Driving to work the other day, I heard a story on NPR about eating healthy foods with a low income. The article mentions the following:
Elaine Livas, who runs Project SHARE, the local food pantry, says she sees it all time.
“A gallon of milk is $3-something. A bottle of orange soda is 89 cents,” she says. “Do the math.”
Livas says low-income families might know milk is better for their kids, but when it comes to filling a hungry stomach, a cheaper high-calorie option can look pretty good.
This quote led me to thinking about the relationship between eating good foods on a budget and the impact of the farm subsidies on encouraging the production of unhealthy food. After doing a bit of research, I found the following article in the New York Times, which discussed the changes to the farm subsidy in the 70′s. Apparently, instead of lending farmers money to keep their grain off of the market until prices rose, the government now provides a direct subsidy to the farmers, effectively incentivizing the production of corn for products like high-fructose corn syrup and ethanol. The article goes on to state:
But as we’re beginning to recognize, our cheap-food farm policy comes at a high price: first there’s the $19 billion a year the government pays to keep the whole system afloat; then there’s the economic misery that the dumping of cheap American grain inflicts on farmers in the developing world; and finally there’s the obesity epidemic at home — which most researchers date to the mid-70′s, just when we switched to a farm policy consecrated to the overproduction of grain. Since that time, farmers in the United States have managed to produce 500 additional calories per person every day; each of us is, heroically, managing to pack away about 200 of those extra calories per day. Presumably the other 300 — most of them in the form of surplus corn — get dumped on overseas markets or turned into ethanol.
Cheap corn, the dubious legacy of Earl Butz, is truly the building block of the ”fast-food nation.” Cheap corn, transformed into high-fructose corn syrup, is what allowed Coca-Cola to move from the svelte 8-ounce bottle of soda ubiquitous in the 70′s to the chubby 20-ounce bottle of today. Cheap corn, transformed into cheap beef, is what allowed McDonald’s to supersize its burgers and still sell many of them for no more than a dollar. Cheap corn gave us a whole raft of new highly processed foods, including the world-beating chicken nugget, which, if you study its ingredients, you discover is really a most ingenious transubstantiation of corn, from the cornfed chicken it contains to the bulking and binding agents that hold it together.
So, at this point, the government is encouraging the production of food that is having an unhealthy effect on society. While it may seem like we are able to get our hands on cheaper food, we are eating more of this cheaper food simply because it is available. These cheaper foods that we eat more of tends to make us, as a nation, fatter. The higher-quality foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables and dairy are not being subsidized (or not as heavily in the case of dairy), so the consumer cost is higher. Now, for me personally, the cost does not make that big of a difference. However, look back to that family in the first article. Since the orange soda is so much cheaper than the milk, that is what is being purchased when you are on a budget.
What can be done to offset this behavior? Well, I am not an economist, but I play one on T.V. and I can think of two corrections that could be made. One, reduce or eliminate the subsidies on grains and allow the prices on those foods to increase naturally. Then, subsidize fresh fruit and vegetables. This will encourage the large farms to begin producing those in greater amounts, since it will be more profitable for them. As the supply increases, the price should drop. Second, I would look at modifying the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program to increase the purchasing power of food stamps for healthier foods. In other words, track what is purchased through SNAP and reward purchases of healthy food by increasing the benefit for families that are purchasing healthy foods. Drop the benefit (obvious not below a certain level) for families that choose health-poor foods.
I am sure that there are downsides to both of the suggestions that I made — someone, please point them out to me in the comments.
Popularity: unranked [?]
An industrial process could probably be created to turn just about any carbohydrate into simple sugar, so subsidizing a different crop would have an effect only as long as it takes factories to retool. Wikipedia points out another factor promoting corn syrup is high US tariffs on imported sucrose.
The main reason that the farm subsidies stay in place is because of non-proportional representation in the Senate. I am generally in favor of that, but this is an unfortunate consequence.
I think that your suggestions for modifying SNAP are definitely worth considering. After having spent two years, though, trying to change Sean’s and my eating habits to be more whole foods and less processed, I have to admit it’s an uphill battle even with us wanting to make the change. I can’t imagine trying to change a child’s eating habits when they’ve been raised on health poor but well advertised foods. We have to start somewhere, though, and that’s a good place to start.
On further reflection, I have realized that the changes I talked about to the SNAP reminded me a lot of grocery store “advantage” programs for tracking purchasing. Just think how much the government could offset the cost of SNAP by selling the purchasing habits to people on the program to advertisers. Really, I am just kidding with that, but it was a thought that crossed my mind in a semi-serious fashion for a few minutes.