© Copyright 2017 McKeany-Flavell

11 Embarcadero West, Suite 200, Oakland, CA 94607 | 510 832 2866 | mckeany-flavell.com

Prepared for The American Sugar AllianceAugust 2017

Sugar Market Outlook

Sugar demand, totalFood deliveries: Is demand really growing?How have concerns surrounding genetically modified crops (GM vs. non-GM) affected sugar demand?What consumer are our customer, food and beverage companies, targeting?How costly is reformulation?What is the biggest threat to demand for sugar?

Supply sideAvailability of refined sugar: Do we have enough?Is the call for non-GM sugar really affecting our refining capacity?

Trade policyHow will the amendments to the Suspension Agreements change our market?

Pricing scenariosA look at pricing scenario for cane, beet, and overall market

Factors affecting the U.S. sugar market

2

USDA showing 2016/17 deliveries up 3.5 over 2015/16—is this growth real???Debate over guidelines for calories from added sugarManufacturers casting for any way to cut calories while also staying “Natural”

3

Is USDA-projected 3.5 percent growth for 2016/17 real?

*EstimateSource: USDA, McKeany-Flavell

+3.7%

+2.9%

+0.6%

-0.1%

+3.5%

+1.0%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%Sugar (Food) Deliveries, Annual Growth Rate

Cane vs. beet: Between 2014 and 2016, concern over potential labeling laws and a push to “All Natural” supported cane deliveries, but did real growth happen?Large beet crops, higher prices for raw sugar, and delay in labeling laws may see some demand switch back to beet sugar.Non-reporters may be holding massive inventories—currently counted as “deliveries” by USDA.“Added Sugars” campaign could negatively impact the public’s perception of sugar.

Factors affecting sugar demand

4

5

Domestic beet & cane sugar deliveries

* Estimate

46% 47% 49%44% 44% 46% 45%

45% 44% 43% 42%46%

54% 53% 51%56% 56% 54% 55%

55% 56%57% 58%

54%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Mill

ion

shor

t sto

ns r

aw v

alue

Beet sugar domestic consumpt ion Cane sugar domest ic consumption

Growth in sugar use over the past three years appears to have gone to cane refiners.

Growth in cane sugar deliveries may be attributed to multiple factors, such as more competitive pricing when raw sugar prices were around $0.2450 in 2013/14, combined with marketing decisions by end users.

6

Overview of growth in cane sugar deliveries

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Mill

ion

shor

t ton

s, ph

ysic

al v

alue

Cane Sugar Deliveries to Cereal & Baked Goods to Confect ioneryto Dairy & Ice Cream to Beveragesto Other Processed Foods to All Other Food Uses

7

U.S. sugar deliveries: beet sugar gaining market share since July 2016

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Thou

sand

sho

rt to

ns, r

aw v

alue

Beet Sugar Deliveries for Domestic Consumption Cane Sugar Deliveries for Domestic Consumption

Beet deliveries for the first eight months of 2016/17 are up 19 percent from the same period last season.

More competitively priced beet sugar and high raw sugar prices affect deliveries for refiners.

Consumers:Have limited understanding of what “genetically modified” (GM) means.Nevertheless fear GM foods.Overwhelmingly claim to want transparency, such as labeling of products containing GM ingredients.

How does the “man on the street” feel about the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) debate?

8

43% 46% 47%41% 41% 42% 41% 42% 41% 40% 39%

43%

51% 52% 49% 51%52% 49% 50%

50%51%

52% 54%51%

6%2%

4%8% 7% 9% 9% 8% 8% 8% 7% 6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Shar

e of

dom

estic

con

sum

ptio

n

Mill

ion

STRV

Beet Sugar Domest ic Consumption Cane Sugar Domestic ConsumptionPresumed Non-reporter Deliveries

9

Domestic sugar deliveries

* EstimateSource: USDA, McKeany-Flavell

Despite shifts in consumer opinion, the actions of many food and beverage companies suggest that cost remains a chief concern.

Impact of GM debate on specific categories of major sugar use

10

Around 5 percent of sugar usage in this category has a cane-only designationThis segment has seen its share of ingredient changes in the last few years:

Industry-wide reduction of sugar content in cereal formulationsMove away from artificial coloring and flavoring for some products

Cereals sector

11

Sector is hard to track as 70 percent of this category may be considered artisanal productsOf the major brands, very little is labeled non-GM and typically falls into the organic categoryOur best estimate is roughly 1-5 percent of usage involves non-GM claims

Bakery sector

12

13

Sugar deliveries to cereal & baked goods sector

*Forecast based on year-to-date data (October through May)

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

Shor

t ton

s, p

hysi

cal v

alue

Deliveries to Cereal & Baked Goods, Beet Sugar Cane Sugar

Around 30-35 percent of confectionery sugar usage has a cane-only designation.This sector was one of the first to see significant switch to non-GM ingredients.

Confectionery sector

14

*Forecast based on year-to-date data (October through May)

Sugar deliveries to the confectionery sector

15

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

Shor

t ton

s, p

hysi

cal v

alue

Deliveries to the Confect ionery Industry, Beet Sugar Cane Sugar

Confectionery has traditionally been a large user of cane sugar.

