Reduce Agricultural Subsidies to Reduce Waistlines
According to a study cited in an article in the Wichita Eagle, obesity rates are increasing in Missouri, and faster than the national average.
The author of the study says that the rising rate is largely attributable to the fact that snack foods and soda are priced lower than healthier foods. He proposes that:
[...] there is more that federal, state and local governments can do to reduce obesity, including taxing sugary drinks, providing incentives to grocery stores that locate in underserved areas and requiring restaurants to clearly label nutritional information on their menus.
Neither the article nor the author of the study discusses the fact that the federal government heavily subsidizes the production of corn, which significantly reduces the market price of starchy and sugary foods to consumers.
Instead of subsidizing the production of a good, and then taxing the consumption of the ensuing unhealthy products, it would be more efficient for the federal government to remove the subsidies entirely. This would cause the price of sugary and starchy foods to increase relative to other foods. Consumers would face a greater natural incentive to eat healthier substitutes like fruits and vegetables because they would be relatively less expensive. This would benefit low-income people in particular, because they pay a greater percentage of their income for food, so eliminating corn subsidies could help to reduce the difference in the rates of obesity across income levels.
As contributors to this blog have argued previously, an individual’s waistline is the responsibility of the individual, not of the government.





I think waistlines would definitely be reduced with the elimination of the subsidies. The poor would have a much harder time being able to afford a 2000 calorie/day diet.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/a-high-price-for-healthy-food/
“Not only are the empty calories cheaper, but the healthy foods are becoming more and more expensive. Vegetables and fruits are rapidly becoming luxury goods.”
“Still, even those who consume twice as much in junk food calories are still spending far less than healthy eaters.”
Comment by DaveG — July 1, 2010 @ 2:05 p.m.
The purpose of agricultural subsidies is to keep farmers in business. It is the peculiar nature of farming that a farm can be wiped out with several years of bad weather, and it takes time to create a new farm. Since we have to eat in the short run, and do so every day, we have a basic self-interest in keeping the farm sysytem going. Consider the taxes paid to maintain agricultural subsidies as merely part of the cost of buying food: that can of beans costs the retail price at the store plus x cents reflecting the subsidy cost.
Comment by dempster holland — August 8, 2010 @ 10:47 a.m.