Some years ago two nutrition experts went grocery shopping. For a dollar, Adam Drewnow­ski and S. E. Specter could purchase 1,200 calories of potato chips or cookies or just 250 calories worth of carrots. It was merely one example of how an unhealthy diet is cheaper than a healthy one. This price difference did not spring into existence by force of any natural laws but largely because of antiquated agricultural policies. Public money is working at cross-purposes: backing an overabundance of unhealthful calories that are flooding our supermarkets and restaurants, while also battling obesity and the myriad illnesses that go with it. It is time to align our farm policies with our health policies.

In past years farm subsidies have been a third rail of American politics—never to be touched. But their price tag, both direct and indirect, has now brought them back into the debate and created an imperative for change. Conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and arthritis are strongly correlated with excess poundage and run up medical bills of nearly $150 billion every year. The government has poured billions of dollars into dietary campaigns, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s new MyPlate recommendation (half of daily food consumption should be fruits and vegetables) to programs aimed at providing more produce in schools and in military cafeterias.

Agricultural subsidies undercut those efforts by skewing the market in favor of unhealthful calories. Much of the food we have to choose from—and how much it costs—is determined by the 1,770-page, almost $300-billion Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (commonly known as the “farm bill”). This piece of legislation, up for renewal this year, covers everything from nutrition assistance programs to land conservation efforts. It also determines how much money gets paid out to agricultural operations in subsidies and crop insurance programs. Federal support for agriculture, begun in earnest during the Great Depression, was originally intended as a temporary lifeline to farmers, paying them extra when crop prices were low. Nearly eight decades later the benefits flow primarily to large commodity producers of corn and soy, which are as profitable as ever.

The current bill gives some $4.9 billion a year in automatic payments to growers of such commodity crops, thus driving down prices for corn, corn-based products and corn-fed meats. Cows that are raised on corn, rather than grass, make meat that is higher in calories and contains more omega-6 fatty acids and fewer omega-3 fatty acids—a dangerous ratio that has been linked to heart disease.

Cheap corn has also become a staple in highly processed foods, from sweetened breakfast cereals to soft drinks, that have been linked to an increase in the rate of type 2 diabetes, a condition that currently affects more than one in 12 American adults. Between 1985 and 2010 the price of beverages sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup dropped 24 percent, and by 2006 American children consumed an extra 130 calories a day from these beverages. Over the same period the price of fresh fruits and vegetables rose 39 percent. For families on a budget, the price difference can be decisive in their food choices.

But fruits and vegetables do not have to be more expensive than a corn-laden chicken nugget or corn syrup–sweetened drink. One reason they are costly is that the current farm bill categorizes them as “specialty crops” that do not receive the same direct payments or crop insurance that commodity crops do.

With the government tightening its belt, some of those old subsidies finally look ready to fall. Many lawmakers across the political spectrum, including President Barack Obama and the leaders of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, have recommended cutting direct commodity payments, which would save money and help us stay healthier.

25 Comments

1. 1. JDoors 08:19 AM 4/19/12

   I'd like to see a little more information about subsidized crops OTHER THAN corn that may be contributing to obesity. Surely the increase in obesity is not soley the result of soft drinks and chicken nuggets. For example, the article compares the price per calorie of potato chips or cookies to carrots, then doesn't mention whether potatos, cookie ingredients or carrots are subsidized.
   
   I'm also a tired of reading "solutions" that ALWAYS mean HIGHER prices. How 'bout we look for solutions that might bring prices down, instead?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. tharter in reply to JDoors 08:44 AM 4/19/12

   Generally anything tends to be done in the way that is cheapest up front. Thus when you are going to change something there is almost always going to be some up front cost. The question is whether that up front cost is actually a savings when you factor in the externalized costs.
   
   As with other things IMHO the best approach would be to internalize those costs. If feeding everyone basically corn is costing billions in health care costs, then guess who should be chipping in to pay those costs? They'll be passed on to the consumer and if prices are a big driver of what people eat, well, that will change. Overall society saves. In the long run everyone gets to live cheaper.
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. oldvic 08:48 AM 4/19/12

   Time to end this socialist habit of giving money left and right to people that don't need or deserve it.
   
   Looks like an excellent opportunity for consensus between the "liberals" who strenuously deny they're socialists, and the "conservatives" who would keel over the moment anyone suggests they're socialists.
   
   I'll be watching the outcome with considerable interest.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. rdevaughn in reply to JDoors 09:32 AM 4/19/12

   In 1980, no one had ever heard the words "high fructose corn syrup." Today, as much as 85% of products found in the average grocery store contain the corn derivative.
   
   Corn subsidies produce two major problems, however and processed foods like hfcs is only one of them.
   
