Billions In Farm Subsidies Underwrite Junk Food, Study Finds

It's a well known fact that most farm subsidies go to crops, like feed corn, that aren't exactly healthy. They're crops that are easy to grown en masse and in the heartland. But a new study from the US Public Interest Research Group, called "Apples To Twinkies," shows just how unhealthy most subsidized food is. According to the report, the vast majority of produce subsidized by the USDA ends up in junk food.

According to the study, a whopping $17 billion of the total $260 billion the government spent subsidizing agriculture went to just four common food addititives: corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch and soy oils. By comparison, the government spent just $261 million subsidizing apples, and far less still supporting fruits and vegetables, like spinach, broccoli and blueberries, that public health experts say encourage better health. To put things in perspective, the PIRG study said that, if the government had given taxpayers the subsidies instead of the farmers, each one would have been given $7.36 to spend on junk food and just 11 cents to spend on apples a year. This is a key factor that makes junk food more expensive than healthy food -- and, by extension, that makes many Americans obese.

It's possible, though, that the era of huge farm subsidies may be coming to a close. Food Safety News notes that Obama called for a massive cut to farm subsidies for the 2012 budget. The cuts were proposed as a part of his deficit reduction plan -- but this new study shows how far subsidy changes could go towards cutting obesity rates as well. Mark Bittman, for his part, has repeatedly called for farm subsidy reform rather than elimination, in the hopes that the government will make it easier for Americans to afford healthy food.

The Environmental Working Group has put together an excellent primer on farm subsidies, with lots of fine-grained data on where they went. Using some of its data, we've assembled a list of the 14 most-subsidized crops in the years between 1995 and 2010; click through below to find out who got the most, and which of them end up in junk food.

RATE IT!   |  

VOTE

Total Ripoff As Is

Give Them More Subsidies!

CURRENT TOP 5 PICK YOUR OWN TOP 5

USERS WHO VOTED

NEW! CREATE YOUR OWN SLIDESHOW

Comments

[girlalive1]

09:08 AM on 10/03/2011

There is a White House petition to end the practice of government subsidized junk food and tabacco. Go here to sign it: http://www.wh.gov/4SY

[gbrooks]

02:46 AM on 09/25/2011

I shop a lot for my family--chips are expensive, and certainly not worth the cost no matter how you look at it.

[HazelPethigFan]

06:25 PM on 09/23/2011

I love the picture of Lays chips in the intro. Apparently it's used because HPost thinks of chips as junk food.

Guess who the vendor is for chips at Trader Joes???

Frito Lay.

Bwahhahahahahahaha....

Can HuffPost EVER write a story that isn't so easily picked apart for hypocrisy?

[BluebirdofUnhappiness]

12:26 PM on 09/26/2011

While potato chips are unequivocally junk food, they do pretty much illustrate HPols and pretty much the vast majority of Americans' lack of food and nutrition knowledge. The article blames corn syrup and starch, plus soy oil as being problems. Lays contain potaoes, corn oil and salt. And while corn oil comes from corn, it's just a poor illustration for the story.

[hector74elp]

06:16 PM on 09/23/2011

well duh!!! sad but true when you compare buying produce vs junk food; but thankfully dried beans, rice and pasta are still about a buck a pound - so at least certain staple foods are still affordable. People just need to find time to prep and cook meals. It just time to get creative. benefit is you eat healthier if you do it right.

[VirgoLinnea]

01:26 PM on 09/23/2011

I shop per pound. Junk food is not all that cheap. I can buy items to make actual meals much cheaper PER POUND (helloooo unit pricing) than most junk. Not sure where this illusion comes from, but good luck finding junk food cheaper than that of bananas or beans.

[A ScottMiller]

12:54 PM on 09/23/2011

This is not news. The part about Obama's plan is news, and there's little to no information about it in that link!!

[cyoohoos]

02:52 PM on 09/23/2011

Do you know how to use a computer. There was a link to it directly in the article.

These findings were released Wednesday, just two days after President Obama revealed his 2012 budget plan, which includes a proposed 22 percent cut to agricultural spending and an end to direct payment to farmers, which comprises $5 billion per year in payment to farmers.

[tainteddr34ms]

11:31 AM on 09/23/2011

Subsidies should be used to help those crops that aren't economically viable without them or they shouldn't exist at all. The government has no business subsidizing crops that show no economic need for subsidies just to promote a particular diet.

[El Chingaso]

07:07 AM on 09/23/2011

The federal government could screw up a w*t dream. Better get the FLOTUS on this issue -- and fast...

[HazelPethigFan]

09:34 PM on 09/22/2011

97% of farms are family run, family farms.

This is defined as no corporate management.

You'd never know that reading all the left winger rants on this website.

