apples to twinkies web vus

8/2/2019 Apples to Twinkies Web vUS

1/15

Comparing Federal Subsidies of Fresh Produce and Junk FoodComparing Federal Subsidies ofFresh Produce and Junk Food

Apples to Twinkies


2/15

Apples to Twinkies:Comparing Federal Subsidies

of Fresh Produce and Junk Food

U.S. PIRG Education FundMike Russo

September 2011


3/15

Acknowledgments

The author bears responsibility or any actual errors. The views expressed in this reportare those o the author, and do not necessarily reect the views o our unders.

With public debate around important issues oten dominated by special interests pursuingtheir own narrow agendas, U.S. PIRG Education Fund oers an independent voice thatworks on behal o the public interest. U.S. PIRG Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) organiza-tion, works to protect consumers and promote good government. We investigate problems,crat solutions, educate the public, and oer Americans meaningul opportunities or civicparticipation.

For more inormation about U.S. PIRG Education Fund or or additional copies o thisreport, please v isit: http://www.uspirg.org.

2011 U.S. PIRG Education Fund.

Some Rights Reserved: U.S. PIRG Education Fund issues this report under a CreativeCommons some rights reserved license. You are ree to copy, distribute, or display the work or noncommercial purposes, with attribution. For more inormation about thisCreative Commons license, visit: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/

Cover photos: Apples, Elena Asenova, iStockphoto.com; Snack cakes, Mindspace, Inc.,iStockphoto.com

Graphic Design: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design


4/15

Executive Summary 1

Executive Summary

America is acing an obesity epi-demicone thats hitting childrenespecially hard. Childhood obesity

rates have tripled over the last three de-cades, with one in fve kids aged 6 to 11 nowobese. These increases in obesity rates willtranslate into kids who are at greater riskor heart disease and diabetes, undermin-ing the health o our country and drivingup medical costs by hundreds o billions

o dollars.

The rise in childhood obesity has manycauses, but one o the most important isthe increased prevalence o high-at, heav-ily sweetened junk ood. And shockingly,American taxpayers are spending billionsto subsidize junk ood ingredients, makingthe problem worse.

Between 1995 and 2010, Americantaxpayers spent over $260 billion in agri-

cultural subsidies. Most subsidies went tothe countrys largest arming operations,mainly to grow just a ew commodity crops,including corn and soybeans. While dairyand livestock production also receive someederal support, it is these commodity cropsthat get the lions share o the subsidies.

Most o these commodity crops arenot simply eaten as-is. Among other uses,ood manuacturers process them into ad-ditives like high ructose corn syrup and vegetable oils that provide a cheap doseo sweetness and at to a wide variety ojunk ood products. Thus, Americans taxdollars are directly subsidizing junk oodingredients.

Between 1995 and 2010, $16.9 billionin tax dollars subsidized our commonood additivescorn syrup, high ruc-tose corn syrup, corn starch, and soyoils (which are requently processedurther into hydrogenated vegetableoils).

Outside o commodity crops, otheragricultural products receive verylittle in ederal subsidies. Since 1995,taxpayers spent only $262 million

subsidizing apples, which is the onlysignifcant ederal subsidy o reshruits or vegetables.

I these agricultural subsidies wentdirectly to consumers to allow themto purchase ood, each o Americas


5/15

2 Apples to Twinkies

144 million taxpayers would be given$7.36 to spend on junk ood and 11cents with which to buy apples eachyearenough to buy 19 Twink ies butless than a quarter o one Red Deli-cious apple apiece.

The act that so many tax dollars arebeing wasted on junk ood demonstratesthe need to reorm national agriculturalsubsidies and end this wasteul spending.


6/15

Apples to Twinkies

Introduction

The U.S. is right now in the throes oa public health crisis. But rather thanone caused by pathogens like viruses

or bacteria, which, while oten terriying,can at least be understood and quarantined,we now ace a dierent kind o epidemicasudden, dramatic rise in obesity across the

country, whose impact on our health, andespecially the health o our children, isdevastating.

