View Full Forums : What happens without farm subsidies?


Panamah
05-23-2007, 08:32 PM
Thought this might be interesting: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=050907B

It's about what happened when New Zealand discontinued their farm subsidies.

The web site is interesting, has a lot of stories you don't hear about in mainstream media.

Tudamorf
05-24-2007, 01:03 AM
We need to do something about subsidies. With the GMO companies now cornering the market on agriculture, these subsidies are basically funneled into their corporate revenues. The farmer is just a pawn, and the consumer, a stooge.

But America is far bigger than New Zealand, meaning added layers of bureaucracy. Add in the huge dollars and lobbying power of Monsanto and other GMO companies, and I wouldn't hold my breath for any real reform.

Unless, of course, the consumers wise up and revolt against these corporations and demand a return to real agriculture, run by farmers.

MadroneDorf
05-24-2007, 01:16 AM
whats a "real" farmer?

what bothers me most about our farm subsidies is that they are not really used for food, a lot of corn is used for HFCS etc.

If we have farm subsidies they should at least be for plants to be eaten, not for processed sugars to fatten people up.

Really though I'd rather just do without them

Tudamorf
05-24-2007, 02:19 AM
whats a "real" farmer?The guy out in the field. He's being screwed right now, in favor of the fat bastard on the board of Monsanto, who is getting our tax dollars.

MadroneDorf
05-24-2007, 02:36 AM
The guy out in the field.

Jose?

Gomez?

Ricardo?

Tudamorf
05-24-2007, 02:40 AM
Jose?

Gomez?

Ricardo?All of the above. Not these guys (http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/about_us/board.asp), who are getting it now.

Anka
05-24-2007, 08:37 AM
I agree. Farming subsidies should go and the farming industry should be allowed to develop following the needs of the market.

Thicket Tundrabog
05-24-2007, 11:43 AM
New Zealand is the poster child of countries who handled their almost insurmountable debt by going 'cold turkey' about 20 years ago. Getting rid of farm subsidies was just part of their actions to bring the country back from the brink of bankruptcy.

It would take a crisis to do something similar in the U.S. Saving the family farm tugs on patriotic emotions in many countries. Mom, apple pie and the old homestead are powerful symbols :) .

Panamah
05-24-2007, 12:15 PM
But the reality is far far from that. It's really helping the big food industry, like ConAgra, who can buy 4 cents worth of corn and turn it into a $4.00 box of corn flakes.

MadroneDorf
05-24-2007, 03:07 PM
I wish it went (more)to corn flakes, thats a lot better then going to sugar replacements that are worse then sugar in making people fat blobs.

HARDLY a day goes by without some further revelation about the disturbing state of childhood obesity—and the diseases of old age that teenagers are beginning to suffer from. One recent study, published in the Financial Times on May 16th, found that the number of American children taking medication for the type of diabetes normally found in ageing obese people had more than doubled between 2001 and 2005. A worrying percentage of them were also taking drugs for such chronic conditions as hypertension and high cholesterol as well as type 2 diabetes.

The latest figures suggest that a third of American children are either overweight or at risk of becoming so. If the trend continues, today’s children will be the first generation of Americans to have a shorter lifespan (by two to five years) than their parents. The life expectancy of Americans today is 77.6 years, one of the lowest in the developed world.

While most people concerned about their weight fixate on fats and carbohydrates, nutritionists say the real problem is sugar. And not just any old sugar, but the high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) that has replaced cane and beet sugar in processed foods and soft drinks over the past 25 years.

Nowadays everything from bread, pastries and breakfast cereals to yogurt, ketchup, candy and coke contain large dollops of HFCS. The food industry uses blends of 90% fructose and 10% glucose for baked goods and 55% fructose and 45% glucose for soft drinks. On its own, HFCS is about twice as sweet as table sugar.

http://economist.com/images/columns/2007w20/TechView.gif

For that, thank Japanese food technologists, who in the 1970s perfected a reliable way of turning corn starch into syrup sweet enough to become a sugar substitute. That happened at a time when over-generous farm subsidies in America had created a glut of corn. Then, in 1982, when the American government slapped import quotas on foreign supplies of cane and beet sugar, the American food industry promptly switched to cheap HFCS derived from subsidised domestic corn.

Since then, the annual consumption of HFCS in America has gone from nothing to 65 pounds (29.5 kg) per person. Today it accounts for nearly half of all the sugar and sweeteners used in the country. Nutritionists recommend no more than 10 to 12 teaspoonfuls of added sugar of all sorts a day. Instead, the average American’s daily dose is more like 35 teaspoonfuls—most of it coming from soft drinks. A single 12-ounce can of pop contains the equivalent of 13 teaspoonfuls of sugar in the form of HFCS.

Meanwhile, the number of Americans with metabolic syndrome (MetS) has more than doubled. The syndrome—a condition characterised by obesity, insulin resistance and lots of ugly triglyceride fats in the blood—is linked to type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. In Europe, where HFCS can’t compete with cheap cane or beet sugar, only 15% of the adult population has MetS. In America, a staggering 33% suffers from the condition.

