
[BOR]
0: Safe
1: Be civil
2: All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
3: No bots, spam or self-promotion.
4: Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
5: Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6: No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed.
7: No duplicate posts.
8: Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited.
9: No link shorteners.
10: Don't copy entire article in your post body

[EOR]
[BOC]
So let's bring this back to the original question. The expert opinion is not divided. There aren't two sides. Of course, three are lots of open questions about the details, exact magnitudes, etc. But, even ignoring other countries, such a change would be a net positive at home. There is theory here, and models, and math, and empirical data to back it all up. Saying we should wait to be sure here is as anti-science as saying we should wait to be sure on climate change questions. Spending lots of money to prevent a small specific harm here is analogous to spending lots of money dealing with environmental problems from climate change because we can't figure our how to help the fossil fuel industry that needs to be shut down. Obviously the magnitude is smaller in the sugar quota case, but the structure of the arguments is remarkably similar.

I know you mean well, and are trying to be fair and concerned about real people who's livelihoods would be hurt by such a change. But you should really consider deferring to expert opinion while you so your research, rather than deferring to the status quo, for the same basic reasons as in the climate "debate".
[EOC]
