Rethinking Farm Subsidies to Reduce Obesity
Research has revealed the relationship between subsidized food and obesity. “People whose diets contained more subsidized foods tended to have worse health than those whose diets contained less. The people who ate the most subsidized food had a … 37 percent higher risk of obesity…” (McMillan). The relationship between subsidized foods and obesity is complicated to determine with certainty. Despite this, it is time to reconsider current agricultural policies.
The US relationship between farming and the economy is complicated. By 1933 modernization and economic issues drove the passage of first Farm Bill, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, addressing production and protecting the American food supply …show more content…
Genetically modified corn seed allowed farmers to increase crop size through genetically modified (GM) seed. "On average, GM technology adoption has … increased crop yields by 22%, …” (McDivitt). Other factors agricultural authorities state when challenged about the harmful impact of farm subsidies center on changes to American life, and include: decreases in physical activity, dual career families, increases in meals eaten away from home, and other innovations. Among the most significant arguments against the subsidy/obesity relationship are calculations minimizing the impact subsidies have on price. “Contrary to common claims, US agricultural policies have had generally modest and mixed effects on prices and quantities of farm commodities, with negligible effects on the prices paid by consumers for food, and thus a negligible influence on dietary patterns and obesity” (Alston, et al, 470). While these counterpoints are worthwhile to consider, they are flawed and cannot stand on their …show more content…
“…although R&D is primarily responsible for increased farm output, subsidiary payments sustain the impetus to overproduce” (Franck). Despite the argument Ms. Alston, Agricultural and Resource Economist at UC Davis sets forth to deny subsidiary price impact, she concedes that, “It is conceptually possible that farm subsidy policies contribute to lower relative prices…” (472). This admission is a reasonable conclusion. According to a 2016 study by JAMA Internal Medicine, investigating subsidized food consumption, their research favored the claim that individuals whose diets included a higher concentration of calories resulting from subsidized foods were at increased risk for obesity (McCarthy). Economists cannot entirely deny the relationship between subsidy overproduction and cost, and as a result the rise in US consumption of processed foods and commensurate rises in
Research has revealed the relationship between subsidized food and obesity. “People whose diets contained more subsidized foods tended to have worse health than those whose diets contained less. The people who ate the most subsidized food had a … 37 percent higher risk of obesity…” (McMillan). The relationship between subsidized foods and obesity is complicated to determine with certainty. Despite this, it is time to reconsider current agricultural policies.
The US relationship between farming and the economy is complicated. By 1933 modernization and economic issues drove the passage of first Farm Bill, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, addressing production and protecting the American food supply …show more content…
Genetically modified corn seed allowed farmers to increase crop size through genetically modified (GM) seed. "On average, GM technology adoption has … increased crop yields by 22%, …” (McDivitt). Other factors agricultural authorities state when challenged about the harmful impact of farm subsidies center on changes to American life, and include: decreases in physical activity, dual career families, increases in meals eaten away from home, and other innovations. Among the most significant arguments against the subsidy/obesity relationship are calculations minimizing the impact subsidies have on price. “Contrary to common claims, US agricultural policies have had generally modest and mixed effects on prices and quantities of farm commodities, with negligible effects on the prices paid by consumers for food, and thus a negligible influence on dietary patterns and obesity” (Alston, et al, 470). While these counterpoints are worthwhile to consider, they are flawed and cannot stand on their …show more content…
“…although R&D is primarily responsible for increased farm output, subsidiary payments sustain the impetus to overproduce” (Franck). Despite the argument Ms. Alston, Agricultural and Resource Economist at UC Davis sets forth to deny subsidiary price impact, she concedes that, “It is conceptually possible that farm subsidy policies contribute to lower relative prices…” (472). This admission is a reasonable conclusion. According to a 2016 study by JAMA Internal Medicine, investigating subsidized food consumption, their research favored the claim that individuals whose diets included a higher concentration of calories resulting from subsidized foods were at increased risk for obesity (McCarthy). Economists cannot entirely deny the relationship between subsidy overproduction and cost, and as a result the rise in US consumption of processed foods and commensurate rises in