David Sirota: Why Americans Can't Afford to Eat Healthy

[marmar]

via CommonDreams:



Published on Friday, July 15, 2011 by Salon.com

Why Americans Can't Afford to Eat Healthy
The real reason Big Macs are cheaper than more nutritious alternatives? Government subsidies

by David Sirota


The easiest way to explain Gallup's discovery that millions of Americans are eating fewer fruits and vegetables than they ate last year is to simply crack a snarky joke about Whole Foods really being "Whole Paycheck." Rooted in the old limousine liberal iconography, the quip conjures the notion that only Birkenstock-wearing trust-funders can afford to eat right in tough times.

It seems a tidy explanation for a disturbing trend, implying that healthy food is inherently more expensive, and thus can only be for wealthy Endive Elitists when the economy falters. But if the talking point's carefully crafted mix of faux populism and oversimplification seems a bit facile -- if the glib explanation seems almost too perfectly sculpted for your local right-wing radio blowhard -- that's because it dishonestly omits the most important part of the story. The part about how healthy food could easily be more affordable for everyone right now, if not for those ultimate elitists: agribusiness CEOs, their lobbyists and the politicians they own.

As with most issues in this new Gilded Age, the tale of the American diet is a story of the worst form of corporatism -- the kind whereby the government uses public monies to protect private profit.

In this chapter of that larger tragicomedy, lawmakers whose campaigns are underwritten by agribusinesses have used billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidize those agribusinesses' specific commodities (corn, soybeans, wheat, etc.) that are the key ingredients of unhealthy food. Not surprisingly, the subsidies have manufactured a price inequality that helps junk food undersell nutritious-but-unsubsidized foodstuffs like fruits and vegetables. The end result is that recession-battered consumers are increasingly forced by economic circumstance to "choose" the lower-priced junk food that their taxes support. .........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/15-5

[Lucinda]

1. Bookmarking to read after dinner.

Thank you!

[LibwithGuns]

2. People in 3ed World Countries

eat better than most Americans.

We eat way to much meat and processed food

[graywarrior]

3. Check out this website for food markets that may service your area

http://wholesomewave.org

They supply double coupons for use at various markets. These markets accept food stamps.

[Gabi Hayes]

5. thanks for that. organic food where I live is from 50-150% more than

the other stuff, and I go back and forth between

It's a lot easier to afford, though, when I quit eating fast food/processed food, which I've been doing lately

Trader Joe's, along with two local markets, has the most reasonably priced organics around where I live

Saturday farmers' market doesn't have much organic, and it's VERY expensive

[graywarrior]

6. Then this site might interest you

http://www.organicconsumers.org/

[Gabi Hayes]

8. thanks again! I belonged to a CSA a few years ago, but I couldn't get

anyone to go in on it with me, and it was too wasteful, as I didn't have preservation capability

they had some nice food, though

here's the guy who started it:




http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/realdirt/

they had a documentary on him at PBS a few years back; that's how I found out about them. quite a story. I went to the farm to see what was what, and was very impressed

[graywarrior]

20. Thanks for that. I didn't know about him.

[pipoman]

4. Another spin on

farm subsidies = farm welfare....drivel

[Gabi Hayes]

7. are you frickin' serious??? who do you think gets the lion's share of fed subsidies?

small farmers are being driven out of business by just this sort of thing. industrial farms ARE getting billions in government subsidies, which DO represent corporate welfare

wise up

start here:

http://progressive.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/article.php?article_id=315&archive=1

..........In the late 20th and early 21st century, ideals of free trade, as manifested through the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund, pushed developing countries to reduce their subsidies. Because of Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP), whenever a third world country gets a loan from the IMF or World Bank, it must to remove nearly all of its subsidies. The US has not substantially reduced its agriculture subsidies, and every six or so years it renews them in the farm bill. Many other industrialized nations have reduced, though not removed, their subsidies.


.......................


The farms that benefit from US subsidies are the ones that can afford large scale agriculture. In the 30s, a quarter of the US was in the agricultural sector. Now, that number is closer to one fiftieth. Agricultural power is becoming more and more concentrated, and small farmers are driven out of business. The biggest 10% of farms receive 74% of all US agricultural subsidies.

These big farms are not the most efficient method of agricultural production: if anything, small farms should be subsidized to protect them from big farms. One category for subsidization in the US farm bill is “Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations” – factory farms. The low prices achieved by mass slaughterhouses are not wholly the result of technologies and inhumane practices. Factory farms are subject to fewer health and environmental standards than other farms even as they have worse environmental and health effects. The companies that own factory farms are vertically integrated; they also own the farms that produce the feed for the cows and chickens, so they do not have to engage in normal market competition for the purchase of supplies. The numbers show this: when factory farms first began taking over pig production, about half of independent farmers had lower production costs than factory farms. After the factory farms established themselves, they pushed the independent farmers with higher production costs out of the market. As a result, the factory farms had enough market power to displace even the farmers who produced at lower costs. In other words, agricultural subsidies are promoting an industry that has enough market power to support itself rather than the more efficient, less self-sufficient small farms.