Taking a leaf from tobacco’s book, the food industry has flexed its financial and political muscles to disprove any connection between fructose and obesity. But just like tobacco before it, the food industry is finding those implied links harder to deny. Studies identifying the causal mechanisms are cropping up increasingly in scientific literature.

Fructose apparently tricks the brain into thinking you are hungrier than you actually are. Unlike carbohydrates made up of glucose, fructose does not stimulate the pancreas into producing insulin. Nor does it promote the production of leptin, a hormone made by fat cells. Under normal conditions, the amount of insulin and leptin in the body signal to the brain that you’ve had enough to eat. Meanwhile, fructose doesn’t seem to suppress the production of ghrelin, the hormone that triggers appetite, which normally declines after eating.

In tinkering with the body’s hormonal balance, fructose also causes the liver to spew more fat into the bloodstream than normal. Thus, consuming foods or drinks laced with HFCS is like eating a high-fat meal. In doing so, we not only gobble down more calories with every mouthful, but we also store more of those calories as fat. That can mean only one thing: a bigger waistline.

It’s not that the fructose itself is bad for you. After all, that’s what you get from eating fruit. But there’s just so much of it around these days that it’s hard to avoid consuming it to excess. Research shows clearly that, like cholesterol, there are good sugars and bad sugars. All of them pack a hefty calorific punch. What is needed, of course, is a recommended daily allowance for sugar to be included on all food labels (along with fat, carbohydrate, protein, cholesterol and sodium). The last time consumer groups tried to make that happen, the food lobby stopped them in their tracks.

But ponder this. Misguided government policy caused the food industry to switch to high fructose corn syrup in the first place. Another misguided government policy—America’s plan to produce 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels annually, mostly in the form of bioethanol made from corn—could make the food industry switch back to healthier sugars just as fast.

Tudamorf
05-24-2007, 03:15 PM
I wish it went (more)to corn flakes, thats a lot better then going to sugar replacements that are worse then sugar in making people fat blobs.High-fructose corn syrup is crap, but blaming it for the obesity crisis is stupid. It's just more of that American "magic pill" mentality, ignoring the real problems and looking for a quick fix.

Obesity = ****ty diet + lack of exercise.

If you simply replace the high fructose corn syrup in the ****ty diet with cane sugar, you'll still have obesity.

Panamah
05-24-2007, 03:46 PM
It is beet sugar if it is in the US. :p Cane sugar is grown outside the US, mostly.

MadroneDorf
05-24-2007, 07:41 PM
Undoubtedly a huge amount of the obesity is lack of exercies and ****ty diet, but if there is a link between having more obesity from HFCS compared to other types of sugar, its stupid to be subsidizing it.

Magic Pill? No, potentially part of solution? Yes, Even if it only slimmed down people by a little or only a few people it would be good.

more research is needed of course

Tudamorf
05-24-2007, 10:58 PM
Undoubtedly a huge amount of the obesity is lack of exercies and ****ty diet, but if there is a link between having more obesity from HFCS compared to other types of sugar, its stupid to be subsidizing it.It is not subsidized specifically.Magic Pill? No, potentially part of solution? Yes, Even if it only slimmed down people by a little or only a few people it would be good.That's good policy, ignore the pink elephant in the room while you search for a microscopic stain on the rug.more research is needed of courseWho's going to pay for that? Talk about subsidy. I already gave you the answer to obesity.

We don't need better answers, just better motivators. A fat tax would be a great start.

MadroneDorf
05-24-2007, 11:05 PM
Subsidizing the raw material to such a point where its cheaper to use it then alterantives is subsidizing it.

We don't need better answers, just better motivators. A fat tax would be a great start.

Taxing "fat" items taargets everyone, regardless of whether or not its going to effect them. Why should I be taxxed when I go out to fast food, or grab a soda, when I bicycle, exercise, and altogether eat fairly healthy? Let alone that politically it would be quite hard to get a tax like that. (Closest you could get realistically is bannined fast food items for childrens TV programs)

That's good policy, ignore the pink elephant in the room while you search for a microscopic stain on the rug.

Depending on how big the link is changes how big of a stain on the rug it is.

Its not exactly easy to change peoples lifestyles, but if there is a link, and the subsidy was removed and companies went back to normal sugar, then that would effect everyone.

I'd rather have realistic policy that has a small effect, then aim for big policy that wont happen.

Tudamorf
05-24-2007, 11:19 PM
Subsidizing the raw material to such a point where its cheaper to use it then alterantives is subsidizing it.Sugar would also be (it's now grown in the southern states). Except as to that which we'd import, but you could say the same for corn.Fat taxes target everyone, let alone that its hard as hell to start taxings something.Actually, like legislation in general, it's extremely easy to start taxing, just difficult to stop.

We could implement a fairly effective fat tax by taxing junk food and junk food providers, providing credits for healthy activity/food choices, and increasing the cost of health care for fat people (or deducting it from their pay).

