10-29-2015, 10:08 AM
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:
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.
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.
