Why in the News
Retail sugar prices have risen from an average of Rs 45 to Rs 65 per kg within a month, and the increase is being widely blamed on the ethanol blended petrol programme. Only 27.5 percent of the ethanol supplied by distilleries to oil marketing companies in 2025-26 came from sugarcane juice and molasses, with the balance from cereal grains, and the roughly 3 million tonnes of sugar diverted for ethanol is close to a tenth of the year’s 30.9 million tonne gross production. Similar or larger diversions in the four preceding sugar years did not cause comparable price spikes, which places the blame elsewhere.
Is ethanol actually responsible for the price spike?
- Small diversion share: The estimated 3 million tonnes of sugar diverted to ethanol production is close to a tenth of the 30.9 million tonne gross sugar output for the year ending September 2026.
- No precedent for a price link: The four preceding sugar years saw diversions of 3.5 million tonnes, 2.4 million tonnes, 4.3 million tonnes and 3.6 million tonnes respectively, all without triggering a comparable price spiral.
- Feedstock mix has shifted away from sugar already: Only 27.5 percent of ethanol supplied to oil marketing companies in 2025-26 came from sugarcane juice and molasses, with the rest from cereal grains, so the programme is no longer primarily a sugar diversion story.
What actually explains the price spurt?
- A large output shortfall: Gross sugar production for the year came in well below the initial 34.4 million tonne projection made at the start of crushing in November, a shortfall of 3.5 million tonnes.
- A late government response: Mills in Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra were struggling to get cane and shutting down crushing operations by February, but the shortfall was not addressed until exports were banned only in mid-May.
- Panic measures after prices soared: From July, as a deficient June monsoon raised concerns about cane yields for 2026-27, the government imposed a 400 tonne stock limit with a 30 day holding cap on all dealers and ordered mills to furnish details of bulk buyers who purchased 500 tonnes or more.
What should the government have done instead?
- Keep the import window open: Rather than banning exports, the government could have cut the tariff on raw and white sugar imports from 100 percent to zero by April, when most mills had stopped crushing.
- Rely on market intelligence over controls: The sugar industry runs on government-set controls, from cane pricing to how much a mill may sell in a given month, a control structure this crisis exposed as failing to anticipate and balance supply and demand.
Conclusion
The editorial’s central claim is that the sugar price rise is a policy failure, rooted in a delayed response to an anticipated output shortfall and a subsequent set of panic controls, not a consequence of the ethanol blending programme. The remedy it points to, opening the import window through tariff cuts rather than export bans and stock limits, remains untested by the government to date.
Matching Previous Year Question
PrelimsPYQ.csv: “Statement I: Of the two major ethanol producers in the world, i.e., Brazil and the United States of America, the former produces more ethanol than the latter. Statement II: Unlike in the United States of America, where corn is the principal feedstock for ethanol production, sugarcane is the principal feedstock for ethanol production in Brazil.” (2025, Microtheme: Biofertilizers/Fuels, Subject: Environment)