The status quo is already intolerable.Childhood obesity rates in the U.S. havemore than tripled in the past 30 years. 1Almost one in fve children aged 6 to 11is now obese. The consequences are notsimply expanded waistlines, as obesityharms the health o those it aects. Obesechildren have arteries so thick, they

resemble those o 45-year-olds, puttingthem at greatly increased risk o heartdisease.2 Seventy percent o obese 5- to17-year-olds show one o the risk actorsor heart disease.3 Obese children are alsotwice as likely to develop diabetes as theirnormal-weight peers.4 The obesity-ueled

increase in childhood diabetes rates isparticularly harrowingType 2 diabetes,the variety linked to obesity, has or manyyears been called adult-onset diabetes. Withone third o American children born in 2000on-track to develop that orm o the disease,that label is no longer remotely accurate.5

Dollars dont ully capture the scale othis crisis, but they can at least suggest its

outlines: $150 billion a year is spent onobesity and its related co-morbidities, avalue that has doubled over the last decade. 6A recent study ound that obesity-relatedconditions account or 7 to 11 percent ostates total health spending.7

And its going to get worse: withoutsigniicant policy changes, projectionssuggest that by 2030, hal o Americanswill be obese, and we will be spending anadditional $66 billion a year in medical

costs as a result.8

The obesity epidemic has many causes,but one o the simplest is also among themost signifcant: junk ood. Between 1977and 1994, Americans increased their dailycaloric intake by 206 calories.9 Almost all

Apples to Twinkies


7/15

Apples to Twinkies

o that increase is due to snacking, mean-ing that we are eating more requent orhigher-calorie snacks.10 Indeed, snackingcurrently accounts or 27% o the caloriesAmerican children eat each day.11

There are many reasons behind theincreased production and consumption ojunk ood. Some are simply due to consum-er taste and technological innovation. Butour own government policy is also respon-sible or promoting obesity-ueling emptycalories. The act is, even as nutritionistsand researchers tell us to cut down on junkood in order to end the childhood obesityepidemic, ederal agricultural policy is bus-ily making the problem worse.

Federal Agricultural PolicyHas Lost Its WayWhen ederal support or American agri-culture began in the 1930s, it was aimedat helping small amily arms, many o which were struggling as the economiccatastrophe o the Great Depression andthe environmental catastrophe o the Dust

Bowl caught American armers in a perectstorm.

Decades later, these programs have be-come ensconced as a permanent part o thepolicy landscape. And while theyd origi-nated as rescue programs to help small,amily-owned armers keep their doorsopen, theyve been reshaped into subsidiesthat primarily beneft the countrys largestarming operations.

Since 1995, taxpayers have spent over$260 billion on agricultural subsidies. Re-ecting the political clout o the biggestproducers, the lions share o the dollarsgo to a very small number o large opera-tionsroughly 74% o subsidies go to 4%o U.S. armers.12 Ironically, the large

producers who are the disproportion-ate recipients o subsidies may then usethe dollars they receive rom the ederalgovernment to buy out the smaller armsaround them, meaning that the subsidiescan be actively harmul to small amily

armers.13

The dierence between which oodsare subsidized and which nutritionistsrecommend or a healthy diet is stark. TheU.S. Department o Agriculture (USDA), which both administers subsidies andmakes nutritional recommendations on what constitutes a healthy diet, recentlyreplaced the longstanding ood pyramidwith a new ood plate, which graphicallydemonstrates what a balanced meal shouldlook like.14 But while USDAs plate showsthat servings o ruits and vegetables shouldbe equal in size to those o grains andproteins, USDA distributes considerableederal fnancial support or the latter, andvirtually none or the ormer.

Figure 1. USDA Food Plate

USDAs recommendations or a healthy dietinclude a substantial role or resh ruits andvegetables, but none or junk ood.

