DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 190/Friday, October 1, 2010/Notices

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 190/Friday, October 1, 2010/Notices Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 60715 form must have the awardee’s original regulations. This requirement is also be filled out electronically and signature. provided in the FMPP Guidelines, submitted as an attachment through 8. Form AD–1049, ‘‘Certification which are published at AMS’ Marketing Grants.gov during the FMPP application Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Services Branch Web site at: http:// process. Additionally, Grants.gov Requirements (Grants) Alternative I— www.ams.usda.gov/FMPP. applicants are not required to submit For Grantees Other Than Individuals.’’ The 2008 Farm Bill increases funding any additional (hard copy) paperwork to The awardee keeps this document for for grants under FMPP, allocating AMS. their records. mandatory funds from the Commodity Comments are invited on: (1) Whether Additionally, awardees must also Credit Corporation, from 2009 through the collection of information is complete the following forms and 2012 with $5 million for each of FY necessary for the proper performance of paperwork for AMS: 2009 through 2010, and $10 million for the functions of the agency, including 9. Grant Agreement. The grant each of FY 2011 and 2012. Additionally, whether this information will have agreement is used as It also indicates the not less than 10 percent of the grant practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agreed upon grant funding dollar funds in a fiscal year shall be used to agency’s estimate of the burden of this amounts and the beginning date and support the use of electronic benefit collection of information including the ending date of the project work and the transfers (EBT) for Federal nutrition validity of the methodology and grant agreement. Four (4) copies of this programs at farmers’ markets. Eligible assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance agreement are required with the EBT projects must (1) not be used for the quality, utility, and clarity of the awardee’s and the AMS Administrator’s funding the ongoing cost of carrying out information to be collected; and (4) office signatures and dated for each any EBT project; and (2) demonstrate a ways to minimize the burden of the grant. plan to continue to provide EBT card collection of information on those who 10. Form SF–270, ‘‘Request for access at one or more farmers’ markets are to respond, including the use of Advance and Reimbursement’’ is following the receipt of a grant. appropriate automated, electronic, required whenever the awardees request With the increase in funds available mechanical, or other technological an advance or reimbursement of Federal annually and focus of funding new EBT collection techniques or other forms of grant funds. AMS expects that at least projects, AMS anticipates an increase in information technology. three (3) SF–270 forms will be the number of applications submitted. All comments received by AMS will submitted during the grant agreement As such, AMS submits the following be available for public inspection during period. revisions in information collection: regular business hours, 8 a.m. to 4:30 11. Progress Reports. The Progress Estimate of Burden: Public reporting p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Report is written documentation burden for this collection of information Friday, at the same address; and can be required to notify AMS about the work is estimated to average 7.168 hours per viewed via the Internet at http:// activities and progress towards response. www.regulations.gov. All responses to completing the awardee’s established Respondents: Agricultural this notice will be summarized and project workplan goals, objectives, and Cooperatives, Producer Networks, or included in the request for OMB timelines. AMS expects that at least two Producer Associations; Local approval. All comments will become a (2) Progress Reports will be submitted Governments; Nonprofit Corporations; matter of public record. during the grant agreement period. Public Benefit Corporations; Economic Dated: September 27, 2010. 12. Final Report. The Final Report is Development Corporations; Regional written information required by AMS Farmers’ Market Authorities; and Tribal David R. Shipman, within 90 days after the ending date of Governments. Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing the grant agreement. This information is Estimated annual number of Service. utilized as final documentation of respondents: 1,500. [FR Doc. 2010–24625 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] completion of the workplan goals, Estimated annual number of BILLING CODE 3410–02–P objectives, and activities. responses per respondent: 1.94. 13. Form SF–425, Federal Financial Estimated annual number of Report currently approved under OMB responses: 2,915. