Friday, July 15, 2011 by Salon.com
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.
Corn -- which is processed into the junk-food staple corn syrup and which feeds the livestock that produce meat -- exemplifies the scheme.
"Over the past decade, the federal government has poured more than $50 billion into the corn industry, keeping prices for the crop ... artificially low," reports Time magazine. "That's why McDonald's can sell you a Big Mac, fries and a Coke for around $5 -- a bargain."
Yes, it is a bargain, but one created by deliberate government policy that serves the corn industry titans, not by any genetic advantage that makes corn derivatives automatically more affordable for the budget-strapped commoner.
The aggregate effect of such market manipulation across the agriculture industry, notes Time, is "that a dollar [can] buy 1,200 calories of potato chips or 875 calories of soda but just 250 calories of vegetables or 170 calories of fresh fruit."
So while it may be amusing to use Americans' worsening recession-era diet as another excuse to promote cultural stereotypes, the nutrition crisis costing us billions in unnecessary healthcare costs is more about public policy and powerful special interests than it is about epicurean snobs and affluent tastes. Indeed, this is a problem not of individual proclivities or of agricultural biology that supposedly makes nutrition naturally unaffordable -- it is a problem of rigged economics and corrupt policymaking.
Solving the crisis, then, requires everything from recalibrating our subsidies to halting the low-income school lunch program's support for the pizza and French fry lobby (yes, they have a powerful lobby). It requires, in other words, a new level of maturity, a better appreciation for the nuanced politics of food and a commitment to changing those politics for the future.
Impossible? Hardly. A country that can engineer the seemingly unattainable economics of a $5 McDonald's feast certainly has the capacity to produce a healthy meal for the same price. It's just a matter of will -- or won't.
Showing posts with label corn subsidies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corn subsidies. Show all posts
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Corn Farmers Say "Waaaaa! Food Inc. Shouldn't Win Oscar"
Sounds like the knife of truth cut a little deep in the quick, eh?
Corn Farmers Say Food Inc. Shouldn't Win Oscar
by Mary Clare Jalonick
WASHINGTON - The corn industry is lashing out at an Oscar-nominated documentary that has grossed out grocery shoppers, saying the film is unfair to many of the nation's farmers and shouldn't win.
[The corn industry is lashing out at an Oscar-nominated documentary that has grossed out grocery shoppers, saying the film is unfair to many of the nation's farmers and shouldn't win. (photo by flickr user iowa_spirit_walker)]The corn industry is lashing out at an Oscar-nominated documentary that has grossed out grocery shoppers, saying the film is unfair to many of the nation's farmers and shouldn't win. (photo by flickr user iowa_spirit_walker)
"Food Inc.," which was nominated for best documentary, has captured audiences with its behind-the-scenes look at the food industry, bringing cameras into feedlots, slaughterhouses and chicken farms used by corporate agriculture, describing stomach-turning practices in an effort to encourage consumers to buy locally grown and organic foods that aren't mass produced.
The corn industry, one of several food industries attacked in the film, is fighting back. Though the official voting for Sunday's Academy Awards is over, the National Corn Growers Association, the industry's largest trade group, is encouraging corn farmers to get the word out in the media and on social networking sites like Facebook to rebut the documentary in the final days before the Oscars.
"If we don't shoot down their arguments with credible and truthful information, our reputation as America's farmers will suffer significantly," reads an alert sent to member farmers this week.
The movie taps into a growing social movement critical of the nation's industrial food system. The film features Michael Pollan, author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," and Eric Schlosser, author of "Fast Food Nation." Both books are credited with galvanizing opposition to industrial agriculture.
Darrin Ihnen, a corn grower from Hurley, S.D., and president of the corn group, says the movie makes him mad because it ignores many of the good things about America's larger farms, including the environmentally friendly practices some use, as well as efforts to feed the world's hungry.
"Because we have an abundant supply, America has the world's most affordable food, and that's due in large part to the practices attacked in this film," he said.
The documentary looks at the chemicals used to fatten up chickens and cattle, criticizes genetically engineered crops and links practices at livestock operations to deaths from E. coli poisoning. The widespread use of corn also is blamed for the country's obesity epidemic and high rates of diabetes.
But the movie isn't all negative, chronicling the increase in production of organic foods and the willingness of companies such as Wal-Mart to sell them.
The film's producer and director, Robert Kenner, says he tried to get the farming industry involved when he was making the film, but most declined to talk. He says he has been surprised at the response to it and the debate it has created - he says said the food industry at first ignored the film, but companies have protested more loudly as the film has gained attention.
