Politics, News & Issues >
Food & Agriculture
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedDo agricultural subsidies make us fat?
Results so far:
| Yes | 46% | 13 votes | Total: 28 votes | |
| No | 54% | 15 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesYes, the very commodities that are subsidized; corn, soy, wheat, beef, etc. are the ones that are most harmful to our diets, and the earth.
Because these products are easily stored, transported and refined with other subsidized commodities, we wind up with unhealthy food which adds calories, but not nutrition.
Our healthiest diet is one that includes all types of whole and simple foods; vegetables, fruit, whole grains, and naturally raised meat and dairy. These were the heart and soul of the traditional American farm, diversified, serving their local communities.Traditio nally, consumers shopped at their markets and farms based upon the quality of the live animal, the cleanliness and firmness of the produce, and the attitude of the farmer. If consumers didn't like that produce or got sick, they didn't support that farmer again. With all the additives, and processing, it is impossible to determine the true condition of the raw ingredients.
Subsidiz ed industries have also figured out if they adulterate the food with sweeteners, or extra fats, we'll eat more, and they'll make more money, and product. Their bottom line is their profit margin, while the traditional farmer, which still exists, has their customer's satisfaction at heart, and the condition of his produce/livestock is part of that satisfaction.
It's only been since this last Farm Bill that producers of fruits, berries and produce have been eligible for any subsidies. Recently, the GAO published its findings that more than 2700 "farmers" making more than $2,500,000 each, received subsidies. Who were they? Primarily those involved in industrial farming, many of which were from grain rich KS, IL, IA, and CA, along with FL and TX.
Agribusiness makes more money if they adulterate a foodstuff to their point of making it unrecognizable. They relish the ignorant consumer who only shops with their wallet, or their immediate gratification. It is just that clientele that now suffers from obesity. Those are the children who are going to govern this country, while they build their brains on sodas and sweets, burgers and onion rings.
The influence of these subsidized industries has so permeated the Dept. of Agriculture that you need only look at past employment histories to see that the traditional farmer, sustainable farmer and/or organic farmer is not represented at the table. Indeed, programs such as the National Animal Identification System, to see that those very healthy farmers, are worked against in developing policy. At this Wiki Site you can see the list of organizations publicly supporting NAIS, and those publicly opposing it. It is these small farmers, heritage breeders, sustainable producers, that are not eligible for subsidies, yet grow the healthiest food, for us and for our planet.
If we are to have a healthier populations, and planet, our Farm Bill needs to support healthy choices, in purchasing and in producing. Grants need to go farm and nutrition education programs in all age groups, and to independent, small producers who support their neighbors. These are the ones which have the highest level of accountability, face to face connections with their customers, and with the food.
Learn more about this author, Patricia Stewart.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
The question misses the essential point of agricultural subsidies. Subsidies were not designed, as people might think, as a free handout to farmers in the worst spirit of pork-barrel spending. Subsidies are actually essential to the agricultural market as we understand it today.
Consider for a moment the average cost of a gallon of milk in America; roughly 3 - 4 dollars depending on if you buy organic or low fat or some such. Now, consider what goes into making that bottle of $3 milk. You need a cow, a cow that can still give milk. That cow needs to be raised on a steady diet of grass and other fodder in order to grow to the point where its useful. To milk it, you need special machines that do it efficiently. To transport the milk, you need refrigerated trucks, which are very expensive. With the cost of the cow, the land to raise the cow, the milking and the transportation, you're not looking at a very good return on that bottle of milk. Now, imagine having a herd of hundreds of cows, each one needing land to graze on, or food grown on some land for them to eat. Land is an increasingly valuable commodity, especially in regions where there is a shortage of housing. If a farmer can't make a profit, he will generally sell his land to a developer who in turn will build housing complexes. Now, left open to the free market, food prices would be remarkably low, enough so that very few farmers, especially small farmers, would be able to turn a profit. They'd go out of business and sell their land for development. Enough farmers do this and eventually the conditions that made food so cheap, namely, the abundance of it, will no longer be true as there will be fewer farmers and less food being grown. If less food is grown, the price of food will increase, but the land that formally was used to grow the crops or raise the animals would be developed. Now there's no way to get more food domestically, so it'll need to imported, raising the price and causing people to starve.
So, do subsidies make us fat? No. Subsidies keep produce and grain affordable so the economy can function. What makes us fat is what we then do with this produce. If, instead of making high fructose corn syrup to put in everything, we instead were to make food that was a bit healthier to eat, we wouldn't have people walking around with type two diabetes and a waste line that can be measured in feet instead of inches. Subsidies make food affordable, we take that and we use the food unintelligently or eat food that's of distressing low nutritional value. It's not the subsidies hurting us, its our bad planning and lack of concern for out own health.
Learn more about this author, Bryan Jennings.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Food & Agriculture
- Should meat, produce and nut food labels include place of origin for products, just like fish products?
- Should the FDA require US food manufactures to reveal if foods are genetically modified?
- Are China's agricultural practices a threat to world health?
- Should people eat only locally produced, organic food?
