It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The End of U.S. Sugar

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   

The End of U.S. Sugar


www.time.com

At a news conference Tuesday, scheduled for 10:30 a.m. near the imperiled "River of Grass", Governor Crist is expected to announce a $1.75 billion deal to essentially buy the U.S. Sugar Corporation, including 187,000 acres of farmland that once sat in the northern Everglades. If the deal goes through (and though the announcement will be taking place, the deal isn't set in stone), it will extinguish a powerful 77-year-old company with 1,700 employees and deep roots in South Florida's coal-black organic soil. It will also resurrect and reconfigure a moribund 8-year-old Everglades replumbing effort that is supposed to be the most ambitious ecosystem restoration project in the history of the planet.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.miamiherald.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Shrinking Farm Land Bringing The U.S. Closer To Civil Unrest




posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   
If you are saying, "I don't use much sugar, so this won't affect me," think again. This is going to affect everyone. A big shake up happened in the sugar industry back in the 1970s. The sugar industry got the government to block sugar imports. As a result the price went up dramatically. That forced the major sugar users, the beverage industry to look for alternatives. The went to using corn syrup. So in the end the sugar producers are happy, the corn producers are happy, all at the exspecnce of the consumer.
Now it may be happening again. By removing about half of Florida's sugar industry the price will go up again putting a greater demand on corn syrup. The price of corn and all it is used for has already gone up because of the price of oil. So this will push the price of corn and all its associated food products even higher.
Think twice before you think this will be good for the country.

www.time.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
I'm becoming convinced that the world elites was America to have an energy shortage, and are willing to enforce that shortage at gunpoint.

When the public mind began to turn toward ethanol, the price of corn soon became prohibitive for the processing needed to produce fuel from it. (the price of corn had languished for most of US history after the Vietnam war).

The media begins trumpeting the example of Brazil, which has attained energy independence in part due to its ability to make ethanol from sugar.

Now, with mounting awareness that the US is a leading producer of cane sugar, comes the word that a large part of that capacity will be taken out of production.

Two years ago, when the Democrats took control of Congress, the price of gasoline by the gallon was $2.19 . . . . .


.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by RedGolem
 


No this is not good for our country this is sad. Very sad indeed.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
 


The way I look at it is, of coarse the elites what an energy shortage. That means those in control can sell less energy and charge more for it.
I think the natural wonders of the world should be preserved, but I really hope this one is stopped.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shar

No this is not good for our country this is sad. Very sad indeed.


Shar and Dr.
thanks to both for posting.
Shar yes I do think this is a sad thing. It has not gone through yet so there is still time to voice an opinion.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Well taking into consideration that corn syrup is use on almost anything that is considered junk food, this will make American consumer rethink about paying for that packaged sugar snacks or pay for a better and healthy fruit snack.

I dumped the sugar and anything with sugar additives and corn, gluten and wheat a long time ago.

Trust me life is better without them.

But I still like to add some brown sugar cane on my cereal or hot 90% cocoa beverage as I am caffeine free.

I still remember (I am no that old) when in my Island of Puertorrico the sugar cane mills were still working, as a child it was nothing more rich and delicious that smelling the molasses in air.

Almost every town had a sugar cane mill, two towers one with black smoke (no so good for the environment now a days) and one with white smoke as the sugar was been cooked.

I truly miss those days of sugar cane fields.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   
This is an interesting thread.

I have to ask, why is the government trying to restore the everglades? What makes the everglades so important to restore. Wouldn't restoring midwestern forest be just as important? I am not all that concerned about sugar as a food source, I think coke and pepsi and all these other sodas are evil when it comes to diet, so I am not so concerned about these things, but sugar produced ethanol seems like a good idea. Maybe oil companies don't want to see the competition.

Corn production of ethanol is very inefficient, and soy diesel is probably a better way to go, or sugar ethanol. Sounds like an effort to reduce sugar ethanol competition to oil companies.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Well I can see why the everglades needs to be restore, you have to understand that it was the islands of the Caribbean the ones first with the sugar cane, tobacco and coffee producers.

I never truly understood why the mills were closed (unless is now for rum production) and the sugar, tobacco and coffee plantations killed.

