This past summer the movie Food, Inc. was released in the United States. The movie analyzes the impact of the industrialization of the food supply, with some very interesting conclusions.
One point made in the film is that government subsidies to the agricultural sector, specifically to corn and soybean producers, may be linked to the growing problem of obesity and diabetes in the United States (and elsewhere presumably).
Below is a link to an article that discusses the possible connection between agricultural subsidies and poor health. There are also counterarguments presented. This material is very much linked to what we have studied so far about supply and demand, the pros and cons of government intervention in markets, and elasticity of demand and supply.
So what do you think? Is there a strong connection between government intervention in agricultural markets and health problems?
I would recommend that you take a few notes as you read, perhaps in two columns (arguments that say intervention is connected with poor health, and arguments that say intervention is not connected with poor health). This will help you put the big picture together at the end. Remember, your comment should be 10 sentences or less. Reply by November 4 for a second chance, or by November 8 as a final deadline.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247588/
After finishing the article, it seems like government intervention is causing the health of the consumers to deteriorate, making them overweight and possibly even obese. However, the government certainly has its reasons to do so; America is a huge country, with so many people in need of food, which is why the cheapest food is subsidized to ensure enough food for everyone. If vegetables or fruit were subsidized, it is doubtful if the subsidies were sufficient to produce enough healthy food for the bulk of the population.
ReplyDeleteLarge companies from the fast-food industry like McDonalds not only have become a strong uphold for the economy as they generate so much revenue, they have become part of US lifestyle, and it is hard to imagine the world without them. The USA needs these companies, if they go bankrupt due to a lack of supply of food from the producers which in turn is because the government decides to subsidize other food sectors, it will hurt everyone. Possible problems are that jobs will be lost in the service businesses (e.g. restaurants), jobs will be lost with the farmers and many consumers who relied on cheap food will now need to buy it at a higher price, resulting in a decline in normal goods since food is a necessity.
The reading has a different view than I do: "What would happen if we took away the subsidies on the sugar and fat? Probably not much." According to the article, most foods contain sugar and fat, so it is extremely doubtful that the smaller supply will meet the demand, resulting in a strong increase of the price.
I believe that the government has missed its chance to provide its population with nutritious food; USA has become to reliant on unhealthy foods. It is still possible to change the diet, however this change will have to come gradually.
I agree with Richard Atkinson and his opinion that the US government subsidizes the wrong foods. Looking at the figures it is clear that they are spending too much on the unhealthy crops, the subsidies for corn between 1995 and 2006 have totaled up to $56,170,875,257, the subsidies for soybeans have totaled up to being $14,239,702,740 with only $241 in 1995 and zero subsidies in 1996 and 1997. On a contrast to that the subsidies for apples in the US merely total up to $261,540,987 between 1995 and 2006, since the government only gave out subsidies to apple farmers in 2001 to 2003. The top recipient of apples got a total of $529,927 from the US government between 1995 and 2006 whereas the top recipient of corn subsidies got a total of $14,686,663 between 1995 and 2006 these are immense differences for which there are very little reasoning. Because of the high and out of proportion subsidies which the US government grants there is a very high quantity of cheap, sweet and unhealthy products flooding the market (as the article states); to my mind the US government should try to spread the subsidies it spend out over a larger variety of (healthy) crops. As the analysis states there will be hardly any effect on the price of corn and soybeans if the subsidies are dropped or used for different crop, meaning the market will not be greatly damaged and the consumers will most likely not even experience change. It will also lower the price of healthier foods (maybe just enough for consumers to start buying healthy products). Even if the price drop is not enough to persuade the consumers to buy healthy products, the farmers farming healthy foods will be able to develop and possibly start gaining economies of scale and thus lowering the price of the healthy foods in the long run. Just as the US government has developed the corn market it should develop the market for healthier foods.
ReplyDeleteSources:
http://farm.ewg.org/farm/top_recips.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn&page=0
http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=soybean
http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=corn
http://farm.ewg.org/farm/top_recips.php?fips=00000&progcode=apple
http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=apple
I believe there is a strong connection, because why is fast food so much cheaper than healthy food? Why are fresh, non-sweetened foods much more expensive than the food where much more work is behind it? Only “one-tenth” of the money the government spends goes to vegetables and other healthy food. That the government is supporting such unhealthy meals is unacceptable “milk consumption decreased by 36% as soft drink consumption increased by 287% in boys and 224% in girls“, and then people ask themselves why the dairy farmers are not able to survive! If the government would say that they would stop the subsidies, which is the government payment to firms, on corn and soybeans and would use that money to support vegetables and dairy farmers, as Babcock said in the article not only the upper middle class and above would be able to buy healthy food, but also the people who, at the moment, are only able to buy fast food.
