DOCSLIB.ORG

Sensory Differences Between Beet and Cane Sugars By

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sensory Differences Between Beet and Cane Sugars By SENSORY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BEET AND CANE SUGARS BY BRITTANY URBANUS THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Food Science and Human Nutrition with a concentration in Food Science in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2014 Urbana, Illinois Master’s Committee: Professor Shelly J. Schmidt, Chair, Co-Director of Research Associate Professor Soo-Yeun Lee, Director of Research Professor Keith R. Cadwallader Teaching Associate Dawn M. Bohn Abstract Sucrose, commonly referred to as sugar, is a worldwide commodity used in a wide variety of food applications. Beet and cane sugars, the primary sources of sucrose, have a nearly identical chemical composition (>99%), though some differences in their analytically determined volatile profiles, thermal behavior, and minor chemical compositions have been noted. However, the sensory differences between beet and cane sugars are not well defined or documented in the literature. The objectives of this research were to: 1) determine whether a sensory difference was perceivable between beet and cane sugar sources in regard to their aroma-only, taste and aroma without nose clips, and taste-only with nose clips, 2) characterize the difference between the sugar sources using descriptive analysis, 3) determine whether panelists could identify a sensory difference between beet and cane sugars and product matrices made with beet and cane sugars using the R-index by ranking method, and 4) relate the impact of information labels that specified the sugar source in an orange flavored drink to overall liking of that drink. Data from this research indicated that panelists could discern a sensory difference between beet and cane sugars, specifically in terms of their aromas. The differences are attributed to the aroma profiles, which were characterized using descriptive analysis. The sensory profile of beet sugars was characterized by off-aromas, including off-dairy, oxidized, earthy, and barnyard aromas and by a burnt sugar aroma-by-mouth and aftertaste, while cane sugar was associated with sweet and fruity attributes. R-index by ranking found that panelists could perceive a difference between beet and cane sugars when incorporated into some products. Masking due to the flavor and complexity of the product matrix, the quantity of sugar in the products, and variation due to processing may be influential factors in their ability to differentiate between the sugar sources when used in a product. Results from a five-phase consumer study indicated that providing consumers with information regarding the sugar source used in orange flavored drink products has no influence on their liking of the product, though the liking scores of the sugars themselves were ii significantly influenced by information conditions (blind and informed). Although the presence of information about sugar source in a product is not influential to the general public, it may have shown an effect if consumers who favor one type of sugar source were targeted for this study. This research is significant because it documents the sensory differences between beet and cane sugars, something that is not yet defined in the literature. The studies recognized the sensory modalities in which beet and cane sugars can be differentiated and characterized their sensory profile to explain these differences. The results can also be used to make suggestions to food manufacturers as to which factors should be considered when formulating foods with beet or cane sugar sources. iii Acknowledgements The work presented in this thesis would not have been possible without the help of my advisors, committee members, peers, and family. I would like to extend my gratitude by acknowledging the people who helped to complete this journey. I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my advisors, Dr. Soo-Yeun Lee and Dr. Shelly Schmidt. Their support, guidance, and insight have been invaluable. I am extremely appreciative for all that they have done to encourage my academic growth and achievements at the University of Illinois. They constantly challenged me, preparing me for my next journey ahead. I would also like to thank my other committee members, Dr. Keith Cadwallader and Dr. Dawn Bohn. Their constructive feedback and suggestions have been extremely valuable. I am grateful for their time and commitment. I am beyond thankful to all of my lab mates. I appreciate their help, advice, and guidance. I am extremely privileged to have had the opportunity to work with such knowledgeable, fun, and kind people during the course of my graduate career. Finally, thank you to my friends and family, my biggest support system of all. Their unconditional love and motivating words have been an integral part of my success. I am appreciative for their confidence in me and their support as I pursued a graduate degree. They have been on the sidelines cheering me on through every step of this journey, and for that I am extremely thankful. iv Table of Contents List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................. x Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Rationale and significance ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 References ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Sucrose............................................