The sugar industry has been sheltered in the United States since the 19th century, safeguarded by various protectionist trade barriers. Now, it has snowballed into Big Sugar, subsidized by the government and intended to benefit a small margin of Americans: producers and processors of sugar. This sweet empire is guarded at the expense of the environment, the common consumer, and the public.
Globally, 80 percent of sugar is derived from sugarcane, but the crop maintains ignoble roots in history, beginning its extensive lineage of rapacity in the 1400s. Its origins are uncertain, possibly first emerging in New Guinea, but when it arrived in the Americas it quickly erupted in popularity. Indigenous people toiled on the sugarcane plantations in the Caribbean and South America. Their exploitation brought waves of the sugary delicacy to Europe, but when indigenous populations dwindled, plantation owners enslaved African people in their stead, fueling the Transatlantic Slave Trade and deepening their desires for sweetness.
The popular crop later became the center of controversy in the court case United States v. E.C. Knight 400 years later when its American legacy began. The American Sugar Refining Company swelled up into a near monopoly, controlling 98 percent of the sugar refineries in the nation. This sugar giant violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, which moderated the inception of monopolies. Governmental action indicted all associated companies, but Big Sugar was able to squeeze by unscathed, providing leeway to expand and gain favorability from the government along its path. Today, sugar is instrumental in much of the food people eat, appearing in nooks and crannies no one may expect.
Current sugar subsidy policies are locked within the Farm Bill. Although not a direct subsidy by definition, it makes the industry more profitable and supports sugar producers. Farmers pay off their bills during periods of sugar storage using loans provided by the Department of Agriculture. As consumers buy sugar, producers receive payments throughout the year, loans which must be paid back with interest within nine months. The amount of sugar produced domestically and imported is regulated with exceptions, in case demand exceeds expected imports and American sugar production. Essentially, this policy protects producers from global competition.
By no means, however, is this vested in the public interest. Internationally, the sugar empire is immense, covering 60 million acres of land. In combination with American sugar subsidies, there is an additional increase in sugar production, but crops like sugarcane and sugar beets are detrimental to bodies of water, soil health, and forests.
Due to sugarcane’s preference for tropical conditions, unique ecosystems are compromised. For example, the Atlantic Forest’s vast expansion has been diminished to make room for Big Sugar in Brazil and runoff from sugar production in Australia is threatening the health of the Great Barrier Reef. In America, production jeopardizes Florida’s diverse Everglades.
The shrinking Everglades hosts a complex landscape with marshes, prairies, freshwater ponds, and more, boasting extensive bird species and other wildlife. Notably, it is the only place on Earth that carries both alligators and crocodiles attributed to the medley of saltwater and freshwater. Yet, Big Sugar remains a towering neighbor to this vital habitat, encroaching on its wellbeing.
The fertilizers applied on sugarcane fields run off into the Everglades, contaminating the water with excess nutrients. Efforts to restore water quality have remained stagnant, unable to achieve substantial results as corporations such as U.S. Sugar and Florida Crystals avoid cooperation and continue their lobbying endeavors. The nonpartisan subject, sugar subsidies, conserves its status through such lobbying, appealing to both Democrats and Republicans. In defense of Big Sugar, they tried to sell 180,000 acres of land for the restoration project, but complications made that plan fall through.
The environmental impacts seep beyond the water and pose public health risks. Undeniably, environmental health interplays deeply into the health of people. Sugarcane harvests impact communities of color surrounding the Everglades. The leaves must be burned as the cane is cut, leading to air pollution that causes respiratory problems in residents.
In the remainder of sugarcane production, the land is further tarnished. The fields are cleared annually, and without roots tethering the soil, it is susceptible to erosion. Its additional incapability to retain water results in flooding.
Alternatives, like using certain harvesting equipment, can replace sugarcane leaf-burning practices. The leftover leaves can return nutrients to the soil or be used as a renewable energy source. Critics indicate that Florida’s soil possesses a different composition, unable to decompose the leaves without complications. Still, the second option creates a win-win situation: sugar and renewable energy.
Sugarcane leaves can be produced into biogas, gas from organic matter, through anaerobic digestion. This combination of gases, mostly composed of methane and carbon dioxide, can be used as an energy source. This process, however, can be difficult and take an extended period of time.
Beyond the environmental scope, the country’s sugar program costs consumers two to three billion dollars a year. For the additional profit earned by producers through subsidies, the net cost is estimated to be one billion dollars per year according to studies gathered by the Government Accountability Office. Other studies also exhibit a decrease in job areas where industries are dependent on sugar. Most shockingly, American sugar prices doubled world sugar prices in 2022, leaving consumers and manufacturers paying more.
Alongside these economic difficulties, the sugar industry presents public health threats by creeping into the human diet. Soaring cane sugar prices deter companies from purchasing this expensive option and thus turn to the cheaper alternative: high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Cane sugar’s more affordable sibling reigns prevalent in American food products but is no better than normal sugar. In fact, it is equally as damaging, contributing to the epidemic of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and diabetes.
