Yes, Subsidized Food Can Be Unhealthy First things first: Eating more of the foods that are subsidized does seem to set the stage for poor health. An emerging field of research suggests an interesting answer: Coupons. Share Tweet Email. Read This Next Wild parakeets have taken a liking to London. Animals Wild Cities Wild parakeets have taken a liking to London Love them or hate them, there's no denying their growing numbers have added an explosion of color to the city's streets.
India bets its energy future on solar—in ways both small and big. Environment Planet Possible India bets its energy future on solar—in ways both small and big Grassroots efforts are bringing solar panels to rural villages without electricity, while massive solar arrays are being built across the country.
Epic floods leave South Sudanese to face disease and starvation. Travel 5 pandemic tech innovations that will change travel forever These digital innovations will make your next trip safer and more efficient.
But will they invade your privacy? Go Further. Animals Wild Cities This wild African cat has adapted to life in a big city. Animals This frog mysteriously re-evolved a full set of teeth. Animals Wild Cities Wild parakeets have taken a liking to London.
Animals Wild Cities Morocco has 3 million stray dogs. Meet the people trying to help. Animals Whales eat three times more than previously thought. Environment Planet Possible India bets its energy future on solar—in ways both small and big. Environment As the EU targets emissions cuts, this country has a coal problem. Paid Content How Hong Kong protects its sea sanctuaries. History Magazine These 3,year-old giants watched over the cemeteries of Sardinia.
Magazine How one image captures 21 hours of a volcanic eruption. Meanwhile, small farmers continue to go broke, thanks to the low cost of foods subsidized by the government for corporate buyers. Even the few companies that provide seeds and equipment for farmers receive their own tax breaks from state governments, while farmers are stuck with the bill of goods sold to them from companies like John Deere and Monsanto. Does this help feed America? Not really: We still buy most of our food from far-flung places.
So why is our government subsidizing this production model? They got billions in subsidies in return, making them the biggest recipients of corporate welfare. This is disgraceful. Why should our government support big businesses that poison us and our environment? Congress is now considering a new Farm Bill. The recently shot-down first draft cut funding for rural development and conservation programs, while opening up loopholes for corporate farms to access more subsidies.
That should open the field for newer, better ideas. So, why exactly has the image of modern agriculture come to consist largely of herbicide-drenched GMO crops stretching to the horizon and livestock wallowing shoulder to shoulder in their own manure?
The answer, in part, lies in the agricultural subsidy system: Farmers grow what the government pays them to. The latest version of this omnibus legislation was signed into law by President Trump late last year, bringing a long-raging debate over the merits of agricultural subsidies back to the fore. The inner workings of subsidy programs is a subject best left to PhD economists, but, generally speaking, they kick in when demand for a particular crop falls.
According to the laws of supply and demand, this causes the market value of the crop to fall, meaning farmers receive less per bushel. The basic intent of subsidies is to make up the difference between the market price for a crop and the price that a farmer needs to survive. Some subsidies kick in automatically when the market price for a particular crop falls below a predetermined point. Others take the form of government-subsidized insurance policies: Farmers file claims based on their losses, whether those losses are related to weather or markets.
Because subsidies are available primarily for low-margin commodity crops — the kind most often grown in vast industrial-scale monocultures, with well-documented environmental and public health consequences — this form of agriculture has grown. Meanwhile, forms of agriculture that promise better societal outcomes lack subsidies that might encourage more widespread adoption.
About 90 million acres of each are planted annually in America, accounting for more than half of all cropland. Of the corn, 90 percent of the crop will either be fed to livestock, converted to ethanol fuel or exported. One significant change in the newly passed Farm Bill was the inclusion of subsidies to help organic farmers transition through the three-year period between ceasing chemical sprays and acquiring certified-organic status — and the price premiums that come with it — which should help to bring many more acres under organic cultivation.
The subsidy system developed in the s, back when most farms were small and diverse and well before the advent of modern agrichemicals, much less genetic engineering. Staple foods — what we now consider commodity crops — were the focus of subsidies because of the calories they provided to American consumers, not because they happened to be ideal raw materials for industrial products ranging from artificial sweeteners to plastics to biofuels.
The argument for their continued existence is counterintuitive to your average finger-pointing consumer. American farms are, in a sense, too productive: We produce immense surpluses of grains and other commodity crops most years, which keeps the prices paid to farmers low and perpetuates the need for subsidies. In other words, by producing more food than we need, farmers inadvertently drive down the value of their harvests — the immutable laws of supply and demand at work.
Subsidy proponents argue that this catch belies a greater purpose. Farming is more profitable when there is a shortage. Commodity prices had climbed to record highs since the Farm Bill, meaning more and more farmers were able to stay profitable without the subsidy crutch. This led some political factions to call for abolishing, or vastly reducing, the subsidy system, while others saw this boom as a bubble destined to burst.
Though significant changes were made in , the overall approach to subsidizing commodities remained intact. An unexpected turn of events has cast the upcoming bill in a different light: Commodity prices have tanked across the board, causing a nearly 50 percent drop in average net farm income since Moore bristles at the idea of non-farmers telling the agricultural industry what it does and does not need.
That said, it must be noted that Farm Bureau represents the interests of more than just farmers. They sell home, auto and health insurance policies, along with crop insurance — policies backed by massive government subsidies.
The organization also has a long track record of lobbying on behalf of the interests of food-industry conglomerates. The economic interests of these two groups are almost always at odds. Those inclined to point fingers at Big Ag have long advocated for diverting subsidy dollars from commodity agriculture to incentive forms of agriculture that produce better environmental and public health outcomes.
In any economic sector, government stimulus is helpful for getting new businesses established, but under the umbrella of agriculture, diversified organic farms seem to be one business model that remains viable in the long term without ongoing subsidy support.
A flock of sheep, which yields lamb and wool for market, are continually rotated through the fields to mow down crop residue, fertilizing the fields in the process. Value-added offerings range from cornmeal and almond butter to organic yarn and sheepskin.
The value of corn, meanwhile, is measured in hundreds of dollars per acre. In a good year, the harvest is worth slightly more than the cost to produce it. On paper, switching from commodity crops to fruits and vegetables looks like a no-brainer. The demand for organics far outstrips supply in this country: The industry has seen double-digit growth over the past several years and, though about five percent of food sold is organic, less than one percent of farmland is organic, leaving retailers to import boatloads of organic food from abroad.
Industrial-scale producers seem to have all the incentive they need to go neo-yeoman style, even without the government dangling a subsidy to tempt them. For starters, the Farm Bill contains rules against it. Historically, commodity crop growers have had to forfeit their subsidies if they suddenly decide to plant a specialty crop.
In part as a result of lobbying by environmental groups, the Farm Bill changed the rule to allow up to 15 percent of acreage to be converted to non-commodity crops. Other opposing forces are cultural.
0コメント