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.)................................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Sugar Cane (Saccharum officinarum L.) ........................................................................................................... 11 2.4 Differences between beet and cane sugars .................................................................................................... 14 2.5 Other Topics Related to Sugar ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.6 Sensory Methodologies ........................................................................................................................................... 19 2.7 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 22 2.8 References .................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Chapter 3: Sensory differences between beet and cane sugars determined by the tetrad test and characterized by descriptive analysis ........................................................................................................................... 52 3.1 Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................... 52 3.2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 53 3.3 Materials and Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 54 3.4 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 59 3.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................... 62 3.6 Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................................................... 63 3.7 References .................................................................................................................................................................... 64 Chapter 4: Sensory difference between product matrices made with beet and cane sugar sources ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 76 4.1 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BREWERS' CRYSTALS® High Maltose Corn Syrup Solids
    BREWERS’ CRYSTALS® High Maltose Corn Syrup Solids Advantages • Good match for all malt wort • Gluten free • Consistent purity and quality while adding flexibility and capacity Ingredion understands that brewery is an art as well as a science; our brewing adjunct portfolio is based on more What is it? than 100 years of service to the industry with a variety of ingredients. We take pride in our quality and ISO 9001 and BREWERS’ CRYSTALS High Maltose Corn Syrup Solids are FSSC 22000 systems certifications and our reliability one fermentable carbohydrates from corn, specially produced of the strongest supply chains in the industry. to obtain a profile close to an all-barley malt wort (Figure 1). Easy to use in powder form, they can be added directly to the brew kettle to create beers with crisper lighter flavor, or later How do I use it? in the process to add more complex character in priming. Ingredion BREWERS’ CRYSTALS HM Corn Syrup Solids can be easily added as an adjunct directly to the brewing kettle BREWERS’ CRYSTALS HM Corn Syrup Solids provide 100% or before filtration steps to add crisp and light character- total extract and 80% fermentable extract allowing the istics to lagers, ales and special beer recipes, or in priming Brew Master the flexibility of including them in a broad for added notes to complex beers. range of formulation and thus a wider spectrum of beers. Why should I use it? FIGURE 1: CARBOHYDRATE PROFILES COMPARISON 60 The benefits of BREWERS’ CRYSTALS HM Corn Syrup Solids: 56 • Packaged in convenient 25 kg (55 lb) multiwall poly-lined 52 BREWERS’ 50 CRYSTALS bags, they are easy to handle and store without the need for Wort* additional liquid handling systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Caramelization of Sugar
    Caramelization of Sugar Sugar is caramelized when it is melted into a clear golden to dark brown syrup, reaching a temperature from 320 to 356 degrees F. It goes through many stages which are determined by the recipe being made. Using a pure copper sugar pan will allow total control of the sugar and avoid crystallization of sugar. At 338 degrees F, the sugar syrup begins to caramelize creating an intense flavor and rich color, from light and clear to dark brown. Depending upon when the cooking stops and it cools and hardens, caramel textures can range from soft to brittle. A soft caramel is a candy made with caramelized sugar, butter and milk. Crushed caramel is used as a topping for ice cream and other desserts. When it cracks easily and is the base for nut brittles. To start, add some water to dry sugar in a pure copper sugar pan, stirring, until it reaches the consistency of wet sand. An interfering agent, such as lemon juice will help prevent re-crystallization because of the acid in it. Instead of using lemon juice, you could add acidity with vinegar, cream of tartar or corn syrup. Always start with a very clean pan and utensils. Any dirt or debris can cause crystals to form around it. Heat the pure copper sugar pan over a medium flame. As the sugar melts, you can wash down the sides of a pan with a wet brush, which also prevents crystallization by removing any dried drops of syrup that might start crystals. As the caramel heats, it colors in amber shades from light to deep brown.
