We’ve all heard the figures. We know that meat production uses significantly more land and fossil fuel resources than a vegetarian diet. But, then, why on earth is it cheaper to eat meat than fresh fruit and vegetables?
The following graph will give you an idea. On the right we have Federal Dietary Recommendations, compared with, on the left, the government subsidies that prop up the respective food groups.
Note: Figures are correct, but visual representation is not to scale (source)
Almost 75% of U.S. government subsidies go into meat and dairy production, but less than half a per cent goes into fruit and vegetable production. Talk about an upside down world!
This is why the Farm Bill, that favours the most destructive and largest food producers, is so significantly out of touch with what you’d hope would be the real goals of society — health of the environment and the people in it. Hopefully more people will be looking at this issue after last week’s Hallmark Meats fiasco.
OM Organics have a great page with more info on the Farm Bill.
view Celsias projects related to this topic >>
February 22nd, 2008
The use of pryamids instead of bar graphs is intentionally misleading. This form of graphing technique splits the pyramid in the same place as you would a bar graph,(based on height) but not if this was based on volume. The volume of space occupied by (for example) the protiens on the right (6 servings) should be half the volume of the grains (11 servings). Yet, since the meat is at the top of the pyramid on the right, it has almost no volume compared to grains which has the great width and breadth of the base of the pyramid. This is propaganda 101. There was a good point that was being made, but sadly, this kind of statistical sleight of hand cuts the credibility of this sight. Please treat your readers with more respect.
February 22nd, 2008
Great article! Lousy diagram — it apparently uses linear ratios in a “3D” display, completely distorting the visual impression.
February 22nd, 2008
So are you saying the government should subsidize lettuce instead? Personally, I think this demonstrates that the government should stop meddling with the free market period.
February 23rd, 2008
Jacob - agreed. The chart visually skews reality, unfortunately. But, the figures on their own are significant enough. Just to note, we didn’t create the chart.
mgroves - at least putting sustainable farming methods on a level playing field would be an excellent, and sensible start. With this kind of upside down financing, you can see why producers of healthy food have a hard time getting ahead. Demand for organic produce outstrips supply in the U.S. - it would be good to see healthy systems become a dominant force, and it could happen if the government would stop favouring the most unhealthy, destructive ‘food’. Getting industry influences, and money, out of politics should be a priority. Just as with food, the same can be said for Big Oil and Big Coal. Despite their huge profits, they get massive taxpayer funding as well. Renewable energy options face an uphill battle. As you say, it’s not a ‘free’ market at all, or democratic - but rather a modern form of feudalism.
February 23rd, 2008
Very interesting. This really underscores the fact that the current farm policy is not effective for the farmers OR for the general population. Why is it that so many of the poor in this country are obese?? It’s because unhealthy food is cheap and healthy food is expensive.
February 23rd, 2008
This is a great stat, but what is your source? I love the diagram, but you do not reference where you got it from, so it’s validity is ambiguous at best.
February 23rd, 2008
I see your point, but I don’t think “feudalism” is the right word. U.S. farmers and cattlemen are citizens with all the rights and responsibilities that the rest of us have, including property rights. But I agree that the food market is terribly skewed by subsidies. Problem is, other countries subsidize and skew their food markets worse than the U.S. does. Most European countries are downright sneaky about it, all because of the constant disagreements in the EU about what constitutes “fair” subsidies. A former French farmer told me how his government gave dozens of different subsidies to farmers, all under constantly changing program names and tax schemes in order to hide the real extent of subsidies. And they did it to combat similar constantly changing tactics by the Germans, Spanish, British, Italians, Dutch, etc. He said that probably no one person in any these countries knows the full extent of his/her nation’s subsidies. If the U.S. unilaterally removed subsidy support, its farmers & cattlemen would be stomped by subsidized foreign competition. In fact, there is evidence in some sectors of the U.S. food market that, despite being more efficient & productive than virtually all foreign competitors, many types of U.S. food producers are STILL being squeezed out because our subsidies are “inadequate” in comparison to foreign subsidies. One truth behind all this is that most societies around the world are anxious to ensure that they can feed themselves—a visceral matter of national pride, and a legitimate matter of national security. Should we simply slam the door on trade, then? No, because our farmers and cattlemen export huge amounts, and consumers benefit tremendously by the competition and variety. Technology has given us a global economy, imperfect though it may be. Clumsily wrecking it would cause rising costs and plummeting standards of living in the U.S. and around the world. This is a complex set of issues.
I think improvements & solutions will come only through getting complete information about ALL subsidies in ALL countries; only then will trade negotiations enable the gradual reduction of subsidies. Honest and complete reporting of this information will NEVER come from the governments involved—one of the CIA’s major chores is to attempt to collect accurate economic info. But they’ll never be able to do a complete job; it’s up to the private sector, individuals, and the internet to improve information flow.
February 23rd, 2008
I agree, it’d be best to let the free market decide but if we’re gonna subsidize anything I think it’s more than reasonable that the government subsidizes the foods that our country wants to have produced.
Simply put: Americans like meat. Other reason why vegetables cost more to eat: low calorie per volume and weight.