Lots of people lost their jobs during that time back in the 60s and early 70s.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Well taking into consideration that corn syrup is use on almost anything that is considered junk food, this will make American consumer rethink about paying for that packaged sugar snacks or pay for a better and healthy fruit snack.

I dumped the sugar and anything with sugar additives and corn, gluten and wheat a long time ago.

Trust me life is better without them.



Marg
there is more to this then just the exspence of corn syrup. As the price of sugar goes up so will the price of corn. Corn is used as cattle feed, chicken feed in adation to a fuel. So you will be seeing any food product with corn in its history going up in price, not just corn syrup.
The price of corn will affent almost the entire food market.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

This is an interesting thread.


Thaks Poet


I have to ask, why is the government trying to restore the everglades? What makes the everglades so important to restore.


The everglades are a natural wonder that is unique to the entire world. It is actually a river. It moves very slowlely, about one foot a day or so if I rember right. They were once very large but now much smaller, although not completely destroyed. I resize it needs to be preserved, although not to what it was before the white man came into the picture.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   
It shouldn't make a difference in sugar prices northern farmers can pick up the slack.

mikell



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   
I understand the need to preserve the Florida Everglades, truly an amazing eco system, but it sounds like this is expansion, and not preservation.

I wonder why efforts are not being made to create a sugarhol industry in Puerto Rico, and the Caribbean. I think the oil industry is behind this, they are the ones with the most to lose.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


poet
I truly can't call you wrong. The oil industry might have the most to loose, but the gains for the farming industry could be great also.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Listen to the sugar junkies, sugar in its refined form is the biggest no no in your diet, the sugar industry heavily subsidised by the govt. and when have they ever been interested in the welfare of americans or the rest of the human race.
It makes me laugh to listen to all this paranoid bs about ''the world'' conspiracy
against all you poor defenseless gringos. Get real guys !



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I fear poet got it right. More to-do about oil, disguised as an ecologic advancement.

With the recent flooding in the midwest, flooding that has wiped out a huge percentage of the nation's corn crop, and with the now-mandated use of corn for ethanol (expected to rise, btw), and with the huge tax breaks given the oil companies for blending gasohol... the price of corn will not simply go up, it will spike through the roof! Sugar cane is an even better source for ethanol than corn, so taking it off the market sounds like a good way to hedge against competition.

I am still amazed how many people don't realize that by burning our food, we will have less to eat and that less will cost more. Apparently our education system has completely collapsed. This is all setting up for a famine of epic proportions, all because some oil barons are worried they'll make a few million less this year.

Ethanol can be produced from any organic material. So why are we concentrating on corn and not some unused resource like wild grasses? Could it be that corn is now almost completely unobtainable without signing a contract with the seed producers? Anyone here ever try to find corn that doesn't have to be re-purchased each year? It is possible (I have some), but extremely difficult.

Thanks for the heads up RedGolem. I really hope I don't have to start eating kudsu leaves...

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Thanks for the post Redneck.
As always very well worded and thought out.
I hope we don't all have to start eating leaves also. I also fear the oil companies have there hand in this as well, I just can't back it up with anything.
As to using our food crop for fuel, the only think I can say to that is in the U.S. we do produce a surplus of food. We have been importing ever great amounts also. If some one can draw a line some where that says don't go past this when it comes to using food crops for fuel then that might be something to work with.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by RedGolem

Kudzu leaves...

I think I just got one of those dreaded brain-farts I am known for. I have some things to check out. Thanks for the mental cattle-prod


TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Ethanol can be produced from any organic material. So why are we concentrating on corn and not some unused resource like wild grasses?



Most wild grasses have way more cellulose and fewer sugars. Even though corn is not as good as cane, it's still far more potent than undomesticated grasses. You can make ethanol from garbage, but it frequently takes more energy to produce than it creates for fuel.




Could it be that corn is now almost completely unobtainable without signing a contract with the seed producers? Anyone here ever try to find corn that doesn't have to be re-purchased each year? It is possible (I have some), but extremely difficult.


From a cash-crop point of view, the patented varieties produce such a higher yield that the hierloom varieties cannot compete. Since most US farmers are all about maximizing bushels per acre, there isn't a lot of interest out side of research.

all the best.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Here is another link about the same topic. It also has a map of the area that shows how much of the area is used for agriculture.
I stand by my original opinion that this will make things worse for the consumers of the country.



new topics




 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join