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE collection number 0348–0061, replaces Estimated total annual burden on the forms SF–269A, Financial Status Report respondents: 20,896 hours. Commodity Credit Corporation (Short form approved under OMB AMS is committed to compliance Domestic Sugar Program—FY 2010 collection number 0348–0038) and SF– with the Government Paperwork and FY 2011 Cane Sugar and Beet 269, Financial Status Report, (Long form Elimination Act that requires Sugar Marketing Allotments and approved under OMB collection number Government agencies in general to Company Allocations 0348–0039, (if the project had program provide the public the option of income)). AMS expects that at minimum submitting information or transacting AGENCY: Commodity Credit Corporation, two (2) or a maximum of seven (7) business electronically to the maximum USDA. Federal Financial Reports will be extent possible: ACTION: Notice. submitted depending on the duration of • The SF and AD forms can be filled the grant agreement period. out electronically and printed out for SUMMARY: The Commodity Credit Additionally, a final form SF–425 is to submission to AMS with original Corporation (CCC) is issuing this notice be completed once by the awardee(s) 90 signatures. to publish the modifications to the fiscal days after the expiration date of the • The voluntary ‘‘FMPP Proposal year 2010 (FY 2010) State sugar grant period. Narrative Form’’ and ‘‘FMPP marketing allotments and company 14. Grant Recordkeeping. AMS Supplemental Budget Summary Form’’ allocations to sugarcane and sugar beet requires that grant recipients maintain can be filled electronically and printed processors. This applies to all domestic all records pertaining to the grant for a out for submission. sugar marketed for human consumption period of 3 years after the final status For Grants.gov applicants all SF and in the United States from October 1, report has been submitted to AMS, in AD forms, as well as the proposal 2009, through September 30, 2010. CCC accordance with Federal recordkeeping narrative and eligibility statement, can is also issuing this notice to publish the VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:34 Sep 30, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01OCN1.SGM 01OCN1 emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES 60716 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices FY 2011 State sugar marketing petitions. Surplus allocation from already expected from non-TRQ allotments and company allocations to Hawaii was reassigned to these recipient sources. In total, CCC reassigned sugarcane and sugar beet processors, mills (see below). The allocations of the 670,000 tons of surplus beet and cane which apply to all domestic sugar mills which the growers asked to leave sugar allotments to raw cane sugar marketed for human consumption in the were not reduced. imports—300,000 tons to an increase in United States from October 1, 2010, In FY 2004, CCC determined that the raw sugar tariff-rate quota per the through September 30, 2011. Although Puerto Rican processors permanently July 6, 2010, announcement and CCC already has announced most of the terminated operations because no sugar 370,000 tons to raw cane sugar imports information in this notice through had been processed for two complete already expected from non-TRQ sources United States Department of Agriculture years. The Puerto Rico allocation of on August 19th. Final FY 2010 beet and (USDA) news releases, CCC is required 6,356 tons was reassigned to Hawaii in cane sector allotments were reduced to to publish the determinations FY 2010, as required, and then further 4,849,358 and 3,515,892 tons, establishing and adjusting sugar reassigned to the mainland sugarcane- respectively. producing States. This reassignment marketing allotments in the Federal Initial FY 2011 Sugar Marketing Register. will also occur in FY 2011 as Hawaii is again not expected to use all of its cane Allotments and Processor Allocations FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: sugar allotment. On August 19, 2010, CCC further Barbara Fecso, Dairy and Sweeteners announced the initial FY 2011 OAQ of Analysis Group, Economic and Policy First Revision to the FY 2010 Sugar 9,235,250 tons, the same level as FY Analysis Staff, Farm Service Agency, Marketing Allotment Program 2010, as well as sugar beet and USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, The May 7, 2010, announcement of sugarcane sector allotments and SW., Mail Stop 0516, Washington, DC sugar marketing allotment changes allocations. Establishing the OAQ at this 20250–0516; telephone (202) 720–4146; implemented CCC’s reassignment of level will supply over 85 percent of FAX (202) 690–1480; 200,000 tons of surplus cane sugar expected FY 2011 domestic sugar needs e-mail: [email protected]. allotments to imports, announced on and permit domestic sugarcane and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: April 23, 2010. The May 7, 2010, sugar beet processors to market all of Initial FY 2010 State Allotments and revisions included a reassignment of their expected sugar production in FY projected surplus beet sugar marketing Company Allocations 2011. Processors are expected to be able allocations under the FY 2010 Sugar to market all of their expected On September 25, 2009, CCC Marketing Allotment Program from beet production in FY 2011 because the established the initial FY 2010 sugar processors with surplus allocation market is expected to be firm—domestic allocation of the sugar overall allotment to those with deficit allocation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Economic History of the United States Sugar Program
