Food Security - The Impact of Subsidized Food

In this week's blog we will discuss how government subsidized food impacts our food security and contributes to our populations short fall in maintaining a healthy diet. In addition, we will touch on how low-income and poverty-stricken people are really impacted by the subsidies that are intended to aid them.  

This topic has especially hit close to home for me.  I wouldn't consider my family poor or hungry but we have struggled.  You see, my dad became unable to work in 2010 due to reconstructive surgeries that have left him severely crippled, disabled and unable to provide for his family.  My dad now receives Social Security Disability Benefits which are well below National Poverty Standards, a bit personal for sure, but true nonetheless. So, when it comes to my parents putting food on the table, it is usually what we can afford or what’s on sale.

Since food is a necessity that all humans need to survive and money doesn't grow on trees, consumers find themselves eating (or not) foods they can afford. This week we read from our book Food: The Key concept, chapter 4, watched a film "A Place at the Table", and listened to Helen McGovern-Pilant from the Emergency Food Network talk to us about their food pantry for the people of Pierce County.

From the movie, A Place at The Table, there was a question about the cost of calories.  The example showed what $3 could purchase.  One option was an apple and banana (312 calories) and other option was chips, cookies, and soda (3000+ calories).  So, let's consider this, if $3 is all you have for the day which one would you purchase?  Well of course 312 calories is not going to give an adult let alone a child the total caloric intake necessary for a day on an ongoing basis. I mean you could do that for a while but functioning would slow and ability to perform jobs or learn would diminish over time. So, then you turn to the other choice, which surely you don't need 3000+ calories a day unless you are Lebron James but those kinds of calories as presented in the example are empty and do not fuel the body.  This is where the nutrient deprivation comes into effect even with those that can purchase food.

So, we begin to wonder why we cannot purchase healthy food when the government has programs and food subsidy to make food more affordable. What we have found is the funding may not be going where we think it's going.  We call on our movie, A Place at the Table. Here we learned that the USDA oversees the following departments: Food and Nutrition, Farming, Food Trade, Crop Insurance, Food Safety, Rural Development, Animal Protection, Dietary Guidelines, Forest Service, and Conservation.

We discovered that while we live in a state (Washington) with many family run farms that these types of farms are really not what is fueling our food industry.  Agribusiness, big business and conglomerates, control much of how our food is produced and how it gets to the consumer.  They are in the business of business, which means they are profit driven.

Consider this for a second, Agribusinesses are funded/receive subsidies.  What?  What do you mean?  Well the congress, remember Farm Aid, probably not because we are too young but Congress subsidizes food production.  This, actually, began back in the 1930s during "The Great Depression."  Subsidies for farmers was instituted so they would be able to continue to provide food for their communities while affording to stay in business during the depression. As the economy improved and people returned to work, the funding never really stopped. This was ok when the government was subsidizing the local and family ran farms/businesses because they, in turn, pump this money back into their local economy. Whereas, Agribusinesses have stockholders that often are the benefactors of their profits which leads us to money moving away from local communities and widening the gap  between the rich and the poor.  

What we know now is the Agribusinesses or large conglomerate food makers are often the benefactors of the food subsidies.  Since they are in the business of making money, they produce food that are relatively inexpensive, easy to grow, and are "filler" type foods such as corn, soy, wheat, and rice. 

As you can see from the graph, 84% of the subsidized foods are high carbohydrate, low protein types foods.  Some of the crops actually become feed for the dairy and livestock industry.   

Here it is, the dirty little truth . . . Lobbyist! 

Is the graph above shocking to you? Do you understand it? I didn't understand lobbying and its impact, but I do now. The information contained in this graph shows where a lot of the funding comes from and how our politicians and Congressmen are elected. It also shows why they may vote the way they do, and when it comes to spending and reductions in government, it also shows why they may have special interests.  What this graph tells us is that Agribusiness, the largest producers of food in the U.S., are spending a lot of money to get the people in political office that will support their special interest in return. Why does this matter? Well, it matters because those subsidies for food are supposed to be helping our nations families grow and prosper, not grow larger business. The agribusinesses are producing non-nutrient rich foods because that is what is bring in the most money and its affordable for everyone but its making the families with lower income having to buy those products that have little real health benefit an actually puts them more susceptible to obesity.

Programs such as Food Stamps, Elderly Feeding, Women, Infant, Children (WIC), National School Breakfast, National School Lunch were established to feed our most vulnerable people.  Sadly, most of these programs/patrons fall back to the subsidized low food costs because the healthy produce food are to expensive for the programs to purchase. Congress has made some strides in recent years to change National School Lunch Program by incorporating the essential nutrition for kids and reducing fats in school lunches.

In a recent news story, I saw a local school that has an area set up for children to place unwanted food items, they won't be eating, to share with children that are hungry or need a little more.  This is an excellent way to reduce waste and offer food to children that might otherwise go without eating. The School Lunch Program which is a subsidized program can serve more students with less waste in this way.   

When Speaker Helen McGovern-Pilant from the Emergency Food Network spoke to our class about food banks and pantries, I was surprised to hear that food banks and pantries are starting to become more self-select which means patrons can now get food they will actually use. There are also now fresh produce pantries available to people in need.  Their mission went from feeding the most people they can to feeding people healthy and nutritious food when and where they need it.  This is the Emergency Food Network's way of getting healthier food options to the people most in need.