There are a dizzying variety o subsidyprogramsmarket loans, crop insurance,direct paymentsbut by ar the lions


8/15

Apples to Twinkies

share o taxpayer dollars go to subsidiz-ing a ew commodity crops. O the $260billion spent since 1995, a ull $77 billionwent to subsidize corn; wheat and cottongrowers received just over $30 billionapiece; soybeans were subsidized to the

tune o $24 billion. Other big-ticket itemsinclude rice, sorghum (a type o grass re-quently used as livestock odder), peanuts,barley, tobacco, and livestock and dairyproduction. Non-crop-speciic disasterrelie and conservation programs makeup most o the remaining spending, withother sectors o the agricultural economyreceiving virtually no subsidies.15

Commodity crops are not unhealthy inand o themselves. But most o the corn andsoybeans we grow do not go to Americansplates as-is. For example, only about 1%o U.S.-produced corn is the sweet cornthat is usually directly eaten by humans.16Instead, most commodity crops are ed tolivestock, turned into biouels, or processedinto additives like high ructose corn syrupor hydrogenated vegetable oils.

In contrast, apples are the only resh ruitor vegetable receiving signifcant ederalsubsidies. Since 1995 the entire complex oederal agricultural programs has spent only$262 million on apples, andeven this modestsupport is an overstatement o the subsidies

going to resh applessome o the applecrop is itsel processed into orms like apple juice or applesauce which in turn may besweetened with high ructose corn syrup.17

Indeed, ederal subsidies create verystrong perverse incentives discouragingarmers rom growing resh ruits andvegetables: growers o corn or wheat whoalso use the land to raise produce can seetheir subsidies revoked and ace urtherpenalties.18

Federal Subsidies for JunkFood IngredientsPerhaps the greatest example o how U.S.arm policy has lost its way is the act that

Corn

29%

DisasterPayments8%

Rice

5%

AllOtherPrograms

14%

Wheat

12%

Cotton

12%ConservationReserveProgram

11%

Soybeans

9%

Major U.S. Agricultural Subsidy Programs, 1995-2010. Source: Environmental WorkingGroup, 2011 Farm Subsidy Database.

Figure 2. U.S. Agricultural Subsidies, 1995-2010


9/15

Apples to Twinkies

many subsidized crops are processed intocommon junk ood ingredients. A substan-tial portion o the corn grown in the U.S.is turned into high ructose corn syrup(HFCS) and corn starch, carbohydrateswith no nutritional value. Soybeans are

ground up, with the meal going to eedcows, and the liquid skimmed o andturned into at-based additives like par-tially hydrogenated vegetable oil. Whentaxpayers subsidize these commoditycrops, they subsidize junk ood ingredientsas well.

Take the Twinkie: o its 37 ingredients,at least 14 o them are made with ederalsubsidies, including corn syrup, high ruc-tose corn syrup, corn starch, and vegetableshortening.19 Twinkies are sweet, atty, andcalorie-rich but utterly lacking in nutri-tional value. And theyre cheap, too, in partbecause consumers have already made adown payment on many o the ingredientswith their tax dollars.

But the Twinkie hardly stands alone:high ructose corn syrup can be ound incookies, candies, and cakes, but also soda,bread, ketchup, yogurt, salad dressing, and

sauces.20

Vegetable oils and shorteningderived rom soy are also ubiquitous inprocessed ood products.

As discussed above, taxpayers haveshelled out $260 billion since 1995 in ag-ricultural subsidies. However, not all othis spending goes directly to unhealthyood. Some o the subsidy payments go tocrops that are not used in junk ood (or arenot even ood at all, in the case o cotton). And not all corn or soy grown with the

assistance o ederal subsidies is processedinto junk ood ingredients.

At the same time, this system o sub-sidies shovels massive amounts o moneyat commodity crops, some o which areprocessed into junk ood.