Oh...and i have data:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/AIB797_researchbrief.pdf
"Most farms in the U.S. are family farms (97 percent in 2001"

[HazelPethigFan]

09:35 PM on 09/22/2011

oops...a repeat...but you people need to read it twice anyway

[howtowasteyourlife]

01:14 PM on 09/23/2011

Simply being a "family farm", doesn't make it innocent and pure. It just means they aren't run by hired managers. It doesn't mean the farm isn't profiting agribusiness giants because the "family farmers" are under contract with Cargill, et al.

[HazelPethigFan]

09:18 PM on 09/22/2011

97% of farms are actually family run family farms.

You'd never know that reading all the left wing B...S.... that is posted on this website.

Oh...and here is my data from the USDA:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/AIB797_researchbrief.pdf
"Most farms in the U.S. are family farms (97 percent in 2001"

fell free to find your own data.

[KurtMichaelFriese]

11:25 AM on 09/23/2011

You're off topic here Hazel, regardless of who owns or who operate the farms, the billions in subsidies are still underwriting junk food. IF the government is going to spend ANY money subsidizing food, it should be to the benefit and not the detriment of the health of the people who eat the food. That's the point of this piece. Farm ownership should be discussed under another heading.

[tainteddr34ms]

11:37 AM on 09/23/2011

"IF the government is going to spend ANY money subsidizin­g food, it should be to the benefit and not the detriment of the health of the people who eat the food."

I have to disagree. The government should only make subsidies that make economic sense or non at all. On the other hand, I would support consumer subsidies that promote a healthier diet.

[tainteddr34ms]

11:43 AM on 09/23/2011

Why don't you give us a number that actaully means something. What is the percentage of farm acreage that is owned by families and not corporations?

[auntiegrav]

12:55 PM on 09/23/2011

Yes. Good point. Also, calling a farm a "family farm" because a family with a name owns it does not mean it isn't a corporation. Most of the local "family" farms around here are actually LLCs that hire hispanic labor and treat cows like machines. They are dependent upon petroleum subsidies to keep the costs of the corporation low enough to keep running and receiving government subsidies to produce hormone-laced milk and GMO corn and soybeans, as well as huge amounts of pesticides. Yet, they are "Family Farms".
On the tangent topic, how many of the "small farms" need someone to work off the farm in order to get health insurance? How many schools tell children with high test scores to pursue a farm career? If farming is so noble, why is it practically excluded from our school system?

[howtowasteyourlife]

01:19 PM on 09/23/2011

Or the percent of profit that actually goes to the farmer, and not the agribusiness corporation that the farm is under contract with.

[Quel C Grammar]

09:16 PM on 09/22/2011

Why on Earth are we subsidizing tobacco?!

[howtowasteyourlife]

01:20 PM on 09/23/2011

Believe it or not, there are other uses for tobacco besides smoking.

[RK Johnston]

01:26 PM on 09/23/2011

Tobacco (especially Virginia Burley) is one of our most profitable export crops. In fact, even as smoking rates drop here in the States, they are rising much more heavily in places like India and the People's Republic of China--and American cigarettes (Marlboro Reds) are the favored tobacco product (quality and mildness) being imported.

In fact, it was once said that if you visited the former Soviet Union with a carton of American brand-name cigs (Winstons, Marlboros, Pall Malls) in your luggage? Don't expect them to be in your luggage after you clear Soviet Customs! They often ended up "confiscated" for the personal use of the customs-control officer who checked your luggage!

As long as American Tobacco sells--it will be subsidized by Uncle Sam.
For money, indeed, talks loudest of all.

--RKJ

[Quel C Grammar]

03:06 PM on 09/23/2011

Thank you for the explanation!

[c-tom]

07:52 PM on 09/22/2011

6% is not whopping. And remember some of that 6% is used in apple juice and apple sauce so it is indirectly subsidizing apples.

[howtowasteyourlife]

01:21 PM on 09/23/2011

It's pretty whopping if you consider how many other fruits/vegetables are competing for those subsidy dollars. 6% might not be much if you're only competing with one or two other products but when there are HUNDREDS of other products in competition 6% is a pretty big slice.

[c-tom]

03:50 PM on 09/23/2011

I consider corn to be a grain so compare these numbers to wheat, rye, barley and sorghum subsidies not to apples and oranges.

[Vantunow]

04:39 PM on 09/22/2011

Socialism for Red States.

They just don't acknowledge it.

[argh38]

04:36 PM on 09/22/2011

If the government subsidized spinach, apples and broccoli, Monsanto would just find a way to turn those into cheap chemical sugar too.

[BluebirdofUnhappiness]

12:34 PM on 09/26/2011

Apples are already cheap "chemical" sugar. But it's mother nature's fault, not Monsanto.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/foods-000011000000000000000.html

[garymc8]

04:31 PM on 09/22/2011

So screw the family farmer to help the mega corps. And they wonder why AMERICA SUCKS