Food and Energy in the Community

Vogt 1

Mason Vogt

Kara McLuckie

Food and Energy in the Community

4/19/2012

The True Cost of Corn Subsidies

Corn is more prevalent in the American food system than most people realize. It dominates the shelves of our supermarkets in many products many of us would not consider to be con based, and affects everyone’s life every day. Corn is no longer theclassic conception of corn on the cob, the corn produced in mass quantities today is hardly even edible. This is because of a subsidy system where the government pays farmers to produce crops, making it less expensive to grow corn with a larger output. Subsidies started out as a temporary plan to support the economy during the Great Depression but has yielded a system that heavily subsidies corn in our food system today. Heavily subsidized corn has led to a rise in production, creating a large surplus of corn. Uses were created for that excess corn such as the production of High Fructose Corn Syrup, a sweetener substitute, and xantham gum, which is used as a thickener in many food products. The over-production of corn has led to many unforeseen consequences affecting the health of our country. Decreases in the priceof unhealthy, highly processed foods created a country that makes unhealthy food choices, resulting in major health issues such as obesity and obesity-related illness.The health issues resulting from corn subsidies reach much further than obesity, it affects an array of unforeseen outcomes such as the cost of health care. Negative repercussions such as these derive from the policy to make corn a cheap commodity.

As stated before, the idea of subsidized crops in America was started as a temporary idea. When the Depression started to hit in 1929 over a three-year period the gross income on American farms dropped fifty-two percent (Cain) This was a shock to there American economy, which prior to the Great Depression stood heavily on the income produced by. U.S. farmers. Farmers started to shy away from the profession of agriculture due to the low income. This created an even bigger income separation between the rural residents (farmers) and urban residents, to a point in 1933 at which rural residents were earning a mere forty percent of the income residents in urban areas were earning (Doering). As a part of the New Deal, which was set in place to stimulate America’s economy, Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) implemented the Agriculture Adjustment Act with the Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace (Cain). The bill that outlines the policies of the Agriculture Adjustment Act is called the Farm Bill.

Despite FDR’s speech when implementing the Farm Bill subsidy program stating that it was a “a temporary solution to deal with an emergency.”(Grunwald) the agriculture subsidy program is still in effect today. Now it is much larger than when it started, reaching a peak amount in 2005 of 10,138,944,101 dollars in corn subsidies alone (Environmental Working Group). With a policy in effect for such a long period of time, one would presume that it has to be successful and effective, or else they would have disbanded it. In fact, the Farm Bill produces the opposite of the desired effect, “Our farm policy is supposed to save small farmers and small towns. Instead it fuels the expansion of industrial mega farms and the depopulation of rural America” (Grunwald). Instead of promoting small scale farming in the U.S. the Farm Bill catered towards larger farms with one goal in mind; sell as much corn as possible.While expanding the market for agricultural crops, The Farm Bill created a large separation of farmers, and income among those farmers. This discouraged local, healthy farming and promotes large-scale cheap, processed farming. “In reality, the top 10% of subsidized farmers collect nearly three-quarters of the subsidies, for an average of almost $35,000 per year. The bottom 80% average just $700.” (Grunewald). Because such a little population of farmers has such great power, they have strong lobbing abilities in the decisions made about the food system. The decisions made are not based off the greater health of the consumers, or the greatest true cost to the consumers, rather the decisions made are based off what will benefit the farmer, and their large cooperation the most. With a push for farmers for more efficient crops comes the push for new technology.

When new technologies are produced to increase crop efficiency there are certain health risks presented with new types of production. When such a mass market is set up for corn, corn production is a large industry, this forces growers to do everything they can in their legal limits to grow as much corn in as little amount of space that they can. A push for biotechnology, such as new fertilizers, and Genetically Modified Organisms or GMOs ensues. In one instance recently, Dow, an agro science and chemical company, produced a GMO corn that is resistant to a spray called 2,4-D (Docket No. APHIS–2010–0103) which is a major component in the harmful herbicide called Agent Orange (SumOfUs.org). This herbicide has been “linked to major health problems that include cancer (particularly non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma), lowered sperm counts, liver disease and Parkinson’s disease. A growing body of evidence from laboratory studies show that 2,4-D causes endocrine disruption, reproductive problems, neurotoxicity and immunosuppression.”(SumOfUs.org). The release of this new herbicide-resistant corn would cause a significant increase in the use of herbicides. More herbicide use could lead to the unwanted spread of that herbicide to nearby farmers practicing healthy farming. The spread of herbicides could ruin their crops and make their food unhealthy to eat.Basically by subsidizing corn and encouraging mass corn growth, the Farm Bill is indirectly encouraging the use of harmful herbicides on our food.

