I just came across this article that argues that one cause of rising obesity, especially among lower-income families, is farm subsidies. The key, it seems, is that the nature of farm subsidies has changed over time. They were once designed to keep prices artificially high, which of course, would have made food more expensive. The article says that today, by contrast, farm subsidies are tied to production, thus subsidizing increased output. The result is to drive down the price of the least healthful foods relative to others:
For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill. This resolutely unglamorous and head-hurtingly complicated piece of legislation, which comes around roughly every five years and is about to do so again, sets the rules for the American food system — indeed, to a considerable extent, for the world’s food system. Among other things, it determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root. Like most processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat — three of the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) 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.
Rather than the many silly ideas for combatting obesity that we often hear today, one would think that getting rid of farm subsidies for less-healthy foods would make sense, not to mention the budget savings. But I'm not holding my breath.
(When I initially posted this I had a grammatical glitch in the final paragraph which I have tried to remedy).
When it comes to the obesity "epidemic", less healthy, processed food is probably always going to be cheaper to consume due to economies of scale in production.
1) Big farm states with small populations are over-represented in the Senate.
2) Pro-subsidy forces channel vasat sums to politicians and their pet causes, to ensure support in DC. Anti-subsidy forces, not so much.
I think that in considering how legislation like this remains intact, one need not look any farther than the Senate. I know this is slightly off topic, though I clearly think it's related, but what are people's thoughts about the arguments posed by Sandy Levinson regarding the undemocratic nature of the Senate, and whether or not another constitutional convention should be held to address this, and other, flaws in the Constitution?
Can massive problems like the farm bill be addressed as long as small states have such a disproportionate amount of power, not to mention the incentives to entrench themselves in committees that pander to their local constituents' relatively homogenous preferences (thus killing any attempt to get a rational bill onto the floor)?
I intend this more as a normative question (i.e. not a feasibility question).
Amplifying Shelby's earlier answer to this question: Iowa, which is the largest corn producing state, also happens to be first state to vote in the presidential primaries.
I, despite having read the news profusely for the last 10 years for evidence of common sense among politicians and political views and having found none, still, still, I can not believe that no one in government can not forsee the problems with these kinds of programs.
It is here that I want to suggest reading some of Ron Paul of Texas. I don't agree with everything the man has to say but he does seem to be the only member of congress that as least "exhibits" signs of common sense and sanity.
Wait, those only exist at the McDonald's playland?
Farm subsidies have annoyed me ever since I learned that some people got paid to not grow things. That just seemed absurd to me.
As for Pelican's question, inertia is against making America truly democratic. The Constitution is intentionally undemocratic and intentionally difficult to change (especially when it would disenfranchise about 100 powerful politicians). Also, some believe our current system is better in principle, not just because they want keep their power or shift the balance of power. See, for instance, "What Happens on Election Day: Do we need a constitutional convention?" and "Regime Change" in the WSJ and "A Dubious Electoral Idea" in the WaPo (the latter two are primarily concerned with the electoral college, but many of the arguments are the same).
As Mr. Chestler said, there is a link between HFCS and diabetes: the liver does not process fructose (~55% of HFCS) in the same manner as sucrose and glucose.
It would be great to eliminate the farm subsidies; if we have to have them, why not redirect them towards fruits and vegetables, as fresh produce is too expensive for lower-class Americans to purchase?
She would probably add that we need to require clearer labeling so people will more readily distinguish the healthful food items from similar unhealthy ones--juice vs. juice cocktails, for instance, or meaningless "all natural" descriptions.
IIRC, the cost of the food raw materials for most processed food products (that is, the ingredients, not the packaging) is usually less than 10% of the retail price. I've also heard (and it seems correct) that the less expensive / lower quality a processed food product is, the lower the raw materials cost - not just in absolute terms, but as a percentage. One reason Twinkies are in every convenience store, while raw carrots are not, is that they don't require refrigeration and have a really long shelf life. Plus, the appeal to many people's taste, even if they aren't as healthy.
