Is there any difference between "cost of" and "cost for"

No difference in meaning, Cathy. 'For' may, more than 'of', suggest all the related costs (cultivation, refining, etc) rather than a simple 'price'.

Hallo guys,
today I just saw this phrase in the newspaper: ...because of increased costs for sugar....
this confused me a lot since I usually just use "of" instead "for", like "increased costs of sugar"
is there any difference between "cost of" and "cost for"
thanks in advance.
Cathy

Ok, i see.
you mean if I want to say the costs of more than one stuff, then it's better to use "for".
for example: costs for sugar, grain and oilseed.

Thank you very much for your answer

No, several costs incurred in the process of producing one product is what I meant.

now I understand. Thanks