    AN ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES SUGAR PROGRAM by Tyler James Wiltgen A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Applied Economics MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana August 2007 © COPYRIGHT by Tyler James Wiltgen 2007 All Rights Reserved ii APPROVAL of a thesis submitted by Tyler James Wiltgen This thesis has been read by each member of the thesis committee and has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is ready for submission to the Division of Graduate Education. Chair Vincent H. Smith Approved for the Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics Myles J. Watts Approved for the Division of Graduate Education Carl A. Fox iii STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree at Montana State University, I agree that the Library shall make it available to borrowers under rules of the Library. If I have indicated my intention to copyright this thesis by including a copyright notice page, copy is allowed for scholarly purposes, consistent with “fair use” as prescribed in U.S. Copyright Law. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this thesis in whole or in parts may be granted only by the copyright holder. Tyler James Wiltgen August 2007 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am greatly indebted to Dr. Vincent Smith, my thesis committee chairman, for his guidance throughout the development of this thesis; I appreciate all of his help and support. In addition, I would like to thank the other members of the committee, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • 497 PART 1435—SUGAR PROGRAM Subpart A—General Provisions
    Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA § 1435.2 the county office that made the loan, AUTHORITY: 7 U.S.C. 7272; and 15 U.S.C. 714b be made to the persons who would be and 714c entitled to such producer’s share under SOURCE: 61 FR 37618, July 18, 1996, unless the regulations contained in part 707 of otherwise noted. this title. Applications for loans may be made upon application of a rep- Subpart A—General Provisions resentative of the producer as allowed under standard practice for farm pro- § 1435.1 Applicability. grams. These regulations set forth the terms (b) Appeals of adverse decisions made and conditions under which Com- under this part shall be subject to the modity Credit Corporation (CCC) will provisions of 7 CFR parts 11 and 780. make loans and enter agreements with (c) In order to effectuate a conversion eligible processors for the 1996–2002 of 2000-crop recourse honey loans to crop years. Additional terms and condi- nonrecourse loans, producers will be re- tions are set forth in the loan applica- quired to sign a new CCC–677 Note and tion and the note and security agree- Security Agreement. The loan matu- ment which the processor must execute rity date will remain the same as the in order to receive a loan. These regu- original recourse loan, the loan rate lations stipulate the requirements for will be increased and additional dis- making sugar marketing assessment bursements will be paid to the pro- payments to CCC for fiscal years 1996 ducers. through 2003 and the information re- porting requirements for the 1996–2002 PART 1435—SUGAR PROGRAM crop years.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Name: Sugar Annual
    Required Report: Required - Public Distribution Date: April 15, 2021 Report Number: IN2021-0050 Report Name: Sugar Annual Country: India Post: New Delhi Report Category: Sugar Prepared By: Ankit Chandra, Agricultural Specialist Approved By: Mark Rosmann Report Highlights: Assuming normal rainfall and favorable weather conditions, India’s centrifugal sugar production in marketing year (MY) 2021/22 (October-September) is forecast to grow three percent to 34.7 million metric tons (MMT) (equivalent to 31.8 MMT of crystal white sugar) on a sugarcane production forecast of 389 MMT. Uttar Pradesh will continue to be the largest sugar producing state, followed by Maharashtra and Karnataka. India will retain its existing export policy that will enable subsidized exports at six MMT. Consumption is forecast to rise two percent to 28.5 MMT, as the economy recovers from the pandemic. Closing stocks are estimated at 16.5 MMT and expected to further decline as India diverts more sugar toward ethanol production to meet its domestic blending mandate. Commodities: Sugar, Centrifugal Sugar Cane for Centrifugal THIS REPORT CONTAINS ASSESSMENTS OF COMMODITY AND TRADE ISSUES MADE BY USDA STAFF AND NOT NECESSARILY STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT POLICY Production, Supply and Demand (PSD) Table 1. India: Centrifugal Sugar (Raw Value Basis), in Thousand Tons Sugar, Centrifugal 2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/2022 Market Year Begins Oct 2019 Oct 2020 Oct 2021 USDA USDA USDA India New Post New Post New Post Official Official Official Beginning Stocks (1000 MT) 17614 17614 14614 14614 0 15374 Beet Sugar Production (1000 MT) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cane Sugar Production (1000 MT) 28900 28900 33760 33760 0 34700 Total Sugar Production (1000 MT) 28900 28900 33760 33760 0 34700 Raw Imports (1000 MT) 900 900 1000 1000 0 1000 Refined Imp.
