Here’s more concise, visual evidence of what I’ve been intermittently blathering about as of late.
With a chart like this, it’s little wonder why more forward-thinking cities like Decatur are feeling obligated to step in and provide a little more support for the local production of fruits and vegetables.
Chart courtesy of Good Medicine.
h/t: The Consumerist
FHR
Daydreamer
Bo
Dex
Parker Cross
Scott
Steve
Terry
Decatur Heights Dad
Diane Loupe
Diane Loupe
Diane Loupe
Mr. Bad Example
Blake
Terry
Unless they break down their methodology, I am not sure these graphs tell us much. Corn, for example, could be considered a veggie or a grain. Plus, it could be placed into the veggie or meat/dairly bucket in the pyramids above. We use it to feed cattle for example. So how do you classify the corn subsidy? This probably swings the results quite a bit in either direction.
Also, the easy answer is to remove the subsidies altogether. The worst “solution” would be to create more government subsidies at the local level for different kinds of foods. Why have different levels of government subsidy work at cross purposes? Not to mention the fact that the federal government and many state governments are pretty much out of money anyway. Maybe by “support” you don’t mean money, which would be a different issue.
I’m pretty sure they’re classified based on what is actually consumed. So corn feed subsidies classify as “meat”.
Here’s a snippit of the Good Medicine article, which points in that direction…”The bill provides billions of dollars in subsidies, much of which goes to huge agribusinesses producing feed crops, such as corn and soy, which are then fed to animals. By funding these crops, the government supports the production of meat and dairy products—the same products that contribute to our growing rates of obesity and chronic disease. Fruit and vegetable farmers, on the other hand, receive less than 1 percent of government subsidies.”
I’m also hesitant about “fixing” subsidies with more subsidies. But if it’s going to be done, I’m more comfortable with it being done on the local level where it’s more tangible to residents. If they don’t want it, they’ll go talk to their neighbor the city commissioner about it.
Federal food subsidies are so grossly unfathomable in large part because no one has paid any attention to them in decades. Back in the 70s, the US decided it needed to figure out a way to generate cheap calories to avoid another food shortage. Problem was they valued a Big Mac calorie the same as a spinach calorie.
The result is our lovely obesity problem and giant agri-bullies like Monsanto.
In related news, Congress is trying to figure out how to cope simultaneously with rising health care costs and a growing federal deficit.
Yep. It’s all connected, man!
I just wish Repubs could get past the liberal stereotypes of the broader food movement and embrace its subsidy-disdain.
It’s not a Repub thing. It’s a politicians-have-to-bring-home-the-pork thing. If you read the article, the reform bill was effectively killed off by Nancy Pelosi who feared for Democrats who would not weather the political storm back in their home districts. Agricultural subsidy pork knows no political party.
Oh completely agree WinnonaMom. When it comes to politicians, they share the blame. Which makes it all that more difficult to get any actual change. Neither party wants it.
I’m talking about the Average Joes and Janes on the street, which is where the movement must start and LIVE until it can find enough advocates in the halls of Congress. Local food knows no political party, but right now, it’s framed as a liberal thing.
And there it is…DM waves his political flag. Until now, I was always impressed with your neutrality. I’m sorry to see you aren’t neutral at all.
As WinnonaMom says, this is not a repub or dem thing; it is so much bigger than that. Trying to paint this as a one-sided political issue does this discussion no favors.
And while I’m at it, both you and the Good Medicine article want to blame the subsidies for obesity. I strongly disagree, and this paints a picture that obese people got this way through no fault of their own. Opinions like this exacerbate an environment of people not taking responsibility for their own actions.
Wow. One post – which I don’t honestly think was all THAT one-sided – and I’m not neutral AT ALL? I gotta say, I’m pretty sure I’ve said more “political” things than that.
And I can’t say I’ve ever considered myself neutral (that’s really something you can only pretend to be) as considerate of the opinions of others.
So here’s my question for those that take offense to putting some onus on Republicans: do you see the local food movement as a liberal cause?
All I did was assume that the answer was YES. But perhaps I should have also put a bit more burden on Dems to reach across the party line and find common ground? Would that have made my comment more neutral?
This may be neither here nor there, but of the ten most obese states, all of them are “red states,” while of the ten least obese states, at least five are blue states. Of course, of the ten most obese states, eight are in the south. None of the least obese are.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211367,00.html
DM
I say neutral, you say considerate of others…tomato/tomawto. Either way, I was just surprised to see you lay this at the door of the Republicans. And I don’t take offense at jibes toward my party; everyone knows they could use a swift kick in the rear. But you again denigrate Republicans by saying Democrats should reach across the party line and assuming only liberals are the only ones interested in resolving this issue. Your implications is that Reps aren’t capable of reaching across, nor do they support an effort to address the subsidies.
I mean no denigration, but I’ve heard or read nary a peep from Republican quarters about dealing with these ridiculous food subsidies. I find thaparticularly intriguing, since that is the opposite of the general philosophical arguments. Instead it’s been taken up by the New York Times’ Michael Pollan and his blue state ilk.