February 23rd, 2008
Nice.
I have submit your article at my site submit.scox.org. Is that OK ?
February 23rd, 2008
As the first commenter mentioned, the problem with the chart is a massive lie factor (see http://xrl.us/bgog9) that arises from representing linear data on a three-dimensional scale (in a pyramid, no less) - if “protein” appeared at the bottom of the rightmost graph the visual would certainly be less convincing.
You make some valid points in your article, but that biased chart is making it hard for me to take them seriously. You should really just take the image down in the interest of journalistic integrity.
February 23rd, 2008
Not exactly a great analogy as I can get 3 x $1 salads for the cost of a big mac. I can understand what you are trying to say though. But alot of people will look at this (and the horrible visual representation) and call it BS as they know they can buy a salad for much less than a big mac.
February 23rd, 2008
Your numbers don’t make sense. You say that 75% of subsidies go to meat and dairy, and link to Wikipedia for more details. But Wikipedia shows the highest subsidy, 35%, goes to feed grains. Okay, that helps meat and dairy, granted, but 35% is much less than 75%. The next entries in the Wikipedia table are cotton, 18%; wheat, 15%; rice, 14%; soybeans, 8%; dairy, 4%; and then you’re down in the noise. Some soybeans are used for animal feed but much goes into the human food chain directly, and little wheat or rice is fed to animals. There’s no way to make this add up to 75%. In conjunction with your misleading graph, I am afraid this page is just garbage!
February 23rd, 2008
I went ahead and computed the ratio of meat/dairy:non-meat/dairy subsidies that the graphic shows, just for kicks. I based my calculation on the graph’s default resolution (as it appears in the body of the article). Since I could not determine the actual length of the pyramid’s second (left-hand) side, I made the extremely conservative (though clearly false) assumption that the second side is no longer than the line segment that appears on the image - i.e. that perspective does not shorten its length whatsoever.
The calculations show meat/dairy subsidies occupying a whopping 98.6% of the pyramid’s volume (even using my unreasonably conservative estimate). In other words, the ratio of meat/dairy subsidies to non-meat/dairy subsidies in the actual data is about 3:1, but the graph shows it to be near 64:1.
Maybe this makes it a bit clearer why running that graphic is unacceptable.
February 23rd, 2008
This article is dishonest, dairy prices are HIGHER than market price, due to the pernicious effect of dairy price supports.
February 23rd, 2008
Incredibly stupid article. This tries to equate *government subsidies* with *total cost of production*. Guess what? They aren’t equal.
If the subsidies represented 95% of the final consumer cost you might have an argument. If they represent 1%, you have no argument at all.
This is a fine example of lying via statistics, nothing more.
Note I am not trying to defend or oppose the upside-down nature of the pyramids or government subsidies. I am trying to point out that this article is BAD SCIENCE.
February 23rd, 2008
Of course you know, the price that dairy farmers get for their milk depends on the number of miles they are from Eau Claire Wisconsin. So a farmer in Eau Claire gets the least amount of money while a farmer in California or Vermont gets far more.
This is a hang over from a 1930’s program to create local production of milk. So rather than producing it where it’s most economic, it’s produced where it’s most profitable - due to government subsidies.
Oh, and it takes about 500 staff members in the Department of Agriculture to implement this regulation.
So when you look at the price of a gallon of milk - just remember Eau Claire Wisconsin….
February 23rd, 2008
This is a fine example as to why government needs to stay out of subsidizing anything. It artificially tips the balance of consumer preference to one side or the other.
February 23rd, 2008
Interesting. But can you actually prove the subsidies cause the price imbalance, and not caused by other factors?
Some things to look for, like how does the subsidy/price ratio in the U.S. compare to the same ration in the U.K.? In Europe? What about in the rest of the Americas?
What’s the profit margin like on meat compared to vegetables in the U.S.?
If subsidies make all meat less expensive, why is only some meat less expensive than vegetables? A steak can still run you over $20 at a restaurant, or upwards of $9 a lb in the store. But fruit and vegetables never get that expensive, why?
I think your post is an interesting one, but I just don’t think it goes to the level of proving that the subsidies cause the price imbalance.
February 23rd, 2008
just forget trying to change meat eaters.
free will does not exist and cheep burgers do.
taste and price dictate choice.
if no subsidies went to us cattle farmers all the farms would move to china … is that what you want?
things are so far gone at this point that you should just focus on eating right and not wasting your life working to make someone else rich. relax and eat some beans, and for gods sake dont go to or even think about mcdonalds.
February 23rd, 2008
Wait… if McDonalds is getting all of their beef from South America, how does US Federal Farming Subsidies make their beef cheaper than a salad? That doesn’t make sense.
Furthermore, why is a McDonalds hamburger still the cheapest thing on the menu when eating at a McDonalds in Mexico, France, Hong Kong, Australia or a hundred other countries?
I think your hypothesis has a serious flaw.
February 23rd, 2008
What the hell is wrong with all you people bitching about area versus volume versus linear? Yes if you use your goddamn calculator I’m sure you can work out that the visual representation is not to scale (like it says).
