Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Government Subsidizing Obesity

Here’s a very important article in the NY Times Magazine about how the government spends over $25 billion of our tax money to subsidize the worst food we can eat and artificially inflate the prices of foods that are good for us. It begins with a description of how much cheaper crap is than good food, as shown by a University of Washington researcher:

Drewnowski gave himself a hypothetical dollar to spend, using it to purchase as many calories as he possibly could. He discovered that he could buy the most calories per dollar in the middle aisles of the supermarket, among the towering canyons of processed food and soft drink. (In the typical American supermarket, the fresh foods — dairy, meat, fish and produce — line the perimeter walls, while the imperishable packaged goods dominate the center.) Drewnowski found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips, he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice.

And then explains one of the big reasons why this is the case:

This perverse state of affairs is not, as you might think, the inevitable result of the free market. Compared with a bunch of carrots, a package of Twinkies, to take one iconic processed foodlike substance as an example, is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture, involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots?

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.

A public-health researcher from Mars might legitimately wonder why a nation faced with what its surgeon general has called “an epidemic” of obesity would at the same time be in the business of subsidizing the production of high-fructose corn syrup. But such is the perversity of the farm bill: the nation’s agricultural policies operate at cross-purposes with its public-health objectives. And the subsidies are only part of the problem. The farm bill helps determine what sort of food your children will have for lunch in school tomorrow. The school-lunch program began at a time when the public-health problem of America’s children was undernourishment, so feeding surplus agricultural commodities to kids seemed like a win-win strategy. Today the problem is overnutrition, but a school lunch lady trying to prepare healthful fresh food is apt to get dinged by U.S.D.A. inspectors for failing to serve enough calories; if she dishes up a lunch that includes chicken nuggets and Tater Tots, however, the inspector smiles and the reimbursements flow. The farm bill essentially treats our children as a human Disposall for all the unhealthful calories that the farm bill has encouraged American farmers to overproduce.

And the disasterous consequences of such subsidies doesn’t stop there. The damage is literally worldwide:

To speak of the farm bill’s influence on the American food system does not begin to describe its full impact — on the environment, on global poverty, even on immigration. By making it possible for American farmers to sell their crops abroad for considerably less than it costs to grow them, the farm bill helps determine the price of corn in Mexico and the price of cotton in Nigeria and therefore whether farmers in those places will survive or be forced off the land, to migrate to the cities — or to the United States. The flow of immigrants north from Mexico since Nafta is inextricably linked to the flow of American corn in the opposite direction, a flood of subsidized grain that the Mexican government estimates has thrown two million Mexican farmers and other agricultural workers off the land since the mid-90s. (More recently, the ethanol boom has led to a spike in corn prices that has left that country reeling from soaring tortilla prices; linking its corn economy to ours has been an unalloyed disaster for Mexico’s eaters as well as its farmers.) You can’t fully comprehend the pressures driving immigration without comprehending what U.S. agricultural policy is doing to rural agriculture in Mexico.

And though we don’t ordinarily think of the farm bill in these terms, few pieces of legislation have as profound an impact on the American landscape and environment. Americans may tell themselves they don’t have a national land-use policy, that the market by and large decides what happens on private property in America, but that’s not exactly true. The smorgasbord of incentives and disincentives built into the farm bill helps decide what happens on nearly half of the private land in America: whether it will be farmed or left wild, whether it will be managed to maximize productivity (and therefore doused with chemicals) or to promote environmental stewardship. The health of the American soil, the purity of its water, the biodiversity and the very look of its landscape owe in no small part to impenetrable titles, programs and formulae buried deep in the farm bill.

The farm bill is up for renewal this summer. Let’s put some serious pressure on Congress to stop this madness.


  1. #1 FishyFred
    April 30, 2007

    Now I feel even worse about pigging out during the NFL draft.

  2. #2 Markk
    April 30, 2007

    So with all the high prices from ethanol and biodiesel based on corn and soy we ought to see the farm bill subsidies come way down for those crops. Cool… well we’ll wait and see.

  3. #3 Stuart Coleman
    April 30, 2007

    The commentary that I’ve seen about this has usually said that killing it will be difficult (the rationale I remember is because of the importance of the Iowa caucus). The piece seems to have stirred up some outrage, especially on the internet, but I’m not sure that can be channeled into useful outcomes. I have a feeling that this is one of those pieces of legislation that has too many powerful backers to ever truly die.

  4. #4 Jason I.
    April 30, 2007

    Rather than have it killed off, I’d like to see the bill get altered to subsidize fresh produce, and stop subsidizing the high fructose corn syrup market.

    Say what you want about getting a salad from McDonald’s, but it’s ridiculous that I can get a double quarter pounder, large fries and large coke for less than a salad and a bottle of water.

  5. #5 Pokerwolf
    April 30, 2007

    So with all the high prices from ethanol and biodiesel based on corn and soy we ought to see the farm bill subsidies come way down for those crops.

    Wrong. More and more farmers will grow those crops to cash in on the increased demand.

  6. #6 Ginger Yellow
    April 30, 2007

    Drewnowski found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips, he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice.

    This seems like something of an unreasonable comparison. You don’t eat carrots or orange juice for calories. Surely a more sensible comparison would be the $1 RDA% for whatever the products are rich in – calories for cookies, sugar for coke, and vitamins for carrots.

  7. #7 Perry Willis
    April 30, 2007

    I hope those of Ed’s readers who think the federal government, taken as a whole, does more good than harm, will make sure to add this one to their mental ledger as a big liability.

    Add up all the costs and all the benefits of all federal programs and I think you’ll find that, on balance, the top level of our government does a lot more harm than good. Throw in an accounting that includes alternative uses of the resources the federal government consumes and the balance sheet becomes truly frightening.

  8. #8 Keanus
    April 30, 2007

    The use of alcohol to offset oil imports is a classic case on nonsense. It was promoted just like the Iraq War, on false premises. The real reason has been the heavy lobbying of Archer, Daniels, Midland, the world’s largest producer of alcohol and processor of corn, who wanted a bigger market for its products. And it didn’t hurt ADM that it could hide behind helping the iconic “American Farmer” at the same time. No one wants to harm that farmer, even though they make up less than five percent of the work force now and are mostly quite wealthy.

  9. #9 Troublesome Frog
    April 30, 2007

    I was always simply amazed by the fact that our recommended daily allowances of foodstuffs were determined by our Department of Agriculture rather than something like the NIH. It sounds kind of like having our fuel policies dictated by the Department of Transportation instead of the Department of Energy.

New comments have been disabled.