Looking back over the years, I guess I am just as guilty as anyone else.  You know when you were in school and how we helped food drives to help stock the shelves at the local food banks.  There would be class contests who can donated the most food and the class with the most food brought in would get a pizza party.  Everyone saw the kids that brought in cases of Top Ramen or some off brand boxes of Mac and Cheese.  I might have been one of those kids.  In later years, as an organizer of food drives myself, I know we always promoted non-perishable food as the desired donation.  These non-perishable foods are easy to store, transport, and get to those in need. Non-perishable also most frequently equals low nutrient, high preservative types of food. Let's be honest when you are feeding the hungry, we just want to make sure they have something in their bellies.  I think back to these food drives and what we could have done different but really having kids bring eggs, milk, fresh fruits, veggies, and meats would have made for a storage and collection nightmare not to mention the possible food borne illness outbreaks.  But I guess we as donors really are just helping to fill in the gaps left when the primary source of getting food into the home falls short.

From our reading McDonald’s founder Ray Kroc was famous for preaching the basic principle of management, KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid). In a way, the whole modern industrial food chain does have just one simple product: convenience.

I find this ironic because many of McDonald's menu item items are made using subsidized low nutrient rich foods.  McDonald's patrons maybe lured in by price and convenience but maybe not meeting their actual dietary needs for best body performance. While McDonald's and other fast food chains in the United States bring in over $500 billion and employ over 10 million workers, their menu provides few choices of natural whole food items leading to customers consuming highly processed and genetically modified food that brings us back to the "subsidized" health crisis in America.  

My Pop Culture Artifact is "magically delicious!"  We are going to take a look at Lucky Charms. Below you will find two screen shots from the 2017 Lucky Charm commercial "Tiniest Piece".  In the screenshots, you see excellent branding with the boxes clearly visible but look at the photos you may be tricked into a believing the Lucky Charms are a healthy breakfast choice.  On closer examination, a viewer sees hard boiled eggs, fruit jam, orange juice, milk and sliced oranges which probably hit the mark by most nutritional guidelines regarding protein and nutrient; but, this is far from what you are getting in the box, as the government "Subsidized" cereal, has a nutrition value (one cup of the suggested serving size) of 147 Calories, 1.5g fat, 227mg sodium, 29g carbs, 2.7g fiber, 13g sugar, 2.7g protein for just the cereal alone no milk.  Also notice the size difference in the cereal bowls.  For sure deceptive advertising,   

Although they might be magically delicious, Lucky Charms are far from magically nutritious. Their first ingredient is whole grains, but the second is marshmallows or sugar, followed by modified corn starch, corn syrup, dextrose, gelatin, artificial food dyes and artificial flavor. Thanks to these colorful shapes, you can fulfill the American Heart Associations added sugar limit for the entire day by eating one cup. Bad luck. 

The jump in food banks from 200 in 1980 to now over 40,000 food banks, pantries and soup kitchens, shows the continued need to subsidize food but what food and at what cost. With obesity and the health crisis at an all-time high, we can expect to live sicker and die younger.  We have recently seen that 1 in 4 of today's 18-24-year-olds are not fit for military service due to obesity.  Further, 1 in 3 children born in the U.S. in the year 2000 will develop Type 2 Diabetes at some point in their life. Poor diet of young children is related to immune deprivation for children in their first 3 years of life and can impact their own health, mental strength, cognitive thinking, and effects the brain.  Ultimately failure to address our dietary needs on a national level will directly impact our leaders of tomorrow and our need for bright innovators and scientists to find cures and solve world problems. About 90 cents a meal is the amount Congress allots for one meal for a child which hasn’t changed since 1973.  Today, one coffee from the local espresso stand will set you back more money than what Congress allots for a week to feed a child.  With 90% of food subsidies going to agribusiness and welfare and social services being reduced for the poor, welfare (subsidies) for corporate businesses (agribusiness) is going strong.  Small farms and producers do not have money, reach or the clout of large business and lobbyist but we the people of the United States have the right to vote and gather and protest to bring about the changes we need and want to see. A system overhaul is necessary. 

Q:  How do we get government to subsidized that will lower rates of obesity and meet the needs of our hungry? 

Well first off, we need to get people in office to remember what it means to be elected into public office. It is not to line the pockets of their friends and family.  Before the great depression local farmers were producing affordable healthy produce at the onset of The Great Depression the USDA used subsidies to sustain farmers and help them to continue to provide food through the down market.  Rice, soy, wheat, and corn got popular because they are easy to grow and cheap to make. These foods continue to be subsidized and have been a major influence on our choices of food. The labor is also a factor farming of these kinds of commodities is relatively less labor intensive because the machine does what it needs to do, while the produce does take time to grow and harvest and often must be harvested by hand. While the cost might be higher to produce healthier foods, we must realize we can pay for better foods or pay later when our health diminishes.  Longer healthier lives with better food and nutrition is not a choice we should make, it is one we must invest in for ourselves and our children.  If we subsidized the fresh and whole foods, fruit and veggies then more people will be opted to buy them which would then lower the prices on the produce and health concerns for the rich and those poverty stricken.   

Ryan Lusk
Word count: 2,338