To estimate how many taxpayer dollarsare directly supporting junk ood produc-tion, this report analyzes tax spending onour empty calorie ingredients that arealmost pure sugar, at, or carbohydrate, withvery limited nutritional value: corn syrup,

high ructose corn syrup, and corn starch,all derived rom corn, and soybean oil.21

Subsidies for Corn Syrup,High Fructose Corn Syrup, andCorn StarchHigh ructose corn syrup is a corn-de-rived sweetener that is used as a replace-ment or sugar in many oods, becauseit is somewhat cheaper. Biological ly, it isalmost indistinguishable rom ordinarytable sugar, containing roughly equalparts ructose and glucose.22 Ordinarycorn syrup, or dextrose, is a sweetenerthat is primarily glucose, with a muchlower ructose content. Corn starch is,simply enough, made by processing cornto remove everything but the starch. It isa pure carbohydrate, used as a thickeningagent in oods.

A substantial portion o the corn pro-

duced in the U.S. is processed into theseadditives. According to USDA, since 1995,the nation grew 181.1 billion bushels o corn.13.0 billion o those bushels were processedinto some orm o corn sweetener, while aurther 4.3 billion bushels were turned intocorn starch.23 Thus, over this time period,approximately 9.7% o all American cornwas turned into junk ood ingredients.

Subsidy databases show that since 1995,$77.1 billion in taxpayer dollars have sup-

ported the growing o corn.24

Thereore,9.7% o this total, or $7.5 billion, has gonedirectly to corn-based sweeteners and cornstarch (with $5.5 billion supporting pro-duction o corn sweeteners, and $2 billionor corn starch).


10/15

Apples to Twinkies

Subsidies for Soy OilsWhile corn commonly shows up in Ameri-can supermarkets, in both processed andnon-processed orms, soybeans have amuch less ubiquitous presence on retailshelves. Yet they are a major recipient oederal agricultural subsidies, to the tuneo $24.3 billion since 1995.26

When soybeans are processed, they arecrushed, yielding both oils and ground soymeal. The meal is primarily used as animaleed, while the resulting oils are processed,sold directly as vegetable oil and used asadditives in other oods. When a nutri-tion label lists vegetable oil or vegetable

shortening as an ingredient, very otenthat vegetable is soy. In act, soybean oilaccounts or roughly two thirds o all edibleoils eaten in the United States.27

Soy oil, as a pure at, is oten added toprocessed oods to make them better-tast-ing. Vegetable oils and shortening show upin Twinkies, cakes, cookies, crackers, fsh

sticks, margarine, breakast cereals, andmany other snack oods. 28

Determining the percentage o thesoybean crop that is processed into junkood ingredients is more complex than itis or corn, because the same soybeansare processed into both meal and oils.

Industry Defenses of HFCS

The corn-growing industry has engaged in a public relations campaign in recentyears aimed at rehabilitating the increasingly-tattered image o high ructose cornsyrup. Their campaign, which has included several prominent television ads, makesseveral claims deending the additives, but none o their arguments paint HFCS asanything but unhealthy:

1) Its made rom corn: it is certainly the case that HFCS is manuactured us-ing corn as the raw ingredient. But the nutritional value o the end product hasmuch less to do with its starting point than how it is manuacturedand here,the HFCS production process concentrates the sweetest, least-healthy portionso the corn and disposes o all o the rest.

2) Its nutritionally the same as sugar: as discussed in the main text, HFCS isa mixture o ructose and glucose, much like ordinary table sugar. In HFCS, the

two molecules are not chemically bound together, while in sugar they are; still,this biochemical distinction does not appear to make any nutritional dierence.With that said, there are some varieties o HFCS that contain a higher concen-tration o harmul ructose than ordinary sugar, and some studies have shownthat consuming very large quantities o HFCS poses more o a health hazardthan consuming an equivalent amount o ordinary sugar.25

3) Like sugar, its fne in moderation: a true statement. But as the rise in junkood production and the obesity epidemic show, neither HFCS nor sugar are be-ing consumed in moderation. Because HFCS is a cheap, ubiquitous ingredient,its used in high concentrations in many oods, and Americans are eating toomuch o it.