    [Show full text]
  • Sugar Policy and Reform
    Sugar Policy and Reform Donald F. Larson and Brent Borrell Donald F. Larson is a World Bank economist in the Development Research Department; Brent Borrell is an economist with the Centre for International Economics. Abstract This paper provides lessons about sugar policies and the process of sugar policy reform by selectively drawing on cross-country experiences. A general conclusion is that long-standing government interventions frequently displace both the markets and the institutions required to produce efficient outcomes. In addition, based on long-standing policies, households and firms make decisions that are costly to reverse. The result is a legacy of path-dependent policies, where approaches and instruments are greatly influenced by past agreements and previous interventions. The accumulated effects of these interventions are embodied in livelihoods, political institutions, capital stocks, and factor markets— elements that not only dictate the starting point for reform but also determine which reform paths are feasible. Table of Contents Introduction _________________________________________________________ 1 Global Markets_______________________________________________________ 2 Government Interventions Around the World _________________________________ 3 The Effects of Policies on the World Market and Domestic Welfare _______________4 How the Policies of Large Countries Affect Those of Small Economies _________ 6 Protection and Trade Agreements ___________________________________________ 6 Dependence on the Trade Policy of
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins and Development of the U.S. Sugar Program, 1934-1959
    The Origins and Development of the U.S. Sugar Program, 1934-1959 Richard Sicotte University of Vermont [email protected] Alan Dye Barnard College, Columbia University [email protected] Preliminary draft. Please do not cite. Paper prepared for the 14th International Economic History Conference August 21-25, 2006 1 Recent trade talks in the WTO indicate that the powerful US sugar lobby continues to be a roadblock to agricultural liberalization. It calls attention to a need for better understanding of the complex quota-based regulations that have governed the US sugar trade for so long. In 1934 the United States shifted its sugar protection policy from emphasizing the tariff to a comprehensive system of quotas. It was revised in 1937. After its suspension for much of World War II, a new Sugar Act was passed in 1948, and further revised in 1951 and 1956. It has been in almost continuous operation since 1934. This paper examines the origins and development of the Sugar Program from 1934 to 1959. Why did the United States adopt sugar quotas? What were the rules set up to implement and govern the policy? How did they function? The sugar quota was adopted after the U.S. government determined that the long-standing policy using the tariff to protect the domestic industry was failing. A principal reason was that the tariff was not raising the price of sugar because, by diminishing the imports of Cuban sugar, it was causing severe decline in wages and costs on that island. In turn, Cuban sugar was being offered at ever lower prices.
    [Show full text]
  • ? a History of Sugar Marketing Through 1974
    s- > ? A HISTORY OF SUGAR MARKETING THROUGH 1974 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE / ECONOMICS, STATISTICS, AND COOPERATIVES SERVICE AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC REPORT NO. 382 ABSTRACT The quota system of regulating the production, importation, and marketing of sugar in the United States through 1974 was an outgrowth of Government regulation of the sugar trade dating from colonial times. Similar systems have developed in most other countries, particu- larly those which import sugar. The U.S. Sugar Quota System benefited domestic sugar pro- ducers by providing stable prices at favorable levels. These prices also encouraged the produc- tion and use of substitute sweeteners, particularly high fructose and glucose sirup and crystalline dextrose in various industries. But sugar is still the most widely used sweetener in the United States, although its dominant position is being increasingly threatened. KEYWORDS: Sugar, quota, preference, tariff, refined, raw, sweeteners, corn sweeteners. world trade. PREFACE This report was written in 1975 by Roy A. Ballinger, formerly an agricultural economist in the Economic Research Service. It supersedes A History of Sugar Marketing, AER-197, also by Ballinger, issued in February 1971 and now out of print. On January 1, 1978, three USDA agencies—the Economic Research Service, the Statistical Reporting Service, and the Farmer Cooperative Service—merged into a new organization, the Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service. Washington, DC. 20250 March 1978 CONTENTS Page Summary j¡ Introduction 1 Sugar Before the Discovery of America 1 The Colonial Period in the Americas 2 Sugar from 1783 to 1864 5 Developments in the Latter 19th Century g Changes in U.S. Sugar Trade Following the Spanish-American War and During 1900-15 15 Sugar During World War I 20 Price Fluctuations and Higher Tariffs 23 Sugar Quotas Prior to World War II 32 Sugar During World War II 39 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Sugar Marketing Through 1974
