Study Published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine Concludes
Failure to consider public health in the formulation of agricultural policy has compromised the American nutritional environment by promoting the production and consumption of unhealthy foods
Agricultural subsidies are responsible for making those processed and energy-dense foods that contribute to the American epidemic of obesity the most affordable options for consumers, concludes a new study led by Dr. Mark J. Eisenberg, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Lady Davis Institute at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal.
As Congress debates a new Farm Bill that will determine agricultural policy for the next five years, it is critical that public health be factored into legislation that will define the country’s nutritional environment.
“Tackling the policies that translate into food production and availability could be the most widespread preventive measure to address the obesity epidemic,” according to Caroline Franck, lead author of the paper published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
While many factors contribute to obesity, the ready availability and low cost of unhealthy foods in comparison with healthy alternatives are crucial. Indeed, obesity has been closely associated with poverty. Grocery stores and restaurants sell foods made from cheap commodities at lower prices, and commodities used in high fat and sweetened foods are artificially cheap because government subsidies have made the crops used to produce them lucrative to grow.
Navigating Supermarket Aisles
Citing statistics from 2004, the study notes that 96% of American cropland is dominated by eight main crops, including soybean and corn. The former is the source of 70% of the fats and oils consumed by Americans, while the latter is a high calorie component of soft drinks, fruit drinks, canned fruits, condiments, baked goods, and ice cream, all of which contribute to obesity.
Recognizing that farm subsidies are an important safety net for a volatile industry, Franck and her co-authors propose that agriculture policy take public health into account when identifying how they ought to be dispensed. They recommend investing in sustainable agriculture that emphasizes biodiversity, quality foods, optimizing non-renewable resources, and sustaining the economic viability of farmers. Farmers should be encouraged to grow fruits and vegetables in place of produce used for sweeteners and hydrogenated oils.
“A successful reorganization of the American food environment will require commitment to mutually supportive interventions affecting food availability, price, marketing, and health education, at the local, state, and federal levels of government,” Franck wrote. “A revision of agricultural priorities is in order: public health interventions will remain limited in their impact until they can inform decisions that are made at every level of the American food chain, from growers to consumers.”
The American Journal of Preventive Medicine (www.ajpmonline.org) is the official journal of The American College of Preventive Medicine (www.acpm.org) and the Association for Prevention Teaching and Research (http://www.aptrweb.org/). It publishes articles in the areas of prevention research, teaching, practice and policy. Original research is published on interventions aimed at the prevention of chronic and acute disease and the promotion of individual and community health.
The journal features papers that address the primary and secondary prevention of important clinical, behavioral and public health issues such as injury and violence, infectious disease, women’s health, smoking, sedentary behaviors and physical activity, nutrition, diabetes, obesity, and alcohol and drug abuse. Papers also address educational initiatives aimed at improving the ability of health professionals to provide effective clinical prevention and public health services. The journal also publishes official policy statements from the two co-sponsoring organizations, health services research pertinent to prevention and public health, review articles, media reviews, and editorials.
The American Journal of Preventive Medicine, with an Impact Factor of 3.945, is ranked 15th out of 158 Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health titles and 18th out of 151 General & Internal Medicine titles according to the 2012 Journal Citation Reports® published by Thomson Reuters.
June 11, 2013—Yesterday, the Senate passed the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013 (S. 954) by a vote of 66-27. The bill would reauthorize many of the nation’s food and agricultural programs while reducing funding for food stamps, farm subsidies, and environmental programs.
The bill is opposed by conservative groups, like Freedomworks and the Heritage Foundation, for proposing too much spending, and by dairy farmers who oppose new milk supply limits. Supporters of the bill include the crop insurance industry, which would see a boost under the bill’s commodity provisions, and the biotechnology industry, which fought off an effort to add GMO labeling language to the bill.
Data: MapLight analysis of campaign contributions to members of the Senate from interest groups supporting or opposing the bill according to MapLight from January 1, 2007 – December 31, 2012. Contributions data source: OpenSecrets.org
- Senators voting ‘YES’ received 2.3 times more money from supporting interests than senators voting ‘NO.’
- Senators voting ‘NO’ received 3.6 times more money from opposing interests than senators voting ‘YES.’
- Martin Heinrich (D, NM) received $359,106 from supporting interests, more than any other senator. He voted ‘YES.’
- Jeff Flake (D, AZ) received $1,385,370 from opposing interests, more than any other senator. He voted ‘NO.’
A link to this story can be found here.
In previous weeks MapLight has taken a look at several provisions in the Farm Bill to examine how campaign contributions from special interest groups may have affected the final bill. Specifically we examined influence around the sugar program, GMO labeling, and crop insurance caps:
May 24, 2013â€”Yesterday, by a vote of 27-71, the Senate defeated an amendment to the farm bill from Senator Bernie Sanders that sought to ensure that states can enforce their own laws requiring genetically modified foods to have special labels.
How much money have members of the Senate received from companies that support the use of genetically engineered foods?
Extension of Sugar Program Remains in Farm Bill: Sugar Amendment Rejected
May 22, 2013â€”In an attempt to cut costs and limit waste, the farm bills advancing in the Senate and the House include many reforms to long-standing agricultural programs.
But so far the Sugar Program, criticized for boosting the price of American sugar by providing nonrecourse loans to growers and processors of sugarcane and sugar beets, has been left untouched.
How much money has the sugar cane and sugar beets industry given to members of Congress?
June 6, 2013â€”In late May the Senate approved an amendment to the farm bill that would reduce crop insurance subsidies for wealthy farmers. The amendment, sponsored by Senators Dick Durbin (D, IL) and Tom Coburn (R, OK) would reduce crop insurance payments by 15 percent to farmers with a gross annual income of $750,000 or more.
How much money have senators received from the crop production and basic processing industry?
MapLight is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization that reveals moneys influence on politics.
c: 415-299-0898 | e: email@example.com | t: @imonlyabill