11/15

Apples to Twinkies

However, USDA data breaks down thevalue o the yearly soybean crop that isattributable just to soy oils, rather thanthe value o the meal or hulls. Since 1995,38.9% o the value o the soybean crop hascome rom oils.29

Taxpayers have spent $24.3 billion sub-sidizing the production o soybeans since1995. Thus, $9.44 billion in taxpayer dol-lars over that time period has gone to soyoils that are turned into hydrogenated veg-etable oils and other junk ood additives.

Between these our ingredientscornsyrup, high ructose corn syrup, cornstarch, and soy oilstaxpayers have paid$16.9 billion dollars supporting junk oodsince 1995.

Apples to TwinkiesThis signifcant public expenditure on un-healthy additives is a counterproductive useo taxpayer dollars, and reects our skewedagricultural policy priorities. The perver-sity o these subsidies can be clearly seenby examining how much ederal support

goes to what most nutritionists recognizeas the healthiest category o oods: reshruits and vegetables.

Only one o the top twenty ederal sub-sidy programs directly supports a resh ruitor vegetable: apples.30 It comes in at number19 on the list: since 1995 the entire complexo ederal agricultural programs has spentonly $262 million on apples, a raction o thetaxpayer dollars going to junk ood.

As discussed above, in the sixteen years between 1995 and 2010, taxpayersspent $16.9 billion subsidizing junk oodingredients; they spent $262 million onapples (or $1.06 billion and $16.4 millionper year, respectively). These paymentswent to the arming companies that grew

the crops, o course, but its possible toillustrate our nations priorities by seeingwhat our agricultural subsidies would buyeach taxpayer.

I these agricultural subsidies went direct-

ly to consumers to allow them to purchaseood, each o Americas 144 million taxpayerswould be given $7.36 to spend on junk oodand 11 cents with which to buy apples eachyear.31 As discussed above, Twinkies providea perect illustration o the junk ood heav-ily subsidized by our ood policy; the RedDelicious can serve as a representative o theother varieties o apple. Using average pricesor these two oods, this would be enoughto get 19 ree Twinkies32but less than aquarter o an apple.33 And these numbersadd upthe taxpayers in each o Americaslargest cities are collectively shelling out ormillions o Twinkies each year, but manyewer apples.34

ConclusionBillions o dollars in subsidies have beenspent over the past decades to support junkood ingredients. This distressing outcome

doesnt simply reect an overall policy omassive support or the entire agriculturalsector; instead, its the result o a consciouspolicy that directs subsidies to commoditycrops that are more likely to be processedinto ood additives.

This wasteul spending not only squan-ders taxpayer dollars: by ueling the crisiso childhood obesity, the subsidies damageour countrys health and increase the medi-cal costs that will ultimately need to be paidto treat the eects o the obesity epidemic.Taxpayers are paying or the privilege omaking our country sick.

Subsidies to large agribusinesses areegregious enough on their own; the actthat the subsidies go to junk ood adds


12/15

Apples to Twinkies

insult to injury. At a time when govern-ment spending is coming under increasedscrutiny, policy-makers should take a hard

look at what our agricultural policy saysabout our priorities, and take a stand orchildrens health.

Table 1. Apples and Twinkies Purchasable with Federal Subsidies, by Major U.S. City

City State PopulationShareofJunkFoodSubsidies #Twinkies ShareofAppleSubsidies #Apples

NewYork NewYork 8,175,133 $28,044,146 73,800,383 $433,891 842,506LosAngeles California 3,792,621 $13,010,286 34,237,594 $201,291 390,857Chicago Illinois 2,695,598 $9,247,035 24,334,303 $143,067 277,801

Houston Texas 2,099,451 $7,202,000 18,952,632 $111,427 216,363

Philadelphia Pennsylvania 1,526,006 $5,234,843 13,775,902 $80,992 157,266

Phoenix Arizona 1,445,632 $4,959,126 13,050,331 $76,726 148,983

SanAntonio Texas 1,327,407 $4,553,564 11,983,064 $70,451 136,799SanDiego California 1,307,402 $4,484,939 11,802,471 $69,390 134,737Dallas Texas 1,197,816 $4,109,013 10,813,192 $63,573 123,444

