SUBSIDIZING "ILL HEALTH-NEED FOR A POLICY RE-LOOK

Policies on farm subsidies in a few developed countries are holding up any agreement on evolving universal trade regimes with minimum distortion and such subsidies are supposed to help the domestic farmers to ensure growth of the agriculture sector. It is however known that these subsidies are not reaching the intended beneficiaries viz small farmers and are mostly conferred on a few big farms cultivating thousands of hectares. Added to this it has been brought out recently that such subsidies are harming the health of the consumers by driving the junk food industry offering calorie rich food products at low prices. In contrast nutrient dense foods like fruits and vegetables are ignored making them relatively costlier. A country like the US cannot wish away the above irrefutable fact and must address this issue on a priority basis before it assumes monstrous dimension. Here are the facts brought out recently by a study in that country.

"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 additives: 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 recent UN meeting on the emerging non-communicable diseases points out clearly that Tobacco, Alcohol and unhealthy processed foods are responsible for most of these diseases reaching crisis proportion and all countries must address this problem urgently without further prevarication. In fact serious suggestions are being made to make the unhealthy foods costlier through imposition of high taxes with a hope such fiscal measures would reduce consumption of these foods significantly. In spite of years of appealing to the food industry to moderate their food processing regime shifting the product mix to healthier ones, the ground reality is that no measurable achievement is still perceptible calling for mandatory action by the governments. Against such a background how can one justify the prevalent farm subsidies with devastating impact on the health of the citizens? The bad politics of farming being followed are causing harm both nationally and globally!

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

SUBSIDIZING PURCHASE OF VEGETABLES-IS IT PRACTICAL?

Taxing "bad" foods to discourage consumption is an issue now being debated in some Western countries because of the harmful effects these foods are supposed to have on the health of their citizens. The obesity pandemic that is responsible for the creation of a class of people grossly over sized and bloated in appearance is caused by over consumption of cheap foods which are nutritionally unbalanced containing high calories from sugar and fat. Obesity is also responsible for the uncontrolled growth of unhealthy people suffering from CVD, Diabetes and other diseases. Therefore logically it makes sense to make these foods costlier by imposing punitive taxes. This debate is now sought to be expanded and there is a suggestion as reflected by the news report quoted below that authorities must also think of subsidizing healthy foods which generally cost more.

"Simply put: taxes would reduce consumption of unhealthful foods and generate billions of dollars annually. That money could be used to subsidize the purchase of staple foods like seasonal greens, vegetables, whole grains, dried legumes and fruit. We could sell those staples cheap — let's say for 50 cents a pound — and almost everywhere: drugstores, street corners, convenience stores, bodegas, supermarkets, liquor stores, even schools, libraries and other community centers. This program would, of course, upset the processed food industry. Oh well. It would also bug those who might resent paying more for soda and chips and argue that their right to eat whatever they wanted was being breached. But public health is the role of the government, and our diet is right up there with any other public responsibility you can name, from water treatment to mass transit. Some advocates for the poor say taxes like these are unfair because low-income people pay a higher percentage of their income for food and would find it more difficult to buy soda or junk. But since poor people suffer disproportionately from the cost of high-quality, fresh foods, subsidizing those foods would be particularly beneficial to them. Right now it's harder for many people to buy fruit than Froot Loops; chips and Coke are a common breakfast. And since the rate of diabetes continues to soar — one-third of all Americans either have diabetes or are pre-diabetic, most with Type 2 diabetes, the kind associated with bad eating habits — and because our health care bills are on the verge of becoming truly insurmountable, this is urgent for economic sanity as well as national health".

How far such a radical proposal can be effective remains to be seen. The past examples of alcohol and tobacco industries going through this route do not give any hope that this will work. But subsidizing healthy foods can definitely be an encouraging and citizen-friendly act that deserves consideration. If in a country like India there is no mass starvation due to economic reasons, it is mainly due to the subsidized food grains being supplied at fraction of a rate compared to market prices. It is a tragedy that protective foods like fruits, vegetables, milk etc cost much higher than processed foods which are mostly made from cheap food grains like corn subsidized heavily by governments. The proposal of taxing unhealthy foods is at least justified if there is cross subsidization of healthy and protective foods.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com