The goal of subsidies is to sponsor an industry that would be good for society even though it can’t survive on its own. That was the case with agricultural subsidies in the early history of many industrial nations, and it is the case with subsidies in the third world today, but it is not the case with the current US agricultural subsidies. Subsidies lower the prices of industries that work against the common good rather than supporting the small farmers that need help, and they prevent sustainable development of agriculture in the third world. There is still recourse. We can reform the farm bill. The next time it’s up for a vote (or now!), call your senators and representatives to tell them that you do not support subsidization of inhumane agribusiness. Send a signal with your purchases.

[pipoman]

9. farm subsidies are available to all sizes of farm operations

Corporate farming is a separate issue.

Farm subsidies are payment for government control of private enterprise. Subsidies pay farmers to grow specific products in specific amounts. Without subsidies, farmers, as other business owners can and will grow what they want in what ever quantities they want, just as you would do in their position. The government tells farmers to grow x number of acres of x product...in return we will insure that the price for your product will be $x. This system makes overall farm production predictable. Without such a system, farm product consumers are at the mercy of quasi farm cartels. If, for instance, corn prices dropped due to a glut this year, next year the corn growers association would strongly urge corn growers to reduce production next year, driving the price up, resulting in the same or greater profits for producers with less work and less up front expense in seed, fertilizer, fuel, and equipment costs...it would be a no brainer from a producer standpoint.

Another function of subsidies has been soil conservation and wildlife management. The references to 'paying farmers not to grow', refers to programs like the CRP program. This program pays a similar rate per acre for land which must be planted into high quality forage capable of supporting a variety of birds and other wildlife. Additionally, CRP grasses renew the soil. Without those programs, farmers will farm every acre of their ground, 'from ditch bank, to ditch bank' as they used to say.

Expect dramatic price fluctuation in farm commodities and increased costs of fulfilling trade agreements with other nations..this alone may exceed the cost of subsidies. The US makes multi-year agreements for trade of ag products with other nations. Those agreements have set quantities and prices. Without control of production, these contracts will be at the same place consumers will be..that is not knowing the volume of production. A year which is a low production in attempt to raise prices could cost our government a ton of money to fulfill the existing agreements.

People not near the farm industry often are clueless about the costs and risks associated with farming. It is a very expensive business wrought with potential pitfalls. Farmers will survive without subsidies.

[Gabi Hayes]

12. I'm very well aware of the plight of the small scale farmer, and it seems you missed my point:

where does the great majority of the subsidy money go?

you argue in favor of the small farmer, with which I couldn't more heartily agree, but your statement that subsidies help the small scale farmer compete against the 'cartels' is fine in theory, except it doesn't work.

if it did, the small farm wouldn't be vanishing the way it is, and free trade is doing to the small farms what it's done to the US manufacturing sector. what you've said about world trade agreements is exactly what's killing the small farmer, as he falls prey to the economies of scale and international power politics

as in most other areas of economic endeavor, those with concentrated wealth/power eliminate the smaller competitors, leaving us with what we have

that said, if you're a small scale farmer, I only wish you good luck.

[pipoman]

21. You have missed the point..

I am not stating, "but your statement that subsidies help the small scale farmer compete against the 'cartels' is fine in theory,". I am stating that without the benefit of subsidies, farmers large and small, will grow from a probable net profit perspective through collective thought in the form of such groups as US corn producers associations to manipulate commodity prices, thus the cartel I was suggesting.

Subsidies are paid based on acreage so larger operations do collect more than smaller. Further, not every crop earns a subsidy. For instance, this year corn prices are high. Producers who have good crops will not likely collect at the high end of the payment scale, my FIL has had a horrible year with 0 rain at crucial times, he tilled his entire corn crop last week, he will collect some government money to compensate. This is why he agrees to grow specific crops in specific quantities..in return for guaranteed price on years which may be a glut due to widespread high yields, as well as protection from natural disaster.

[hfojvt]

10. just as I thought - Sirota is a city kid

born in New Haven and grew up in Philadelphia.

Farm subsidies come from places like Iowa, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska. Places where there are lots of farmers, and the small towns who depend on those farmers. Their votes matter at least as much as the donations of agribusiness. That's why you have progressives like Harkin and probably Dayton and Feingold voting for them, as well as Democrats from the Dakotas and Nebraska.

Unfortunately, an anti-welfare and pro-market ideology has made it so most of the benefits of the subsidies goto larger and more corporate farms, but they still are often supported by a lot of small farmers too.

