Image by Larry D. Moore (CC)How many tax dollars have been spent subsidizing junk food ingredients? A new report released today by U.S. PIRG paints a clear picture of how agricultural subsidies have been distributed, with a large portion -- $16.9 billion since 1995-- going toward corn and soy-based additives found in most processed foods, leaving hardly any subsidies for fresh fruits and vegetables.
Most of the corn and soybeans we see in America are not eaten as is. In fact, only about one percent of U.S.-produced corn is the sweet corn people directly consume. Most of the crops are used to fatten up livestock in factory farms, turned into biofuel, or processed into sweeteners and starches. The sweeteners and starches (corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch, and soy oils), benefiting from that $16.9 billion in the last 16 years (or $1.06 billion a year) is what has helped keep unhealthy snacks like Twinkies so cheap. Subsidies for healthy food, you ask? They don't get the same favored treatment. U.S. PIRG's reportillustrates:
Apples are the only fresh fruit or vegetable receiving significant federal subsidies. Since 1995 the entire complex of federal agricultural programs has spent only $262 million on apples, and even this modest support is an overstatement of the subsidies going to fresh apples -- some of the apple crop is itself processed into forms like apple juice or applesauce which in turn may be sweetened with high fructose corn syrup.
The disproportionate allocation of subsidies is overtly contrary to USDA's efforts to reverse our nation's skyrocketing obesity rate. While the agency's new "food plate" shows that servings of fruit and vegetables should be equal in size to those of grains and proteins, USDA distributes considerable federal financial support for the latter and virtually none for the former.
As PIRG's report -- appropriately called "Apples to Twinkies" -- explains, federal support for American agriculture "originated as rescue programs to help small, family-owned farmers to keep their doors open," but programs have "been reshaped into subsidies that primarily benefit the country's largest farming operations." Roughly 74% of agricultural subsidies go to only 4% of farmers -- the Big Ag producers -- who then use those dollars to buy out the smaller farms around them.
How ironic that a program established to help small farmers now actively harms them. But I guess that's what happens when out-of-date subsidies are allowed to linger for decades.
Our nation's agricultural policies clearly show mixed priorities that not only serve as a detriment to public health, but an ineffective use of taxpayer dollars -- all during a time when government spending is coming under increased scrutiny. It's time to change this skewed system and redistribute the billions of dollars now spent supporting junk food ingredients to food products with integrity.
Sarah Damian is New Media Associate for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower advocacy organization.
It's generally accepted that corporations which help put Congressmen in office press the new legislators to return the favor by introducing bills that benefit their industries. This, while ethically wrong, is nothing new.
But it's interesting when specifics come out about such alleged (and shady) quid pro quos. A USA Today report draws the connection between agribusiness dollars and newly elected Rep. Stephen Fincher of Tennessee. From the article:
Last year, the American public realized that there are major problems at egg production facilities, as the notorious Salmonella-egg outbreak sickened 1,900 people and led to a recall of more than 500 million eggs.
All of those eggs came from Iowa. You'd think the state would take an interest in fixing this problem immediately. But a new investigation by the Des Moines Register shows that not only do food safety problems persist at egg production facilities in Iowa, but also that government officials are withholding key data from the public regarding health lapses at these facilities.
Iowa is the nation's top egg-producing state, but right now (according to the Register) there is "almost no oversight of egg production, leaving that job to the federal government," which still has many gaps to fill. So much for fixing a problem.
Another obstacle the Register noted includes overcoming FDA’s unwillingness to publicly share the unsanitary conditions that exist at egg houses:
The FDA withheld an undisclosed number of reports in their entirety, and many of the inspection reports have several pages of notes completely blacked out on the grounds that they represent agency communications that are still subject to deliberation.
Still, the portions of the reports that have been disclosed show that even when egg producers are given advance notice of an inspection they may not be able to show full compliance with minimum food-safety requirements.
These inspection reports aren’t publicly available. The Register had to request them through the Freedom of Information Act, which is no easy process.
If our country consumes eggs from farms that don’t institute basic food safety measures, shouldn't the public have the right to know about government evidence showing as much?
This information is hardly trivial, either. The story notes data "such as the size of rodent infestations, the brand names under which the eggs are sold, and even the names of diseases documented at the egg farms" were blacked out in the reports.
