In reference to the editorial “The farm bill: So much so wrong” (June 23 and TribLIVE.com): This year's farm bill would have made substantive changes to nearly every commodity program operated by the federal government except the sugar program. While an amendment offering modest reforms was defeated in favor of the status quo, we applaud U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Chester County, who has worked tirelessly for sugar reform and our other representatives who voted for the amendment.
Currently, the government controls who can grow and process sugar and how much can be imported. These controls are for one purpose: guaranteeing that sugar producers and processors always profit.
When sugar prices are high, consumers pay nearly double the world market rate; when prices are low, the government bails out sugar producers.
Over the next few years, American taxpayers could pay hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase surplus sugar — all to artificially raise the price that food manufacturers, like Pennsylvania confectioners, will pay for this ingredient.
The sugar program is failed policy that threatens Pennsylvania businesses, growth and job creation. We encourage our Pennsylvania legislators to continue to push for sugar-program reform in any new farm bill.
& Ross Born
The writers are, respectively, president and CEO of Blommer Chocolate Co. in East Greenville and co-CEO of candy-maker Just Born Inc. in Bethlehem.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- An Obama clone
- White House not playing to win
- Farewell, my Springdale
- Wolf’s taxes
- Hospital’s hero & more
- U.S. Steel worthy of grant
- Good ‘friends,’ good food
- Better in long run
- Working hard in fast food
- Unworthy of high office
- Write-in alternative