I've written before
HERE and
HERE here about how crappy the government does when it gets involved with anything weight loss related.
Their knee-jerk reaction is to create new policy, and usually this involves increased taxes, some form of punishing fine, and often a reduction in personal freedom as well.
We saw this with the
Philadelphia Beverage Tax. We saw this with tobacco.
And I've written my ideas about what we can actually do without infringing on peoples' freedoms that might actually work. Building sidewalks. Mandatory public school P.E. Not allowing crap food to be bought with food stamps.
 |
| Seriously? The candy aisle? |
But I've been reading a lot of farming books lately, most notably Joel Salatin and Michael Pollan, and they've raised another issue that I think would help tremendously.
If you want to fight the obesity epidemic, eliminate all corn and soybean subsidies.
Now that's radical.
It'll never happen.
But it would work.
Corn forms the basis for high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). By eliminating all government subsidies for corn production, the price of high fructose corn syrup goes up. If the cost of HFCS skyrockets, food producers have to either: A) look at other options for what they're sweetening their food with, or B) raise their current food prices.
Wait a minute. Raising food prices? Isn't that a
bad thing?
Well yeah, it would be. For
processed foods though (and I use the term "food" loosely here). There's mounting evidence that it is actually
processed foods that are leading to the "Western" diseases (CAD, diabetes, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, etc) that we are seeing epidemics of today.
Now, we don't know all of what is in processed foods that is making America sicker, but we do know that HFCS is one of them. A fascinating
study on 18-40 year old adults showed that when they consumed HFCS beverages for just
two weeks, their blood serum cholesterol levels shot through the roof. Two weeks!
Think of all the good that could be done by lowering the amount of HFCS that the public consumes on any given day! In the long run, we're talking about decreased heart attacks, decreased strokes, less obesity, less diabetes, less arthritis, and so on. That's a huge deal!
Look at what would happen with soybean production. Soy is the major component used in American vegetable oils, which aren't the most healthful cooking option out there either. Less soy = a healthier public.
All of this is done without infringing on any rights or freedoms out there whatsoever.
Further pros?
The elimination of some government subsidies to begin with.
Why do your tax dollars go towards propping up an unsustainable industry? If the corn or soybean industry can't support itself, isn't that a sign that something needs to change? Let the market correct itself. Don't attempt to support a water bed with a few pointy sticks. The end result is only a big mess.
Government subsidies of
any industry only leads to the theft and redistribution of peoples' hard earned money towards something they may not even agree with. Why is my money going towards making people fatter? Why is my money causing people to die sooner? Does this bother anybody else?
Next, I'd argue that the elimination of these subsidies would further be better for the soil. Before you go off thinking I'm advocating soil health over full stomachs, hear me out. There's increasing evidence that poor soil equals less nutrition in plant foods. We're now learning that what it is that you eat eats actually matters as well. Take beef. Cows in commercial lots are fed corn (which they eventually get sick and die from), cow manure, hormones/antibiotics out the wazoo, and other dead cows. The end result? Meat that was built off of all that and the potential health consequences that it brings.
The same applies with produce. Plants
eat too, if you will, and they get their food from soil. Poor soil = poor produce. You'd have to eat
four apples today to equal the amount of iron that was in
one apple from the 1930's. That's nuts. And iron isn't the only nutrient that our foods have lost much of either.
We know that despite America's growing waistline, a good portion of all people are actually malnourished. This malnourishment in turn could be the cause of a number of other health problems, such as rickets that the US population is now facing.
And what about the increase in food allergies?
What about pesticide residues on crops?
Large swaths of monocultures means large amounts of pesticides needed to keep the crop healthy. Monocultures can't survive without pesticide use. If a fungus or blight runs through your 500 acre crop of corn, it can spread like wildfire, and you're out of a job. Pesticide residue = problems for both your health and the environment's.
What about environmental damage or even water pollution due to poor farming practices?
Once again, less pesticides, less pollution due to runoff. That means healthier fish, healthier water, and healthier soil.
All of these have negative effects on human health, and I'd argue that we're just beginning to scratch the surface of what all of these are.
Eliminating subsidies would force farmers to find more sustainable, more profitable, and better for our health farming practices that would only serve to
benefit everyone but the major food processors in the long run.
The cons
Food prices. That's the first thing that popped up in your head, and it's been bouncing around in there ever since. And yeah, without a doubt food prices would increase. But again, that's only for
processed foods.
This in turn causes people to look for other options. What are the options to processed foods? Natural foods! Ding ding ding! You're a winner!
When you get people eating natural foods amazing things happen to their health. Less cancer, less heart disease, less illness, less inflammation, and so on.
Job loss. I'd argue that this isn't really the case.
But wouldn't poor farmers lose their jobs?
To start off, farmers that get involved with corn or soybeans are royally screwed from the beginning. That's the reason the entire middle of the U.S. is corn. You operate at such a loss that the only way to possibly survive is to plant hundreds of more acres of corn. In essence, it's subsistence farming. The best way for a farm to survive is diversification. Just like any well-rounded retirement fund, when you diversify what you produce as a farmer, you stand a better chance of profiting.
Why? There's less impact from disease. You may lose your corn crop, but if you have 12 other things you're also raising/growing then you can take the punch much better than you'd be able to if corn was the only thing that you grew.
To Wrap it All Up
Look at all these potential benefits we would get from just that
one change. All done without ever infringing on anybody's freedoms. In fact, we'd be further creating an environment for freedom to reign because we'd quit stealing people's money to support something unnecessary! That seems to be what trips up public health officials the most. Freedom.
Just one little change, and it could potentially save a WHOLE lotta lives.
Wanna read more?
Folks, This Ain't Normal
In Defense of Food
The Omnivore's Dilemma
Fast Food Nation