The University of Southern California and the University of Oxford discovered that countries that use more HFCS also correlate with increased obesity and diabetes rates. America’s high usage reflects its corresponding high production of corn. This crop is also highly subsidized, effectively driving down the price of HFCS as well as the unhealthy food options that contain them. For lower-income families, it appears to be a sweet deal, but there is a hidden cost.
The food industry has caught the flight of this obvious trend. In response, companies include added sugar and other flavor enhancers into their food, appealing to consumers’ inevitable addiction to sugar and their aching sweet tooth. This perfectly corrupt system harms a valuable trifecta of the quality of life—health, finances, and the environment—profiting off of the masses while benefiting the elite few.
But that does not mean alternatives do not exist. Reforestation projects and cultivating other sweet crops like stevia can collapse the sugar kingdom. Stevia uses less land and water than the thirsty sugarcane, proving to be a highly viable prospect.
For a crop that lacks nutritional value, the sacrifices are not justifiable. Perhaps, instead of forming a culture around the sugar industry, it is time to move forward with the alternatives. Against an established empire, America, unfortunately, will not budge, constrained by the throne of Big Sugar and its lackey, the food industry.
Sources:
American Sugar Alliance. U.S. Sugar Policy: How It Works. American Sugar Alliance. https://sugaralliance.org/u-s-sugar-policy-a-no-cost-success-story/u-s-sugar-policy-how-it-works
Butler, Addison E. (2019, January). A Sweet Beginning: the U.S. Sugar Monopoly. Ohio State University. https://origins.osu.edu/milestones/january-2019-us-sugar-monopoly-E.C.Knight-Sherman-Act-Spreckels-court
DW Documentary. (2023, June 30). Junk food, sugar and additives – The dark side of the food industry. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myv7yydtCKc.
Economic Research Reserve. (2012, August 16). Most sugarcane in the United States is produced in Florida and Louisiana. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=75999
Feedback Global Organization. Sugar pollution. Feedback Global Organization. https://feedbackglobal.org/campaigns/sugar-beet-and-soil-depletion/.
Fields, Scott. (2004, October). The Fat of the Land: Do Agricultural Subsidies Foster Poor Health? National Library of Medicine. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1247588/#sec4
GAO. (2023, October 31). Sugar Program: Alternative Methods for Implementing Import Restrictions Could Increase Effectiveness. U.S. Government Accountability Office, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106144
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. (2012, April 30). High-fructose corn syrup or table sugar: For better health, avoid too much of either. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
HomeBiogas. (2024, February 9). What is Biogas? A Beginners Guide. HomeBiogas. https://www.homebiogas.com/blog/what-is-biogas-a-beginners-guide/?
International Sugar Organization. About Sugar. International Sugar Organization. https://www.isosugar.org/sugarsector/sugar.
Lustig, Robert H. (2020, November 5). Ultraprocessed Food: Addictive, Toxic, and Ready for Regulation. National Library of Medicine. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7694501/#sec9-nutrients-12-03401
Padgett, Tim. (2023, December 6). ‘Not even close.’: Clean-up of Everglades water polluted by Big Sugar struggles to keep up. WLRN. https://www.wlrn.org/environment/2023-12-06/everglades-restoration-sugar-farms-phosphorous-water
Pavid, Katie. (2021, March 15). Sugar: a killer crop? Natural History Museum. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/sugar-a-killer-crop.html
Sitthikitpanya, N., Ponuansri, C., Jomnonkhaow, U., Wongfaed, N., & Reungsang, A. (2024, February 15). Unlocking the potential of sugarcane leaf waste for sustainable methane production: Insights from microbial pre-hydrolysis and reactor optimization. Heliyon, 10(3), e25787. Science Direct. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844024018188#sec1
South Florida Water Management District. Everglades. South Florida Water Management District. https://www.sfwmd.gov/our-work/everglades
Sussman, Nadia. (2021, December 29). Burning Sugar Cane Pollutes Communities of Color in Florida. Brazil Shows There’s Another Way. ProPublica; The Palm Beach Post; WLRN; WGCU. https://www.propublica.org/article/burning-sugar-cane-pollutes-communities-of-color-in-florida-brazil-shows-theres-another-way
Sweetener Users Association. (2019). A History of the U.S. Sugar Program. Sweetener Users Association. https://sweetenerusers.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Sugar-History-2019.pdf
University of Oxford. (2012, November 28). Research indicates risks of consuming high fructose corn syrup. University of Oxford. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2012-11-28-research-indicates-risks-consuming-high-fructose-corn-syrup
USDA. (2015, February). USDA Coexistence Fact Sheets Sugar Beets. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-sugar-beets-factsheet.pdf