In other words, I am sceptical that farm subsidies on commodity crops like corn significantly affect the retail price of manufactured foods. Does anyone know of a reliable quantitative estimate on this, or can suggest a quick-and-dirty approximation?
I do take issue though with the contention (in the WSJ op-eds) that sober reflection on the anti-democratic institutional framework created by the Constitution is somehow partisan.
I think the farm bill serves as a good example here. Insofar as one recognizes the disastrous effects of that policy (read: fostering obesity, diabetes, and contributing enormously to our healthcare crisis), I don't see how acknowledging that the institution of the Senate is responsible for its resiliency and positing cogent arguments for eliminating it precisely because of its harmful effects can be categorized as partisan.
I agree that Levinson injects too much partisan politics into his writing (unfortunately, I think, since that will immediately render his writing unreadable to those with contrary political preferences), I think he does make some sound arguments that merit, if not demand, attention.
Not to mention the fact that these small state votes are so much cheaper to buy or trade for. The farm bill, I assume, has been kept alive precisely because of the disproportionate power of small states in legislative deal making.
note: I am pelican. I just didn't realize that my former moniker was anonymous, and I prefer not to post anonymously.
Better arguments remain.
Frank, the Senate has always been intentionally undemocratic for a reason. That reason is that the founding fathers had a healthy and justified fear of despotic majority. Majoritarian rule, facilitated by purely democratic institutions, can be more oppressive and dangerous to the citizenry than individual dictators. Because the Framers understood this, they decided that the Senate would represent the state governments such that each state would be treated equal. As others have mentioned, the electoral college was also a compromise in this direction.
Democracy is not a goal in and of itself. It is only useful as a tool to provide a framework for necessary protection of fundamental rights and to prevent the improper violation of those same rights. But it cannot do this all by itself.
Actually, corn prices have been increasing lately due to increased demand for corn as ethanol feedstock.
Big farm states with small populations are over-represented in the Senate.
I think it's got to be more than that, however. Farmers have disproporationate power in many countries, not just the U.S. -- the E.U. and Japan come to mind immediately -- and they don't all have the same structure as the U.S. Senate.
The author Michael Pollan is a big fan of local organic food for a variety of reasons. I like his book 'The Omnivore's Dilemma', I think he's an interesting writer and did some interesting research. But there was a chapter or two where I thought he was writing about topics he was much less familiar with (for instance the chapter on the ethics of eating).
Flipping through the book, I see he estimates that the total federal payments account for 'nearly half the income of the average Iowa corn farmer'. So assuming the price of corn doubling, with corn syrup doubling also, it's still hard to think the cost of a 2L Coke will go up that much. Corn syrup is still a small percentage of the total cost, right? I couldn't find it anywhere. (I'm still against the subsidy, but not sure how large a role it plays in obesity.) Here's an interesting comparison of cost of foods per calorie
Jeff Boghosian
we price them out of our big markets (and pay more for our own subsidized food), their economies don't grow and people live in poverty, they end up with no free market, bad governments and civil unrest that leads to destabilized international relations. i'm presenting this in a very simple form, but i think that our trade policy does a lot to hurt not just our own citizens through rising obesity, but also the entire world by distorting the international market for agriculture. and that will (and already is) coming back to bite us.
Prediction 2: Arguing that we’re subsidizing unhealthy foods will lead not to getting rid of the subsidies, but rather additional subsidies so that growers of healthy food can now get their “fair share”.
http://grist.org/news/maindish/2006/02/22/philpott
This same source says that Americans consume 60.4 lb of HFCS per year. HFCS Facts.com (the Corn Refiners Association) puts this number at 42.2 lb (allowing for losses in processing, transportation, distribution, etc). A bushel of corn weighs 56 lb. Assuming it takes 10 lb. of corn to produce one lb of HFCS (a wild guess, but it seems like a pretty high estimate) the commodity corn portion of the price of the HFCS we consumne comes to $22 per year, at most, compared to the $55 per year it'd be without subsidies. Net maximum effect of corn subsidies thus comes to $33 per year per capita in food costs.
