Great article in the NYT on Sunday on the insidious nature of food subsidies on developed world health. Subsidies prevent development in the "third world" and now there appears to be a growing literature on their effects in the "first world". Come on people, what more do you want?
For the last several decades — indeed, for about as long as the American waistline has been ballooning — U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy. That’s because the current farm bill helps commodity farmers by cutting them a check based on how many bushels they can grow, rather than, say, by supporting prices and limiting production, as farm bills once did. The result? A food system awash in added sugars (derived from corn) and added fats (derived mainly from soy), as well as dirt-cheap meat and milk (derived from both). By comparison, the farm bill does almost nothing to support farmers growing fresh produce. A result of these policy choices is on stark display in your supermarket, where the real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (a k a liquid corn) declined by 23 percent. The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the
ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow.
Thanks to IELPG for the link.
5 comments:
This is a great find. Why does this persist? Is it the farm-vote that the politicians don't want to alienate? Or is it the usual maintenance of the status quo?
The title of that article should be "Mo' money, mo' troubles."
So what he's saying is that if carrots were subsidized instead of corn, the poor/obese would instantly begin gorging on carrots?
Anyway, isn't produce [that's in season and locally grown] relatively cheap? Come September, I'll be buying corn for a dime an ear. What's a bag of carrots cost, anyway, $2?
I'm pretty sure the way it works is that people love Doritos because they taste good. I'm also pretty sure the foods being subsidized are reflective of what people want to eat, and are not forcing us to love donuts and Eggos. Why is a box of Corn Flakes $4?
If fresh produce were free, people wouldn't eat it in any significantly greater proportion than now. In fact, it is [practically] free, since you can grow a back yard full of the stuff for the tribute of a couple bucks to Durkee and a little luck with the rain.
sr, the farm-vote is vitally important in some districts but non-existant in most. But its enough.
gc,
So what he's saying is that if carrots were subsidized instead of corn, the poor/obese would instantly begin gorging on carrots?
No, I don't think he's saying that. Nor would I agree with that. But he is asking who we are heavily subsidizing foods that contribute to bad health. I would, of course, go a step further and ask why we are subsidizing any production at all. And I would not advocate the subsidization of "healthier" foods.
Produce is cheap, but not on a relative basis. The article argues that so-called junk-food is cheaper per calorie than produce.
But you are right to point out that nobody buys food based on an active mental calorie/$ calculation. They buy what tastes good and what is "easy" for them. But that still brings us back to the question: why do we need to subsidize these things if thats what people want. They don't need any help.
I'm also pretty sure the foods being subsidized are reflective of what people want to eat, and are not forcing us to love donuts and Eggos.
I couldn't disagree more with the first part of that sentence. Large production of grain and staples was originally subsidized to smooth out market swings. At the same time, I agree with the second part. Nobody is holding a gun to anybody's head. Again though: why am I paying taxes to lower the price of anything (or, if you prefer, unhealthy products)?
A box of Corn flakes is not $4. A box of Kellogg Corn Flakes is $4.
And finally, you are right that lower prices for produce will probably not increase consumption by any appreciable margin. I'm not arguing for produce subsidies. I'm arguing for no subsidies at all.
And I've got to disagree with your last statement. Homegrown produce is not even close to practically free. Time is not free.
Time is only not free if you have to make a tradeoff between something else more productive. Of course tending a garden is not cost-efficient if it cuts into my high-paying doctorin' gig. But if I've nothing better to do, it's free. Anyway, the dirt does most of the work doesn't it?
(I say we subsidize the things people want to eat in a more general sense- we like wheat flour, we want stable prices, we make the gub'mint fix it. Nobody is subsidizing poke salad.)
(Well, up until recently, it was most efficient for high calorie foods to be cheapest. If you need to feed the starving, you better give them rice and not spinach. I believe in the market- if there is an outcry for celery in the inner city, someone will find a way to make it.)
(The calorie per $ logic is circular, I think. But I suddenly can't articulate why.)
(I disagree with subsidies as a matter of course, but not necessarily as a short-term tool to fix market irregularities. Weather created shortages, etc.)
Finally, I always enjoy the comedy of the "eat local or die" advocates. They always throw in the ol' standby "go out into the sticks and find a farmer's market to get locally grown produce." If that's true, why do all the boxes have labels on them?
Time is only not free if you have to make a tradeoff between something else more productive. Of course tending a garden is not cost-efficient if it cuts into my high-paying doctorin' gig. But if I've nothing better to do, it's free.
Not something more 'productive,' something more 'useful.' And leisure time is very useful.
(I say we subsidize the things people want to eat in a more general sense- we like wheat flour, we want stable prices, we make the gub'mint fix it. Nobody is subsidizing poke salad.)
And I would argue that its not broken ... or that the subsidies are making it broken.
Further, answer me this: if that's the case why do we subsidize cotton so heavily? Most of the cotton is then used overseas.
Your final question is a great one. Someone should study how many "local producers" are cheating.
Post a Comment