What if billions in tax dollars were invested in healthier options, rather than given to corporations to subsidize the very foods that are making us sick?
Taxpayer Subsidies for Unhealthy Foods
Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.
Why do food companies sell junk? Because “[u’nhealthy commodities are highly profitable [in part] because of their low production cost,…creat[ing] perverse incentives for industries to market and sell more [junk].” Coca-Cola’s [net] profit margins, for example, are about [a] quarter of the retail price, making soft drink production, alongside tobacco production, among the most profitable industrial activities in the world.”
And, one of the reasons production costs are so low is that we taxpayers subsidize it. For more than a century, Western governments have invested heavily in [lowering the costs of] animal products and some basic cash crops,” such as sugar. “Accordingly, Western diets have shifted over the past century,” especially after World War II, to include more animal-sourced foods—meat, poultry, dairy…, seafood and eggs—as well as more sugar…and corn [syrup].”
During this same period, however, we have begun to realize that a healthy diet actually requires fewer animal products and [empty calories], and more vegetables, fruits, beans and whole grains.” Though “[r]edressing this balance is a complex task requiring not only a shift in agricultural investment and policy, but also changes in social preferences that have developed over decades, in part due to [dollar menu meat].”
Why do you think chicken is so cheap, for example? “In the nine years that followed the passage of the…96 Farm Bill,” corn and soy was subsidized below the cost of production to make cheap animal feed. So, U.S. taxpayers effectively handed the chicken and pork industry around $10 billion dollars each of taxpayer money.
What if we instead subsidized healthy foods? Or taxed harmful ones? Every dollar spent taxing processed foods or taxing milk would net $2 in healthcare cost savings. And every dollar spent making vegetables cheaper would net $3, and subsidizing whole grains could offer like a thousand percent return on our investment, with all the money we would save paying for, you know, Medicare and Medicaid costs.
Unfortunately, we can’t count on Big Broccoli. The produce sector lacks “the extensive funding” that went “to create…the National Dairy Council, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association,” the National Pork Producers Council, and the American Egg Board.
But, even if we removed “the hundreds of billions of dollars in annual subsidies for animal products,” it “might not be sufficient to tip the balance” in favor of healthier diets. “We have created societies in the West that value and consume meat, dairy, poultry, fish,…seafood. Over several generations, a particular way of life has been promoted and this has shifted expectations about diet to include large amounts of animal-sourced foods”—the concept that a meal centers around some kind of hunk of meat.
“The idea that animal products should form the basis of [our diet] has been scientifically debunked, but remains the social aspiration of billions of people” around the globe. As [we in] the West slowly come to accept that [our] diets and eating habits are not healthy, it is to be hoped that” this will change policies not only here, but “throughout the world.”
Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.
- D Stuckler, M McKee, S Ebrahim, S Basu. Manufacturing epidemics: The role of global producers in increased consumption of unhealthy commodities including processed foods, alcohol, and tobacco. PLoS Med. 2012 9(6):e1001235.
- I Rahkovsky, C A Gregory. Food prices and blood cholesterol. Econ Hum Biol. 2013 11(1):95 – 107.
- B M Popkin. Agricultural policies, food and public health. EMBO Rep. 2011 12(1):11 – 18.
- T Wise, E Starmer. industrial livestock companies' gains from low feed prices, 1997-2005. GDAE Tufts University. 2007 7(1):1-3.
Images thanks to canvascontent via flickr
Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.
Why do food companies sell junk? Because “[u’nhealthy commodities are highly profitable [in part] because of their low production cost,…creat[ing] perverse incentives for industries to market and sell more [junk].” Coca-Cola’s [net] profit margins, for example, are about [a] quarter of the retail price, making soft drink production, alongside tobacco production, among the most profitable industrial activities in the world.”
And, one of the reasons production costs are so low is that we taxpayers subsidize it. For more than a century, Western governments have invested heavily in [lowering the costs of] animal products and some basic cash crops,” such as sugar. “Accordingly, Western diets have shifted over the past century,” especially after World War II, to include more animal-sourced foods—meat, poultry, dairy…, seafood and eggs—as well as more sugar…and corn [syrup].”