    [Show full text]
  • Relationships Among Impurity Components, Sucrose, and Sugarbeet Processing Quality
    2 Journal of Sugar Beet Research Vol. 52 Nos. 1 & 2 Relationships Among Impurity Components, Sucrose, and Sugarbeet Processing Quality L. G. Campbell and K.K. Fugate USDA-ARS Northern Crop Science Laboratory, Fargo, ND 58102-2765 Corresponding author: Larry Campbell ([email protected]) DOI: 10.5274/jsbr.52.1.2 ABSTRACT Sodium, potassium, amino-nitrogen, and invert sugar are nat- urally-occurring constituents of the sugarbeet root, referred to as impurities, which impede sucrose extraction during rou- tine factory operations. Three germplasm lines selected for low sodium, potassium, or amino-nitrogen and a line selected for high amino-nitrogen concentration from the same parental population and two lines selected from another source, one for high and the other for low amino-nitrogen concentration, were the basis for examining relationships among the impurity components and between the impurity components and sucrose concentration, sucrose loss to mo- lasses, and sucrose extraction rate. Concentrations of the three impurity components were altered through selection; however, in no case did this result in a consistent significant increase in sucrose concentration or estimates of the propor- tion of the sucrose that would be extracted. Correlation analyses indicated a larger role for sodium than for potas- sium or amino-nitrogen in determining relative sucrose con- centration. Selection for low sodium concentration, however, did not increase the percent extractable sucrose, relative to the parental population. The probability of significant im- provement in the processing quality of elite germplasm by re- ducing the concentration of individual impurity components appears to be low, based upon the populations examined in this study.
    [Show full text]
  • The Truth Is Sweeter Than Fiction Sugar and the Glycemic Index
    Sugar and the Glycemic Index: The Truth is Sweeter Than Fiction Think Sugar Ranks High on the Glycemic Index? Think Again! THE BASICS: GLYCEMIC INDEX AND GLYCEMIC LOAD Comparison of Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load of Certain Foods2 In order to unlock the energy from food and meet basic energy needs, the body must convert the starches and sugars in food Glycemic Index Glycemic Load into glucose. The glycemic index (GI) is a measure of how quickly Apple 40 6 the starches and sugars in a food or beverage are broken down Baked Potato 85 26 to glucose and released into the bloodstream after a food or Brown Rice 50 16 beverage is consumed. The glycemic load (GL) is determined Carrots 92 5 by multiplying a food’s glycemic index by the amount of Corn Flakes 92 24 carbohydrate it contains.1 Orange Juice 50 13 Plain Bagel 72 25 Potato Chips 54 11 THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT SUGAR Wheat Bread 53 11 Table Sugar (Sucrose) 58 6 As nature’s original sweetener, sugar has a moderate GI, similar to that of wheat bread. The table to the right provides GI and GL Ranges for glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) information for a list of common foods and shows that despite GI GL persistent myths, sugar is, in fact, not a high glycemic food. High 70 or more 20 or more Medium 56 to 6 9 11 to 19 Rather, coming in at a GI of 58, sugar is only 3 points above the Low 55 or less 10 or less low GI range (of 55 or below) and also has a low glycemic load.
    [Show full text]
  • Biotechnology Statement Sugar Beet Derived Granulated, Brown And
    Biotechnology statement Sugar beet derived granulated, brown and liquid sugar produced by our partners, Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC, Spreckels Sugar Company, and Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative, and marketed by NSM has been extracted from sugar beets grown from seed utilizing Monsanto event H7-1. The pure sugar does not contain genetically modified DNA and or proteins derived from genetically modified DNA. In the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (December 21, 2018), described in 7 CFR Part 66, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has affirmed “that foods with undetectable modified genetic material are not bioengineered foods.” Pursuant to 7 CFR Part 66 §66.9 (b)(2) the refining process completely excludes all genetic components. The sugar has been tested and shown to be PCR negative. The sugar is the same as that produced from traditional beet seed. Therefore, no bioengineered food labeling is required. Powdered sugar is produced by fracturing beet or cane sugar crystals to a defined particle size resulting in the various grades (6X,10X,12X, etc.) and adding a small amount (2- 4% by weight) of cornstarch. The cornstarch is added as an anti-caking agent to promote the flowability of the product. Powdered sugar is produced using two grades of cornstarch. Conventional cornstarch may be derived from genetically modified corn, and the powdered sugar could, therefore, be considered genetically modified. Identity preserved (IP) cornstarch is added to cane sugar to produce a non-GMO powdered sugar and is designated as non-GMO. Granulated and liquid cane sugar provided by National Sugar Marketing LLC (NSM) has been produced from sugar cane that has not been genetically modified nor does it contain genetically modified DNA and or proteins.
