By Dolly Yasa
BACOLOD CITY—The Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) must address all imported artificial sweeteners and “other sugars” that significantly displace demand for local sugar, according to the Sugar Council, in response to SRA Administrator Pablo Luis Azcona’s recent claim that the group is misinformed.
The Sugar Council, alongside the sugar industry labor group NACUSIP, previously criticized the SRA for reducing a proposed PHP 10 import clearance fee per 50-kilogram bag of raw sugar equivalent for alternative sweeteners under Tariff Line 1702. These include glucose, fructose, artificial honey, palm sugar, and maltose, according to a press statement from the groups issued Tuesday.
The groups noted that aside from high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), the three most common artificial sweeteners used in beverage manufacturing are sucralose, aspartame, and acesulfame potassium. Philippine Statistics Office data shows that combined imports of these three sweeteners increased from 950,989 kilograms in 2022 to 1,100,783 kilograms in 2023.
In a December 19, 2024, report by BusinessWorld Online, Agriculture Secretary Francisco P. Tiu Laurel Jr. attributed the decline in millgate sugar prices to competition from imported artificial sweeteners. He also noted that projected lower sugar production this year due to El Niño and La Niña effects led to increased imports of these substitutes.
Secretary Laurel’s remarks prompted the SRA to draft a sugar order proposing a PHP 10 import clearance fee on “other sugars” under Tariff Line 1702, including glucose, fructose, and dextrose. However, the SRA later announced a significant reduction in the proposed fee.
The Sugar Council and NACUSIP questioned the fee reduction, emphasizing that stricter measures are needed to deter the influx of sugar substitutes and protect the livelihoods of thousands of sugarcane farmers and their families.
In his response, SRA Administrator Azcona countered that the Sugar Council is misinformed. He stressed that, under his leadership, the SRA is imposing clearance fees on imported sugar substitutes for the first time, something previous administrations had not done.
The Sugar Council rebutted this claim, highlighting their 2017 fight against HFCS, which resulted in a PHP 12-per-liter excise tax on beverages using HFCS compared to PHP 6 per liter for those using cane sugar. They argued that other sugar substitutes were not targeted at the time because their import volumes did not significantly impact local sugar demand.
“Chiding past SRA administrators for not addressing a problem that did not exist during their tenure is absurd,” the group stated. “Claiming credit for performing one’s mandated duty now is unnecessary.”
The Sugar Council supported the imposition of clearance fees on “other sugars” but expressed frustration over delays in addressing artificial sweeteners. “Secretary Laurel himself noted that competition from imported artificial sweeteners has displaced demand for local sugar,” the group said. “Why is the SRA hesitant? Who is the SRA protecting?”
The council reiterated the need for decisive action to safeguard the interests of the sugar industry and its workers.
