Download The True Cost of Corn Subsidies

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 the classic 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 price of 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
Vogt 2
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 largescale 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%
Vogt 3
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.
Vogt 4
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 limits consumer’s choices with
its policies. For example when corn became subsidized, the food system shifted largely to cornbased products.
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
Vogt 5
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 HFCS is 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
Vogt 6
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
Vogt 7
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
Vogt 8
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.
Vogt 9
Vogt 10
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.
<http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2004-4/policy/2004-4-09.htm>.
Carr, Donald. "Corn Subsidies Make Unhealthy Food Choices the Rational Ones." Grist. 22
Sept. 2010. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. <http://grist.org/politics/food-2010-09-21-op-ed-cornsubsidies-make-unhealthy-food-choices/>.
"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.
<http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000>.
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. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247588/>.
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.
Mckibben, Bill. (2007). Deep Economy: The wealth of communities and the Durable Future.
New York: Times Books. 1-94.
Vogt 11
Paarlberg, Robert. (2010). The Politics of Obesity. Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to
Know. Oxford: University Press.
SumOfUs.org. "Tell the USDA to Deny Approval of 2,4-D-resistant GMO Corn." Sum Of Us
2012. Sumofus.org. Web. 25 Apr. 2012. <http://sumofus.org/campaigns/24-d/?sub=fb>.
Weber, Karl. Food, Inc.: How Industrial Food Is Making Us Sicker, Fatter and Poorer -- and
What You Can Do about It. New York: PublicAffairs, 2009. Print.
Winne, Mark. "Farm Bill Or Food Bill?." Sierra 92.4 (2007): 10. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 25 Apr. 2012.