We can even set up a fat tax like a property tax. With a cheap set of calipers I can measure your body fat percentage in about 30 seconds with reasonable accuracy. Then we look it up on a table and add or deduct the appropriate amount from your tax return.

It only makes sense that fat people, who drain society of its resources, should be required to replenish those resources.

Palarran
05-26-2007, 03:13 AM
There are plenty of people like me that have a seemingly unhealthy diet yet remain at an ideal weight. Diet is just one of a number of factors.

Panamah
05-28-2007, 12:14 PM
Pal, you're quite right. Some people have metabolisms that adjust to their intake really nicely. But don't assume you're slender inside, you could be packing on the fat around your internal organs.
Thin people can be fat on the inside (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18594089/)

Fyyr Lu'Storm
05-29-2007, 12:51 AM
Ya, the greater omentum.

It would be great to have it removed. You don't really need it today.

Aldarion_Shard
05-29-2007, 08:10 PM
If we remove farm subsidies, within 5 years virtually 100% of our food would be grown outside of the US under sub-standard inspection regimes and then imported into the US by burning petroleum thats imported from nations that openly sponsor international terrorists.

But yay, all the city people would get to feel all progressive! Lets just change anything that strikes us as old fashioned!

Farm subsidies need reformed to make sure they go to farmers, not corporations. But the security of our food supply is paramount, and farm subsidies are the single biggest factor keeping it secure.

Our choices are either (a) accept farm subsidies and maybe reform them a little or (b) learn to looooove the taste of melamine.

Anka
05-29-2007, 08:57 PM
If we remove farm subsidies, within 5 years virtually 100% of our food would be grown outside of the US under sub-standard inspection regimes and then imported into the US by burning petroleum thats imported from nations that openly sponsor international terrorists.

So banning food subsidies will be giving cash to terrorists? Scary :)

Panamah
05-30-2007, 12:18 AM
Did that happen in New Zealand?

MadroneDorf
05-30-2007, 02:54 AM
.

Thicket Tundrabog
05-30-2007, 07:20 AM
Did that happen in New Zealand?

Nope.

Food is New Zealand's biggest export by far. In 2004, New Zealand exported $15 billion of food products. This accounted for 50% of all their exports. Getting rid of farm subsidies hasn't hurt them at all. Maybe the New Zealand farms actually *gasp* became more efficient.

Aldarion_Shard
05-30-2007, 02:11 PM
New Zealand isnt the US. US agriculture is run by gigantic bloated corporations. If it becomes 0.01% more profitable to grow food outside the country than to grow it here, thats what they will do.

And how often is New Zealand targetted by anyone, except in games of Risk?

Its apples and oranges.

Panamah
05-30-2007, 02:21 PM
Nonono, the question was, did New Zealand turn to imports. Lots harder to target agriculture by terrorists (or unscrupulous business people) if you don't import the stuff to begin with. I'm all for protectionism when it comes to food importing, and vitamin imports.

I suspect that there is going to be a growing, ground swell of dissatisfaction with importing ingestible ingredients as it comes out how much crap is being imported. I heard on NPR that the FDA only inspects a very small amount of food ingredients coming to the US and they turn away quite a lot of stuff coming from china because it has rotted or is filth laden. This is due to the FDA being underfunded and overtaxed. They're going to shut down 1/2 their lab facilities this year.

Here's something about the ingredients in a twinkie that is enlightning:
What can we learn from a twinkie? (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-0e-ettlinger29may29,0,3636830.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail)

It isn't apples and oranges. They're just smaller than us. What hubris if we can't learn things from other countries simply because they're "not the USA". That's just lame.

Thicket Tundrabog
05-30-2007, 02:47 PM
... and speaking of FDA and China, here's what happens when the head of the Chinese FDA misbehaves.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6699441.stm

He gets sentenced to death.

Lol... I find it funny when folks say 'this is the United States... we're different'. Yup... the U.S. is different from New Zealand when it comes to farm subsidies. New Zealand was able to make a tough and correct decision. The U.S. hasn't yet.

Tudamorf
05-30-2007, 02:52 PM
New Zealand isnt the US. US agriculture is run by gigantic bloated corporations. If it becomes 0.01% more profitable to grow food outside the country than to grow it here, thats what they will do.Those people belong in prison anyway. Perhaps this new law can put them there (well, one can dream at least).

Anka
05-30-2007, 06:36 PM
I think there is a relevant argument about the type of rural communities we want in the future. Would we really be happy if corporations bought up land, consolidated farms, brought immigrant workers in for labour, and turned the countryside into semi-fuedal colonies with no traditional character? Perhaps that isn't so different from what's happening now anyway.

Well I think the character of farming areas would change but it might turn out as good as bad and if it's bound to happen eventually then it might as well happen now. Managing the change to get the best results is preferable to holding back any beneficial changes.

Tudamorf
05-30-2007, 06:44 PM
I think there is a relevant argument about the type of rural communities we want in the future. Would we really be happy if corporations bought up land, consolidated farms, brought immigrant workers in for labour, and turned the countryside into semi-fuedal colonies with no traditional character?Future? That's the present, except for a few small farms (usually boutique organic farms).