I also saw a spokesman for Pepsi quoted as saying: “The cost of the sweetener in the product is extremely minimal to the point of not even mattering,”
http://ific.org/foodinsight/2007/jf/hfcsnytfi107.cfm
The Founders did have a fear of majority tyranny, but that's not the reason why we have an undemocratic Senate. That exists solely because the smaller (mostly Northern) states demanded it as the price of Union. It wasn't justified in either the Convention or the Federalist as a counter-majoritarian institution. Indeed, Madison refused to defend it at all in Federalist 62. At best, what you can say is that it represents a leftover from the "league" theory of the Articles of Confederation.
If farm subsidies are responsible for the high consumption of beef then why has per capita consumption of beef dropped 28% in the last 30 years ? It seems very difficult to link an increase in obesity to beef subsisdies when obesity rates increased while beef consumption rates have dropped.
What impact does the U S sugar import quota have on the price of corn syrup? The import quotas have resulted in relatively expensive sugar in the US. This was identified as one of the reasons coca cola shifted to corn syrup.
As a relative expert on the cost of a two liter bottle of diet coke I can reliably say that the cost of diet coke has been identical to the cost of coke over the last two decades. I do believe that no corn syrup was used in the production of diet coke.
The United Kingdom is facing a similar though lagging obesity epidemic and while the EU does have massive subsidies the subsidies predated the current problem.
It should be noted that there have been predictions that the obesity epidemic will even reach the shores of France by 2020.
Basically, the obesity problem has many sources. It is difficult for me to see farm subsidies as being one of them.
I've still got a few bottles of Passover Coke :-) (It tastes a lot better, but because it's so "rich" it isn't as thirst-quenching as the usual stuff.)
That was my understanding as well. Anyway, since it doesn't seem that my questions have drawn much traction aside from the predictable partisan reactions, I'll just stick to the farm bill issue. The only thing I will say is that the 'fear of a tyrannical majority' argument is unintelligible if the result is a (as I believe the farm bill reflects) a 'tyranny of the minority.' From what I understand, our system of bicameralism is pretty unique in the democratic world, and I don't see our counterparts up north or in europe in 'decline' because of their absence of undemocratic institutions like the Senate.
Allens:
Do you have a cite for the diminished per capita consumption of beef? I find that tough to swallow. Moreover, what difficulties do you find with the following logic: cheap, subsidized corn is sold cheaply to corporations who turn it into high calorie, low nutrition foods + bought by those unable to afford lower calorie, higher nutrition food = significant explanatory factor for the pervasiveness of obesity and diabetes in lower income populations. The fact that the most meaningful indicator of health/longevity relates to class seems to corroborate this. I also doubt that the obesity epidemic in the United States can meaningfully be compared to those of other nations - from what I've read and heard from physicians, the scale of our problem is unique and presents a crisis of monumental proportions for our healthcare system.
I realize I have no citations of my own here; this is merely what makes sense to me. Of course other sources for obesity abound (sedentary lifestyles, etc.), but I think the subsidy plays an undeniably huge role, and is disastrous domestic (and foreign) policy.
There are probably very good reasons to examine the subsidy program. However, are corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice less healthy foods? Less healthy than what?
Speaking only for myself, I didn't respond immediately to your comments about the Senate because I agree with you. I will probably add more if others try to defend it.
There's a great deal of evidence that these foods, especially in their refined form which most people eat, are less healthy than than either the unrefined products or vegetables. In particular, refining them takes away fiber and vitamins which then have to be added back in (or not, if it's a Twinkie you're after).
Although I heard this year chicken finally decreased.
