Milling & Baking News - February 8, 2011 - 7

Blaming grain prices for obesity epidemic

A

t this time when both food industry and me- is wrong to contend that farm programs have made dia attention are focused on upward ingre- fattening foods relatively cheap and abundant. Simidient cost pressures that have or are on the larly, the study denies that ending all federal farm verge of prompting food price gains, it seems odd to programs would be a major step toward ending the come across assertions that “cheap” grains are a, if spread of obesity. not the, root cause of the obesity epidemic sweeping Addressing the allegation that it is federal farm across America. Yet, many of the severest critics of the programs that have caused the expansion in corn profood industry for its purported role in causing people duction and the rise in use of high-fructose corn syrup to consume an excess of calories allege, without pre- as a caloric sweetener, the economists say: “The culsenting proof, allege that it is the vast quantities of prit here is not corn subsidies; rather, it is sugar policy grain being produced that have created this worry- that has restricted imports, driven up the U.S. price ing health situation. If there’s a reason why too many of sugar and encouraged consumers and food manuchildren and adults are overweight, facing an array facturers to replace sugar with alternatives, especially of social and medical problems, these critics usually HFCS.” They go on to say: “Combining the sugar say it is expanding grain production and the way policy with the corn policy, the net effect of farm subthis relates to cheap prices for sidies has been to increase the It seems odd to come across “junk” food. Without delving assertions that ‘cheap’ grains are price of caloric sweeteners geninto the ridiculousness of makerally, and to discourage total a, if not the, root cause of the ing such assertions at a time of obesity epidemic sweeping across consumption while causing a rising food prices, it is essential shift in sweetener use between America. to understand the fundamental sugar and HFCS.” fallacy of this argument, which also affects how the This analysis also says that eliminating farm subsigrain-based food industry is regarded. dies would produce little or no change in production The ﬂawed assertion made by these critics is that or prices for major ingredients. Careful examination, cheap prices for high-caloric foods and food ingre- the economists contend, reveals that U.S. farm polidients have caused overeating and thus the obesity cies “have had very small effects on obesity.” In a step problem. In turn, low ingredient prices are usually beyond this, they assert, “Contrary to common claims blamed on government price support programs, in the popular media, farm policies have more likely which are characterized as spurring production by of- slowed the rise in obesity.” fering farmers high returns while causing weakness Looking at efforts to blame obesity on an abunin market prices. For food executives, especially those dance of grains, the economists counsel caution in engaged in purchasing, having the impact of price concluding that a solution may lie in halting innovasupport programs described in this fashion is op- tions and the search for new technology in crop proposite of what has long raised concerns. Rather than duction. They point out that increased farm producserving as a source of downward pressure, federal tivity has alleviated hunger and poverty around the programs have mostly aimed at strengthening prices. world, while reducing pressure on natural resources. It’s nigh on to impossible to identify an instance of “The challenge for policy makers,” the economists federal price support program causing weakness. declare, “is to ﬁnd other — more effective and more Research sponsored by the Agricultural & Applied economically rational— ways to reduce excess food Economics Association seeks to explore how federal consumption, while enhancing consumption opporfarm policy might have affected the spread of obesity. tunities for the poor and protecting the world’s reThis work concludes that support programs have rel- sources for future generations.” This is an approach atively modest impact on retail food prices and that it grain-based foods could join in espousing. MBN MORTON SOSLAND, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
WE’RE EAGER TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK: E-mail editor@sosland.com or write to us at Milling & Baking News, 4800 Main Street, Suite 100, Kansas City, Mo, 64112 EDITORIAL STAFF
Editor-in-chief Morton I. Sosland Executive editor, markets Neil N. Sosland Editor L. Joshua Sosland Senior editor, markets Jay S. Sjerven Managing editor Eric J. Schroeder Associate editor Jeff Gelski Assistant editor Ron Sterk Internet editor Allison Gibeson Graphic designer, market graphics, data Christina Sullivan

PUBLISHING STAFF
Chairman Charles S. Sosland Vice-chairman L. Joshua Sosland President and publisher Mark Sabo Associate publisher G. Michael Gude Vice-president, chief ﬁnancial ofﬁcer Melanie Hepperly

Audience development director Don Keating Director of e-business Jon Hall Director of on-line advertising and promotions Carrie Fluegge Promotions manager Alissa Nower Advertising manager Nora Wages

Director of design services Sadowna Conarroe Circulation manager Judith Arnone Digital systems analyst Marj Potts Manager of advertising design Becky White

7bakingbusiness.com Milling & Baking News / March 13, 2007 / world-grain.com

Milling & Baking News February 8, 2011 / 7 bakingbusiness.com / world-grain.com



Editorial
http://www.bakingbusiness.com http://www.world-grain.com
Milling & Baking News - February 8, 2011

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Milling & Baking News - February 8, 2011