Print out the graphs without the numbers and get someone who’s not a total pedant to estimate the percentages, and they will be nowhere near as extreme as your calculations. They might even come rather close to those marked!
Wahh wahh journalistic integrity!
Hal — feed grains = food for animals we will eat = meat subsidy… jeezus!
February 23rd, 2008
oh crap… ok Hal flame me to death, I spoke too hastily on the 75% thing … it doesn’t quite add up, my apologies
February 23rd, 2008
Hi, Here’s a link to a GoogleDoc spread sheet I’ve begun in order to make some perhaps improved charts and further data analysis. I’m just a novice at all the subjects involved, so if you think my math doesn’t answer the right questions, or if you think the charts I made don’t accurately reflect the information from the “could be improved” graphic above, then please let me know. The one thing I ask is that you be kind, not scathing.
One last comment I must make is that there may be a fair way to redistribute monies of Federal Subsidies for Food that may not go on a one to one ratio according to the number of servings recommended by the Feds. ??
I was hoping the document would be editable by you, but if it’s not, and you know how to make it that way, please leave a comment!
February 23rd, 2008
“Furthermore, why is a McDonalds hamburger still the cheapest thing on the menu when eating at a McDonalds in Mexico, France, Hong Kong, Australia or a hundred other countries?”
That *is* pretty strange. I ran out of money in Japan on a recent trip and guess what the only food I could afford for a while was? Instant noodles or McDonalds. 85 cents for a cheeseburger.
February 24th, 2008
Pricing of Big Macs, Salads, or anything for that matter, have very little to Cost of Goods Sold. Company’s only use COGS in their pricing determination to make sure they are making money on that price point. If COGS was the only dterminant in price, homogeneous items would all be priced the same. Baseball cards, for instance, all have the same COGS, but have differing prices according to DEMAND.
Simply put, supply and demand determine prices. Demand for salads is much more elastic than demand for Big Macs. I would venture to say that customers of salads are willing to pay more for a salad than customers are for a Big Mac. They two items have two different markets.
February 24th, 2008
No clue is expressed here about the economics or reality of modern agriculture. I agree on only one point, say no to more government.. Government stop being intrusive and stop socialism before it morphs into fascism.
This article is pure bovine squeezins.
Land is land is land. First off, what a person does with their private property should pretty much be their business. Second, farming vs ranching, they got it all upside down. Farming is capital intense, breaks the soil up, uses fuel and chemicals. Neither impacts native fauna as it adapts and prospers from the increased food available.
Ranching allows the animals to simply run around and graze, then walk back to a collection point with little expense by the manager. Further the land used is not valid for any other purpose, and would produce zero for lack of a rancher and animals, or it would simply not be available for that animal to graze. So animals use otherwise unused land. This allows something from nothing and provides a home for those animals and allows them to live. Taking away this land only lowers GDP and kills animals.
The writers other choice and utilizing otherwise unusable land would be for his city cohorts to bus themselves out to these areas and work the land themselves. But instead of picking on land use of American farmers, why not look around and all the wildlife and issues surrounding the concrete canyons called cities. At least out here we have native wildlife and grass, in your city scapes you got nothing but more laws, flying rats and pitbulls. City dwellers have even destroyed the dew. Not to mention, runnoff, vehicle exhaust, asbestos pollution, asphalt seeping into the ground water, household chemicals being poured into the sink. Plastic consumption and trash everywhere.
So point a finger at whomever, but point one at me and your liable to start a conflict mere words wont end. Real free American who wont stand your meddling, ever met one? You wont push me into one of your Warsaw ghettos. The life you save by telling the truth might be your own.
February 24th, 2008
Because Salads are a premium item on the menu and they suck without lots of good dressings. Long live Beef!!!
February 24th, 2008
I’m half-way thru this book, “Free Lunch”, and I would recommend it already.
It dives into similar stories of legislation, subsidies and skewed markets in many different businesses.
Many examples are pretty revolting and show how the democratic system is broken and corrupted in the US…
March 12th, 2008
Endless recriminations about the graph aside, the bottom line is it costs more to eat healthier and the govt. doesn’t care. You have to take your personal health into your own hands. Secondary and tertiary health care is big business too you know.
March 14th, 2008
You should stop writing such articles, because it is bad for “us”. Us is the people who know the truth about subsidies.
You have tried to exaggerate or what I dont know, but you have given a lot of fodder for “them” to rubbish this article, in the process rubbishing the entire fact that subsidies are unfairly leaning towards meat. That is a bad thing.
I feel that a 35% subsidy for meat is a bad enough thing, cause we all know that subsidies are nothing but tax payers money.
So why is the entire population paying to make meat cheap?(the answer is because MCdonalds and others want to make money).
Even though a bigmac might be the cheapest thing on the menu, they are making a very huge profit margin percentage wise. Infact more profit that someone would make off vegetable products(excluding soya and corn).
You have a point there but you are trying too hard to exaggerate the facts using a very sorry graph.
Because of such a sorry article people might be mislead into believing that there is nothing wrong on the subsidy side.