Molasses Imports Raise Red Flags for Tariff Circumvention — USDA Study Finds Major Disparities
Analysis shows significant chemical differences in imports through Buffalo, suggesting non-molasses products and potential evasion of U.S. sugar quotas
USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), in a congressionally mandated study (link) under the American Relief Act, found compelling evidence that some imported molasses may be used to circumvent U.S. sugar tariff-rate quotas. The report concludes that while certain imports — particularly those entering through Calais, Maine — closely resemble domestic molasses, a large share of imports through Buffalo, New York, exhibit characteristics inconsistent with true molasses, raising concerns about product misclassification and potential trade violations.
The study analyzed 80 import samples and compared them to domestic molasses profiles. It found that Calais imports aligned with U.S. molasses in key attributes such as sugar composition, solids, color, and pH. In contrast, Buffalo imports — which account for nearly 90% of total molasses import volume (as shown in the table on page 4) — displayed stark deviations, including significantly lower solids, extremely high sucrose levels, minimal reducing sugars, lighter color, elevated pH, and unusual mineral compositions.
Critically, these Buffalo samples often failed the only statutory requirement defining molasses — soluble non-sugar solids (SNSS) above 6%. Using the most accurate testing method (HPLC-based calculation), 78% of Buffalo samples failed to meet this threshold, strongly indicating that they may not qualify as molasses under U.S. law.
The report highlights that molasses imports are not subject to tariff-rate quotas and face significantly lower duties than sugar, creating a financial incentive for misclassification. The findings suggest that some imported products may be sugar syrups or blends altered to appear as molasses, potentially through dilution or additives — a conclusion supported by abnormal pH levels, lighter color, and a reversal in typical mineral ratios, particularly sodium dominance in Buffalo samples versus potassium dominance in authentic molasses (see Table 9 on page 15).
AMS also determined that current statutory definitions are insufficient to distinguish molasses from other sugar products. The report recommends tightening criteria, including raising the SNSS threshold — potentially to above 12% — and incorporating additional indicators such as sugar ratios or compositional markers. It also notes that proposed congressional criteria for sugar content and solids could unintentionally exclude legitimate domestic molasses, underscoring the need for more precise standards.
Overall, the study concludes that imports through Buffalo represent a fundamentally different product type than traditional molasses and may involve blending or additives. These findings reinforce congressional concerns that gaps in classification and enforcement could undermine the integrity of U.S. sugar programs. A supplemental report is expected following additional sampling at the Detroit port of entry.
Bottom Line: It basically says Customs Border Protection hasn’t been testing though Congress requires testing and reports. It also says that the testing that’s allowed the circumvention has a huge error rate and doesn’t pick up illegal additives.
One contact said: “At minimum they need to follow the law and do testing and report to Congress and use an effective test which AMS identifies. Effectively CBP got caught with its pants down. Totally out of touch with America First agenda of the administration.”