ReplyDeleteThis would eventually result into a much more healthy society, and it would also lead to more strong people able to work. I would predict that less people would become heart problems and more people would be able to work. Is that not the goal we should have and wouldn’t this help the economy more, than the support of fast food, which, although I have to say it tastes good, makes us sick?
I agree with Jasper, that if the government wants to make a change, it should be done gradually. This is because you cannot change such an important subject over a night. The result would be chaos.
“Connecting farm programs to obesity is quite a leap (...)When you examine the data, it doesn’t support the theory" says Willet. There are many other factors which contribute to the obesity in the USA than only the subsidies of the government to the farmers. As the article states, one also has to consider the change in lifestyle which has been brought about by longer working hours and new technologies. With new technologies life has become much more static, as people prefer sit around all day and watch TV instead of going outside and moving.
ReplyDeleteCondsidering all the mentioned and understanding that a big factor that attracts the consumers is the level of sweetness, it is doubtable whether a small change in price (according to Babcock only 5-7 %) will change the health of US citizens alone to speak the obesity.
Adding on to what Jasper said: " If vegetables or fruit were subsidized, it is doubtful if the subsidies were sufficient to produce enough healthy food for the bulk of the population", it is also questionable whether the products which can be made from fruits are more healthy, because as far as I know fruits contain a lot of fructose and this is what the article is warning about.
While in the first round you pay to get everyone fed, in the second round you will have to pay all the the consequential costs that emerge of the obese.
Concluding I would like to say, that the government achieved what it wanted to achieve in first place, namely lowering the price of food. Now they stand before a new scenario: the unhealthiness of the pepole. To react upon this I suggest a quality test should be inflicted and in schools the students should learn about nutrition.
The portrayal of the relationship between subsidized farm product and the impact on the health of consumers is quite convincing. Though, the counter-argument is also strong. According to the article the subsidies provided to framers growing staple crop is the cause of increasing obesity in America. Subsidies help the farmers produce more; this leads to a colossal increase in the supply of those products. And increase in supply means availability of those products at cheaper rates. As fats and sweet products become cheaper we consume more and more of it. This holds true for not only America but most countries, as people are tempted by tasty and cheap food substitutes. Even though the government started providing subsidies to farmers to support them through the great depression, under present situations these subsidies seem unnecessary. The demand for fats and sweetened products seem inelastic considering the fact that the consumption of unhealthy food has become a social tread in the United States.
ReplyDeleteRemoval of the subsidies will change the demand significantly, as prices will not be affected because “The final prices of products—meat, bread, milk—don’t have a whole lot to do with the price of farm products.” Most children and even adults favor cheap fast food and will be unwilling to change their habits when there is a slight change in prices. In other words the demand for these unhealthy foods will remain high. While cheapness of these products might have played a huge role in endemic ignorance of healthy diet and lifestyle, there are other factors that aggravate these problems and will probably prove to be more injurious to the entire population: poverty and lack of awareness regarding health. All in all, the government should use its resources to subsidize fruit and vegetable farmers instead to wasting its resources on the already stabilized staple crops farming. Thus encouraging more farmers to grow fruits and vegetables and promote healthy living. The government should also use address the problems associates with poverty and lack of education.
Cheap sugars have been imported and US corns were not competitive enough. Therefore in the beginning government’s intention was to lower the price of corns. Now it is blamed for making people fat and unhealthy. (From HFCS, high fat, calorie products) I believe that subsidies paid to corn, soybean farmers don’t have connections with health problems.
ReplyDeletePeople are fat because they consume a lot of high sugar, calorie stuffs, but I believe that it is also their lifestyle; less exercise, long working hours and therefore less time to properly cook slow food etc. People are also addicted to its sweet tastes. This is why even if the subsidy is lifted; people’s consumption choices will not change much. Therefore it is people’s own responsibility and they should judge whether to keep on eating unhealthy food or change their eating habits.