   The other problem caused by corn subsidies and the excess corn it incentivizes is the cheap cattle feed produced using corn. As the one of the least expensive feeds for cows, corn is widely used across the cattle industry. The problem is, cows weren't made to digest corn, and as it travels slowly through their seven stomachs they develop infections.
   
   To combat this, cattle many farmers PREVENTATIVELY feed their cows antibiotics. These antibiotics produce two things, stronger bugs that infect cattle, and sicker people who eat antibiotic laden beef.
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. JamesDavis in reply to oldvic 09:34 AM 4/19/12

   You are stuck in limbo, aren't you? The government - liberals, conservatives or socialists; whatever you want to call them should stop all incentives to fossil fuels and direct some of it to healthy foods, like vegetables, fruit, nuts and berries, and force beverages into a more healthy life style by taking away additives such as corn syrup and processed sugars. The fruits and berries natural sugars are all that is needed. It is time we stop caring more for the bottom line than we do for human and animal health. We are allowing our farmers to kill us so they can make a huge profit off our suffering. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to direct a lot of that money back to community farming of vegetables, and canning of those vegetables that would be chemical and sugar free. We didn't have these problems until the incentives started...it is time to end all incentives. If a business can't make it on their own, then they do not need to make it at all. We do not have to feed the world, but we do need to feed ourselves and we should have the right to a healthy life style and healthy foods.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. krohleder 10:01 AM 4/19/12

   We need to stop subsidizing most things. We are giving our fellow Americans a false sense of reality. It is funny how when it comes to everything else, cars, home, electronics, we Americans want, quality, we want the best, but when is comes to food: please give us the cheapest crap you can scrap off the ground please! Never mind the health costs, just add that as debt to my future self. Never mind the productivity costs, making less doesn't matter when you have credit cards to pick up the slack. And just try not to thing about children, that is too depressing. Seriously we need to wake up and take some control over our own consumption and bodies. In a country that is supposedly obsessed with freedom we seem so content as slaves.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. stampsc 10:15 AM 4/19/12

   I run a small family farm. Pigs, sheep, chickens on pasture, and an orchard just coming into fruit. I receive no subsidies and I wish to receive no subsidies.
   
   I'd be a lot happier if I just had to compete on an even playing field - I'd prefer we get rid of the subsidies totally.
   
   A farm insurance program is much different and seems to me strategically important - in the even of a weather catastrophe it's in the country's interest to not have all the farmers suddenly get no paycheck for a year, but that's a much different scenario, and neither should it reward someone who puts a bunch of fruit trees in a place that relies on water to pumped across half the state to get there.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. artubtu 10:30 AM 4/19/12

   Most informed and unbiased citizens would agree with the statement, "Food subsidies are harmful to the public". However I suggest subsidies in general are harmful to the public. I propose all subsidies be listed on a public roster. Then each one be discontinued and be reapplied for by its congressional sponsors. But first I suggest Congress pass a rule that a "subsidy" of any kind must be approved by a super majority of each congressional house. And that all approved subsidies contain a two year sunset clause.
   
   We can not stop congress from seeking information on a subject (lobbyists' input) but we can make it more difficult for bogus giveaways and out dated programs from harming the public.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. sault in reply to artubtu 10:59 AM 4/19/12

   Would you count indirect subsidies like the healthcare costs brought about by junk food or pollution from using fossil fuels? If you want the most complete picture, you have to make people aware of how much things REALLY cost them.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. the Gaul 12:02 PM 4/19/12

    As a former director of the USDA agency that dispersed subsidies, loans, grants, and other programs, I can say with reasonable assuredness that the original intent of those subsidies has long since passed. Those subsidies are harmful to society in that they skew thought, value, even emotion. Until we raise and support our population without artificial intrusion, we will suffer the unwanted side effects of these subsidies.
    
    One of which is the Congress, which, as protector of all things 'socialized,' will strive to gain the highest value for corn and sugar subsidies. Remember, it's not socialism if we support farmers, oil companies, sugar plantations, pharmaceutical companies, the military. It's only socialism when we start talking about the poor, nutrition, health, . . .
    
    We know what would make this country work; we will NEVER convince the 0.06% to adopt anywhere near that approach. Watch the upcoming election for evidence.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

11. 11. Metallothionein 08:12 PM 4/19/12

    A new peer reviewed study published this week in the Clinical Epigenetics journal eloquently argues that the 91% increase in U.S. children with autism receiving special education services from 2005-2010 is attributed primarily to the consumption of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). The researchers used a novel approach to determine the factors that may explain the difference observed in autism prevalence in Italy (low prevalence) vs the autism prevalence in the U.S. (high prevalence). In Europe, HFCS is not consumed while in the U.S. the average American consumes 38 pounds per year. The article explains in detail several different metabolic pathways for autism to develop in a child from the consumption of HFCS, including a transgenerational effect when an expectant mother consumes HFCS. High fructose corn syrup and corn production is heavily subsidized by the U.S. government. How ironic that the U.S. government is subsidizing the autism epidemic! How sad for all of the children with autism and their families. Read the paper. It will blow your mind! http://www.clinicalepigeneticsjournal.com/content/4/1/6/abstract