[pipoman]

13. So many hear about China agreeing to buy tons

of US farm products, yet fail to realize the impact these purchases can have on production, and ultimately their box of corn flakes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303654804576347763131717884.html

Metro people often look down their noses at the 'fly over country', it is a joke out here in fly over country. Who feeds the masses? Concrete and high rises will not feed the masses.

[LeftyMom]

16. The problem is priorities.

Very little money goes toward reducing the costs of foods that we need Americans to eat more of (namely fruits and vegetables,) while a great deal goes to foods that are associated with poor health outcomes when eaten in large quantities, or to growing feed used to produce them.

[cali]

11. Let me add to your theme with this NPR piece about my town that ran today

The town of Hardwick, Vt., has been celebrated as the scene of a local food revival. In recent years, lots of small farms have started up nearby.

Tom Stearns, president of a local organic seed company called High Mowing Seeds, says there are more organic farms per capita within 10 miles of Hardwick than anywhere else in the world. There's also a thriving local grocery co-op; a busy farmer's market; even a classy restaurant — Claire's — where almost anything you eat grew or grazed on land nearby.
Ben Hewitt, the author of The Town That Food Saved: How One Community Found Vitality in Local Food, lives on a family farm in Cabot, Vt.
Becky Lettenberger/NPR

Ben Hewitt, the author of The Town That Food Saved: How One Community Found Vitality in Local Food, lives on a family farm in Cabot, Vt.

But it was Ben Hewitt, as much as anyone, who really put Hardwick and its local food scene on the map. He's a writer and a back-to-the-land activist himself. He lives on 40 acres near Cabot, down the road from Hardwick, with his wife, their two home-schooled children, and an assortment of pigs, cows and a very friendly dog named Daisy.

Hewitt saw what was happening in Hardwick, and it struck him as unusual, even odd. "Here's this town: Unemployment rate 40 percent higher than the Vermont state average; median income 25 percent lower; and then there was this thing happening around so-called sustainable ag and local food!" Hewitt says. So Hewitt wrote a book about Hardwick: The Town That Food Saved.

Students Weigh In

But did food really save Hardwick? At the local high school, Hazen Union, some students in senior-level English classes have been reading and discussing Hewitt's book as a class assignment. They don't think it tells the whole story.

"He only covers one side of the town," says Derek Demers. "There's the side of the town that's for the local food movement, but I think there's an even greater side of the town, with more people, that can't afford the local food. I work at our local supermarket grocery store, and I see most of the people in town there."

<snip>

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/137499585/vermont-towns-food-focus-still-a-growing-concept

[Gabi Hayes]

14. that's very nice; wish I lived there. "Farmer John" had a quite different experience when he

took over his father's farm

the neighboring farmers hated him, and even burned him out!

he left for awhile, then came back, and made the place what it is now:

http://www.angelicorganics.com/ao/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=148&Itemid=182

[cali]

18. yikes. In my town the local organic farmers have a slow lending circle

and even pool equipment. When Pete's main barn burned down virtually the entire state pitched in to raise money for the farm. And I'm not exaggerating.

[KittyWampus]

15. Beans & Rice & Onions ARE CHEAP. It's not healthy food is too expensive. It's people forgot how to

cook healthy food.

[cali]

19. that's true to some extent but misses the boat

fresh vegetable and fruits are expensive and organic products are generally very expensive. yes, you can eat without fresh fruits and veggies, no it's not particularly healthy to do so.

[KittyWampus]

22. Sorry, but bean and rice will sustain you for very little leaving enough for some veggies.

A bag of onions, carrots, apples potatoes.

The only times this doesn't apply is in inner cities where there aren't food stores near by.

[sammytko]

23. exactly - majority of people do not cook at home

I have a friend who owns a seafood/steak place. She never cooks at home. Of course she is tired of cooking, but every meal she eats or feeds her kid is McDonalds and other such things. I don't think the food she serves at her restaurant is healthy either - but I do not tell her that. Its chicken fried steaks and fried fish - what people down here call good home cooking. And its BAD for you.

Our local mexican eateries are packed to the gills with people eating thier breakfast tacos. I try to limit my intake of those tasty morsels to once a week at most. Its just bad for you.

If you stick to the basics, you can cut down on your grocery bill and still eat well.

I think we've also gotten used to shoveling in huge portions, so you think you have to buy tons of food to feed your family. I grew up with 5 brothers. Yes, they ate a lot, but we ate lots of beans and rice and potatoes.

[azul]

17. The Fast Food Nation story of 2001.

A needed follow-up story would be big pharma and the medical industry making hay out of treating all these diseases that this unhealthy diet produces.

There are no incentives to cure diseases and produce healthy chow, in fact quite the opposite.