User Center:
Login or Register
advertisement


Advertisement

OUR VIEW: The fat of the land


Richlands News Press: Living > Wytheville Enterprise: Living > The Floyd Press: Living > Smyth County News: Living > Washington County News: Living > Bland County Messenger: Living >
Mon Nov 05, 2007 - 03:46 PM

It’s all the government’s fault.
Most of the time, hearing that all-too familiar cry, we cringe. We don’t necessarily believe that the government owes us anything or should provide us anything other than a few basic freedoms, such as the right to assemble and petition for a redress of grievances. The freedom to worship or not worship as we so choose. Those sorts of things. The government isn’t to blame when it does what it’s supposed to do. And there lies the problem.
The nation’s obesity problem could very well be the government’s fault, at least a little bit. You see, according to health researchers, farm subsidies that keep America’s growers planting and harvesting soybeans and corn creates an artificial glut of soybean oil and high-fructose corn syrup. Both products tend to make the people who ingest them a little on the heavy order. Look for them in a vending machine near you. They come in the form of potato chips, soft drinks and candy bars.
To be sure, personal choice is still the matter. The nation’s struggles with weight are still the fault of consumers who haven’t chosen to consume healthier calories or exercise near enough. However, according to a Media General News Service analysis, those personal choices aren’t always as cut and dry as they might seem. The news story said that researchers have found that the poorest communities have the most obese people. The reason is one of simple economics. Eating healthy costs more than eating unhealthy, thanks in part to farm subsidies.
The Media General article noted that one study found that food made from subsidized crops – those in the vending machine near you – cost five times less per calories than those make from unsubsidized food – think fruits and vegetables.
So why doesn’t the government subsidize the growing of fruits and vegetables? It’s a good question. The 2007 bill, which passed the House this summer, has extra money to promote fruits and vegetables in school lunches, but no subsidies.
In a classic example of “do as I say, not as I do” short-sightedness, the government promotes the eating of more vegetables while its policies and money make it cheaper to eat fewer.
With so much money at stake for so many powerful corporations, it’s unlikely that we’ll see subsidies for lettuce and radishes replace those for corn and soybeans. It’s even more unlikely that we’ll see subsidies end entirely, which would be the best solution.
Too many of us make the choice to eat cheaper and therefore more unhealthy. It’s a shame that we have to make that choice.
It’s our fault, as consumers, that we’re obese, but the government bears some responsibility, too.

Reader Reaction:

Great editorial. I migght suggest you read Michael Pollan’s book, “The Omnivore’s Dilmma”.Mr. Pollan tracks down the how, when, and why our farm policy in this country is the way it is. Corn is indeed, King in this country. ADM, Monsanto, and the oil companies wouldn’t have it any other way.

Posted by James B. Kulchar from Tazewell, VA  on  12/07  at  09:05 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Comment on this story:
Registration Required
SWVAToday.com requires that you be logged in in order to post comments. Please log in or register to leave your comment.
<< Back to main