Over 60 percent of sugar usage in this category has a cane-only designation when looking at manufacturers producing a variety of dairy products, including ice cream.When narrowing the category to companies that manufacture ice cream exclusively, however, cane-only sugar use drops to about 28 percent.Keep in mind that in order for milk to be non-GMO, cows cannot be given bovine growth hormone (rBST/rBGH).Dairy was an area where re-melters were able to gain market share.

Ice cream & dairy sector

16

*Forecast based on year-to-date data (October through May)

Sugar deliveries to ice cream & dairy sector

17

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

Shor

t ton

s, ph

ysic

al v

alue

Deliveries to Ice Cream & Dairy Indust ry, Beet Sugar Cane Sugar

Eight years of movement away from beet—could be an increase in deliveries by third-party melt stations.

Who is your customer (food & beverage companies) marketing to?

And who is sensitive to the GM food debate?

Millennials...and Gen-Xers...and Baby Boomers...and the Greatest GenerationThose with college degree more likely to view GM favorablyNew mothersMen (47 percent favorable) vs. women (28 percent favorable)Urban vs. suburban vs. ruralVariations by race, ethnicity50 percent of consumers always or sometimes read food labels

The role of demographics in buying patterns

19

67 percent of consumers are not willing to pay a premium.11 percent are willing to pay a premium.Millennials are most likely to pay a premium.

Willing to pay for non-GM?

20

Challenges to reformulation

21

Domestic availability of ingredientsComplexity of ingredient statementEnd-product categoryPlant location Depth of supply chain

Case study 1: baked goods, bread

22

Ingredient Price

per lb, FOB

Possible Non-GM

Replacement

Alternate Ingredient Price

per lb, FOB

Basic Ingredients for a Loaf of Bread

Bleached enriched flour $0.13 n/a $0.13Sugar (beet) $0.30 Sugar (cane) $0.35Soybean and/or canola oil $0.34 Palm oil $0.39Wheat gluten $0.93 n/a $0.93Salt $0.10 n/a $0.10Total $1.80 $1.90

Delta between using GM and non-GM ingredients $0.10

n/a: non-GM ingredient not applicable

Case study 2: confectionery, chocolate

23

Ingredient Price

per lb, FOB

Possible Non-GM

Replacement

Alternate Ingredient Price

per lb, FOB

Basic Ingredients for a Chocolate Bar

Sugar (beet) $0.30 Sugar (cane) $0.35Milk chocolate $2.20 n/a $2.20Cocoa butter $2.85 n/a $2.85Lactose $0.27 n/a $0.27Milk fat $2.25 n/a $2.25Soy lecithin $1.65 Non-GM soy lecithin $3.30Total $9.52 $11.22

Delta between using GM and non-GM ingredients $1.70

n/a: non-GM ingredient not applicable

What is the biggest threat to sugar demand?

24

25

The industry chases the consumer

Dec. 2009: General Mills to Reduce Sugar in Kids’ Cereals

2014: Mexico Sweetened Beverage & Junk Food Taxes

Nov. 2014: Berkeley, CA Soda Tax

Apr. 2015: Chipotle MakesGMO-Free Announcements

Dec. 2015: Hershey to Move to Cane Sugar in Major Products

2016: World Health Organization Backs 20-50 Percent Sugar Taxes

Apr. 2016: Mars to Cut Added Sugar in 3 Yrs. for Select Products

May 2016: FDA’s New Nutrition Label Identifying Added Sugars

Jun. 2016: Philadelphia Passes Soda Tax Measure on Third Try

Nov. 2016: SF, Oakland, Albany, & Boulder Pass Soda Taxes

Nov. 2016: Cook County Approves Sweetened Beverage Tax

2016: Kraft Switches More Top Products to Cane Sugar, Organic

Dec. 2016: Nestle Pledges to Cut Sugar by 40 Percent by 2018

“The new tobacco?”

Source: Google

Food marketing class actions increased from 20 in 2008 to over 425 active cases in 2015 and 2016.

75 percent of these cases are filed in four states: California, 36 percent; New York, 22 percent; Florida, 12 percent; and Illinois, 7 percent.

Suits generally fall in 10 categories; “all natural” “ECJ” and “added sugar” are three that certainly impact sugar

Lawyers’ filed over 50 ECJ lawsuits between 2012 and 2014. Many are active again based on May 2016 FDA guidance, finding that describing sweeteners made from sugar cane on food labels as “ECJ” is false or misleadingAugust 2016 Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald field class actions asserting “excessive consumption of added sugar is toxic to the human body” and…. Under California’s Unfair Competition Law, cereal makers’ marketing of products with added sugar is likely to deceive consumers and is “immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.

Example of how frivolous these class actions are: one active complaint alleges that Subway “Footlong” sandwiches were less than 12 inches long.

Class action law suits – money bag for lawyers

27

Source: U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, Feb. 2017

28

Sugar or beverage taxes around the world

Denmark repealed 80-year old fat and sugar taxes in 2013 and 2014.Ireland and the UK’s soda taxes will go into effect in 2018.

