Food and Agriculture Regulations
Last Updated Projects in Food and Agriculture Regulations
|project id||project title||project type||project status||project scope||address||zipcode||city||county||state||country||description||desired outcome||published by||publishing date||forwarded by||forwarding date||creator||creating date||archived||featured||page id||page title||issue ids||agency ids||official ids||last modified||latitude||request||longitude||initiator cover photo||allow moderator photo upload||pinned solution id||sponsored||banner image||profile image||step ids||active step id||archetype||group id||person id|
|985582||A Shameful Sugar Policy||Active||Global||Washington, DC, USA||Washington||District of Columbia||DC||US||Despite the popularized image of the United States as a bastion of capitalism and free trade, the price of sugar and its production are determined in this country as much by bureaucrats and politicians as by consumers and producers. The end result is domestic sugar prices that are typically twice those of the world sugar market. We have, in effect, the absurd situation in which the federal government, the country’s lead enforcer in halting anti-competitive actions, simultaneously finds itself in the position of cartel ringleader.
As much as U.S. officials, including President Donald Trump, seek to portray the United States as a free trade exemplar beset by trading partners engaged in practices that are supposedly neither fair nor reciprocal, the sugar program exposes this rhetoric as at best overwrought. How can the United States bemoan closed foreign agriculture markets when it engages in such protectionism in the same sector?
According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, the removal of import restrictions would produce average annual welfare gains of $342.7 million, while economist Michael K. Wohlgenant of North Carolina State University has calculated that the artificially high cost of U.S. sugar imposes an average burden on consumers of $2.4 billion per year — a benefit to producers of $1.4 billion per year — with a resulting net cost of $1 billion.
|Unilateral liberalization, which would involve eliminating or substantially reducing the loan rate and ending import restrictions. This approach has the distinct advantage of being simple and entirely within the purview of U.S. policymakers; no timeconsuming international negotiation would be required. Such proposals have been offered and defeated—sometimes only narrowly—during congressional farm bill debates. As with ending any trade-restricting measure, the benefits to the broader U.S. economy would be greater than the “costs” that might be experienced by sugar producers when their artificial income support is removed. Thus, society as a whole would be better off. The economy no longer would be forced to absorb significant deadweight losses associated with the inefficient allocation of resources in the production and use of sugar.||0000-00-00 00:00:00||0000-00-00 00:00:00||catoinstitute||2018-10-16 06:26:50||no||0||316956||Proj:693876||116||47353||51266||2018-10-16 06:40:27||38.9071923||No||-77.0368707||Yes||220268||no||Project banner 985582.jpg||0||0||0|
|983234||Legal Ade: Save America’s Lemonade Stands||Active||Federal||Chicago, IL, USA||Chicago||Cook County||IL||US||Kids across the country are getting busted for operating lemonade stands without a permit.
May 29, 2018 – Denver police shut down a lemonade stand that two young children were running to raise money to help a 5-year-old Indonesian child.
June 8, 2015 – The Chief of Police in little Overton, Texas, informed 7- and 8-year-old sisters that their lemonade stand violated the town’s ordinances unless they obtained a $150 “peddler’s permit.”
|0000-00-00 00:00:00||0000-00-00 00:00:00||legalade||2018-06-10 06:51:04||no||0||315330||Proj:802627||116||17347,60023||51219,17958||2019-08-16 15:22:45||41.8781136||No||-87.6297982||Yes||876201||yes||Project banner 983234.jpg||0||0||0|
Top Agencies in Food and Agriculture Regulations
Top Officials in Food and Agriculture Regulations