During this same period, however, we have begun to realize that a healthy diet actually requires fewer animal products and [empty calories], and more vegetables, fruits, beans and whole grains.” Though “[r]edressing this balance is a complex task requiring not only a shift in agricultural investment and policy, but also changes in social preferences that have developed over decades, in part due to [dollar menu meat].”
Why do you think chicken is so cheap, for example? “In the nine years that followed the passage of the…96 Farm Bill,” corn and soy was subsidized below the cost of production to make cheap animal feed. So, U.S. taxpayers effectively handed the chicken and pork industry around $10 billion dollars each of taxpayer money.
What if we instead subsidized healthy foods? Or taxed harmful ones? Every dollar spent taxing processed foods or taxing milk would net $2 in healthcare cost savings. And every dollar spent making vegetables cheaper would net $3, and subsidizing whole grains could offer like a thousand percent return on our investment, with all the money we would save paying for, you know, Medicare and Medicaid costs.
Unfortunately, we can’t count on Big Broccoli. The produce sector lacks “the extensive funding” that went “to create…the National Dairy Council, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association,” the National Pork Producers Council, and the American Egg Board.
But, even if we removed “the hundreds of billions of dollars in annual subsidies for animal products,” it “might not be sufficient to tip the balance” in favor of healthier diets. “We have created societies in the West that value and consume meat, dairy, poultry, fish,…seafood. Over several generations, a particular way of life has been promoted and this has shifted expectations about diet to include large amounts of animal-sourced foods”—the concept that a meal centers around some kind of hunk of meat.
“The idea that animal products should form the basis of [our diet] has been scientifically debunked, but remains the social aspiration of billions of people” around the globe. As [we in] the West slowly come to accept that [our] diets and eating habits are not healthy, it is to be hoped that” this will change policies not only here, but “throughout the world.”
Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.
- D Stuckler, M McKee, S Ebrahim, S Basu. Manufacturing epidemics: The role of global producers in increased consumption of unhealthy commodities including processed foods, alcohol, and tobacco. PLoS Med. 2012 9(6):e1001235.
- I Rahkovsky, C A Gregory. Food prices and blood cholesterol. Econ Hum Biol. 2013 11(1):95 – 107.
- B M Popkin. Agricultural policies, food and public health. EMBO Rep. 2011 12(1):11 – 18.
- T Wise, E Starmer. industrial livestock companies' gains from low feed prices, 1997-2005. GDAE Tufts University. 2007 7(1):1-3.
Images thanks to canvascontent via flickr
Republishing "Taxpayer Subsidies for Unhealthy Foods"
You may republish this material online or in print under our Creative Commons licence. You must attribute the article to NutritionFacts.org with a link back to our website in your republication.
If any changes are made to the original text or video, you must indicate, reasonably, what has changed about the article or video.
You may not use our material for commercial purposes.
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that restrict others from doing anything permitted here.
If you have any questions, please Contact Us
Taxpayer Subsidies for Unhealthy Foods
LicenseCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)
Content URLDoctor's Note
For more on the power of Big Food’s hold over our political system, check out videos such as:
- The McGovern Report
- Seeing Red No. 3: Coloring to Dye For
- Who Determines if Food Additives are Safe?
- Salmonella in Chicken & Turkey: Deadly but Not Illegal
My video series on corporate influence over our federal nutrition guidelines may also be enlightening:
- Dietary Guidelines: Corporate Guidance
- Dietary Guidelines: With a Grain of Big Salt
- Dietary Guidelines: USDA Conflicts of Interest
- Dietary Guidelines: Just Say No
- Dietary Guidelines: The First 25 Years
- Dietary Guidelines: From Dairies to Berries
- Dietary Guidelines: It’s All Greek to the USDA
- Dietary Guidelines: Science vs. Corporate Interest
- Dietary Guidelines: Advisory Committee Conflicts of Interest
- My Testimony Before the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Committee
And if we really wanted to save our country money, we could start by trying to wipe out some of our leading killer chronic diseases:
- Resuscitating Medicare
- Lifestyle Medicine: Treating the Causes of Disease
- Convincing Doctors to Embrace Lifestyle Medicine
Update: You might be interested in my newer 2022 video, Using the Cigarette Tax Playbook Against Big Food.
If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here. Read our important information about translations here.