U.S. Farm Subsidy Policies Contribute to Worsening Obesity Trends
July 27, 2013
Story at-a-glance
A new study highlights how agricultural subsidies that favor
corn, soy and grains are fueling the obesity epidemic, putting
small farms out of business and discouraging sustainable,
biodiverse farming
Farm subsidies are no longer based on need; mega-farms receive
an annual fixed cash payment based upon the number of acres on
the farm, which are given whether they need them or not
Large corporate farms receive the majority of farm subsidies
while the bulk of small farmers receive little or none
Farm subsidies are already in the budget; redesigning the system
to provide incentives to farmers growing healthy crops and using
sustainable farming methods may help fight obesity and protect
the environment
By Dr. Mercola
Agricultural policies in the US are contributing to the poor
health of Americans, and, specifically, government-issued
agricultural subsidies are worsening the US obesity epidemic,
concluded a new study in the American Journal of Preventive
Medicine.1
At the root of the issue?
“Government-issued payments have skewed agricultural
markets toward the overproduction of commodities that are
the basic ingredients of processed, energy-dense foods,”
the researchers wrote.
This includes corn, wheat, soybeans and rice, which are the
top four most heavily subsidized foods.
By subsidizing these, particularly corn and soy, the US
government is actively supporting a diet that consists of these
grains in their processed form, namely high fructose corn syrup
(HFCS), soybean oil, and grain-fed cattle – all of which are now
well-known contributors to obesity and chronic diseases.
Despite this widespread knowledge, public health officials
have had little to say about this agricultural practice, yet it
seems quite clear that they should. With the 2013 Farm Bill set
to be finalized by the end of September 2013, this could be a
key time to implement important policy changes in the near
future.
The Farm Subsidy Program Is Junk — Literally
The US farm subsidy program is upside down, subsidizing junk
food in one federal office, while across the hall another
department is funding an anti-obesity campaign. This hypocrisy
shows just how broken and wasteful our regulatory system really
is.
Farm subsidies bring you high-fructose corn syrup, fast food,
junk food, CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations),
monoculture, and a host of other contributors to our unhealthful
contemporary diet.
Why would a farmer choose to plant lettuce or Swiss chard
when the government will essentially "insure" their corn crops,
paying them back if the market prices fall below a set floor
price? Likewise with wheat and soybeans, the second and third
most heavily subsidized crops, respectively.
Most of them wouldn't… and that's why the US diet is so
heavily loaded with foods based on the surplus, nutritionally
devoid crops of corn, wheat and soy. One of the effects of the
farm bill is creating a negative feedback loop that perpetuates
the highly profitable standard American diet. The US government
is, in essence, subsidizing obesity and chronic disease!
“American agricultural policy has traditionally
failed to offer incentives or support for fruit and
vegetable production. Farmers are penalized for growing
specialty crops (such as fruits and vegetables)
If they have received federal farm payments to grow other
crops. In other words, federal farm subsidies promote
unsustainable agriculture while also failing to reward good
stewardship.
Further, although farmers may generate higher
marketplace revenue from fresh produce, substantially lower
economic security makes growing fruits and vegetables a
risky proposition in an already risky industry.”
Just Eight Crops Make Up Virtually All of US Cropland
If you’ve ever wondered why corn and soy products
are so ubiquitous not only in US processed foods but as feed for
livestock, including cattle, you need look no further than the
makeup of US cropland. It’s reported:3
“In 2004, 96% of U.S. cropland was dominated by the
eight main commodity crops: corn (30%); soybeans (29%);
wheat (23%); cotton (5%); sorghum (3%); barley (2%); oats
(2%); and rice (1%).
According to the American Soybean Association, 70% of
the fats and oils consumed by Americans are soy oil, found
primarily in cooking oils, baking, and frying fats. A large
percentage of cropland is cultivated on a 2-year rotation
that favors soy one year and corn the next, another
purported contributor to obesity.
A conservative estimate of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS)
consumption suggests a daily average of 132 calories for all
Americans aged > 2 years, with the top 20% of consumers
ingesting an average of 316 calories from HFCS per day.
Another important contribution of grains and oilseeds
to the prevalence of obesity is their use as feed for
livestock… As grain-fed livestock contribute to the
oversupply of the commodities required to feed them, the
harmful effects of grain and oilseed production are as
widespread as they are indirect.”
Farm Subsidies Favor Large Corporate Farms, Force Small Farms
Out of Business
Many are under the mistaken impression that farm subsidies
are beneficial to small farmers, allowing them to stay afloat in
years of poor harvests. Yet commodity subsidies are
overwhelmingly going out to a select few mega farms -- not to
the small farmers who need them most! In fact, the broken farm
subsidy system is responsible for not only encouraging
monoculture but also for putting many small farmers out of
business -- while corporate-owned mega-farms grow ever larger.