First, the House has just as much influence on the farm bill as the Senate. Chair of the House Ag Committee - Colin Petersen a Democrat from Minnesota. For what its worth, Tom Harkin is the Chair of the Senate Ag committe, though when Republican's were in charge that seat was held by Thad Cochran (from Mississippi) and then most recently by Saxby Chambliss (from Georgia) neither of whom represents a "corn state". In any case, the poltiicians involved, simply don't care about other issues (which is a bit of a relief) and Republicans and Democrats all work side by side to advance their collective interest.
Heck, I'd say America would be doing a hell of a lot better if the rest of congress got along as well as the House and Senate Ag Committee members do.
Nope, the real reason corn (and the other commodity crops - soybeans, wheat, rice, cotton) do so well is because they are organized and focus on a single piece of legislation. Just because you (thats a collective you, directed towards any American complaining about the way the system is now set up) don't like the results, doesn't mean there is some notorious conspiracy going on. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, no one else ever really paid much attention outside of those five major commodity groups and their customers.
Frankly, now with the focus off of food and soley on fuel (ethanol) I think the situation is primed to be even worse. There was expected to be 90 million acreas of corn planted this year - a huge increase from past years - because everyone wants to take advantage of the $4 corn that ethanol has caused. Only problem is that if that much is planted, and many of the current ethanol plants don't come on line, the price is going to fall out the bottom and Congress will pay record LDPs (Loan Deficency Payments - its a subsidy that corn growers recieve when a bushel of corn falls below a certain price). No one is talking about it, cause they expect the problem to be on the meat side - all the corn bought up on contract to ethanol plants and nothing left to feed the livestock. It could go either way.
HFCS is made of fructose and glucose, just like sugar. The mix is basically the same.
Potatoes are not subsidized yet the consumption of potatoes has increased from 81 pounds per capita in 1960 to 142 pounds per capita in 1999. Why is this important? It shows that subsidization mdoes not be a drive food selection . Interestingly all the increase in potato consumption has been due to the increased consumption of frozen and processed potatoes.This is primarily due to the increase in consumption of fast food.
The impact of subsidies on rice production was reviewed in the Washington Post last summer
" In 1981, the Texas rice belt extended over about 600,000 acres. By last year, USDA records show, the amount of planted rice had shrunk to 202,000 acres, partly because landowners were able to get farm payments even if no rice was grown on their land"
So subsidies resulted in a decreased supply of rice. Rice not grown cannot cause obesity. It should be pointed out that the amount of money payed out as subsidies to rice farmers is about the same as the subsidies payed out to wheat farmers so it is a significant subsidy.
Th US pays out about $27 billion in food stamps. These are a consumer subsidy not a producer subsidy. Yet here there are restrictions on what it can be used for. I have seen people have items -generally processed food such as pre sweetened cheerios - set aside because they were not payed for by the food stamp program. This of course is and indirect subsidy to food producers.
A twelve ounce coca cola has 39 grams of fructose in a 12 ounce can -about 1.5 ounces . If you assume a cost of 13 cents a pound for corn syrup which is also about the current cost of sugar in countries which don't restrict imports the way the US does. The cost of the fructose is about 1.2 cents per can. A typical 12 ounce can costs the consumer about 26 cents when on sale or so the sweetner cost is about 5% of the total cost.
If you eliminated subsidies and sugar import quotas the cost would probably go up slighly but not ta degree that would affect consumer choice It should be pointed out that the cost has gone up about 22 cents a can last year in the last year.I guess this is due to increased fuel costs. Two years ago 18 cents a can was typical.
1)the example of potatoes shows that consumption of a significant food staple has ncreased dramatically in the last forty years.
2) It also shows that the increase has been in the area of prepared food — this means that people were capable of paying increased prices for the convenience the processing represents.
3) Consumption of a subsidized food (beef) has gone done significantly implying that the low subsidized price has been unsuccessful at increasing consumption.
4) For one of the most ubiquitous food(?) item coca cola the cost of subsidization has a marginal effect on the overall cost.
5) Increased obesity is a world wide problem. Even in India the incidence of obesity and its associated problems are an increased concern.
