Friday, December 03, 2004
Decisions on the margin do matter
[Randy Scholfield, "Subsidies made me eat it," The Wichita Eagle, 3 December 2004.]
Today's column from Randy Scholfield is a tongue-in-cheek take on the impact subsidies have on consumption:
The Eagle ran a story Sunday quoting some nutrition experts and critics who complain that USDA farm subsidies for grain commodities such as corn and wheat help make possible irresistibly cheap junk food such as Ho Hos and Ding Dongs that convert instantly to fat on your body.
At the same time, the USDA mostly doesn't subsidize fruit and vegetables, which makes these beneficial foods increasingly expensive and resistible, especially for low-income Americans, who are twice as likely to be obese.
So, the argument goes, Americans keep getting fatter and fatter. Almost 1 in 3 Americans are now obese. Despite all the billions of dollars spent each year on diet and exercise products.
Because of farm subsidies.
Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., its principal author, has a lot to answer for.
Of course, he dodged responsibility in the article, instead resorting to heavy sarcasm:
"I am not aware of any action taken by any farmer or rancher or caused by any agriculture program that has forced American consumers to go into their favorite food establishment and order the supersized No. 3 menu item, the two appetizers preceding and the dessert following the main entree, followed by 10 to 12 hours of television."
Whoa! Wait a minute, senator. You're going too fast. Are you trying to make a point about choices and responsibility?
There is certainly something to be said about choice and responsibility - and, ultimately this is what personal consumption decisions boil down to. But the problem is that people make decisions on the margin. While health-consciousness factors into food decisions, price is a major factor as well.
In fact, regardless of income, price will generally play some role in the decision of what foods to purchase. The lower a consumer's income, though, the more price sensitive he or she is likely to be. So it is not as though anyone is "forced" to eat a particular item, but subsidizing one kind of food over another will invariably impact consumption, and that impact will likely be spread out disproportionately.
Again, this is not to say that personal responsibility is not an issue, but there is a difference between a neutral policy and one that creates incentives for certain behavior. Not unlike when the federal government grants subsidies to tobacco farmers and at the same time attacks tobacco producers, the irony here is that government officials are increasingly looking to intrude upon personal decision-making for the sake of our health while distorting the marketplace to negatively impact consumption decisions.
Policymakers should not so blithely disregard the consequences of their actions.
[Randy Scholfield, "Subsidies made me eat it," The Wichita Eagle, 3 December 2004.]
Today's column from Randy Scholfield is a tongue-in-cheek take on the impact subsidies have on consumption:
The Eagle ran a story Sunday quoting some nutrition experts and critics who complain that USDA farm subsidies for grain commodities such as corn and wheat help make possible irresistibly cheap junk food such as Ho Hos and Ding Dongs that convert instantly to fat on your body.
At the same time, the USDA mostly doesn't subsidize fruit and vegetables, which makes these beneficial foods increasingly expensive and resistible, especially for low-income Americans, who are twice as likely to be obese.
So, the argument goes, Americans keep getting fatter and fatter. Almost 1 in 3 Americans are now obese. Despite all the billions of dollars spent each year on diet and exercise products.
Because of farm subsidies.
Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., its principal author, has a lot to answer for.
Of course, he dodged responsibility in the article, instead resorting to heavy sarcasm:
"I am not aware of any action taken by any farmer or rancher or caused by any agriculture program that has forced American consumers to go into their favorite food establishment and order the supersized No. 3 menu item, the two appetizers preceding and the dessert following the main entree, followed by 10 to 12 hours of television."
Whoa! Wait a minute, senator. You're going too fast. Are you trying to make a point about choices and responsibility?
There is certainly something to be said about choice and responsibility - and, ultimately this is what personal consumption decisions boil down to. But the problem is that people make decisions on the margin. While health-consciousness factors into food decisions, price is a major factor as well.
In fact, regardless of income, price will generally play some role in the decision of what foods to purchase. The lower a consumer's income, though, the more price sensitive he or she is likely to be. So it is not as though anyone is "forced" to eat a particular item, but subsidizing one kind of food over another will invariably impact consumption, and that impact will likely be spread out disproportionately.
Again, this is not to say that personal responsibility is not an issue, but there is a difference between a neutral policy and one that creates incentives for certain behavior. Not unlike when the federal government grants subsidies to tobacco farmers and at the same time attacks tobacco producers, the irony here is that government officials are increasingly looking to intrude upon personal decision-making for the sake of our health while distorting the marketplace to negatively impact consumption decisions.
Policymakers should not so blithely disregard the consequences of their actions.
Comments:
Post a Comment