There was a mention about giving more subsidies to fruits and vegetable farmers, but I think it is not a good idea. US is already importing tropical fruits, bananas etc from other countries, and garlic from China. They are very cheap in price, so even if the US government supports farmers for lowering prices, it will be a waste of money.
They should rather keep their subsidy for corn, soybean farmers to protect their own industries and maybe it will have high price competitiveness when they export corn products and bio fuels to other countries
As Jasper pointed out, it is important that the government subsidize the cheap food to ensure that there is enough food for everyone.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this measurement to protect people from starving has a huge impact on the younger generations.
It is a common fact, that children prefer the fat, sugar-rich foods made from the highly subsidized crops which is offered to the consumers in huge variety to the healthy foods like vegetables and fruits.
Therefore, especially in poor areas and the so called ,,latchkey children’’, who are left home alone from the time they leave school until their parents get home from work will tend to buy the unhealthy food as it is much cheaper and tastes better.
As a consequence, these children will suffer from obesity which leads to complications (e.g diabetes, heart diseases) and a shorter life expectancy.
To solve this problem, I agree with Richard Atkinson who says that government should ,, try subsidizing fruit and vegetable growers so the cost is comparatively lower for better foods’’ and so that poor people can also afford the healthy food.
I believe that while the government subsidies are not the only culprit responsible for America's growing obesity problem, they are certainly not helping. The subsidies are concentrated on crops high in fat and sugar, such as corn and soy beans; fruits and vegetables receive only 1/10th the monetary support that crops such as corn are receiving. The government support is contributing to an increasing supply of corn products, such as HFCS, which are then being used to produce cheap prepackaged foods such as chips and snack cakes. The prices for these products are very low, especially compared to the more healthy substitutes, causing the demand to increase. Americans, especially those living in poverty, are buying more of these cheap, unhealthy foods than they are the healthy alternatives, which, combined with certain less-than-desirable lifestyle changes in America and poor nutritional education, are causing a growing number of Americans to become obese. The problem doesn't solely exist within the market for government subsidized crops - food in general requires a smaller percentage of American income than just about anywhere else - and there isn't a definite cause-and-effect relationship between the subsidies and obesity (in fact, the USDA has hardly given a second glance to a connection between the two) but the availability of these products is certainly not doing anything to alleviate the obesity epidemic.
ReplyDeleteAlthough fattening foods, such as sweeties, are unhealthy, they are very popular in all over the places. They are cheap and easy to buy because they are sold everywhere: in convenient stores, supermarkets, et cetera. Because of the high demand, governments subsidize these foods, so that there are enough of them for all the people in USA. But this results in the health problems, such as obesity. This causes people to get heart attack, cancers, for example.
ReplyDeleteHowever, people still demand for foods which are unhealthy and fattening nowadays. As Bowman, a nutrition scientist, says, “between 1965 and 1996, adolescents’ milk consumption decreased by 36% as soft drink consumption increased by 287% in boys and 224% in girls”. And according to Nestle, a professor of nutrition, “the cheapest way to make foods taste good, she says, is to add sugars and fat”. Therefore, HFCS (high-fructose corn syrup) is often used in USA to sweeten soft drinks. “About two-thirds of the HFCS consumed in the United States is in beverages”. HFCS is sweet enough to substitute other types of sucrose-based sugars. Therefore, it is very popular and many people want them. “U.S. consumption of added sugars increased 28% between 1982 and 1997”. Moreover, Bray says, “Americans over age 2 consume at least 132 calories of HFCS per day”. Everybody consumes sweet, fattening foods in USA.
As you can see, when government gives subsidy and intervenes into agricultural market, it influences the health situations as well as the whole market. Consumers demand for the cheaper foods which are easy to buy, compared to the more expensive, healthy foods. Most of the consumers are not educated fully about health issues. If this lasts long, this leads to short life expectancy. This means that economy deteriorates. One possible solution, in my opinion, is to advertize through media and inform people about the danger of the fattening foods when consumed too much. We cannot forbidden these foods completely because there are farmers who are producing their resources; they also want to earn money to survive. Therefore, governments should inform consumers that the balance is important.