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

12. 12. AgTivist48 in reply to rdevaughn 04:02 PM 4/20/12

    Rdevaugh, so many things to say regarding your comment, but I'll start with the basics. As a farmer's daughter, I'll tell you, ALL cattle, regardless of raised on pasture, etc., are 'finished' on corn. No, it's not the cheapest food source, (as you indicated), and 'no', all farmers don't always give all animals antibiotics. Regarding antibiotics, there are standard withdrawl periods mandated by science, long regulated/inspected. check your doctor regarding antibiotic use/over use. Responsible farmers take offense to your comments, sir.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

13. 13. AgTivist48 04:09 PM 4/20/12

    as a 'farm kid', perhaps just the second here to comment, must say there are so many innacurate, offensive and just plain 'off the mark' comments and information in this article. wow. Where to begin? First off, most 'farm groups' these days have dropped the call for continued subsidies. Second, many consumers make choices and, (last I checked) should adjust thier choices based on their waistlines and wallets. But when was the last time you had an elementary school kid choose carrots over chips? chocolate? How about you, (you know who you are--the guy reaching for the Doritos from the snack machine right about now). Accountability seems to be missing here, and I thought surely this group of writers/readers would see that and call for some common sense. Here's hoping...

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

14. 14. breezyslope 12:41 AM 4/21/12

    I will second the comments of #13 and add a few of my own. First, I am a 76 year old wheat farmer who has been in the business 50 years, raised on a small farm, a graduate of Wash State University, M.S. Agronomy,1960.
    Now, about this high fructose corn syrup nonsense. High fructose corn syrup is 55% fructose, the sugar found in fruits, and 42% glucose. Table sugar(sucrose)is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. How can a 5% increase in fructose be responsible for diabeties, obesity, and autism? The charge is ridiculous. The real cause is too much daily consumption of sugar of any kind in soft drinks and junk foods by children and adults.
    As for subsidies causing corn and other grains to be too cheap, grain prices are set in the world market. Farmers have to take whatever the buyer offers. Subsidies help keep the farmer in business when the price offered is lower than the cost of production. And to the subject of most subsidies going to large farms, let me point out that subsidies are based on units of production, and he who owns more units is entitled to more dollars. I have been both a small farmer and a large farmer, and I can assure you that per unit costs are nearly the same for both. Economies of size in grain farming max out when a farmer has too much work to do himself and hires part time labor.
    The editors think subsidies should be switched to fruits and vegetables. Really? Most fruits and vegetables in this country are produced by huge corporate farms. Is that who you want to subsidize? It won't change prices unless more farmers get into the game to earn the subsidies. Then there will be oversupply, plowed under crops, bankruptcies, temporary price drops to the consumer, and finally higher consumer prices as the weaker producers are weeded out.
    It's time, please, to stop depicting consumers as victims of subsidized agriculture and put the blame where it belongs--on consumer choices. We have the safest, most nutritous, most affordable and most diverse food supply in the world. Give us farmers a break!!
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    For most of my farming life, subsidies are all that has kept me bankrupcy

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

15. 15. kiteman 12:10 PM 4/21/12

    How about this for a double whammy? Cut the subsidy for corn, so it is not so profitable to grow it, and the greatest benefit, this will kill the profits of Monsatan. No more GM seeds required! Maybe for a while subsidize healthy vegetables, and put a tax on harmful foods. People will soon switch if it hits them in the pocket

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

16. 16. kiteman 12:11 PM 4/21/12

    Hey, my comment disappeared!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

17. 17. kiteman 12:13 PM 4/21/12

    OK. It didn't! Sorry about that

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

18. 18. IslandGardener 02:44 AM 4/23/12

    How about taxing fossil fuel so that the crops which are grown in ways which produce lots of greenhouse gases don't get subsidised?
    That might also help encourage straightforward rainfed crops like fruit and veg grown in places with enough rain, relative to meat produced from maize (what we Brits call corn is wheat!) rather than grass.
    We're having the same debate in Britain. There's a good book on 'Food Policy: Integrating Health, Environment & Society' by Tim Lang, David Barling, Martin Caraher, 2009, Oxford University Press - see www.oup.com.
    
    I don't see the need for people to trade insults according to their beliefs. I'm a socialist and I'm proud to be one, and I get the impression that people who call other people 'socialist' as a term of abuse don't actually know what it means...