    A HISTORY OF SUGAR MF.RKETING THROUGH 1974 14d :: ' t.,\; "''',.':- · ' ''t,: " '"' ,,.,· .........~.~, ~'"~ ,'~-''~~''', ' ' .. ~,~. ,..'... I;."', · , .;~.~'~, .'k'"" :O ,... ' :,'~.~..: I <' '". - . L~b~ I .. ' ', '.;., U..DEATEN FAGIUTUEECNMCS TTITC, N COEATVSSEVC AGR~~~~~ICUTRLEOOICRPR O 8 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ECONOMICS. STATISTICS, AND COOPERATIVES SERVICE AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC REPORT NO. 382 ABSTRACT The quota system of regulating the production, importation, and marketing of sugar in the United States through 1974 was an outgrowth of Government regulation of the sugar trade dating from colonial times. Similar systems have developed in most other countries, particu- larly those which import sugar. The U.S. Sugar Quota System benefited domestic sugar pro- ducers by providing stable prices at favorable levels. These prices also encouraged the produc- tion and use of substitute sweeteners, particularly high fructose and glucose sirup and crystalline dextrose in various industries. But sugar is still the most widely used sweetener in the United States, although its dominant position is being increasingly threatened. KEYWORDS: Sugar, quota, preference, tariff, refined, raw, sweeteners, corn sweeteners, world trade. PREFACE This report was written in 1975 by Roy A. Ballinger, formerly an agricultural economist in the Economic Research Service. It supersedes A History of Sugar Marketing, AER-197, also by Ballinger, issued in February 1971 and now out of print. On January 1, 1978, three USDA agencies-the Economic Research Service, the Statistical Reporting Service, and the Farmer Cooperative Service-merged into a new organization, the Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service. Washington, D.C. 20250 March 1978 CONTENTS Page Summary ........................................ ii Introduction ........................................................... 1 Sugar Before the Discovery of America ....................................... 1 The Colonial Period in the Americas .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • OECD‑FAO Agricultural Outlook 2018‑2027
    OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2018-2027 SUGAR OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2018-2027 Outlook Agricultural OECD-FAO 5. SUGAR │ 139 Chapter 5. Sugar Market situation After two consecutive seasons of supply shortage, global sugar production rebounded in the 2017 marketing year (October 2017-September 2018), with growth close to that recorded five years ago. Good weather conditions in India and Thailand, increased production in the People’s Republic of China (hereafter “China”) and the end of production quotas in the European Union are the main reasons for this increase. But the largest producer, Brazil, experienced a decline in sugar output as processing sugarcane into ethanol became more profitable than sugar production. Global sugar imports dropped by 10% in 2016 and despite the lower prices in 2017, imports continued to decline, mainly due to lower imports in China. On the demand side, there is no growth in per capita consumption in high consuming countries, where consumers' attitude towards sugar has changed because of health concerns associated with high consumption levels. Prices increased during the first months of the 2016 marketing year, but started to decline during the first quarter of 2017. As a result, annual average prices during the 2017 marketing year are expected to be lower than in 2016, but still slightly above the average of the last 25 years. Projection highlights Starting at relatively low levels, the price of raw sugar in USD is projected to increase in nominal and real terms during the next marketing year (2018). Over the remainder of the medium term, it is projected to follow a moderate upward trend in nominal terms, in line with the inflation rate of 2.3% p.a., but a downtrend in real terms.
    [Show full text]
  • The Utilization and Mechanical Separation of Sugar Cane Bagasse
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1955 The tU ilization and Mechanical Separation of Sugar Cane Bagasse. Robert Marius Hansen Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Hansen, Robert Marius, "The tU ilization and Mechanical Separation of Sugar Cane Bagasse." (1955). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 104. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/104 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE UTILIZATION AND MECHANICAL SEPARATION OF SUGAR CANE BAGASSE A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in p a r tia l fu lfillm e n t of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Chemical Engineering by Robert Marius Hansen B.S., Louisiana State University, 1950 M .S., Newark College o f E ngineering, 1953 June, 1955 EXAMINATION AND THESIS REPORT r Candidate: Robert M. Hansen Major Field: Chem ical Engineering Title of Thesis: The U tilization and Mechanical Spcaration of Sugar Cane Bagasse Approved: Major Professor and Chairman adunto School EXAMINING COMMITTEE: ■ ■ T/ -7T Date of Examination: May 11, 1955 PIRC SUROIN IIBEHI I l l CF I B S 11, Furfural from B agasse ............ Page ho, 12, C attle Feed fro i B ag a sse ........