The least that government officials could do is make publicly available records of such safety lapses -- especially if they aren't taking any action in response to their own reported concerns. The story details how some farms demonstrated inadequate Salmonella testing, or refused to report hens' exposure to disease to the state veterinarian, as required by law.
Big kudos to the Register for carrying out this investigation. It's really unfortunate that the uncovered issues couldn't be tackled from the start, rather than finding out in incomplete FDA reports a year after the fact.
As agency oversight remains deficient, we must rely on brave whistleblowers to protect our food supply. If employees on the egg farms, as well as government inspectors, felt safe enough to sidestep industry interests and report food safety threats, we wouldn't have to wait until another recall and multiple hospital bills to address the problem.
Sarah Damian is New Media Fellow for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower advocacy organization.
We know Monsanto and other biotech giants have been pushing genetically modified crops around the globe, but new diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks last week make it clear how entangled our government is in corporate agricultural interests.
U.S. diplomats have certainly been making an effort to protect GM interests abroad. Truthout reports:
When was the last time you broke off a piece of that Kit Kat bar? You probably didn't realize the conditions behind the scenes to produce and package these Hershey chocolates. Those are not quite as sweet … far from it, in fact.
Last week, several hundred students in the J-1 visa Summer Work Study program protested meager wages and harsh working conditions (including 60-hour work weeks -- often during night shifts -- and production lines too fast for them to handle) at a Hershey packing plant in Pennsylvania.
Jennifer Gordon, professor of labor and immigration law at Fordham University, reports in a NYT op-ed:
They received $8 an hour, but after fees and deductions, including overpriced rent for crowded housing, they netted between $1 and $3.50 an hour. Hershey’s once had its own unionized workers packing its candy bars, starting at $18 to $30 an hour. Now the company outsources distribution to a non-union company that hires most of its workers from the J-1 program.
It's nothing unusual for big companies in the food industry to cut every cost-saving corner, even if it means exploiting international students that are here for a cultural experience. The J-1 visa is the nation's largest guest worker program, run by the State Department but organized through employment sponsors (in this case the Council for Educational Travel). The program was started in the 60s to build good international relations and give foreign students a fun trip abroad, but decades later, it looks as though it’s doing the exact opposite.
To the workers' detriment, the government leaves oversight in the hands of the designated sponsors, "who profit from the arrangement and so have no incentive to report abuses."
The State Department and the Department of Labor are investigating the situation now -- but what about the hundreds of thousands of students that come to the U.S. every year under this program? There's clearly a major gap in protecting what has become a sizeable workforce.
The International Labor Rights Forum (ILRF) has been fighting for some time to hold Hershey accountable for worker rights violations. The group points out that Hershey has increased outsourcing and reduced its union jobs in recent years, and "lags behind competitors in eliminating child labor, forced labor and trafficking in its cocoa supply chain ten years after it committed to ending these abuses."
A Hershey Company report (PDF) put together by a coalition of nonprofit organizations (including ILRF) illustrates the labor rights abuses at the source of chocolate production and Hershey’s lack of supply chain transparency. Much of Hershey’s cocoa is sourced from West Africa, where many cocoa farmers who can barely cover their costs (while Hershey’s CEO received an $8 million compensation package in 2009) pay children – some trafficked from countries like Mali and Burkina Faso and forced to work on plantations in Cote d’Ivoire – low wages to work long hours performing hazardous work and coming into close contact with toxic pesticides.
The perseverance of these student guest workers to be heard in Pennsylvania, despite Hershey's lack of concern and ostensible intimidation, is impressive. The ILRF writes:
The students were subject to threats and harassment by the warehouse managers; they were threatened with deportation if they spoke out about their conditions.
Good for them for standing up for themselves. Here's a video below of students appealing to Hershey's CEO John Bilbrey for better conditions.
If only these students, and all food industry workers, had the legal ability to speak up in such a way without risking their livelihoods. These students, who were only meant to work and travel in the U.S. for a few months, faced enough retaliation as it is for blowing the whistle on Hershey's wrongdoing. Imagine if employees who work at food companies to make a living on a regular basis spoke up. They face a very hostile environment with little incentive to do so.
