Re: Cheap food and CR

[Guest guest]

I think education regarding health and diet is the answer. Increasing the

price of food will not, IMO, result in improved health of the population.

>From: " chris " <motjuste@...>

>Reply-

>< >

>Subject: [ ] Cheap food and CR

>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:07:44 +0300

>

>

>I apologize in advance if this is off-topic, but it seems to me to relate

>to

>CR. I was recently pondering the obesity problem in the U.S. (I'm starting

>to get worried about my parents and other relatives who have been

>struggling

>with weight for years), and believe that one of the prime causes of this

>problem is the wide availability of (relative to many other countries)

>inexpensive food.

>

>I haven't researched this in depth, but in keeping my ear to the ground I

>am

>coming to the conclusion that agricultural subsidies ought to have more

>people against them than just libertarians. I wonder if the government

>stopped messing with price controls and subsidies to keep farming

>profitable, whether a better equilibrium might be found naturally. Yes, a

>lot of farmers might have to find other work, but why should farmers have a

>safety net that, say, tech workers don't have?

>

>The upshot would be that the market would control food prices, and probably

>those prices would go up because there would be fewer farms. Higher prices

>across the board would mean that organically grown foods suddenly wouldn't

>seem so expensive, and people might eat healthier. More expensive food

>also

>might mean that people would restrict their intake for financial reasons,

>or

>even grow their own food.

>

>Am I wrong in thinking this way?

>

>I understand that this topic relates only tangentially to CR, so I won't be

>offended if we take it off-list.

>

> (|-|ri5

>

[Guest guest]

Price supports if anything keep food prices to the consumer artificially

high. The price of sugar would surely drop without price supports.

I don't believe in legislating good behavior but agree we face a medical

crisis funding health care for an increasingly obese population. It takes

more than education to give people the strength to resist our basic wiring

to eat whatever and whenever food is available.

The food industry is complicit since they are not rewarded for their

customer's long term health but short term satiety. Fat people don't want to

be fat (I have a few decades of personal experience about that). The food

industry while not overtly trying to be injurious will reinforce popular

wisdom and provide what the consumers think is good for them.

History is littered with ironic examples such as margarine, which was

created as a healthy alternative for butter, who knew that trans-fats were

worse than the sat-fats they replaced?

I am optimistic that our collective understanding of nutrition is improving

and this is slowly filtering into popular awareness. I don't trust the

government to do anything right, but they will surely get involved as

obesity seems to be a low hanging fruit for reducing health costs.

The best we can hope for is managing our counter productive internal drives

and perhaps setting a good example for others. While few are open to our

unsolicited proselytizing, I had the rapt attention of a couple of friends

at the gym the other day when the subject of the recent Adkins lawsuit came

up. They were very receptive to my explanation of the realities of weight

loss (it's the calories), and why Adkins is popular (quick loss of water

weight due to glycogen depletion).

I am optimistic, but expect only slow gradual improvement, or slowing of

deterioration.

JR

-----Original Message-----

From: chris [mailto:motjuste@...]

Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 4:08 AM

Subject: [ ] Cheap food and CR

I apologize in advance if this is off-topic, but it seems to me to relate to

CR. I was recently pondering the obesity problem in the U.S. (I'm starting

to get worried about my parents and other relatives who have been struggling

with weight for years), and believe that one of the prime causes of this

problem is the wide availability of (relative to many other countries)

inexpensive food.

I haven't researched this in depth, but in keeping my ear to the ground I am

coming to the conclusion that agricultural subsidies ought to have more

people against them than just libertarians. I wonder if the government

stopped messing with price controls and subsidies to keep farming

profitable, whether a better equilibrium might be found naturally. Yes, a

lot of farmers might have to find other work, but why should farmers have a

safety net that, say, tech workers don't have?

The upshot would be that the market would control food prices, and probably

those prices would go up because there would be fewer farms. Higher prices

across the board would mean that organically grown foods suddenly wouldn't

seem so expensive, and people might eat healthier. More expensive food also

might mean that people would restrict their intake for financial reasons, or

even grow their own food.

Am I wrong in thinking this way?

I understand that this topic relates only tangentially to CR, so I won't be

offended if we take it off-list.

(|-|ri5

[Guest guest]

Historically, the role of gov't is to ensure the food supply - not as easy as one might think. The "farmers" are not individuals. Mostly farmers get supports in lower taxes because the profit margin is too small to support, eg, the tax rate you pay on your house.

Then there's the commodity market. If I had to blame anything it would be the brokers who bid stuff up because a freeze occurs or might occur. It's possible for a billionaire to buy enough contracts to influence the market. Ref the price of gasoline.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: chris

Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 4:07 AM

Subject: [ ] Cheap food and CR

I haven't researched this in depth, but in keeping my ear to the ground I amcoming to the conclusion that agricultural subsidies ought to have morepeople against them than just libertarians. I wonder if the governmentstopped messing with price controls and subsidies to keep farmingprofitable, whether a better equilibrium might be found naturally. Yes, alot of farmers might have to find other work, but why should farmers have asafety net that, say, tech workers don't have?The upshot would be that the market would control food prices, and probablythose prices would go up because there would be fewer farms. Higher pricesacross the board would mean that organically grown foods suddenly wouldn'tseem so expensive, and people might eat healthier. More expensive food alsomight mean that people would restrict their intake for financial reasons, oreven grow their own food.Am I wrong in thinking this way?I understand that this topic relates only tangentially to CR, so I won't beoffended if we take it off-list.