Subsidies not only promote unhealthy production practices, but also the use of processed corn in our food. Corn subsidies in the Farm Bill constitute the cost of food, in America and overseas, controls the distribution of food stamps to around 45 million people, close to half of which are children. The Farm Bill influences agriculture, and its effect on the environment. When we, as consumers enter a supermarket, we think that it is up to us what to choose what we want for dinner that night when, in fact the Farm Bill affects, and limitsconsumer’s choices with its policies. For example when corn became subsidized, the food system shifted largely to corn-basedproducts.

When corn is subsidized, it makes corn cheap feed for cattle and other meat-animals, including chicken. Corn is not a natural part of these animal’s diets. It’s comparable to feeding humans grass; we could probably get some nutrients from it but it is not a normal part of our diet. This means that the animals cannot digest corn as well as food from their normal diet. Harmful bacteria can from more easily in the stomach of a cow that is on a corn diet, examples of this are is new strains of E. coli, once a controlled bacteria, now sickens an estimated 73,000 Americans every year, a completely unnecessary number (Weber i). The illness of these innocent Americans is a sacrifice for what? This sacrifice is for meat that grows faster, and that can be raised cheaper. American illness is a choice that is made when The Farm Bill chooses to subsidize corn.

Because of the properties in corn, it is used in many processed, fatty, sugar-filled, generally unhealthy products. When a product like this is made cheaper through a subsidy system it lowers the price of un-healthy products it is used to make, in turn creating a, un-healthy America. “Essentially, we are subsidizing Cheetos.”(Mckibben 87). Corn is used in many foods such as High Fructose Corn Syrup(HFCS), which is a cheap, unhealthy, substitute to sugar. When viewed from a commercial standpoint, high fructose corn syrup seems like a miracle sweetener, it is inexpensive to produce, we can produce it in our country, it works well as a substrate for yeast, it blends well with other sweeteners and flavorings, and it retains moisture well (Lawrence 86). When the health effects are considered it is a completely contrasting view. Intake of HFCSis directly linked with obesity, caloric intake is increased by hundreds of calories every day when one consumes HFCS, it is also associated with stimulating appetite, which increases overall food consumption, leading to obesity and its resulting health side effects (Lawrence 87). The reason that HFCS is linked to the stimulation of appetite and obesity is that

HFCS has a higher fructose level than regular cane, or beet sugar

“The human body processes fructose differently than it does glucose. Glucose triggers the pancreas to release insulin, suppressing appetite. Fructose, however, is processed only in the liver, so no insulin is released. As a result, he says, people are more likely to habitually overindulge in HFCS-sweetened products” (Fields).

This is also a reason that HFCS leads to so many cases of type 2 diabetes. A

conservative estimate states that “Americans over age 2 consume at least 132 calories of HFCS per day” (Fields), foods containing HFCS now go beyond the public perception of sodas and sweets. HFCS is used in foods perceived to be healthy such as yogurt and baby food too. This speaks to a larger issue with HFCS that is the general public’s knowledge, or lack there of, regarding foods that contain the caloric sweetener.

If an impoverished person only had a dollar to spend and they wanted the most for the dollar they would get the food that fills them up the most, “a dollar's worth of cookies or potato chips yields 1200 calories, while a dollar's worth of carrots yields only 250 calories.” (Foster236), and this explains the attraction to corn-based products when living with a tight budget. Another policy that we can blame for this substitution of regular sweeteners with high fructose corn syrup is a “sugar policy that has restricted imports, driven up the U.S. price of sugar, and encouraged consumers and food manufacturers to replace sugar with alternative caloric sweeteners, especially HFCS” (Alston). Policies like this one lead to Subsitutionism, a term that Lawrence and Grice use in an article they wrote about the sociology of the Food System. Subsitutionism is the idea that the food industry is seeking better alternatives to the already existing parts of the food system (Lawrence86). When corn was made cheaper to produce than ever before the idea to use corn as a base for substitution products arose, so high fructose corn syrup was produced, and now is in “virtually all the sodas and most of the fruit drinks sold in the supermarket”(Lawrence86).

Countless professional opinions point towards beverages as the leading cause of the obesity epidemic today, it can be attributed to corn subsidies, and the use of HFCS. “Beverages provide twice as many calories today as they did in 1965, with more than two-thirds of the increase coming from sweetened fruit juices and soft drinks. Specialists calculate that the current epidemic of obesity can be accounted for by the consumption of a single extra 20-ounce soft drink each day.”(Paarlberg87). HFCS sweetened drinks are much cheaper, more accessible, and stimulate your appetite more than they did in 1965, it’s no wonder we have an obesity epidemic in our country today.

