There is no dearth of policy options. Research groups such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in Princeton, N.J., recommend leveling the playing field by extending subsidies and insurance programs more widely to fruit and vegetable producers. The government can also use its own purchasing power, through school lunch programs and institutional buying decisions, to fill people’s plates with healthy choices. The imperative, however, is clear: any new farm bill should at the very least remove the current perverse incentives for people to eat unhealthily.
This article was published in print as "Fresh Fruit, Hold the Insulin."
Subscribe
Buy This Issue
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
25 Comments
Add CommentI'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.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm also a tired of reading "solutions" that ALWAYS mean HIGHER prices. How 'bout we look for solutions that might bring prices down, instead?
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.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs 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.
Time to end this socialist habit of giving money left and right to people that don't need or deserve it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLooks 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.
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.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCorn 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.
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 thisWe 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 thisI 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.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'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.
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.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe 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.
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 thisAs 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.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne 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.
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 thisRdevaugh, 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 thisas 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 thisI 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.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, 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
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 thisHey, my comment disappeared!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK. It didn't! Sorry about that
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about taxing fossil fuel so that the crops which are grown in ways which produce lots of greenhouse gases don't get subsidised?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat 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...
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 thisWhy have any subsidies?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, 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.
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.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs 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.
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).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 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.
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 thisAre 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?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow 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?
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