SanJose California 945,942 $3,244,979 8,539,418 $50,205 97,486Jacksonville Florida 821,784 $2,819,065 7,418,592 $43,616 84,691

Indianapolis Indiana 820,445 $2,814,472 7,406,504 $43,545 84,553

SanFrancisco California 805,235 $2,762,295 7,269,197 $42,737 82,985Austin Texas 790,390 $2,711,370 7,135,185 $41,950 81,455

Columbus Ohio 787,033 $2,699,854 7,104,880 $41,771 81,109

FortWorth Texas 741,206 $2,542,648 6,691,180 $39,339 76,387Charlotte NorthCarolina 731,424 $2,509,092 6,602,874 $38,820 75,378Detroit Michigan 713,777 $2,448,555 6,443,567 $37,883 73,560

ElPaso Texas 649,121 $2,226,758 5,859,890 $34,452 66,897Memphis Tennessee 646,889 $2,219,101 5,839,741 $34,333 66,667

Baltimore Maryland 620,961 $2,130,157 5,605,678 $32,957 63,994

Boston Massachusetts 617,594 $2,118,607 5,575,282 $32,778 63,647

Seattle Washington 608,660 $2,087,960 5,494,631 $32,304 62,727

Was hin gt on Dis tric tofColumbia 601,723 $2,064,163 5,432,008 $31,936 62,012Nashville Tennessee 601,222 $2,062,444 5,427,485 $31,910 61,960Denver Colorado 600,158 $2,058,794 5,417,880 $31,853 61,851

Louisville Kentucky 597,337 $2,049,117 5,392,414 $31,703 61,560Milwaukee Wisconsin 594,833 $2,040,527 5,369,809 $31,570 61,302Portland Oregon 583,776 $2,002,597 5,269,993 $30,984 60,162

LasVegas Nevada 583,756 $2,002,529 5,269,812 $30,983 60,160OklahomaCity Oklahoma 579,999 $1,989,641 5,235,896 $30,783 59,773Albuquerque NewMexico 545,852 $1,872,502 4,927,637 $28,971 56,254Tucson Arizona 520,116 $1,784,217 4,695,307 $27,605 53,602

Fresno California 494,665 $1,696,909 4,465,550 $26,254 50,979

Sacramento California 466,488 $1,600,250 4,211,184 $24,759 48,075

LongBeach California 462,257 $1,585,736 4,172,989 $24,534 47,639KansasCity Missouri 459,787 $1,577,263 4,150,692 $24,403 47,384Mesa Arizona 439,041 $1,506,095 3,963,409 $23,302 45,246

VirginiaBeach Virginia 437,994 $1,502,504 3,953,957 $23,246 45,138Atlanta Georgia 420,003 $1,440,787 3,791,545 $22,291 43,284

ColoradoSprings Colorado 416,427 $1,428,520 3,759,263 $22,102 42,916Omaha Nebraska 408,958 $1,402,898 3,691,837 $21,705 42,146

Raleigh NorthCarolina 403,892 $1,385,519 3,646,104 $21,436 41,624Miami Florida 399,457 $1,370,306 3,606,067 $21,201 41,167

Cleveland Ohio 396,815 $1,361,242 3,582,217 $21,061 40,895

Tulsa Oklahoma 391,906 $1,344,402 3,537,901 $20,800 40,389

Oakland California 390,724 $1,340,348 3,527,231 $20,737 40,267

Minneapolis Minnesota 382,578 $1,312,403 3,453,693 $20,305 39,427

Wichita Kansas 382,368 $1,311,683 3,451,798 $20,294 39,406

Arlington Texas 365,438 $1,253,606 3,298,963 $19,395 37,661


13/15


1 Obesity is defned by having a Body MassIndex o over thirty (BMI is calculated bydividing weight, in kilograms, by the squareo height, in meters). A male at the averageAmerican height o 510 is obese i he weighsmore than 210 pounds; or a woman at theaverage American height o 54, obesity setsin at weights above 175 pounds. See the WorldHealth Organization, Inormation Sheeton Obesity and Overweight, athttp://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/acts/obesity/en/; Wikipedia,Human Height,

athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height#Average_height_around_the_world.

