Food, agriculture, and government

[Belsnickel]

So, I was reading an article called Freedom From Fries after hearing an interview with the author. I've got the links there in case anyone wishes to read them or listen. It's more about the changing landscape of fast food.

Anyway, this interaction in the interview for me thinking:

Quote:SHAPIRO: And you write that in the United States today, you can sell meals for a dollar, or you can sell nutritious meals. Doing both on a large scale is not possible. Explain why fries and cheeseburgers can be a dollar but a big, filling salad cannot.

SPECTER: Because the government of the United States help fries and cheeseburgers be a dollar by subsidizing the things that make them cheap - soybean, corn - so that animals can be fed very cheaply and we can have mass-produced meat. And potatoes can be grown very cheaply, and oil is dirt-cheap. And those things are cheap because we subsidize farmers who grow those things. We do not subsidize farmers who grow asparagus.

SHAPIRO: So if this is a tug-of-war between the unhealthy, for the most part, fast food restaurants and they healthier, for the most part, fast casual restaurants, it sounds like, in this tug-of-war, the government is pulling on the side of the fast food.

SPECTER: Oh, they're not - they're all in on the side of fast food.

SHAPIRO: (Laughter).

SPECTER: And not only that. The government isn't the government because if you look at the Public Health Service and what they say and what they want you to do, it's pretty reasonable. It just happens to be the opposite of what the agricultural department says and wants you to do. So we're really not in a position to live the life that our public health officials tell us to live unless we work really hard at it and want to spend some extra money.

Now, I've railed against farm subsidies a number of times, but the truth is a much more complicated matter. The article Mr. Specter wrote points out that we spend less, relatively speaking, on our food than other nations. That because of these subsidies, the percentage we spend from our paychecks on our food has decreased from over half to about 6%. This is a huge thing for us, but there are a few questions I have to ask in regards to this.

1. We may be paying less at the grocery store, but aren't we still paying it with our taxes, anyway? Just making it a hidden cost instead of up front?

2. Why are we subsidizing the things that are more about making meat and oil cheap? Why don't we subsidize the farmers producing food that is more healthful than what we do now?

3. Should we change where we direct farm subsidies or should we rid ourselves of them entirely? Do we want to make attempts to put our money where our mouth is, so to speak? Or should we allow for prices to rise instead and put it all on more equal footing and let the market determine what is worth more?

4. Is our culture too far gone to make these changes and actually have a decent impact on our public health?

Just some things I thought would be a good discussion. If, you know, we can have a good discussion around these parts.

[fredtoast]

Farm subsidies are a big political issue that don't get a lot of conversation because no one wants to be "against the American farmer". The fact is that most of them need to go away. Large corporate food producers receive most of these benefits. In fact the whole idea that we could use corn to make fuel was nothing but a big payout to corporate farmers who receive large subsidy payments.

However, when it comes to fast food burgers and fries I have to point out that the government does not subsidize either beef or potato growers. And just making healthy food a little cheaper will not help it compete with fast food.

[Belsnickel]

(10-29-2015, 10:30 AM)fredtoast Wrote: However, when it comes to fast food burgers and fries I have to point out that the government does not subsidize either beef or potato growers. And just making healthy food a little cheaper will not help it compete with fast food.

Potatoes aren't subsidized, but beef is through the feed. The stuff going into the feed is subsidized, making the feed cheaper and thus the costs are reduced for the beef farmers.

[RoyleRedlegs]

Always makes me laugh when you see Government wanting to tax big sugary drinks and the ilk, while subsidizing corn that makes those drinks so incredibly cheap and unhealthy...talk about double dipping

[fredtoast]

My understanding of government farm subsidies was that they originally were put in place to protect farmers from times when the weather would destroy their crops. That sounds like a good thing for the government to do. But know it is mostly just writing a bunch of huge checks to large corporations.

[StLucieBengal]

I am ok cutting these benefits . The farmers need to adapt.

Price of food increasing isn't going to bother me either.

[*michaelsean*]

I don't get a double quarter pounder and fries because it's cheaper than a salad. (It's not any way) I get it because that's what I want to eat. And if you look at what goes for $1.00, it's not much food.

[Belsnickel]

(10-29-2015, 11:19 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't get a double quarter pounder and fries because it's cheaper than a salad. (It's not any way) I get it because that's what I want to eat. And if you look at what goes for $1.00, it's not much food.

I do always find it interesting when they talk about this being cheaper than that when you look at menu prices and it shows a different story. I think a lot of that may have to do with the calculation they use. For instance, if they specified that when they mean that food x is cheaper than food y because the price per 100 kcal or whatever calculates to z, then it would be a better explanation of their findings. Since kcal is the standard for food energy and is typically used for measuring things like that, I am assuming that is their measure. Why they leave that ambiguous is beyond me. Also, I think it would be interesting for a different measure to crop up. Something taking into account all of the nutritional variables. That'd probably be extremely complex, though.

[JustWinBaby]

[Aquapod770]

(10-29-2015, 11:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: My understanding of government farm subsidies was that they originally were put in place to protect farmers from times when the weather would destroy their crops.  That sounds like a good thing for the government to do.  But know it is mostly just writing a bunch of huge checks to large corporations.

While I agree that giving huge checks out to big corporations is a problem, there are still a lot of "small farms" all across america.  Some of these people could lose their entire income if mother nature decides to not rain for a week. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-29-2015, 10:26 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote:

Which was a step in the right direction, but is still $40.1 billion too much for commodities.