After reading the article I think that government subsidies are both connected to poor health and not connected to poor health. There are many other reasons for the obesity and overweight people in the United States. Hogwash, says “there are many other factors that are making people in the United States obese.” Less physical activity is a huge factor that is contributing to overweight people in the United States. Since people are becoming addicted to the food they eat, even if the subsidies drop people still eat what they want. Sam Willett, senior director of public policy for the National Corn Growers Association, says “demand for products, not agricultural subsidies, determines what farmers choose to grow.” Therefore insisting that the subsidies are not the only factors that keep farmers growing the products that they want to grow. But the subsidy on these types of crops also plays a big role for the obese people in the United States. James Tillotson, a professor of food policy and international business at Tufts University, says “what U.S. farmers are most efficient at producing are just a few highly subsidized crops—wheat, soybeans, and especially corn.” These subsidized crops are high in saturated fats and sugar which can be a big factor for the obesity in the United States. So in conclusion I think that the subsidies placed on these crops could be a big factor for the obesity rate in the United States but also a big factor could be the fact that people are eating a lot and are not getting a lot of physical activity. So even if the subsidies were dropped I still believe that people would still be obese.
ReplyDeleteAfter closely examining the article, “The Fat of the Land: Do Agricultural Subsidies Foster Poor Health?” I anticipate that there is a strong connection between government intervention in agricultural markets and health problems, because how can it be that fast food is cheaper than fresh, organic, healthy food?
ReplyDeleteGovernment intervention with subsidies, a payment given to firms, is causing the health of consumers to degenerate, leading to parts of the population becoming overweight and in some cases even obese. Yes, fast food is tempting, convenient and provides you a meal for under $5, but fast food is usually made with cheap ingredients such as high fat meat, refined grains, added sugars and fats, instead of nutritious foods such as lean meats, fresh fruits and vegetables. Primary data by Bowman shows that the consumption of dairy products such as “milk has decreased by 36% between 1965 and 1996, while the demand for soft drinks like coke and sprite have increased by 287% for boys and 224% for girls.”
People in America who consume “more than 18% of their calories in added sugars (and U.S. consumption of added sugars increased 28% between 1982 and 1997) have lower than normal levels of essential micronutrients.” This is absurd, because an excess amount of fast food can lead to heart problems and liver damages.n addition, too much amount of sugar can lead to diabetics. To resolve these problems the government should stop the subsidies, on corn and soybeans use the payments to support vegetables and dairy farmers.
If the government wants to intervene into the market, the change should be done over long period of time. Since, I believe that subsidies from the government to the farmers are one of the main factors to the obesity in the USA, I agree with Viola that a quality test should be inflicted and in schools the students should learn the implications of nutrition.
I believe there is a connection between government intervention in agricultural markets and health problems, albeit one of many factors leading to health problems, thus unfair to be called a strong one. Firstly, the article states that “support for [wheat, soybean and corn], critics say, has compelled farmers to ignore other crops such as fruits, vegetables, and other grains.” Obviously, due to the law of demand, the food manufacturers would be more willing and able to buy more of the cheaper crops from farmers, i.e. wheat, soybean and corn because of the lower price due to government subsidies. Furthermore, due to the demand and the subsidies, the farmers would all want to farm these three crops because they can sell a lot at low manufacturing costs. Unfortunately, these are all the main ingredients for creating unhealthy fatty foods and high-fructose corn syrup, which as a consequence has lowered the price of soft drinks, frozen meals, candy, fast food, etc. Additionally, as said by Marion Nestle, “the cheapest way to make foods taste good, she says, is to add sugars and fat” Especially with the state the American economy is in, this means that the unhealthier foods are the cheapest alternative, and naturally the average, naive consumer would be inclined to buy them, despite the health consequences. However, it is unfair to solely single out government interventions in agricultural markets as the strongest connection to health problems. It plays its part, but out of many others, as seen in the article, such as improper health education in the schools, lack of encouraging physical activities, less home cooking, etc. Nonetheless, the government has to realise that their subsidies to farmers have an effect, and should instead spend their money on a way to make Americans healthier.