2 Pam Belluck, Child Obesity Seen as Warningo Heart Disease, N.Y. Times, Nov. 11, 2008, athttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/health/12heart.html.

3 Centers or Disease Control and Prevention,Health Topics: Childhood Obesity, athttp://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/.

4 University o Michigan News Service, ObeseChildren Twice as Likely to Have Diabetes, Jan. 30,

2006, athttp://ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=77.

5 Centers or Disease Control and Prevention,Healthy Communities: Preventing Chronic Diseaseby Activating Grassroots Change, 2009, athttp://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/AAG/pd/healthy_communities.pd.

6 Eric A. Finkelstein, Justin G. Trogdon, JoelW. Cohen, and William Dietz, Annual MedicalSpending Attributable To Obesity: Payer- AndService-Specifc Estimates, Health Aairs, July27, 2009.

7 Rachael Rattner, Obesitys Big Fat Cost toStates, MSN BC , Aug. 23, 2011, athttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44241074/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/.

8 Various Contributors, Series on Obesity, The

Lancet, Aug. 26, 2011, athttp://www.thelancet.com/series/obesity.

9 David M. Cutler, Edward L. Glaeser, andJesse M. Shapiro, Why Have Americans BecomeMore Obese?, Harvard Institute o EconomicResearch Working Paper No. 1994, Jan.2003, athttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cm?abstract_id=373121.

10 Id.

11 Chris Fleming, Study Showing Rise inSnacking by Children Generates Discussion,

Health Aairs Blog, Mar. 3, 2010, athttp://healthaairs.org/blog/2010/03/03/study-showing-rise-in-snacking-by-children-generates-discussion/.

12 Environmental Working Group, 2011 FarmSubsidy Database, athttp://arm.ewg.org. Tenpercent o subsidy recipients collected 74% o

Endnotes


14/15

Notes 11

the subsidies, but because the U.S. Departmento Agriculture reports than 62% o Americanarmers dont pocket a dollar in ederalsubsidies, in eect only 4% o armers are beingpaid almost three quarters o the total subsidies.

13 Brian Riedl,How Farm Subsidies Harm

Taxpayers, Consumers, and Farmers Too, HeritageFoundation, June 20, 2007, athttp://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/how-arm-subsidies-harm-taxpayers-consumers-and-armers-too; Gilbert M. Saul, SarahCohen, and Dan Morgan,Federal Subsidiesturn Farms into Big Business, Washington Post,Dec. 21, 2006, athttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001591.html.

14 U.S. Department o Agriculture(USDA), choosemyplate.gov, athttp://www.choosemyplate.gov/.

15 2011 Farm Subsidy Database.

16 USDA Economic Research Service, CornPrices Near Record High, but What About FoodCosts?, Amber Waves, Feb. 2008, athttp://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/February08/Features/CornPrices.htm.


18 Jack Hedin,My Forbidden Fruits (andVegetables),N.Y. Times, Mar. 1, 2008, athttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/opinion/

01hedin.html.

19 The ull list includes wheat our, cornsyrup, HFCS, vegetable shortening, animalshortening, eggs, dextrose, modifedcornstarch, corn our, soy protein isolate, soyour, corn dextrin, soy lecithin, and cornstarch.Laura Coey, 37 Ingredients Twinkie EatersIngest, MSNBC, athttp://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/38872091/ns/today-ood/t/ingredients-twinkie-eaters-ingest/.

20 See a representative list at e.g. KateHopkins,Foods and Products Containing HighFructose Corn Syrup, Accidental Hedonist, athttp://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2005/06/09/oods_and_products_containing_high_ruct.

