|
|
Post by Megan Mikesell on Sept 29, 2016 16:38:13 GMT
I was not surprised to see the large role money and government play in the cost of food. Since the start of farming subsidies the cost of high fat, high sugar, processed foods has dramatically decreased, while the cost of fruits and vegetables have increased. According to the USDA National Level Annual Summary report for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, as of September 2016 the average benefit per person is $126.83 monthly. This breaks down into a little over $4 per day per person. When it costs between $2 and $2.50 per day to meet 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended fruit and vegetable intake, eating healthy is not always feasible for families on these assistance program (Stewart, 2011). Fruits and vegetable though high in nutritional value, are low in calories and people must also spend money on proteins and calorie dense foods to keep them from feeling hungry. I found that between 2003 and 2007, the top 10% of subsidized farmers received an annual average of $68,030, whereas the bottom 80% averaged $2312.37 Disproportionately allocated subsidies have contributed to forcing hundreds of small, biodiverse farms out of business at the profit of industrialized food processing. While experts admit that removing all subsidies from sugar and fat would not do much in regards to cost, subsidizing fruit and vegetable farms would lower the price, making healthy foods more comparable to fattening, processed foods. www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(13)00320-6/fulltextwww.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by ghannaba on Oct 1, 2016 3:01:01 GMT
I think that leaving out actual dollar amounts and distributions does take away some of the visual impact of them stating the imbalance between the subsidies doled out to farmers. Being that I did grow up working on a farm, the impact of these subsidies on a larger multi-section operation where we had 5 permanent hands around to keep everything going required those very essential funds to help make ends meet. My perspective growing up in this conservative region proud to have the individual freedoms of America and not "imprisoned like those damn Commies" (yes, this is a direct quote from someone I know very well) lends me the ability to step back and find irony at how dependent this region has been on GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES which is redistribution of wealth. This area survived through many droughts, floods, volatile markets, and other difficulties with the help of government monies. From the top to the bottom, we all are dependent on agriculture and thankfully the amount of subsidies poured into this region has injected the economy year after year with much needed capital for this region to get where we are today (which then, in turn, allowed the region to diversify even further and have a more vibrant economy). I find many individuals be critical of food assistance programs, and yet, these very same people are receiving a handout from the government as well (admittedly becoming less and less of late). I am hesitant myself to fully jump on the idea of completely restructuring subsidies, as I fear we may cause even more strain on the already struggling rural communities in the area. Personally, I do believe that restructuring and reforming subsidies and how the USDA (corrupt as I'll get out) conducts itself needs to happen. These would bring about positive changes in the long run, but our communities (and undoubtedly our nation) would have to endure through some true growing pains to get to the other side. Last point, our subsidies also have a LARGE impact on the markets globally in a way that promotes our countries interests, but places farmers elsewhere around the world at a huge disadvantage in bringing their own product to market. I bring this up primarily because this world has become interconnected to such a degree that I believe that our specie's only shot to continue existing lies in our ability to work together for all mankind. (my idealist hopeful soapbox)
TL:DR
Great point, money drives policy and food markets, and I agree that little biodiverse (and possibly more sustainable and environmentally friendly) producers have a huge disadvantage and could use more support. Diversity fuels many options and sources for a variety of nutrients (though they may lack in caloric number), and investing in them has the potential to promote market changes to make these more affordable and accessible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Megan Mikesell on Oct 3, 2016 13:03:23 GMT
You bring up a great point about the global economy. It is almost impossible to make any kind of reform in the Untied States without effecting our global trade or other countries' markets. It is also hard to convince people that though times may be challenging for time, in the long run the change is better. Nobody wants to go through growing pains, but without them large reform cannot take place, and things will stay the same. Sadly, the government and groups such as the USDA will always focus on the bottom line and financial interests of their supporters, whether right or wrong. Ideally, the nation would look out for the health and well-being of the citizens first, but money is the determining factor of many major decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by ghannaba on Oct 3, 2016 14:57:25 GMT
Yep. It is very hard to convince the lawmakers that the current model isn't working. Money to support people's reelection unfortunately ties in a sense of conflict of interest in politics in my opinion. But you need money to campaign and get your name out there and raise support for votes.
It is also hard to convince people making the decisions at the agency level to consider the current policy approach to farm subsidies and their impact on the global economy may need change. Their bottomline seems to be in the interest of how tax payer dollars are spent and a 'survival' or 'self-preserving' mindset for US stakeholders. The negative impact on others around the world outside our borders typically gets little to no consideration from what I have seen in the political sphere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Hurley on Oct 3, 2016 23:58:31 GMT
Unfortunately I wasn't at all surprised by the extreme bias for certain crops by government funding (especially corn) given the persistence and power of the corporate lobbying industry on Capitol Hill. With political lobbying, wealthy companies which produce sugary food and drinks such as Coca-Cola can give extremely large donations to House and Senate members (which can be used to fund future campaigns for reelection) so long as they vote in line with those same monied interests. Of course farmers/etc that grow fruits and vegetables for produce don't have half as much money as these multi-million dollar corporations who rely on high-fructose corn syrup to cheaply sweeten their products (although fortunately this practice is becoming less common) to represent their side on the Hill, so as a result they keep losing more and more ground on government aid/subsidies.
|
|