"They are realizing their consumers are concerned," he said. "These are complicated issues and we don't mean to offer the solutions to these problems, totally, but we do mean to create a conversation about them."
James McWilliams, a professor at Texas State University and author of "Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly," says he thinks the film is justified in attacking the corn industry and highlighting the overabundance of corn-based products in the American diet. Nevertheless, he says it may not give farmers a fair shake.
"Millions of conventional farmers who care about the environment and work to lessen their carbon footprint have good reason to feel threatened by the film's aggressive message that all industrial agriculture is inherently evil," he said.
Dan Glickman, former secretary of agriculture under President Bill Clinton and current chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, says the film is a welcome addition to the debate over so-called production agriculture, but called it "a piece of advocacy work" that is not always objective.
"I think production agriculture, the corn growers, have a good story to tell, and a lot of times I don't think they have engaged in the debate," he said. "The more they protest, the more people will want to go see the movie."
Corn Farmers Say Food Inc. Shouldn't Win Oscar
by Mary Clare Jalonick
WASHINGTON - The corn industry is lashing out at an Oscar-nominated documentary that has grossed out grocery shoppers, saying the film is unfair to many of the nation's farmers and shouldn't win.
[The corn industry is lashing out at an Oscar-nominated documentary that has grossed out grocery shoppers, saying the film is unfair to many of the nation's farmers and shouldn't win. (photo by flickr user iowa_spirit_walker)]The corn industry is lashing out at an Oscar-nominated documentary that has grossed out grocery shoppers, saying the film is unfair to many of the nation's farmers and shouldn't win. (photo by flickr user iowa_spirit_walker)
"Food Inc.," which was nominated for best documentary, has captured audiences with its behind-the-scenes look at the food industry, bringing cameras into feedlots, slaughterhouses and chicken farms used by corporate agriculture, describing stomach-turning practices in an effort to encourage consumers to buy locally grown and organic foods that aren't mass produced.
The corn industry, one of several food industries attacked in the film, is fighting back. Though the official voting for Sunday's Academy Awards is over, the National Corn Growers Association, the industry's largest trade group, is encouraging corn farmers to get the word out in the media and on social networking sites like Facebook to rebut the documentary in the final days before the Oscars.
"If we don't shoot down their arguments with credible and truthful information, our reputation as America's farmers will suffer significantly," reads an alert sent to member farmers this week.
The movie taps into a growing social movement critical of the nation's industrial food system. The film features Michael Pollan, author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," and Eric Schlosser, author of "Fast Food Nation." Both books are credited with galvanizing opposition to industrial agriculture.
Darrin Ihnen, a corn grower from Hurley, S.D., and president of the corn group, says the movie makes him mad because it ignores many of the good things about America's larger farms, including the environmentally friendly practices some use, as well as efforts to feed the world's hungry.
"Because we have an abundant supply, America has the world's most affordable food, and that's due in large part to the practices attacked in this film," he said.
The documentary looks at the chemicals used to fatten up chickens and cattle, criticizes genetically engineered crops and links practices at livestock operations to deaths from E. coli poisoning. The widespread use of corn also is blamed for the country's obesity epidemic and high rates of diabetes.
But the movie isn't all negative, chronicling the increase in production of organic foods and the willingness of companies such as Wal-Mart to sell them.
The film's producer and director, Robert Kenner, says he tried to get the farming industry involved when he was making the film, but most declined to talk. He says he has been surprised at the response to it and the debate it has created - he says said the food industry at first ignored the film, but companies have protested more loudly as the film has gained attention.
"They are realizing their consumers are concerned," he said. "These are complicated issues and we don't mean to offer the solutions to these problems, totally, but we do mean to create a conversation about them."
James McWilliams, a professor at Texas State University and author of "Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly," says he thinks the film is justified in attacking the corn industry and highlighting the overabundance of corn-based products in the American diet. Nevertheless, he says it may not give farmers a fair shake.
"Millions of conventional farmers who care about the environment and work to lessen their carbon footprint have good reason to feel threatened by the film's aggressive message that all industrial agriculture is inherently evil," he said.
Dan Glickman, former secretary of agriculture under President Bill Clinton and current chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, says the film is a welcome addition to the debate over so-called production agriculture, but called it "a piece of advocacy work" that is not always objective.
"I think production agriculture, the corn growers, have a good story to tell, and a lot of times I don't think they have engaged in the debate," he said. "The more they protest, the more people will want to go see the movie."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)