21 This conservative defnition underestimatesederal support or junk ood. Wheat our,which may be processed and enriched, is usedin a large number o such products. Similarly,

dairy subsidies support the production o milk,eggs, and cheese, which may be used as junkood ingredients. Even or the crops we do ex-amine, we do not ully capture how much is go-ing to junk ood corn chips and corn pus, orexample, include more corn-based ingredientsthan just processed corn starch and sweeteners.

22 Gary Taubes,Is Sugar Toxic?,N.Y. TimesMagazine, Apr. 17, 2011, athttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all. However,some studies have suggested that consuminghigh ructose corn syrup rather than sugar maylead to increased weight gain. See, e.g., HilaryParker,A Sweet Problem: Princeton ResearchersFind that High Fructose Corn Syrup PromptsConsiderably More Weight Gain, princeton.edu,Mar. 22, 2010, athttp://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/.

23 USDA Economic Research Service, Sugarand Sweeteners: Recommended Data, Table27: U.S. Use o Field Corn, by Crop Year.Because this data set is arranged in crop yearsstretching rom September o one year throughAugust o the next, we started our count in the1995/96 crop year.Available athttp://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefng/Sugar/Data.htm.


25 See Note 22, above.


27 Kayla Hedrick, Low-Lin Oil Helps Keep UsHealthier and Proftable, unitedsoybean.org, Jan.19, 2011, athttp://unitedsoybean.org/topics/consumer/low-lin-soybean-oil-helps-keep-us-healthy-and-armers-proftable.

28 Many soy oils undergo a process calledhydrogenation beore being used in oodproducts. Hydrogenation is a process that canhelp protect oils rom spoilage and improvetheir taste, as well as making them semisolid.However, partial hydrogenation also increasesthe concentration o trans atty acids in the oil,and consumption o trans ats has been shownto increase the risk o heart disease. Due tothese health concerns, ood processors havebeen decreasingly relying on partial hydrogena-tion o soy oils.Id.; Wikipedia,Hydrogenation, athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogenation.

29 USDA Economic Research Service, OilCrops Yearbook 2011, Table 9: Soybeans:


15/15


Monthly Value o Products Per Bushel oSoybeans Processed, and Spot Price Spread,U.S., 1990/91 -2009/10. To account or theimpact o ination, the average share o theprice since 1995 is weighted by the totalsoybean production in a given year, whichmay be ound in Table 2: Soybeans: Acreage

Planted, Harvested, Yield, Production, Value,and Loan Rate, U.S., 1960-2010.Available athttp://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentIno.do?documentID=1290.

30 Federal arm policy does include disasterrelie payments that go to owners o orchardsand other ruit-growing trees in the eventthat a natural disaster damages their crop;due to the non-recurrent, random nature othese payments, we do not include them inour analysis. Number twenty on the list aresubsidies or growing sugar beets, a tuber;however, sugar beets are cultivated to be

processed into sugar, not to be eaten directly.2011 Farm Subsidy Database.

31 Internal Revenue Service, Tax Stats at aGlance, FY 2009, athttp://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html.

32 I bought in larger quantities, the per-unitcost o a Twinkie is roughly $.38. See, e.g., thisAmazon.com product listing: http://www.amazon.com/Hostess-Twinkies-Sponge-Creamy-Filling/dp/B004ZXYHHA.

33 Bureau o Labor Statistics, Series

APU0000711111, lists the price per poundo a Red Delicious apple as $1.374 as o July2010. See http://www.bls.gov/data/#prices.Livestrong.com lists the average weight oa Red Delicious apple about 6 ozs, or 3/8o a pound, meaning each apple would cost51.5 cents. See http://www.livestrong.com/article/303353-calories-in-one-red-delicious-apple/.

34 List o cities and population romWikipedia,List o United States Cities byPopulation, athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o_United_States_cities_by_population. Note

that while the previous sentence breaks downsubsidies per taxpayer, the chart does so on anoverall population basis. Per the U.S. Census,American population is 309 million. See http://quickacts.census.gov/qd/states/00000.html.

apples to twinkies web vus

Documents