commercial production first began in 1920 and has dramatically expanded since(1). State and Federal government has played a significant role in the industry, historically through indirect subsidization and erection of trade barriers. Today, though, government is beginning to affect Florida's sugar firms in new ways, including trade liberalization and conservation-motivated acquisition. The sugar industry is a major component of the state's agricultural economy, directly employing several thousand and generating cash receipts of more than $800 million(1). When the multiplier effect is applied, the Florida Sugarcane League calculates that the industry is responsible for 11,200 jobs and $2 billion of exchange(3).Sugar is the state's third largest agricultural sector, behind the greenhouse/nursery and citrus industries(5). While the industry has vital economic impacts, it also has destructive environmental consequences(6). Habitat destruction, hydrologic alteration, and nutrification as results of sugarcane cultivation have degraded unique Everglades ecosystems.
History
Establishment at Federal Expense
Sugarcane was first brought to Florida around 1565(2). Then, and through the 1800s, cultivators enjoyed little success due to inclement weather and unsuitable soil types. In 1920, the industry at last established around Lake Okeechobee. Through the following decades, two factors were primarily responsible for production expansion. First, the US Department of Agriculture and partners developed sugarcane cultivars suited to temperate climate[1]. Second, The Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes of 1948 established the EAA and designed programs to reclaim arable land from the native sawgrass ecosystem(8). The Army Corps. of Engineers, at Federal expense, altered natural flow of the Everglades by constructing a system of 1700 miles of canals and levees and sixteen major pumping stations(9).
Government Distortion of the Labor Market
In the 1940s, government violated free market ideals by intervening in Florida sugar's labor market(10). The industry was unable to find cane cutters because of the job's earned reputation as grueling, dangerous, and monotonous; however, producers were also unwilling to pay higher wages. Government responded with a guest-worker program which financed transport of low-wage labor from Jamaica and the Bahamas, indirectly subsidizing the industry. Moreover, incomplete and inaccurate information interfered with workers' decision to apply and facilitated a lower wage. Finally, the guest-worker program permitted cane-cutters to fulfill only that role and obliged a worker to pay the costs of his deportation if he was fired. The policy therefore overrode freedom of movement, a principle of free markets which allows a worker to change jobs if it is not worth the labor. Thus, government cooperated with Florida's sugar industry to provide labor conditions, similar to slavery, through abject distortion of the free market.
Explosion due to Actions in Washington
Prior to 1960, 50,000 acres of the EAA were in sugarcane cultivation(2). Beginning in 1960, however, the US imposed an embargo on America's main sugar supplier, Cuba. In the same year, the Federal government repealed sugarcane acreage restrictions, meant to force the price higher in a saturated market by reducing supply(11). The result was an explosion in US sugar production, including in the EAA. Within four years, sugarcane acreage increased by a factor of four and one-half to 223,000(2). New acreage restrictions imposed in 1965 led to a marked contraction, but the industry continued to expand. However, the advent of NAFTA has threatened sugar firm profitability and led to reduced acreage since 2001.
Environment
The everglades represent unique habitat for an assortment of rare plants and animals. Tourism and fishing in the 4 national parks and 10 national wildlife refuges directly provide $500 million annually(3). Before drainage, the area of the Everglades Agricultural Area composed what is known as the river of grass. This ecosystem, characterized by sawgrass prarie, lazily carried water at shallow depths from Lake Okeechokee to the South over a sixty-mile wide flood-plain. Today, sugarcane cultivation in the EAA is partially responsible for not only replacing vital habitat, but also degrading lower everglades ecosystems through alteration of water chemistry and hydrology. Half of the everglades' wetlands have been lost, water is contaminated by fertilizer and other runoff, and water flow into the everglades is one-third of its historical volume(9).
These disruptions, effecting effected Everglades National Park and Florida Bay, have led led to a 90 percent loss of wading birds and serious damage to fishing grounds, including the Ten Thousand Islands and the Florida Keys. They contribute to the plight of 68 threatened or endangered species in South Florida(12).
Alteration of Hydrology
A system of levees and canals disrupt natural flow of the everglades in geographic, quantitative, and temporal respects(9). During dry years, water is diverted from Everglades National Park to irrigate farmland. In overly wet years, on the other hand, water control districts release floodwater into estuaries. The influx of freshwater, in turn, destabilizes salinity killing shrimp and fish fry.
Nutrient Transport
Runoff of fertilizer from cane fields, especially phosphorous, has altered ecology and water chemistry throughout the everglades. As a result of high phosphorous levels, primarily from sugarcane fields, cattails have begun to replace sawgrass, degrading wildlife habitat and further interrupting water flow(12). On the other hand, industry reports that it has achieved 40% reductions in transport, above and beyond the reductions called for by regulation(4). Additionally, the industry notes that its crop requires one-half the phosphorous inputs for sweet corn, one-third those for celery, and one-quarter those for lettuce. Finally, the industry points out its limited use of pesticides, use of renewable energy from bagasse, and that it has much more regulatory control than almost all foreign suppliers(4).