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

19. 19. j_fishman 05:42 PM 4/24/12

    I agree almost completely with Gaul. The original intent of those subsidies no longer applies. Stampsc, I believe, is right on in pointing out that a farm insurance plan does make sense. I also think that encouraging farmers to grow those crops that are more healthy is a positive move. A little "seed" money can go a long way. In that vein, it makes sense to take a look at the dictatorial way some seed companies do business.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

20. 20. Bob Grumman in reply to artubtu 02:49 PM 4/25/12

    Why have any subsidies?
    
    Sorry, I forgot that in a properly scientific nation, the citizen must not be allowed to choose what he puts into his body, or a farmer to decide how he runs his business.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

21. 21. bucketofsquid 04:19 PM 4/26/12

    AgTivist48 and Breezyslope make some very good points. I personally don't farm but I do believe that crop insurance is a good idea and subsidies are questionable.
    
    As I age and add weight I don't blame farm subsidies. I blame my failure to eat less and exercise more. I do avoid foods that should not have sugar added but do contain some form of sugar added. Beef jerky and blueberries come to mind as examples.
    
    As for blaming HFCS for autism, seriously? First it was toxic metal exposure, then environmental contaminants in general, then vaccines and then genetics and now corn. Just as a suggestion; why not wait until science proves the cause in repeatable, falsifiable experiments and then delivers a solution before proclaiming a possible factor as the ultimate reason? Italians also eat more fish and vegetables than Americans do. More of them live closer to active volcanoes. They are closer to the equator. More of them have Italian sounding names. None of this means anything until a repeatable set of experiments is developed and verified by third parties. Anything less is just superstition.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

22. 22. rhuber 06:26 PM 4/29/12

    Where to start? This article is so muddled that it is hard to comment rationally. For starters what thinking person can not agree with the author's overall thrust (I think) that farm subsidies should be abolished (or maybe he doesn't – he seems to just want the same subsidies for fruits & vegetables).
    
    The whole problem began with our founding fathers. To the convince the more rural states to approve the Constitution they devised a truly undemocratic system whereby each state, irrespective of its population, gets two Senators. So all the big farm states in the mid west get two, even Wyoming with 563 thousand inhabitants, North Dakota with 672K and South Dakota with 814K. The same number as does California with 37.3 million inhabitants or New York with 19.4 million. Amazing!
    
    Well guess where the farmers dominate? And where the majority of the consumers live? So we the consumers subsidize heavily the farmers, but mainly the big farmers (guess who contributes to those campaigns?) and what the author neglects to add, the huge cotton producers. So I doubt that we are going to see farm subsidies go away anytime soon!
    
    With respect to cheap corn, actually compared to historical levels it isn't all that cheap. What with equally illogical mandates to use larger & larger amounts of ethanol in gasoline – driven by the same Senators – it is way above historical levels. And as to all that corn syrup, well what do you expect when we have the highest price sugar in the world, again due to strict limits on how much cheap cane sugar can be imported from far more efficient producers in tropical regions of the globe. Who made those laws? You guessed it, the same Senators from the same sparsely populated states that produce beet sugar.
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

23. 23. Eco_steve 03:45 PM 5/2/12

    Diet is only a small part of the problem. To reduce obesity people desperately need exercise. This could be achieved by increasing tax on gasoline, as automobiles are the main reason why so many americans are obese, why crude oil is depleting fast and why co2 pollution is continuing to increase. All that is needed is a little common sense and many of the world's problems will disappear.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

24. 24. Sternberk 11:38 AM 5/29/12

    Are subsidies the issue, or going back to the example of potatoe chips that have a huge markup, but use virtually the entire tuber crop, andd that is largely a mechanized process from planting to the table, compared to carrots that are hand planted, picked, sorted, washed, packaged, and shipped and stored in refrigeration, after 70% of the tubers are discarded. Might that contribute to the difference?
    How about the publics demand for more potatoe chips, in those $1, 2oz. bags, that far exceeds their demand for carrots. Might that be the difference?
    Are there really any subsidizes that support potatoe chips, or are using the unmarketable potatoes to make chips a way of letting the marketplace subsidize one of our staples?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

25. 25. stellaF 01:57 AM 10/17/12

    I don't think unhealthy diet could be cheaper than to healthy ones. Fresh fruits and vegetables can be very cheaply for three seasons a year, if you are careful about shopping. Perhaps, you should try these <a href="http://personalmoneynetwork.com/moneyblog/2012/04/17/produce-costs/">Four ways to cut down on your produce costs</a>. First is growing your own vegetables. Second, Learn to love soups because it can make use lots of different vegetables as well as bits and pieces that you may not otherwise use. Third, Shop local markets because local sources cuts down on the number of middlemen, and therefore the cost of your produce. Last one is to eat more vegetables which keep you fuller and feeling more satisfied.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this