6) The cost of virtually every food commodity has decreased dramatically over the last quarter century.
7) Some subsidies serve to reduce production.
And for the record, is it just my experience that Twinkies taste differently from my youth? Am I wrong?
1. Imperfect information. It is rare to see a news report about ag subsidies that does not frame the discussion in terms of "saving the family farm". Most voters don't have any idea of how the system actually works and how destructive it is.
2. Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs have already been discussed.
3. Small component of total federal spending. When compared to the total budget ag subsidies are so small they are lost in the decimal places so to speak. Politicians look at the small amount of money involved and decide it is not that important of an issue.
If you go here USDA food consumption data You can build your own queries for food consumption. The results from this search closely agrees with what Allens reported.
It gives peak beef consumption of 89 pounds in 1976 and it has declined every year since then to a level of 62 pounds in 2005. That works out to about a 30 percent decline in beef consumption.
So, as beef consumption decreased obesity increased. Obviously the solution to the obesity problem is to increase beef consumption.
I say that in a flip fashion but that is how much reporting on diet and obesity is done these days.
This link provides a good illustration of some of the confounding issues.
Even with the mid-1990s push to cut dietary fat, added fats and oils accounted for an extra 216 calories per person per day--or 42% of the 523-calorie increase between 1970 and 2003. Grains and sugars contributed 188 and 76 added calories.
Obesity is a complex issue and the traditional approach has been to blame a disfavored food (for example beef) for all of the problem.
Unfortunately this approach requires ignoring the actual consumption data and all of the confounding issues.
I think you're right, and that public choice theory probably provides the most compelling explanatory device, at least politically (re: inertia). I was initially dubious as to Allens' statistics (his link was for Mississippi per capita consumption), but I checked out the make-your-own-chart USDA site and you are correct. The only thing I would add is that beef consumption has been stable since 1990 (hovering around 62 lbs.), so it's not quite accurate to say that it's been declining every year for the past thirty years.
Anyway, I really could care less about beef/potato/coke consumption individually. I think the thrust of Pollan's argument (I think his NY Times' articles, and Omnivore's Dillemma lay it out nicely) is that ag subsidies contribute to a particular mode of food production that is unsustainable, unhealthy and promises to bankrupt healthcare. This may sound like hyperbole, but my fiance who was a pediatrics resident is really concerned about it, as are our other physician/healthcare friends.
just thought i'd tack on some anecdotal evidence to boot.
Good points.
I wish more people who oppose subsidies would simply call for ending them. I believe Pollan is arguing for reforming subsidies which in my opinion is an unworkable. As long as subsidies exist they will eventually be captured by the traditional grain groups and return to status quo.
I am dubious of the connection between subsidies and obesity.
The subsidies have been around since the 1930s. Something changed in the 1980s that lead to increasing obesity and being that subsidies have always existed I think additional factors are required to explain the increases in obesity.
A big help would be if the government and activist groups would say over and over "Eat a moderate amount of a wide variety of foods".
At the molecular level nutrition is complicated and the continual emphasis on good foods and bad foods has the average consumer searching for a magic bullet instead of following a sensible diet.
It turns out there is a stunning lack of evidence that obesity screening and prevention programs are working. To be precise, there is no evidence that obesity screening and prevention programs aren't working, either: There's simply no evidence, period.
Another quote It appears a lot of people are flailing about on their favorite hobby horses when it comes to obesity. And all this flailing away has no evidence to help tell if the proposed interventions will work.
Farmers lobby for corn subsidies and price supports. They then overproduce corn because it is subsidized and has a price guarantee.
Cattle feeders then buy the subsidized, overproduced corn at market price. If cattle feeding did not exist the corn would still be overproduced. However, instead of feeding cattle the surplus grain would be disposed of by using it to fuel boilers or power plants.
I honestly don't understand how anyone can look at the current system and say beef production is subsidized. Especially since all of the subsidy money is given to the corn producers not the cattle feeders.