From articles in the Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, (Volume 4, July, 2009) it has become clear that the Federal government’s Farm Bill, intended to stabilize and support the American farm, has evolved into a system that severely influences major public health issues.
In the first article cited above (pp. 393-408), Richard J. Jackson and associates from the UCLA School of Public Health defined these primary issues as: 1) rising obesity; 2) food safety; and 3) environmental health, especially the public exposure to pesticides and other toxic substances. “By generating more profit for food producers and less for family farmers; by amplifying environmentally destructive agricultural practices that impact air, water, and other resources, the Farm Bill influences the health of Americans more than is immediately apparent,” Jackson wrote.
In the second article (pp. 251-291), David Wallinga from the University of Minnesota School of Public Health suggests: “For at least 50 years, American agriculture policies have promoted production of, and ultimately lower market prices for, commodity crops like corn, wheat and soybeans. Over the last three decades in particular, these “cheap food” policies have exacerbated the negative impacts of an industrialized agriculture on the health of the agro-ecosystem, as well as on the health of the humans who must share and be sustained by it.”
The third article, Linkages to Achieve Healthier Diets and Healthier Communities ( Mary Story, Michael Hamm and David Wallinga, pp. 219-224), grew out of the April, 2009 Airlie Conference, in which 100 experts in health, nutrition, obesity, sutainable agriculture, economics, business, marketing, and public policy, met to discuss how the nation can moved toward a healthier and more sustainable food system. The article’s authors noted: “It is increasingly clear that public health dietary guidelines and obesity prevention cannot be met without a focus on the food system, from field to fork.”
The article noted that U.S. farm policy for commodity crops has helped to make the sweeteners and fats added to processed foods some of the cheapest substances available today. By contrast, fruits and vegetables receive little government support and their cost has risen relative to inflation.
As the U.S. Farm Bill had received its six-year passage the year preceding the Airlie Conference, there was little danger that any major effective measures could come out of this gathering, which was sponsored by, among others, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
I would like to suggest what may be a more efficient way to change farm policies that adversely affect our health: tax junk foods.
This of course would involve convening an intelligent panel of experts to determine what, exactly, is junk food. French fries? Potato chips? Candy bars? Peeps? Ice cream? Cookies? Colas and other soft drinks? Breads? Doughnuts? Cakes? Maple bars? Feedlot-farmed beef, which are most hamburgers? Sweetened cereals? These would be tops on most lists. Would the proposed tax be applied to items in grocery stores alone, or would they extend to fast-food chains and other restaurants?
Of course, during the legislative process, the question of whether beer, wine, and spirits are junk foods would arise. I’d include all three; although both already are taxed, a little extra might cut down on the drinking situation. I can think of only one country—Russia—where alcohol plays as important a negative role in human health as it does in this land of ours.
Is it possible that, with higher prices on junk foods, combined with government supports for organically-grown fruits and vegetables, we might become wiser about our food choices? I think so.
No comments:
Post a Comment