Healthy food is subsidized too, but with nowhere near the amount spent on large commodity crops, for example, “in 2009, $15.4 billion in subsidies were lavished on the growers of corn, cotton, rice, wheat, and soybeans. In that same year, fruits, vegetables, and organics received only $825 million in support from the federal government.” (Carr). This statement makes it clear that The Farm Bill that they low regards for public health, rather they look at what can benefit large corporations, and economic welfare. Cheaper processed food not only contributes to a drop in the consumption of less healthy food, but it also replaces other healthy intakes. For example the low price of soda means that more households will purchase soda then milk, but milk is especially helpful in a child’s diet, and without milk they lack important nutrients such as vitamin A, vitamin B12, folate, magnesium, and iron (Fields).

The true cost of health effects stemmed from an unhealthy diet is nowhere near the amount saved from buying slightly cheaper foods. “In the long run, an 800-calorie candy bar costs much more than the $1 sticker price.” (Foster263). Obesity causes a wide variety of illnesses that cost massive amounts in healthcare cost. Some problems associated with obesity include diabetes, heart disease, some cancers, and mobile disability, not to mention a lost ability to do basic productive tasks. Health issues such as these have caused an estimated $147 billion dollars of annual health care costs (Foster237). Not only are taxpayers subsidizing unhealthy crops such as corn, but they are also paying for the health effects of corn-based processed food in health care. With the amount of negative health effects the subsidy program causes, it is amazing that the policy is still in effect.

What needs to be done to create a country where subsidies create an unhealthy lifestyle? The subsidies need to be redistributed to healthy crops that are not going to be processed and manipulated into an unhealthy food. "About seventy percent of the value of the American soy bean comes straight from the U.S. government. Ditto for high- fructose corn syrup.” (McKibben 87) To create a healthier country these heavily subsidized crops must be broken down and redistributed among other fruits and vegetables. Another way to redistribute the subsidies would be towards the local farmer rather than large-scale ones. Policies could be put in place that encourages local, small-scale growing, which is almost always healthier. Either way there needs to be reform with the distribution of subsidies. Foster argues 3 main points of reform for the system in her article Subsidizing Fat, she says that subsidies must be ended entirely, diversification of crops should be strongly encouraged with programs set in place, and the cheap, highly-processed foods that we buy today must set to their true cost (Foster240). These are three main points of change that must occur so that the people of America start eating healthy foods again.

Despite the mass amount of corruption, the tilted playing field in the direction of the large corporations, and the unfair flow of money, there is hope. “One of the more interesting proposals in this year's debate—particularly because it requires no funding—would permit institutions that buy food using public funds to favor local farmers.” (Winne10). People are advocating for policies that favors the Local, non-subsidized, sustainable, healthy farm. Community Supported Agriculture, or CSA, when the consumer purchases a share in a small farm, is becoming more popular and growing slowly. New stories surface every day of a family that decided to make a farm that contradicts the unhealthy subsidized large cooperate farms. There is hope for a more healthy future. Although there are many negative health effects that derive from the subsidizing of corn, people realize this and are pushing against it.

Works Cited

Alston, Julian M., Bradley J. Rickard, and Abigail M. Okrent. "Farm Policy And Obesity In The United States." Choices: The Magazine Of Food, Farm & Resource Issues 25.3 (2010): 15-21. Academic Search Complete. Web. 25 Apr. 2012.

Cain, Zachary, and Stephen Lovejoy. "History and Outlook for Farm Bill Conservation Programs." Choices. Choices Magazine, 2004. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <

Carr, Donald. "Corn Subsidies Make Unhealthy Food Choices the Rational Ones." Grist. 22 Sept. 2010. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <

"Corn Subsidies in the United States Totaled $77.1 Billion from 1995-2010." EWG Farm Subsidy Database. Environmental Working Group, 2010. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <

Doering, O.C. (1997, Feb.). An overview of conservation and agricultural policy: Questions from the past and observations about the present. Agriculture and Conservation Policies, A Workshop in Honor of Norman A. Berg.

Fields, Scott. "The Fat of the Land: Do Agricultural Subsidies Foster Poor Health?" National Center for Biotechnology Information. Environmental Health Perspectives, Oct. 2004. Web. 22 Mar. 2012. <

Foster, Julie. "Subsidizing Fat: How The 2012 Farm Bill Can Address America's Obesity Epidemic." University Of Pennsylvania Law Review 160.1 (2011): 235-276. Academic Search Complete. Web. 25 Apr. 2012.

Grunwald, Michael. "Down On The Farm." Time 170.20 (2007): 28-36. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Apr. 2012.

Hurt, R.D. (2002). Problems of plenty: The American farmer in the twentieth century. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.

Lawrence G., J. Grice. (2004). Agribusiness, Biotechnology and Food. In Germov, J., and L. Williams (Eds.), A Sociology of Food & Nutrition: The Social Appetite. New York: Oxford University Press. 77-95.