All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: WHY DO WE SUBSIDIZE FAT?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:45 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:17 pm
Posts: 673
Its a fact! In the fifteen years between 1995 and 2010, U.S. taxpayers paid farmers $16.9 billion to produce corn starch, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, and soy oil.

These subsidized products, and their derivatives, were used to cook up snack foods designed to please taste buds that evolved over the millenniums to crave the sweet and fat.

Many of those snack foods were designed to feed children between the ages of 6 and 11. Consequently, one in five of these children are now obese. These obese children will become vulnerable to heart disease and diabetes, and will necessarily consume billions of dollars of health care.

While the government lavishes billions on corn and soy, it gives almost nothing to other food crops, the exception being apples, which received a paltry $262 million over the fifteen years.

If, as Deep Throat suggests, we follow the money, that money will invariably lead us to a head-scratching question, which is…

Why are we funding fat? (Food Chain Radio & Forums #746)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WHY DO WE SUBSIDIZE FAT?
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:22 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:17 pm
Posts: 673
This from Chris in California...

You might also ask why we protect our sugar industry with tarrifs, driving several American candy companies to Canada. While in journalism school I was taught that if you can't figure out why, follow the money.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: WHY DO WE SUBSIDIZE FAT?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 8:32 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:17 pm
Posts: 673
This from Veronique from www.aig.org...

As the Super Committee begins to consider ways the budget can be cut, including agriculture, I wanted to be sure you saw this post from agricultural economist Vincent Smith (full text copied below). Smith argues that the 'reforms' proposed by the House and Senate agriculture committees may actually increase spending--not reduce it.

"So what is the 'improvement'? It is a modification of the ACRE program that pays farmers a subsidy when the revenue per acre for a particular crop falls below recent statewide historical averages. Since crop prices are at, or near, all-time record highs, that means taxpayers would pay already wealthy farmers to maintain record profits--at a time when millions of Americans are jobless and not making a profit at all." -- writes Vince Smith

Vincent Smith is an agricultural economist at Montana State University and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). He directs AEI's American Boondoggle: Fixing the 2012 Farm Bill project. More information about reforming the farm bill can be found at www.aei.org/americanboondoggle.
For media inquiries please contact Jesse Blumenthal at jesse.blumenthal@aei.org or 202.862.4870.

Super Committee should take a weed wacker to farm subsidies

Only in Congress could "cutting spending" actually mean "figuring out new ways to spend more." Word on the street is that the Super Committee is close to reaching a deal with farm lobbyists to cut up to $33 billion over ten years from farm subsidy programs. Sounds good, but there’s a catch. To get the ag lobby’s support, the deal would include passing a new “improved” farm safety net that is a variant of a current ACRE program. This bait and switch will keep subsidies flowing to already wealthy farmers and could cost taxpayers billions more in the long run.

So what is the "improvement"? It is a modification of the ACRE program that pays farmers a subsidy when the revenue per acre for a particular crop falls below recent statewide historical averages. Since crop prices are at, or near, all-time record highs, that means taxpayers would pay already wealthy farmers to maintain record profits—at a time when millions of Americans are jobless and not making a profit at all.

That’s just not fair.

This deal could end up costing taxpayers more money in the long run, too. If prices go down, even partially, towards more typical levels, taxpayers may be on the hook for much more than $6 billion in some years and, depending on the final structure of the program, could average as much as $5 billion annually. Add it up—over ten years, there would be no cuts from ag subsidies at all, just a switch in how they are received.

The Super Committee should take the House and Senate agriculture committees' recommendations, due to arrive on their desks on Friday evening, with a large grain of salt. In fact, the Super Committee members should consider much larger cuts than the agriculture committees want them to look at.

President Obama has recommended agriculture subsidy cuts in the order of $33 billion over the next ten years and House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan has advocated cuts in excess of $48 billion. However, the recent AEI 2012 farm bill project, involving more than 20 of the leading agricultural economists in the country, identified over $100 billion of agricultural subsidy cuts that could be made without adversely affecting the country’s food supply and distribution system.

The Super Committee should be bold, not timid, and take a weed wacker to farm subsidies that, for the most part, benefit less than 200,000 relatively wealthy farmers and landowners. A hundred billion dollars saved in wasteful agriculture subsidies is a hundred billion dollars that does not need to be cut from Social Security, Medicare, or defense.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group