Acquisition of US Sugar Corps
On June 23, 2008, Florida Governor Charlie Crist outlined a plan to purchase the US Sugar Corp., the largest sugarcane cultivator in the EAA. US Sugar had approached the governor considering the firm's uncertain profitability. Originally, the deal called for the state to pay $1.75 billion for the firm's 187,000 acres(13). Fiscal crisis, however, due to falling property values and tax revenues, led to a scale-back on April 1, 2009. The new plan would include less than half as much land sugar and citrus land, 72,500 acres, for about a third the price, $533 million, with a 10-year state option to buy more(14). Under the plan, US Sugar could continue to cultivate the land for at least seven years or until a federal water project was ready to be started. Ultimately, the state aims to convert about 120,000 acres into reservoirs and pollution treatment marshes. Reservoirs could retain water allowing for natural temporal release into the everglades. Pollution treatment marshes, meanwhile, would reduce nutrient loading from agriculture. The plan would be a dramatic step toward restoration of natural hydrology and water chemistry in the lower everglades.
Free trade had the effect of threatening US Sugar's profitability. In this case, NAFTA was environmentally advantageous because it facilitated the State's purchasing land for ecological restoration. However, decreased profits also increased the amount of land supplied for other purposes. Florida Crystals, another firm, has begun to sell land for limestone quarrying and residential development, both of which are permanent and destructive environmentally(8). Thus, the environmental consequences of free trade are mixed.
References
Environmental Working Group. http://farm.ewg.org/farm/top_recips.php?fips=42000&progcode=total. Environmental Working Group's Farm Subsidy Database. April 3, 2009.
Heboyan, Vahe, et. al. “US-Mexico Sugar Dispute : Impact of NAFTA on the Sugar Market.” May 2000. American Agricultural Economics Association Meetings. 18 April 2009. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/16695/1/fs0113.pdf
“NAFTA Agricultural Fact Sheet: Sugar.” FAS Online. 18 November 2005. Foreign Agricultural Service. 18 April 2009. http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/Policy/NAFTA/sugar.html
Rosenberg, Mica and Frank Jack Daniel. “Mexican Sugar Industry Anxious Ahead NAFTA Opening.” Sign On San Diego. 11 December 2007. 18 April 2009. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20071211-1327-mexico-sugar-.html
“US-Mexico Sugar Trade Issues.” United States Sugar Corporation Trade press Kit. November 2003. US Sugar Corporation. 21 April 2009. http://www.ussugar.com/press_room/press%20kits/sugar%20trade/u_s_mexico_trade.pdf
“US Requests WTO Panel Against Mexico Over Beverage Taxes.” Office of the United States Trade Representative. 22 June 2004. WTO. 21 April 2009. http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2004/June/US_Requests_WTO_Panel_Against_Mexico_Over_Beverage_Taxes.html
“Mexican Sugar and Trade: TED Case Study 657.” Mandala. January 2001. April 28 2009. http://www1.american.edu/TED/mexico-sugar.htm
Knapp, Robert. “Mexico and Sugar: Historical Perspective.” Horticultural and Tropical Products Division Foreign Agricultural Service. USDA. 29 April 2009. http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/sugar/2004/History%20of%20sugar%20dispute%20final.pdf
“1996 FAIR Act Frames Farm Policy for 7 Years.” Agricultural Outlook Supplement. April 1996. Economics Research Service/USDA. 29 April 2009. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AgOutlook/AOSupp.pdf
Bovard, James. “The Great Sugar Shaft.” Freedom Daily. April 1998. The Future of Freedom Foundation. 21 April 2009. http://www.fff.org/freedom/0498d.asp
“How sweet is isn’t; Sugar in Mexico. (Mexico’s sugar industry).” 24 Sept. 2005. The Economist (US). Gale Group, Farmington Hills, MI. 3 May 2009. <http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-136552533.html>.
Lipman, Larry. “Sugar industry drops bid to restrict trade.” 2 Dec. 2008. Cox News Service, Washington D.C. 3 May 2009. <http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=11124>.
“North American Free Trade Agreement.” 3 May 2009. Wikipedia. 23 May 2009. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement>.
“North American Free Trade Agreement: U.S./Mexico Trade in Sweeteners.” American Sugarbeet Growers Association. 3 May 2009. http://www.americansugarbeet.org/index.asp?bid=140
Roney, Jack. “The U.S. sugar industry: Large, efficient, and challenged.” 2004. International Sugar Journal VOL. 106, NO. 1266. American Sugar Alliance, Washington D.C. 3 May 2009. <http://www.sugaralliance.org/library/2004/ISJ%20article%20Roney%205-04.pdf>.
“U.S. – Mexico Sugar Trade Issues.” Nov. 2003. United State Sugar Corporation Trade Press Kit. 3 May 2009. <http://www.ussugar.com/press_room/press%20kits/sugar%20trade/u_s_mexico_trade.pdf>.
Citations
- <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3741/is_n10_v42/ai_16391136/>
- <http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/SC042>
- <http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/dec97/ever1297.htm>
- <http://www.assct.org/florida/flenviron.htm>
- <http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/SC032>
- <http://viscom.miami.edu/oasis/thesugarindustry.html>
- <http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/AG218>
- <http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/wetland/eaa.htm>
- <http://www.perc.org/articles/article259.php>
- <http://www.amconmag.com/article/2006/jun/05/00023/>
- <Schwager, Jack D. and Steven C. Turner. "Fundamental Analysis." Wiley and Sons: New York, 1995.>
- <http://www.everglades.org/sugarletter.html>
- <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1817390,00.html>
- <http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/gubernatorial/article989038.ece>