ReplyDeleteI believe that agricultural subsidies are not connected to the health problems in America. Nowadays people are demanding more of unhealthy, packaged food, especially in America because of the changing lifestyle. People are switching over to better technology, no physical activity and long working hours in which they prefer pre-packaged and the so called ‘ready-to-eat’ fattening foods.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Sam Willet (Senior Director of public policy for the NCGA), “Demand for products, not agricultural subsidies, determines what farmers choose to grow.” As the demand for these fattening and unhealthy foods is increasing, the farmers have started to grow more of corn, soybean, etc which drives down the price of fast food and other pre-packaged foods. Then, according to the law of demand, people start to buy more of this cheap stuff, thus, this is a continuous chain. The agricultural subsidies do not play a role in this chain because the demand for such foods is inelastic these days as it has become a necessity and so even if the government decides to abolish the subsidies, it will have no significant effect on the supply and demand of such foods. “But even eliminating farm subsidies entirely wouldn’t how much soda pop people drink, how many cupcakes they snack on, or even how much meat they eat, says Bruce Babcock.” Therefore, the government should realise that their subsidies are not making any difference and should rather try subsidizing healthier food in order to promote healthy living in America
I admit that there is a connection between the governement subsidy on wheat, soybeans, and corns and poor health, but I think it is fairly weak that the subsidy can be considered as one of minor factors that are contributing to poor health. Thus, I will have to agree with Choon Ho and Su Jeong.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Americans do lack the physical activities, while the long working hours adds problem. This means that they don't burn their calories and thus the fat is amassed, in addition to the children grasping sugary snacks and fast foods, which all in all assist to obesity.
Secondly, as the article clearly asserts, "Technological innovations have contributed as well" in areas such as cutting, peeling, freezing, coating, transportation, and cooking technologies where they have triggering the oily and fattening foods to be prevailing with "help of television advertising" as Mr Hogwash says. Thus this increased the supply of the corn, wheat, and soybean as the technology improves and make the market flooded with the crops, not subsidy.
Thirdly, the governement actually do put their budget into subsidizing the fruits and vegetables as the quote "We put maybe [shortened] dollar that we put into subsidizing and promoting foods through the Department of Agriculture into fruits and vegetables" suggests. And also, as Su Jeong said, America is importing cheap and 'healthy' tropical fruits, thus the consumers have a choice to buy the healthy foods.
Therefore, I don't think that we are able to accuse subsidy for the obesity, while people lacks physical activities and have variety of choices of healthy foods.
Subsidized crops have increased the supply for corns and soy beans, making an easier access to high-fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated fats to consumers. Low prices of these products caused the “obesity pandemic” in the USA.
ReplyDeleteBut Larry Mitchell, CEO of the American Corn Growers Association, predicts that "prices for subsidized commodities wouldn’t increase significantly, and they might even drop", denying the possible relationship between the two.
Bruce Babcock also supports this claim that the rises in the price of these products "have a very, very small impact on the prices consumers see when they make their food choices".
Yes, it may be true that the Price Elasticity of both Demand and Supply may be very inelastic in the beginning, but may not be in the long run.
If the government were to stop subsidizing the corn industry and instead use the money for other crops, consumers may become more responsive to the price change and therefore substitute to buying healthier food.
Since both changes in price will be inelastic, the change of demand and supply will be gradual, contradictory to some concerns.
Agricultural subsidies are likely to foster poor health, so rather than mis-nourishing the population with cheap HFCS, the government should consider investing on other crop farmers.
I think that there is a slight connection between agricultural subsidies and the poor health of Americans. The figures are quite startling: “Between 1965 and 1996, adolescents’ milk consumption decreased by 36% as soft drink consumption increased by 287% in boys and 224% in girls”. “People who consume 18% of their calories in added sugars […] have lower-than-normal levels of essential micronutrients, especially vitamin A, vitamin B12, folate, magnesium and iron.” This can, of course, not all be attributed to the agricultural subsidies, since the people who ultimately buy and consume the products have a choice to do so or not, and if they do, then it is their fault that they get fat, and there are many other factors that lead to obesity and poor nutrition-intake, fitness, etc, such as lack of physical activity, wrong food choices, etc.
ReplyDeleteHowever, due to the subsidies, the prices decrease, so the people would buy more of things like corn, which has a lot of carbs and can make people fat. The average American wants to buy things that are cheap/easily affordable, so things like organic vegetables aren’t going to be their first choice to buy in the supermarket. Something that reinforces this, and is also an important thing to note is the following: “Even if price supports are eliminated entirely […] prices for subsidized commodities wouldn’t increase significantly, and they might even drop. […] Demand for products, not agricultural subsidies, determines what farmers choose to grow. Connecting farm programs to obesity is quite a leap…”
I’d say that the government should encourage healthy eating, such as donating money to the public schools so that they can offer children fruits and vegetables. Also, the government should maybe subsidize healthy foods. In the end, however, it is up to the customers to choose what they buy. Therefore, the agricultural subsidies play a role in the poor health of American citizens, but they surely don’t play such a significant part.