We at GAP continue to support transparency at the work places that prepare the food and treats that end up on our shelves. You can sign the petition calling to end exploitation of student guest workers. Hopefully Hershey and similar corporations can get a clue and realize that we won't put up with their ill treatment of workers. Their voices are now being heard.
Sarah Damian is New Media Fellow for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower advocacy organization.
The already enormous biotechnology industry (which consists of Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, etc.) continues its efforts to expand further into the global food system under the guise of solving the world's hunger problems, including the commercialization of genetically modified (GM) golden rice to supposedly ease Vitamin A deficiency in developing countries.
But this notion appears to be rather heavy propaganda. A spokesman from MASIPAG, a network of farmers, scientists and NGOs promoting sustainable agriculture in the Philippines (where the golden rice push is underway), thinks the biotech argument is simply PR. From a Filipino online news site:
The meat industry is infamous for moving from state to state to escape regulatory obstacles -- environmental oversight measures, in particular. CAFOs, or concentrated animal feeding operations, are notorious for consistently polluting surrounding water sources due to unmanageable amounts of animal waste.
The state of Idaho seems to be settling as the prime destination for giant factory farms to evade such crucial regulations. As High Country News points out, "Idaho has vaulted from the 11th to the third-biggest milk producer in the country in the space of 16 years." Dairy operators fleeing regulations in California, Pennsylvania and elsewhere find spacious Idaho to have "a welcoming attitude," according to Boise Weekly.
HCN summarizes the legislative moves that have made Idaho an attractive place for CAFOs:
In 2000, the Idaho Legislature began restricting public comment on where CAFOs could be located -- to only those living within one mile of the proposed location. So, if you live two miles downstream on a river from a CAFO, sorry! You get no say.
In 2003, the state prohibited its Water Resources Dept. from considering odors, possible health impacts and other matters "in the public interest" when changing water rights for dairy CAFOs.
In 2010, the Legislature made the manure-management plans of beef feedlots proprietary (private).
In early 2011, the Legislature moved to keep mega-dairies' manure-management plans kept from public view as well. FIC blogged about why this was a bad idea. The Governor ended up passing the legislation in April 2011, essentially blocking outside oversight.
The 2011 Legislature also amended Idaho's Right to Farm law, prohibiting local governments from regulating agricultural facilities as nuisances once they've been in operation for more than a year. It also prohibits neighbors from filing complaints using nuisance law.
The 2011 Legislature transferred the authority to inspect and regulate poultry farms from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality to the state’s Agriculture Department (Dairy pollution is also regulated by the Ag department, a set-up criticized as a conflict of interest given the department’s role to protect industry).
According to the Idaho Dairymen's Association president, this year alone "is one of the best legislative sessions the IDA has ever seen," adhering to the industry's strategy "to make it easier for dairy farmers to succeed in business." Well, if that means blocking adequate regulation of nitrate and phosphorous contamination in ground and surface water, and reducing oversight of ammonia emissions and other harmful gases, Idaho CAFOs are definitely succeeding.
Removing transparency and deregulating industry equals more money in Big Agriculture's deep pocket, as it gets away with polluting community resources and threatening the health of the residents that utilize them. Instead of making effective changes to reduce CAFO impacts on the environment and public safety, industry simply hides away in Idaho. Shame on Idaho legislatures for letting them.
Sarah Damian is New Media Fellow for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower advocacy organization.
Last year, the American public realized that there are major problems at egg production facilities, as the notorious Salmonella-egg outbreak sickened 1,900 people and led to a recall of more than 500 million eggs.
We know Monsanto and other biotech giants have been 
When was the last time you broke off a piece of that Kit Kat bar? You probably didn't realize the conditions behind the scenes to produce and package these Hershey chocolates. Those are not quite as sweet … far from it, in fact.
The already enormous biotechnology industry (which consists of Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, etc.) continues its efforts to expand further into the global food system under the guise of solving the world's hunger problems, including the commercialization of genetically modified (GM) golden rice to supposedly ease Vitamin A deficiency in developing countries.
The meat industry is infamous for moving from state to state to escape regulatory obstacles -- environmental oversight measures, in particular. CAFOs, or concentrated animal feeding operations, are notorious for consistently polluting surrounding water sources due to unmanageable amounts of animal waste.