    [Show full text]
  • 5Lb. Assortment
    Also available in Red 5LB. ASSORTMENT Pecan or Almond Törtél Caramel Pilgrim Hat Our slightly chewy caramel Creamy, extra soft caramel covering roasted pecans or in dark chocolate. almonds. Milk or dark chocolate. English Toffee Irish Toffee Chewy, ”melt-in-your-mouth” Baton-shaped, buttery toffee. toffee, dipped in milk chocolate. The Irish is brittle and crunchy. Dipped in milk or dark chocolate. Hazelnut Toffee Buttery brittle toffee with roasted Good News Mint Caramel chopped hazelnuts. Dipped in Creamy mint caramel dipped milk or dark and sprinkled with in milk chocolate only. caramelized hazelnuts. ASSORTMENT 5 LB. (108 PC.) - ASSORTMENT In response to our customers request, we have created an extra large assortment! This includes: Soft a’ Silk Caramel, Hazelnut Toffee, Solid Belgian Chocolate, Peanut Butter Smooth and Crunch, Pecan and Almond Törtéls, Caramel Pilgrim Hats, Good News Mint Caramel, Irish and English Toffees, Hazelnut Praline, as well as, Salty Brits, Coconut Igloos, Marzipan and Cherry Hearts. Packaged in one of our largest hinged box and includes our wired gift bow. $196.75 (108 pc.) Toll Free: 800-888-8742 | Local: 203-775-2286 1 Fax: 203-775-9369 | [email protected] Almond Toffee Peanut Butter Pattie Brittle and crunchy with roasted Our own smooth peanut butter almonds. Milk or dark chocolate. shaped into round patties. Dipped in milk chocolate. Hazelnut Praline Hazelnut praline (Gianduja) is Solid Belgian Chocolate ASSORTMENT THE BRIDGEWATER made from finely crushed filberts Our blend of either dark or milk mixed with milk chocolate. Dipped chocolate. in milk or dark. Peanut Butter Crunch Our own creamy peanut butter Soft a’ Silk Caramel with the addition of chopped Soft and creamy caramel dipped caramelized nuts.
    [Show full text]
  • Sugary Drinks Bubbling
    California Adolescents Drinking More Soda STILL and Other Sugar-Sweetened Beverages BY THE NUMBERS: SUGARY DRINKS Bubbling OVER 39 … Pounds of sugar in the 45 gallons of sugar-sweetened drinks consumed annually by the average American.6 66 … Percentage of all high-fructose corn syrup in the United States that is consumed from beverages.7 22 … Number of teaspoons of added sugar 1 … Ranking of sugary drinks among all foods as the Americans consume daily (compared to the source of added sugar in the American diet.8 recommended 6-9 teaspoons).1 $850 … Amount spent by the average family each year 16 … Number of teaspoons of sugar in a 20-ounce on soft drinks.3 bottle of soda2 (240 calories3). 149 … Percent increase in volume of average size soda sold 8 … Number of teaspoons of sugar in a 20-ounce in the 1950s compared to the average size soda sold sports drink4 (120 calories3). today (from 6.5 oz to 16.2 oz).9 64 … Number of calories children need to reduce 38 … Percent decrease in energy intake from milk since their daily intake by in order to meet the 1977, the same period in which soda consumption Healthy People 2020 goals for childhood has skyrocketed.10 obesity; less than one sugary drink a day.5 35 … Percent drop in price of the average sugar-sweetened 45 … Number of gallons of soda and other sugar- beverage since the 1980s.11 sweetened beverages the average American consumes annually.6 450 … Number of different types of soft drinks produced by the big three soda companies.12 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Sugar: the Many Names Used in Processed Foods
    Sugar: the Many Names Used in Processed Foods Both glucose and fructose are common, but they affect the body very differently. Glucose can be metabolized by nearly every cell in the body. Fructose is metabolized almost entirely in the liver. Fructose has harmful effects on the body, including insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, fatty liver, and type 2 diabetes. It is especially important to minimize the intake of high fructose sugars. Many processed foods will have a combination of sugars. Because the ingredient are listed in order of quantities, using several different sugar names presents the illusion that sugars are less prominent in the ratio of ingredients. Sugar / Sucrose Agave Nectar Sugar with Glucose & Fructose Also knows as table, granulated, or Produced from the agave plant in Various Amounts