By Kathy Hanson
Ames Tribune

When a major television network aired a news report in 2004 that directly linked farm subsidies for corn sweeteners to obesity, few people may have questioned its leap from cause to effect.

The report came from a credible source and its logic seemed sound: America's food and beverage supply is chock full of subsidized corn sweeteners. People are consuming increasing amounts of cheap, high-fructose-laden foods and beverages. Obesity is becoming an epidemic. Therefore, farm subsidies are to blame.

The report was one example among a slew of similar reports carried by the "popular" media at the time, according to Iowa State University economics professor John Beghin.

The trouble was the claims were unsubstantiated, Beghin said, and he and fellow ISU economics professor Helen Jensen, along with some colleagues at the University of California-Davis, couldn't let the press get by with such "mischaracterization."

 

"It's not that we're apologists for subsidies or farm policies," Beghin said.
In fact, "by and large," Beghin said he and his peers aren't always in favor of the "government being in the markets."

In economics, the link from cause to effect is not that simple, he added.

 

"And no matter what the issue is, it's our job as economists to make sure accurate information gets to the public," Beghin said.

So the team got busy on a study partially funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the National Research Initiative, and released its findings in a paper called, "Farm Policies and Added Sugars in U.S. Diets."

 

The study debunked the notion that farm subsidies are the reason people consume so much cheap, corn-sweetened food. At no more than 5 percent, the farm share of the value of sweetened food items is simply too small to be the driving factor, Beghin said. Additionally, the team found that countries with no comparable commodity programs had rising rates of sweetener consumption similar to those in the United States.

Beghin said the team learned that back in the 1970s farm subsidies played a larger role than they currently do in making corn sweeteners cheaper than sugars made from cane and beets.

 

But since that time, other factors have made the price of corn more competitive, he said. Research breakthroughs have improved seeds and production techniques, resulting in higher yields while at the same time, commodities programs have kept sugar prices propped up in comparison.

These days "the farm subsidy is a tiny increment of the cost of that cup of soda," said Beghin, using beverages as an example since they constitute the largest use of high fructose corn sweeteners.

Jensen, whose focus is the economics of food and nutrition, said when it comes to answering critics, it's important to understand the USDA's responsibilities.

 

She said the USDA has policy roles on both sides of the issue, starting with farm policies on hand and establishing consumer dietary guidelines on the other.

"Critics have argued that the USDA bows to pressure to support the farm agenda at the expense of consumers' health," she said. "This study lets the USDA off the hook on the policy side."

On the whole, Jensen said farm policies have made all food more cheaply available, and it's important to include healthy food in the equation.

 

"But the way the industry processes foods with fat and sweeteners, often adding hidden calories, is another matter," she said. "It's beyond the scope of this study."

Jensen said the abundance of cheap, high-calorie foods means the USDA is "not off the hook" when it comes to educating consumers about dietary guidelines.

 

"People need to understand that they must stop and think before consuming those high-calorie beverages and foods," she said.

Beghin concurred.

 

"The presumption should be that cheaper food is beneficial for society," he said. "People need to learn to make good choices."