(2 of 2)
But a return to a free market is highly unlikely because of the power of the U.S. sugar lobby, which draws its strength from 25 beet-and cane-sugar-producing states, the Philippines and Puerto Rico. The lobby argues that the consumer, although paying for the quota system, has benefited from it through price stability. Over the past ten years sugar prices have risen less than the general rise in consumer food prices. The U.S. retail price of 11.5¢ per Ib. is about 5¢ per Ib. below the median price in 121 other nations around the world. Says a top Agriculture Department expert: "We have managed our protection system in such a way as to pass on the benefit to all parties concerned. It has worked by limiting our protection to only part of our requirements and moving halfway toward free trade. To throw out this system which has worked so well would be unthinkable, politically and economically."
But most sugarmen see no objections to giving the President the power to change the quotas. Long before Castro, the quota system was a point of contention. Many other producing nations, e.g., Mexico and the Philippines, thought they were being shortchanged because of Cuba's huge share. Florida's Democratic Senator George A. Smathers last week urged that the U.S. cut Cuba's quota and redistribute the amount to such friendly nations as Mexico and Brazil. U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Robert C. Hill has also urged that Mexico's share be increased.
Thus, the U.S. has a potent weapon to reward its friends and punish its enemies, a weapon that more than balances the problematical gains that might be had by abolishing the quotas altogether.