white sugar, occurring naturally in 79-90% fructose, 10-30% glucose Beet Sugar fruits and plants, added to many Blackstrap Molasses processed foods. Sugar with Fructose Only Brown Sugar, Dark or Light Brown 50% glucose, 50% fructose Crystalline Sugar Fructose Buttered Syrup High Fructose Corn Syrup, HFCS Cane Juice Crystals Sugar without Glucose or HFCS 55 – the most common type Fructose Cane Syrup of HRCS. 55% fructose, 45% D-Ribose, Ribose Cane Sugar glucose, composition is similar to Galactose Caramel sucrose Caramel Color HFCS90 – 90% fructose, 10% Names for Hidden Sugars Carob Syrup glucose Aguamiel Castor Sugar All-natural sweetener Coconut Sugar Names Used to Denote Hight Barbados Molasses Confectioner’s Sugar (Powdered Fructose
    [Show full text]
  • Review Article Effect of Substitution of Sugar by High Fructose Corn Syrup
    Nutrition and Food Sciences Research Vol 3, No 4, Oct-Dec 2016, pages: 3-11 Review Article Effect of Substitution of Sugar by High Fructose Corn Syrup on the Physicochemical Properties of Bakery and Dairy Products: A Review Azizollaah Zargaraan1, Leila Kamaliroosta2, Amin Seyed Yaghoubi2, Leila Mirmoghtadaie1* 1- National Nutrition & Food Technology Research Institute, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran 2- Zar Knowledge-based Center of Research and Industrial Group, Tehran, Iran Received: August 2016 Accepted: October 2016 A B S T R A C T High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is commonly found in soft drinks and juice beverages, as well as in many pre-packaged foods such as breakfast cereals, baked goods and dairy desserts. Historically, sucrose (table sugar) was primarily added to processed foods and beverages as the sweetening agent. In recent years, the use of HFCS has significantly increased in popularity due to its sweetness, ability to enhance flavor and shelf life, and its low cost. HFCF made by enzymatic isomerization of glucose to fructose was introduced as HFCS-42 (42% fructose) and HFCS-55 (55% fructose) and opened a new frontier for the sweetener and soft drink industries. Using a glucose isomerase, the starch in corn can be efficiently converted into glucose and then to various amounts of fructose. Hydrolysis of sucrose produces a 50:50 molar mixture of fructose and glucose. The primary difference is that these monosaccharides exist free in solution in HFCS, but in sucrose bonded together. The disaccharide sucrose is easily cleaved in the small intestine, so free fructose and glucose are absorbed from both sucrose and HFCS.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Neonicotinoids in Pelleted Sugar Beet Seeds
    International Confederation of European Beet Growers CONFEDERATION INTERNATIONALE INTERNATIONALE VEREINIGUNG DES BETTERAVIERS EUROPEENS EUROPÄISCHER RÜBENANBAUER * * CONFEDERAZIONE INTERNAZIONALE MIĘDZYNARODOWA KONFEDERACJA DEI BIETICOLTORI EUROPEI EUROPEJSKICH PLANTATORÓW BURAKA 111/9 Boulevard Anspachlaan – B-1000 Brussels Tel: +32 2 504 60 90 – Fax: +32 2 504 60 99 www.cibe-europe.eu D.58/2.4.2018 Brussels, 2nd April 2018 The case for neonicotinoids in pelleted sugar beet seeds Introduction Within the context of the current debate on neonicotinoids, CIBE wishes to explain with the present note that the use of neonicotinoid-treated beet seed pellets is a good agricultural practice in sustainable sugar beet growing. 1. Neonicotinoid seed treatment in sugar beet does not endanger non-target organisms (including pollinators) and the environment Sugar beet is not attractive to pollinators since it does not flower/produce pollen during the growing period used for sugar production. The release of neonicotinoids to the environment via guttation or harvest residues is very low because: sugar beet is a low guttation crop with few and small droplets, and only at high humidity level (>90%); due to this comparative rareness of crop guttation in sugar beet (see illustration below), exposure to neonicotinoids from guttation seems to be unlikely because guttation droplets from sugar beet are unlikely to serve as a preferred source for e.g. water foraging bees; neonicotinoids and their metabolites occur in very low concentrations in the soil after harvest. This low concentration, combined with the fact that practically no flowering plants are found in a beet field during the early stage of crop development (EFSA Peer reviews of the pesticide risk assessment for the active substances imidacloprid & clothianidin, November 2016) and especially after harvest, makes it less likely that non-target organisms in general and pollinators in particular risk being exposed to neonicotinoids (Baker et al 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • Sweeteners Georgia Jones, Extension Food Specialist
