Trade Commission Misses the Syrup

The U.S. International Trade Commission managed to ignore high-fructose corn syrup in a study of the impact of DR-CAFTA. The reason may be that increased exports of HFCS is the windfall for the U.S. However, the improved prospects for HFCS come at a very high price to the cane sugar industry of Central America and the Dominican Republic. Sugar exports to the U.S. will always be subject to quota while imports of HFCS will be free of quota and duty. It is well known that corn syrup can substitute for sugar in many food applications, including juices, bread, and yogurt.
The U.S. ITC is known for high quality studies. The absence of consideration of corn syrup suggests embarrassment of riches at the extraordinary benefits to corn and, perhaps, outside influence. The corn industry lobby does not want to draw attention to the very bright prospects for corn syrup in CAFTA. The sugar industry lobby wants to expose the impact of new sugar quotas but is not concerned with benefits to other industries. It is only ironic then that in a recent article Robert B. Zoellick wrote “CAFTA will promote equality of opportunity in economies long dominated by economic elites and powerful families,” Washington Post, May 24, 2004, A17. The elite U.S. corn and sugar families appear to be quite powerful indeed. (Zoellick is deputy secretary of state and the former U.S. trade representative who negotiated CAFTA.)
The ITC study is “U.S.-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement: Potential Economywide and Selected Sectoral Effects,” Investigation No. TA-2104-13; Publication 3717, August 26, 2004. The purpose of this investigation was to assess the likely impact of the U.S.-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement on the U.S. economy as a whole and on specific industry sectors and the interests of U.S. consumers. This purpose was not accomplished for the sweeteners sector.