    [Show full text]
  • Le Sucre : Menace Ou Défi ? Évaluation De L'incidence Du
    IDRC-244f Le sucre : menace ou défi ? Évaluation de l'incidence du développement technologique dans les industries des produits sucrochimiques et du sirop de glucose à haute teneur en fructose Clive Y. Thomas Ce travail a été en partie rendu possible grâce à une subvention du Centre de recherches pour le développement international, Ottawa, Canada. Les opinions émises dans ce texte sont celles de l'auteur et ne reflètent pas nécessairement celles du Centre. La mention d'une marque déposée ne constitue pas une sanction du produit ; elle ne sert qu'à informer le lecteur. Résumé L'étude porte sur la «menace» pour le saccharose, principal édulcorant, que posent les innovations technologiques et les «défis» provenant d'innovations semblables en sucrochimie. La plus grande menace provient, en premier lieu, de la commercialisation de sirop de glucose à haute teneur en fructose et, éventuellement, d'autres sources de glucides et, en deuxième lieu, de la mise au point d'une nouvelle génération d'édulcorants sans calorie, en particulier, l'Aspartame. Les «défis» proviennent des tentatives de remplacement du pétrole (ressource «épuisable»), le plus important produit de base en chimie, par le saccharose (ressource «inépuisable»). De ces tentatives est née la «sucrochimie», qui, essentiellement, traite le saccharose non comme un édulcorant, mais comme un produit chimique transformable en d'autres produits chimiques de plus grande valeur. La réorientation de l'industrialisation des produits tropicaux de base, promesse de cette nouvelle science, est réelle et ses conséquences sur les régions en développement, ainsi que sur les Antilles, sont décrites. Abstract This study assesses the "threat" to the traditional role of sucrose as the leading sweetener brought about by several technological innovations and the "challenges" afforded by similar innovations in sucrochemistry.
    [Show full text]
  • Sugar from Mexico
    Sugar from Mexico Investigation Nos. 701-TA-513 and 731-TA-1249 (Preliminary) Publication 4467 May 2014 U.S. International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 U.S. International Trade Commission COMMISSIONERS Irving A. Williamson, Chairman Dean A. Pinkert David S. Johanson Meredith M. Broadbent F. Scott Kieff Rhonda K. Schmidtlein Robert B. Koopman Director of Operations Staff assigned Amy Sherman, Investigator Michael Szustakowski, Investigator Douglas Newman, Industry Analyst James Fetzer, Economist Charles Yost, Accountant Russell Duncan, Statistician Darlene Smith, Statistical Assistant Karl von Schriltz, Attorney Elizabeth Haines, Supervisory Investigator Address all communications to Secretary to the Commission United States International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 U.S. International Trade Commission Washington, DC 20436 www.usitc.gov Sugar from Mexico Investigation Nos. 701-TA-513 and 731-TA-1249 (Preliminary) Publication 4467 May 2014 CONTENTS Page Determinations ............................................................................................................................... 1 Views of the Commission ............................................................................................................... 3 Part I: Introduction ................................................................................................................ I‐1 Background ................................................................................................................................ I‐1 Statutory criteria
    [Show full text]
  • The Aliment of Anxiety: Nutritional Advice Pertaining to Sugar in Post
    The Aliment of Anxiety: Nutritional Advice Pertaining to Sugar in Post-WWII Canada by Aleksandra Golubovic Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts at Dalhousie University Halifax, NS August 2014 © Copyright by Aleksandra Golubovic, 2014 Table of Contents Abstract iv Acknowledgements v Chapter 1 - Introduction 1 Recent Literature 2 Defining Sugar 6 Theoretical Contexts 11 Nutrition and the State in Canada 13 Sources Consulted 16 Conclusion 18 Chapter 2 - Ask the Experts 20 Beginnings 21 Voluntary Organizations 25 Constructing Authority 27 Misinformation and the Role of Advertising 29 Inquiries to the CCN 35 Limitations of State Authority 41 Conclusion 45 Chapter 3 -Tracing Change 49 Wartime 52 1950s 54 1960s 59 1970s 63 Conclusion 66 ii Chapter 4 - Industry 69 The Nutrition Foundation 72 The Sugar Research Foundation 75 Marketing 80 Other Strategies: Fluoridation 84 Conclusion 91 Chapter 5 – Affective Dimensions 94 Women and Bodily Control 97 The Modern Family and Malnutrition 102 Recalibrating Gender 105 Professionalizing Women 108 Dangerous Mothering 114 Eating Feelings 116 Conclusion 122 Chapter 6 - Conclusion 126 Bibliography 135 iii Abstract This thesis traces changes in dietary recommendations regarding sugar from WWII to the 1970s, considering the ways advice was shaped, disseminated, and digested as it related to three competing but interconnected factors: the emergence of the Canadian state as a nutrition authority, food industry involvement in nutrition education, and affective dimensions of food selection during a turbulent period of Canada’s social and political history. It shows how nutrition experts were sometimes fettered and sometimes abetted by their relationship to science and the state.
    [Show full text]