Farm subsidies, commodity types, and obesity

A recent opinion paper in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine takes a look at farm subsidies and draws implications for obesity.  One problem is in how the study (or rather review) is interpreted by media outlets.  For example, one source had the headline:

US Farm Subsidy Policies Contribute To Worsening Obesity Trends, Study Finds.

However, this was not a new "study" and the authors readily acknowledge the economic research showing very little to no link between farm subsidies and obesity. This study by Okrent and Alston in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, in fact, finds removal of subsidies would increase weight: 

Eliminating all subsidies,including trade barriers, would lead to an increase in annual per capita consumption in the range of 165 to 1,435 calories (equivalent to an increase in body weight of 0.03% to 0.23%) [note, however, my previous comment about their weight calculations]

Okrent and Alston conclude:

These results indicate that U.S. farm policy, for the most part, has not made food commodities significantly cheaper and has not had a significant effect on caloric consumption.

Don't, get me wrong.  I am not a fan of farm subsidies - largely because they are economically inefficient and reduce the size of the economic pie.  But, I think we ought to get the causes and effects right, and it simply isn't true that farm subsidies caused obesity.  Moreover, I am not a fan of re-engineering farm subsidies to meet "public health" goals, as the authors of the AJPM article apparently are.  Here is their recommendation: 

More specifically, sustainable practices should yield biodiverse, quality foods, optimize nonrenewable resources, and sustain the economic viability of farmers. Important policy reforms could direct increasing subsidies to family farms and/or fruit and vegetable growers in the aim of making their prices more competitive

Frankly, I find the recommendation naive, simplistic, and likely to produce unintended consequences whilst simultaneous failing  to produce the kind of benefits the authors desire.  

On a positive note, I found this table in the paper quite interesting.  At first, I thought the table had to be wrong since they have livestock subsidies (and livestock isn't subsidized per se), but apparently they are also adding in payments for crop insurance premiums for different commodities.  I wonder if they did they same for all fruits and vegetables?  It would also be useful to calculate these subsidies as a percentage of the total value (or revenue) for each crop type for a bit of perspective.    

A Farm Bill without Food Assistance

Earlier, I mentioned the long-standing rural-urban "partnership" that has held together the farm subsidy and food stamp portions of the farm bill.  At the time, I said:

Although I realize it is probably politically infeasible (although perhaps less so given recent developments), it would seem to make some sense to me to separate the components of the farm bill and see if they can stand on their own.  Those advocating for food-stamp spending should make their case and put the money over in the Department of Health and Human Services.  Those advocating for farm supports should make arguments with merits that stand on their own grounds.  

It appears that the House agricultural committee has done just that.  The revised bill is very similar to what it was before - but missing the Nutrition Title (which is by far the largest budgetary component).

The revised bill is currently being debated on the House floor, and perhaps not surprisingly, the change is being opposed by supporters of food stamps.  It will be interesting to see how it pans out.   

Assorted Links

Almost 1/3 of all Americans (101 million people) are estimated to receive some some kind of federal food assistance according to USDA

Why did the AMA declare obesity a disease?  Follow the money. 

Almost half of all schools discourage or prohibit sugary items during parties 

The start of a reasonable discussion on GMOs 

Farm households seem to be doing pretty well financially compared to non-farm households

Misleading Food Labels

At Meatingplace.com, Rita Jane Gabbett discussed  one of the questions that came up during the Chicago Food Dialogue event I participated in a couple weeks back. She says:

Part of the debate I found intriguing was whether or not labels should be allowed that, while accurate, also stand a good chance of deceiving or confusing consumers. 

Former USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan was on the panel. She advocated for allowing any label that is accurate.  She said if they want to be able to say their product is harvested only on Tuesday evenings under a full moon, for marketing purposes, they should be able to say that as long as it’s true. 

Others argued against labels that, while accurate, are purposefully deceptive. “Hormone-free poultry” is the classic example. Since it is illegal to use hormones in U.S. poultry production, all fresh poultry is hormone-free. Yet, the label insinuates that perhaps the product’s competitors are not hormone-free.

“Trans fat-free blueberries” is another example. Think about that one for a minute. Then think again if you believe that everyone knows that no fresh blueberries contain trans fat. One farmer on the panel described having a class of students and their teacher visit his farm and it was the teacher who asked, “Now, we know the white eggs come from hens. Do the brown eggs come from roosters?” 

Members of the food industry know that educating consumers is difficult. Is it ever ethical to confuse them on purpose?  I have to disagree with former Deputy Secretary Merrigan on this one.

From a newsroom perspective, it’s not unlike the decisions we make in our news planning meetings every day about headlines. We want you to click on our headlines and read our stories. However, if we headline a story, “Fire breaks out in plant,” and the story ends up to be about a waste can fire in accounting that was put out in 30 seconds with a cup of coffee, we may have gotten your attention, but wouldn’t you think you had been duped? I think we’ve had plenty of examples of how badly consumers can react when they feel they have been duped about the food they eat. Think about it.

We resist the temptation to write accurate, yet misleading, headlines.

I actually wanted to weigh in on this question during the discussion but given that there were nine people on the panel, I had to pick and choose my battles.  

I agree with both Merrigan and Gabbett (if that's possible).  I'm with Merrigan in that companies should be allowed to add (or rather than governments shouldn't be permitted to prevent) any kind of label so long as it is truthful.  Yet, I agree with Gabbett that truthful claims can sometimes be misleading.  Perhaps ironically, however, I do not think such claims should be outlawed for precisely the reason Gabbett says she doesn't write misleading headlines (even though they are not illegal).  Integrity.  

Yes, a food company can probably get away with making a short term profit by fooling some consumers with misleading labels (a hideous and hilarious example is this package of non-GMO salt) .  But, what happens when the truth comes out (as it eventually will) and consumers wise up or when 20/20, 60 minutes, et al. show up at your door pointing out your deception?  

Labeling truthful but implicitly misleading claims is, to me, a sign of a lack of integrity.  We can't legislate morality, and fortunately, the market will (eventually, though not as fast as we always like) damage the reputation and profits of those who act without integrity.   

Gabbett doesn't print stories with misleading headlines, I suspect, because she believes the short-term benefits received do not outweigh the longer-term cost that misleading headlines would cause in terms of the lost trust of her readers.  That doesn't mean some papers or web sites don't mislead; it also doesn't mean some food companies don't deceive.  But rather than legislate against these activities, I'd rather we create a culture in which it is shameful to undertake such activities and in which consumers use their wallets to punish deception.   

The end of an epidemic?

Just like a good story, every epidemic has a beginning, middle, and an end. Lately, we’ve been seeing signs that obesity’s prevalence is leveling. Policy makers who think they have the answer have been declaring that their strategies are working. But it just might be that we were headed here all along.

That's from the blog at conscienhealth.  They were commenting on a new study forthcoming in journal Obesity.  The study projects that:

US prevalence of obesity, overweight, and extreme obesity will plateau by about 2030 at 28%, 32%, and 9%, respectively

One of the reasons is due changes in birth rates, mortality, and age distributions.  The study authors conclude: 

The US prevalence of obesity is stabilizing and will plateau, independent of current preventative strategies.

The bloggers at conscienhealth put it a little differently:

As George Harrison and the Chesire Cat knew, if we don’t know where we’re going, any road will get us there.

Likewise, just about any prevention strategy might seem to work for obesity in the absence of careful analysis.

Here is one interesting graph from the study (actual fitted trends based on historical data are in solid lines, solid circles are CDC data, and dashed curves are simulated projections).