Sugar or beverage taxes in place or announcedSugar or beverage taxes under recent consideration

Berkeley, CABoulder, COSan Francisco, CAAlbany, CAOakland, CAPhiladelphia, PACook County, IL (Chicago)Seattle, WASanta Fe, NM? Voters rejected this taxPortland, OR? Connecticut?

Sweetener & soda taxes in the U.S.

Arkansas adopted a tax on all soft drinks in 1993.

29

Sugar supplyIs the U.S. market in balance?Is there enough refining capacity and raw material to capture all the move to non-GMO?What is Mexico’s role within the U.S. sugar market?

Deliveries of cane sugar increased by nearly 654,000 STRV from 2012/13 to 2015/16 Total deliveries of cane sugar in 2015/16 equaled 6.12 million STRV

Do we have enough non-GM refined sugar to match demand?

31

Cane deliveries in 2015/16 totaled 6.12 million STRVCombined domestic raw production and imports of 7.21 million STRVOn paper, the supply of cane sugar is adequate—however, not all imports ended in the hands of cane refiners

*Domestic raw sugar represents 53 percent of non-GM supply to U.S. refiners, and imports are the remaining 47 percent, so imports are critical to cane refiners maximizing capacity

2015/16 Season

32

Is enough non-GM sugar available?

Chart excludes carryover stocks

GM Sugar

Supply, 41%

Non-GM

Sugar Supply,

59%

33

Monthly cane sugar deliveries vs. capacity

Capacity is based on a operating schedule of 10 days on, 4 days off

589,000 STRV total monthly capacity

98%

86%82%80%

76%

92%

84%86%

93%95%94%93%93%93%88%

81%

89%95%

88%90%93%

89%

98%98%94%92%

79%80%75%

89%

81%

87%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Perc

ent m

onth

ly ca

paci

ty u

tiliz

atio

n

Thou

sand

shor

t ton

s, ra

w v

alue

Cane Sugar Deliveries for Domest ic Consumpt ion Domestic Cane Sugar Capacity

Monthlycapacity utilization

34

How are imports set under the amended Suspension Agreements?

* USDA may request an increase after Apr. 1, from Mexico first, from other countries if needed.Source: McKeany-Flavell

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

U.S. Beet

U.S. Beet (California)

U.S. Cane

Mexico

Key: Note: sugarcane has a mult iyear planting cycle.Planting Harvest

On Oct. 1, the minimum Base Export Limit is set at 70 percent of expected need for Mexican sugar as of July’s WASDE forecast.

Only 30 percent of that limit may enter between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31.

Before Apr. 1, USDA can ask DOC to increase the Export Limit if a sugar shortage is anticipated.*After Apr. 1, the remaining volume of the Export Limit may enter the U.S.

Up to 55 percent of that limit may enter before Apr. 1.

The full Export Limit is assigned based on the March WASDE, effective Apr. 1

Export Limit set at 80 percent of target volume based on Dec. WASDE.

July’s WASDE forecast sets the Base Export Limit for the next season.

Approximately 65 percent of imports have gone to cane refiners in recent yearsHighest import volumes of Mexican sugar are seen between February and May

35

U.S. monthly imports of Mexican sugar

Source: USDA

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Met

ric to

ns, r

aw v

alue

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Approximately 65 percent of imports have gone to cane refiners in recent yearsNew amendments to the Suspension Agreements place Mexico as the de-facto largest raw-sugar-quota holder, limiting refined imports

36

Breakdown of imports of Mexican sugar

* EstimateSource: USDA

25%

11%

24%

38%

23%

41%

26%

67%53%

42%39% 37%

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Mill

ion

met

ric to

ns, r

aw

Estandar Imported from Mexico Refinado Imported from Mexico Total U.S. Sugar Imports

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Mill

ion

shor

t ton

s ra

w v

alue

All Beet Processor Stocks All Cane Processor and Refiner Stocks

Domestic ending stocks by feedstock

* EstimateSource: FSA, McKeany-Flavell

37

Cane refiners’ carryout expected near 15-year lows…

* EstimateBased on projections prior to added TRQ and Mexico quota

The U.S. does require imports: Where are they coming from?

38

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0Million STRV

U.S. Imports of Mexican Sugar Other Imports

Will sugar be delivered against the new quotas? For TRQ, mostly. For Mexico, likely little or none.

39

With stocks-to-use projected at 8.8 percent, USDA acts

* EstimateSource: USDA, McKeany-Flavell

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17* 2017/18*

Mill

ion

shor

t ton

s raw

val

ue

Additional Mexico Quota

Additional Tariff-Rate Quota

Imports from Mexico

Other Program Imports

Tariff-Rate Quota Imports

40

Domestic sugar market timeline: contracted share of industrial use

Source: Trade sources

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Market pricing

* Estimate

Impact on domestic beet sugar industry based on managed supply

42

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Cent

s pe

r po

und

Refined Beet Sugar, FOB Mill Mexico Floor Price (delivered, Chicago) Beet Loan Rate

Projected Beet Sugar, FOB Bulk Projected Cane Sugar, FOB Bulk Refined Cane Sugar, FOB mill

Projection