That’s why I laid the burden at the door of Republicans. If you have evidence that suggests otherwise, I’m eager to see it because that would mean we might be closer to a nationwide movement than I first believed.
Either way, I meant no insult. I still don’t understand either party philosophy – it seems stuck in an era I have never lived in – so I enjoy pointing out inconsistencies on both sides.
Read this article and tell me Conservatives are not part of the the End Subsidies Crowd. Democrats don’t want to end subsidies, they just want to attack the “wealthy” farmers. Furthermore, Dems have a huge majority in congress, yet subsidies are still present. Generally speaking, true conservatives are wholly against subsidies because they involve govt. intrusion and spending. Now which party tends to favor govt. intrusion and spending? I truly believe you are way off on this one, DM.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ijM1lf2y5QPOMFmu46Gsq_74aWkAD9DP6L780
Another good read:
http://reason.com/archives/2008/05/14/the-bipartisan-folly-of-farm-s
Great articles Walrus! I can see my original comment was a result of a little too much bubble life now.
If we now have folks at both ends of the political spectrum who dislike farm subsidies that much, hopefully we’ll one day put enough pressure on politicians to make the change. But it will have to be A LOT, since farm lobbyists will do anything in their power to prevent it.
My official apologies to DTR…I overgeneralized. But am kinda glad I did…otherwise I wouldn’t have gotten a good, alternative view of things.
I’m not quite as ready as DM to cast meat and dairy in altogether villainous roles. It’s more complicated than simply comparing the relative proportions of food groups we consume, because each group contains foods that are “good” and those that are “bad” when it comes to maintaining both short- and long-term health.
In any case, it’s pretty well documented that our eating patterns follow crop subsidies, because what’s cheap to produce is what’s marketed to us and made available to us. IMO, pumping resources into producing animal feed instead of healthier human food is not the biggest problem engendered by massive corn subsidies. The worst effect has been that it made high fructose corn syrup one of the cheapest food ingredients around. (Another contributing factor, of course, has been sugar tariffs and quotas on domestic sugar production, which helped make corn syrup even less expensive relative to alternatives.) There is increasing evidence that high consumption of high fructose corn syrup (present in virtually every processed food–go read labels and try to avoid it) is a major contributing factor to obesity in our country. And obesity eventually brings a cascade of serious if not disabling health problems.
Of course, individuals need to take responsibility for what they eat. But when the entire grocery landscape is so contrived–when the least expensive and most accessible foods are the ones that are most likely to undermine our health–isn’t it time to calm down on beating the drum of individual responsibility, and start being smarter about how we manage our food production?
Yeah, the farm lobby is a massive one. Hopefully one day we can get some leaders in D.C. that know how to take a stand.
I think in the Decatur bubble we live in, it may appear to be a liberal movement, however, suburban conservative housewives have embraced locally grown and organic foods for years (check out suburban Whole Foods, they are packed!). So, no, I have never viewed it as a liberal thing. Furthermore, can Libertarians get a mention!!!
Personally, I think it is a movement of those that have that little extra money to spend, whether Liberal, Conservative or Libertarian.
Which brings us back to subsidies and the illusion of “choice”, no?
Won’t get an agrument in favor of subsidies from me. They gotta go!
But if it’s going to be done, I’m more comfortable with it being done on the local level where it’s more tangible to residents.
______________________
I hear you about that, but giving subsidies on the local level doesn’t mean the subsidies will stop on the federal level. So if you had city or state governments paying carrot farmers, you will still have Congress paying many times more to corn farmers. In other words, you have the same essential problem.
Also keep in mind the subsidies at any level result in the kind of lobbying and political dealings that resulted in the corn subsidies in the first place. If Georgia is going to give money to farmers, you think ADM and Monsanto are going to sit by and let that money go to family farms? They will want their piece, whereever it is coming from.
Also, not sure what you mean by tangible. A government check is a government check. Whether it comes from the feds or the city makes little difference to the recipient.
To me, the bottom line is to stop the madness with the subsidies, period. Tinkering around the edges of the system only adds a bit of lipstick to the pig.
The pyra-chart on the left also seems to reflect the groups relative deliciousness.
Why was the wine and booze group omitted?
Tomorrow’s Oprah show is a repeat of her “Food, Inc” episode with food expert Michael Pollan.
Tomorrow’s Oprah show is a repeat of her Food 101 episode with food expert Michael Pollan on “Food, Inc.” (And other stuff– celebs, etc.).
http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/The-Truth-About-Food-with-Michael-Pollan/1
Whoops! Computer is snagging stuff today. And corn likker’s cheap, too. *hic*
I don’t know if it’s considered “evidence,” but Iowa farmers are by and large Democrats and they certainly don’t support an end to subsidies. On the contrary, small (by today’s standards) farmers can give you some excellent arguments why food subsidies are good. My uncle is an Iowa corn farmer and would never vote republican, nor support an end to subsidies.
That being said, I’d agree that the issue comes down to bringing home the pork. Politicians on both sides of the isle feel it is their responsibility to bring money into their home state. I see this attitude trumping the notion of considering what is best for the country as a whole. And therein lies the root of all evil, in my mind.