[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-324206-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-324206-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","washington-8-november-1980-letter-on-coffee-agreement-and-foreign-exchange-transfer","WASHINGTON - 8 November 1980 - Letter on Coffee Agreement and Foreign Exchange Transfer","","Letter dated 8 November 1980 from Washington addresses items on the agenda, focusing on a newly agreed coffee arrangement and its effects on U.S. balance of payments. It argues the agreement functions as a concealed transfer of foreign exchange, increasing costs for consumers. The letter discusses disputes over inflation-protection claims, administration justifications, reduced coffee consumption, and pressures on producing countries to raise exchange earnings. It also highlights looming market and political complications before Congress and references labeling and health warnings around coffee drinking and caffeine.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/washington-8-november-1980-letter-on-coffee-agreement-and-foreign-exchange-transfer/324206/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/washington-8-november-1980-letter-on-coffee-agreement-and-foreign-exchange-transfer/324206.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Rowan","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-24","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",5,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What does the letter claim about the new coffee agreement’s impact on the United States?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"It claims the arrangement effectively transfers large amounts of foreign exchange and increases retail burdens on U.S. consumers while worsening the balance of payments situation.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How does the State Department defend the coffee agreement according to the letter?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The letter says the defense relies on the idea that such agreements help protect Americans from inflation, and it also mentions an internal rationale tied to accelerating reduced consumption.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What health and labeling concerns are raised regarding coffee?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The letter references FDA reporting and proposes that a regulation could remove caffeine from the list of generally recognized safe substances, and it warns that producing countries may face labeling requirements stating coffee drinking is dangerous.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},324206,1790753901,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":55,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},1099514067415,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/100002539d78ffe74a7?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1779092875211072502","WASHINGTON  \n8 November 1980  \nNumber 1860  \nDear Sir:  \n## ON THE AGENDA:\n\n(1)Some weeks ago,when the State Department agreed to the new coffeeagreement,the financial press in London quickly noted that the UnitedStates had in effect agreed to a drain of some $250 million(or more)per year on balance of payments,i.e.,a concealed donation or transferof foreign exchange of that amount,which in turn amounted to a burdenon the U.S.consumer at retail of some $350 million to $400 millionper year,at least.  \n## TRANSFER\n\nOF ASSETS  \nNOW UP TO  \n## THE\n\nCONGRESS:  \nThe mid-point of the target price range,the Financial Times(London),MORE THANnoted,had been accepted by the State Department at some ten cents orTEN CENTSmore above present market levels.And since it was agreed that theA POUNDfundamental statistical position was such that present market levelsON WHOLESALEcould not have been maintained,the cost to the United States was muchCOFFEE PRICEmore than the ten cents per pound.  \nThe State Department defends its position by pointing out that it wasPOSTURE ONconsistent with President Carter's public statement that such agreementsDRAIN OF\"protect the American people from inflation.\"The economics of thisFOREIGNposition had never been proven by any Administration economist or evenEXCHANGEdefended,because in presentation to the Congress it was normalprocedure to deny that foreign exchange resources were being draineddeliberately.Indeed,as far back as the days when George Ball wasUnder-Secretary of State,the Democratic Party had always asserted thatit would not allow any commodity agreement to be used in that fashion.  \nThe State Department in its internal memoranda could have a secondPOSITIONsupporting case:That action of this kind should accelerate the declineONin consumption which the Latin American nations want to achieve.InFREE MARKETdefense of this,as the agreement was being initialed,the InternationalCoffee Organization reported,presumably with gratification,that thepercentage of Americans who drink coffee has dwindled to its lowest  \npoint in thirty years.That 56%of U.S.population now consume coffee as against thefigure of 75%when the U.S.entered into the first agreement under President Kennedy.  \nThis success in reducing consumption is particularly significant sincethe outlook is for increases in carryovers in 1981 and thereafter.In other words,greater excesses of supply over demand.  \nAnd this in turn has meaning particularly since the producing countriesare going to be under severe pressure to expand exchange earnings,1.e.,Brazil andsuch countries are weak holders of coffee.  \nPerhaps even more important is the belief in London that the new agree-\"WHEN THEment means,as the Financial Times put it,that the State Department isPACKAGE ISnow prepared to back commodity agreements any time \"the package is right.\"RIGHTBut as the National Coffee Association of the United States pointed out,\"the U.S.cannot carry out our requirements under the agreement untilthe Congress acts.\"That is to say,the Administration now must come  \nbefore the Congress and explain \"when is a package right.\"  \nThe State Department's answer,if it should choose now to abandon itscustomary stance and tell the truth for the first time,would be that \"a commodityprice agreement is right\"in the eyes of the State Department,if it increases priceof a commodity to the consumer heavily,if it involves heavy transfer of foreign-exchange resources,if it intensifies the difficulty by reducing consumption and ex-panding the annual carryover of a commodity to make the original difficulty evengreater.  \nIn other words,the State Department cannot tel1 the truth and hope toclear the agreement with the Congress.  Its initialing of the agreement involves abelief that once more at least it will be possible to deceive the Congress.  \nUnfortunately,market analysts point out that the statistical positionwill be even worse after a year,so that the problem will intensify.  \nOther aspects may ","cbCaioIqZ8lBrjQm","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaioIqZ8lBrjQm","pdf",1021799,"English","# ON THE AGENDA:\n## TRANSFER OF ASSETS NOW UP TO THE CONGRESS:\n## LABEL SAYING \"THE SURGEON GENERAL HAS DETERMINED THAT COFFEE DRINKING IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH\"","[{\"question\":\"What does the letter claim about the new coffee agreement’s impact on the United States?\",\"answer\":\"It claims the arrangement effectively transfers large amounts of foreign exchange and increases retail burdens on U.S. consumers while worsening the balance of payments situation.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the State Department defend the coffee agreement according to the letter?\",\"answer\":\"The letter says the defense relies on the idea that such agreements help protect Americans from inflation, and it also mentions an internal rationale tied to accelerating reduced consumption.\"},{\"question\":\"What health and labeling concerns are raised regarding coffee?\",\"answer\":\"The letter references FDA reporting and proposes that a regulation could remove caffeine from the list of generally recognized safe substances, and it warns that producing countries may face labeling requirements stating coffee drinking is dangerous.\"}]","WASHINGTON - 8 November 1980 - Letter on Coffee Agreement and Foreign Exchange Transfer | PDF",1789967327,13]