    ® ® KFSBOPFQVLCB?O>PH>¨ FK@LIKUQBKPFLK KPQFQRQBLCDOF@RIQROB>KA>QRO>IBPLRO@BP KLTELT KLTKLT G1458 (Revised May 2010) Sweeteners Georgia Jones, Extension Food Specialist Consumers have a choice of sweeteners, and this NebGuide helps them make the right choice. Sweeteners of one kind or another have been found in human diets since prehistoric times and are types of carbohy- drates. The role they play in the diet is constantly debated. Consumers satisfy their “sweet tooth” with a variety of sweeteners and use them in foods for several reasons other than sweetness. For example, sugar is used as a preservative in jams and jellies, it provides body and texture in ice cream and baked goods, and it aids in fermentation in breads and pickles. Sweeteners can be nutritive or non-nutritive. Nutritive sweeteners are those that provide calories or energy — about Sweeteners can be used not only in beverages like coffee, but in baking and as an ingredient in dry foods. four calories per gram or about 17 calories per tablespoon — even though they lack other nutrients essential for growth and health maintenance. Nutritive sweeteners include sucrose, high repair body tissue. When a diet lacks carbohydrates, protein fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, honey, fructose, molasses, and is used for energy. sugar alcohols such as sorbitol and xytilo. Non-nutritive sweet- Carbohydrates are found in almost all plant foods and one eners do not provide calories and are sometimes referred to as animal source — milk. The simpler forms of carbohydrates artificial sweeteners, and non-nutritive in this publication. are called sugars, and the more complex forms are either In fact, sweeteners may have a variety of terms — sugar- starches or dietary fibers.Table I illustrates the classification free, sugar alcohols, sucrose, corn sweeteners, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • (GAIN) Reports 2021 Government Intervention in Sugar Markets
    USDA Attachés’ Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN) Reports 2021 Government Intervention in Sugar Markets ARGENTINA (4-26-21) Ethanol blend requirement “However, …ethanol prices for the official mandate are projected to be better than the low levels seen in 2020. The current biofuels mandate law expires in May 2021 and the legislative intention for renewal or modification has not been announced.” CHINA (4-16-21) State-owned enterprises; Direct payments; Input subsidies; Import tariff; Import licensing; Alternative sweetener restrictions “In order to stabilize cane production levels, the Guangxi government has provided financial incentives to encourage planting and promote mechanization. Cane farmers receive support for instituting mechanized seed and harvesting practices. Other sugar-producing provinces offer sugar growers similar forms of support.” “In order to protect the interests of sugar growers, many of which are smallholder farmers, the local government sets an annual reference price for sugar cane. Both the millers and farmers respect this reference price in settling contracts.” “China applies a tariff-rate quota (TRQ) on imported sugar. The within-quota tariff is 15 percent on 1.945 million metric tons. About 70 percent of the quota is allocated to state- owned enterprises (SOEs). The out-of-quota tariff is 50 percent. From 2017-2020, China imposed an additional safeguard duty on top of the out-of-quota rate. This safeguard measure was lifted in May 2020 and the out-of-quota tariff has since returned to 50 percent. In July 2020, after the safeguard was removed, China announced that all out-of-quota sugar imports would now be subject to an automatic import licensing system, which the government uses to monitor imports of other bulk commodities, such as palm oil, soybeans, and meat.
    [Show full text]