“Subsidies also have resulted in fewer farms and
diminished agricultural diversity. Large farms often devote
their entire capital and experience to producing one or two
commodities, leaving smaller players to be regularly
winnowed out at the profit of corporate farms and
contractors. In 2001, large farms, which constitute 7% of
the total, received 45% of federal subsidies, whereas small
farms, constituting 76% of the total, received 14% of total
payments.
Between 2003 and 2007, the top 10% of subsidized
farmers received an annual average of $68,030, whereas the
bottom 80% averaged $2312. Disproportionately allocated
subsidies have contributed to forcing hundreds of small,
biodiverse farms out of business at the profit of
industrialized food processing.”
Farm Subsidies Are No Longer a Needs-Based System
While farm subsidies initially were created to protect staple
crops during times of war, reduce crop surpluses and provide
monetary support to farmers when crop prices fell, today
mega-farms receive subsidies whether they need them or not. The
transition away from a needs-based system came in 1996, when
lawmakers developed a "market transition" payment system for
farmers.
The idea was to phase out the subsidies over a seven-year
transition period, during which farmers would receive an annual
fixed cash payment based upon the number of acres on the farm
(these direct payments were given as long as the land was not
developed -- even if nothing was planted). Of course, this
ensures that the largest farms also receive the largest
payments, and contrary to its original intent, the payments have
not declined annually nor has the program gone away. As the
Environmental Working Group (EWG) explained:5
“The industrial agriculture lobby has been defending
the controversial “direct payment” form of taxpayer-funded
subsidies ever since they were first authorized. These
fixed, automatic checks go out every year to the largest
growers of commodity crops, such as corn and cotton, whether
farmers need them or not and despite the fact that farm
household income has eclipsed average U.S. household income.
Farm income for the largest operations, in particular, has
soared sky high.”
And if you thought this all couldn't get any more outrageous…
it can, as it's been revealed that under this absurd system,
even dead farmers have received payments from the
government. So have non-farmers who moved into residential areas
that once were farmland, along with wealthy farmers who have
received annual payments even when they are no longer growing
the subsidized crop.
To Put It All in Perspective, Check Out Peter Jennings’ Classic
Video
A classic video on the US government's fatally flawed
agricultural subsidy programs, and how they affect your
nutritional choices and health, is "How to Get Fat Without
Really Trying" with Peter Jennings. Although it's several years
old and Peter has passed away, the video still speaks the truth
because virtually nothing has changed. If anything, the
situation has, sadly, actually worsened.
Redesigning the System Could Help Fight Obesity and
Protect the Environment
The time is ripe for change, and redesigning the system could
help move us toward economic, and nutritional, recovery. The
money is already there, but if we're going to subsidize, let's
subsidize in a way that helps restore the health of our citizens
and our land—programs that might just pay for themselves by the
reduction in healthcare costs they bring about. The researchers
noted:6
“A redesign of the subsidy system, rather than its
elimination, is likely to yield more sustainable changes in
the agricultural industry. Such revision could take the form
of decoupling income supports from program-specific crops,
and rewards for agricultural diversification.
The trickle-down effect of providing increased
government support to farms growing sustainable, bio-diverse
crops would not only help farmers reap greater economic
benefits (as fruits and vegetables are among the products
with the highest farm-retail value) but would contribute to
large-scale efforts to address obesity by increasing the
availability of fresh produce. Overall, government and
public health activists should support policies that help
disincentivize monocultural overproduction, not policies
that fuel it.”
It sounds so logical, so obvious, doesn’t it? Yet it
is the exact opposite of what is currently being done
with farm subsidies. Mark Brittman of the New York Times
similarly argued, back in 2011, that subsidy money, which is
already IN the budget, could be redirected toward helping
smaller farmers to compete in the marketplace.7
The money could be redirected, for example, in the following
ways:
Funding research and innovation in sustainable
agriculture
Providing incentives to attract new farmers
Saving farmland from development
Assisting farmers who grow currently unsubsidized fruits
and vegetables, while providing incentives for monoculture
commodity farmers (corn, soy, wheat, rice) to convert some
of their operations to more desirable foods
Leveling the playing field so that medium-sized farms
can more favorably compete with agribusiness as suppliers
for local supermarkets
Help Support Small Farms with a Farm Bill That Works
If you don't like the idea of your tax dollars lining the
pockets of wealthy corporations that flood the market with
sugary sodas, soybean oil and corn chips, now is the time to
speak up. The Environmental Working Group has started a petition
urging Congress to enact a Farm Bill that protects family
farmers who help us protect the environment and public health,
and you can
sign it now.
But remember, you can also voice your opinion every day
by voting with your wallet. Support
small
family farms in your area. Even if it means buying just one
or two items at your local farmers market, instead of the big
box store, those little purchases add up.
Return to a diet of real, whole foods—fresh organic produce,
meats from animals raised sustainably on pasture, without
cruelty, and raw organic milk and eggs. Say no to junk food
producers by not buying it. Eating this way will earn
you a long, healthy life—whereas the typical American diet may
set you on the path toward obesity and chronic disease.