After reading the article, I'm still not sure what to think. Both sides have good arguments, and they both definitely have pros and cons. At first, it seemed like there would be a very strong connection between government intervention in agricultural markets and health problems, however after looking further into it, it actually seems that the subsidies aren't really what's creating the problem.
ReplyDeleteGovernments are giving out subsidies to farmers of corn, soybeans, and milk, claiming to be protecting family farms and agriculture. However, it mainly benefits huge agricultural firms, keeps farmers from growing more nutritious foods, such as fruits, vegetables and other grains, and is flooding the market with the subsidized foods. This leads to healthy foods being much more expensive then cheap alternatives, forcing poor families to stock up on junk food, as the article states.
"Hogwash, say other researchers and agricultural industry professionals, who cite a number of other changes that are making Americans fat." For example, people practice a lot less physical activity, and longer working weeks combined with two-worker households create a lot less time to prepare a healthy, home cooked meal. Also, stopping the subsidies for the above mentioned products, wouldn't effect the end price on them much, as the costs for farmers don't really show on the price we have to pay.
To resolve the problem of obesity in America, I agree with Paddy and think the government should stop giving corn, soybean and wheat farmers subsidies, and invest the money in fruit and vegetable farmers instead. Or, like stated in the article "if we’re trying to look for something political that might make a difference, try subsidizing fruit and vegetable growers so the cost is comparatively lower for better foods.”
There is surely a connection between the government’s subsidy and the health problems in U.S. The support for wheat, soybean and corns first meant to stabilize crop prices and provide the citizens an ‘affordable and healthy food’. However the results weren’t what the government has intended to be.
ReplyDeleteAs Choon-Ho said, food manufactures were buying all those highly subsidized foods, which were cheaper than other crops. This as a result, made the markets overflow with products such as high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which are made out of soybean. Therefore, while ‘normal’ sugar prices stayed the price of artificial sugars went down. Due to the decrease of prices of goods where HFCS is used, (ready-to-eat meals, fast food etc.) the demands for it increased. Everywhere, HFCS were in use.
I see the problem at this stage. Even though we prevent eating HFCS, it is indeed impossible to do so in modern days. In every food we eat, we can see such kind of artificial materials. Even worse, the supply and demand is continuously increasing because the crops (wheat, soybeans, corns in this case) are too cheap. Therefore, I see the main cause as the government subsidy on these crops.
However, we shouldn’t ignore the facts that bad health are caused also by the modern people’s habit. People tend to be busy all the time. They don’t have any more time to exercise and to cook for their selves ‘at home’. And the technology has improved too much, ‘Technological innovations have contributed as well—for example, advances in cutting and peeling technology, freezing technology, coating technology’ that most of the people start to eat just ‘unhealthy’ foods. Lastly, the worst problem is that we don’t realize how bad the situation is.
Anyways, my opinion is that we can’t say what the ‘major problem’ is. The Problem is caused when all of those cases are in act.
After reading and analyzing the article, i have found that the government should not subsidize a food like corn which causes a unhealthy life style and ignore healthy products. The US Government has about 1,100 Billion dollars of dept where hundreds of millions go into Subsidies and these should be invested well. The Irony is that the government also spens a lot of money on advertisement for healthy living and a healthy life stlye. They increase awareness of the threats of smoking as well as the awareness about fast food. On the other hand they support fast and unhealthy food by susidizing corn.
ReplyDeleteTo be able to support both the crop and the health care industry the government should support both of them with subsidies, but focus a bit more more on the health side to increase the awareness of healthy products and ensure that people recognize that corn based products are not as healthy as they might seem. Government therefore should invest their money in a more healthy organization.
Chris LH
In general, I think that there is a connection between the two, however only a vague one. I agree with the article and many others that commented that there is indeed a relation of the government interference in the American agricultural market. The government support on certain agricultural raw goods, for example wheat or corn, have negative effects down the producer chain, which ultimately causes an unhealthy lifestyle in the United States.
ReplyDeleteI also strongly agree with the point that Choon-Ho made, that farmers will switch to corn, wheat or soybean as these ares subsidized and supported by the government, and therefore are more lucrative for the farmers to harvest, causing the price of these crops to fall. Another result is that other crops, for example vegetables and fruits are neglected, supply decreases, and consequently the price rises. And finally, secondary producers would rather buy the cheaper crops and use them for production, which unfortunately are the unhealthier ones.
However, this does include every single manufacturer and secondary producer. Yes, this does mean that the healthier goods are more expensive, which brings us to the point which the article does not go into depth with that much. The consumers are the ones who ultimately have the choice which good to buy, depending on their individual priority of spending. Consumers should not be guided by comparatively tiny differences in price tags of healthy and unhealthy foods, that then govern their way of living, which shows it is not only the government intervention in the agricultural market. It is just a lack of support of the government in educational methods concerning health issues that need to improve this ‘American Lifestyle’.
A point by the side which remains is that the article made a point, that is among many which contribute to the unhealthy way of life, and therefore I think that the connection between government intervention in the agricultural market and the unhealthy way of living is not that strong.
In my opinion there is a connection between the agricultural subsidies given by the government and the poor health of Americans. I have to agree with Paddy because I too do not understand how fast food is so much more cheaper than healthy food. But, on the other hand, I also agree with Choon Ho on that these subsidies are not a major factor leading to poor health.
ReplyDeleteLike Adrian says, it is more common for children to eat fast food, as it gives greater satisfaction. The same thing counts for adults; they too favour fast food because it is like the name says faster, which means they can get back to work quicker. So, as Jasper already pointed out, it is hard, if not impossible to imagine the world without such firms as McDonalds.
Richard Atkinson's solution to the problem, namely to "try subsidizing fruit and vegetable growers so the cost is comparatively lower for better foods", will only hurt everybody. Many people will lose their jobs, and the consumers will then have to buy high-priced foods, making them not able to afford as much anymore.
In conclusion, I think that, like Jasper said, many countries, like the US have become relient on unhealthy foods, making it hard for the government to change its people's diets.
Alexander Mire
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article and other people’s comments, I decided to investigate this matter myself and found myself disagreeing with agricultural subsidies fostering poor health in general. I would like to stress the quote from the given url, which says, “not much of an increase in the price of corn wouldn’t affect the price of HFCS because most of its cost is in manufacturing rather than raw materials.” This drew my attention, and after researching about the success of McDonalds, which has become the norm of Americans, I found a passage which correspond with the above quote: “... They re-engineered their stainless steel kitchen for mass production and speed with assembly line procedures. And they slashed the price of their hamburger from a competitive 30 cents to just 15 cents.” This clearly shows how it is not the price of the raw materials, but rather mass production which is significantly lowering the price of junk food. It must be noted, however, that the reduction in price of HFCS might have an effect upon price of soft drinks, but yet again, even if the price of HFCS rises by, say, 15%, that wouldn’t decrease the production of soft drinks as soft drinks have a high profit margin, since most soft drinks are made mainly from sugar and water. Further more, most people argue that the subsides spent on corn, wheat, and other high-calorie foods, but it must be noted that the values given are TOTAL values, and not per capita value. I looked up the 2007 census publications of farming in the United States, and found that the acres spent and producing these subsidized goods far exceeded the products who were not subsidized, meaning that in a per-capita scale, the difference may not be so great, although it may be possible that the INITIAL(the initial, not the current ones) subsidies may have increased the production of these goods.
On average, the Americans have become poor since 2000, and because fast foods are inferior goods, this may have had a higher effect rather than subsides on farm products, as I said on paragraph 1 the low prices of fast foods are not a direct result of subsidies. In “McDonald’s History” it says, “the first drive-thru operation... today accounts for about half of all McDonald’s restaurant sales,” suggesting that convenience of fast-food may be playing a role in obesity in the United States, as many fast food stores not only offer drive-thru, but also delivery and parking space, making it readily accessible for the busy, lazy, and the poor; McDonald’s top customers as well as the most obese.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/50785.php
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:sUhzfM3IC_8J:www.mcdonalds.ca/pdfs/history_final.pdf+the+fifties+john+mcdonalds+mass+production&hl=de&gl=de&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh2ayd8-6WEr65sEJCqyTXEDfv-pzS2UH9WpU9jdz010IjSxC4Fea9eKkmy_oT9I4UyKOJCvJ4IXD4JyMOvV0I74SC_hglaD9VTnwGF1zjvBlSA5hHALqCWTL6yAIC_-v_WQC6S&sig=AFQjCNGyJ_kQC-t_kZmBff7VWVNM4GHwSw
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/index.asp
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247588/