Capn_Zelnick t1_jb6lmwn wrote on March 6, 2023 at 8:43 PM

Reply to comment by jotsea2 in Global food consumption alone could add nearly 1 °C to warming by 2100. Seventy five percent of this warming is driven by foods that are high sources of methane (ruminant meat, dairy and rice). by Plant__Eater

The fact that the USA has been subsidizing sugar and corn since nearly the inception of the country is nutty. I am certain it stimulated growth back then, but we really don't need it now, especially when considering there are better things on which to spend that money. Hell, good luck finding any prepared foodstuff that doesn't have an unreasonable amount of added sugars and/or syrups.

WellWrested t1_jb8w1oi wrote on March 7, 2023 at 8:34 AM

I believe this started seriously with Earl Butz in the 1970s.

hiimsubclavian t1_jb96k2w wrote on March 7, 2023 at 11:05 AM

> The fact that the USA has been subsidizing sugar and corn since nearly the inception of the country is nutty.

I say it's sweet and corny. Corn and corn syrup aren't exactly huge contributors to climate change, and America values its food security. There are worse things to spend tax dollars on.

tfks t1_jb91oti wrote on March 7, 2023 at 9:56 AM

In most cases, allowing a business to flounder and die is fine. In the case that the business is producing something that your population would die without (food) allowing the business to flounder and die is maybe not a good idea. The hilarious amount of corn produced in the USA means that the entire rest of the world's agriculture could fail or be made unavailable and the US would still have a good supply. This protects against disaster, war, and other geopolitical events.

Obviously there are negative consequences to subsidizing corn (and other foods) to this degree, but I think it's important to temper any assessments with the fact that the subsidies are meant to prevent mass starvation should things go terribly wrong in the world.

Capn_Zelnick t1_jb9b2fk wrote on March 7, 2023 at 12:00 PM

I don't suggest that the corn industry, or any other industry already discussed in different threads that has significant concequences to its subsidizing, die, just that we really don't have to spend this much on food security in order to still have a huge advantage in that regard over the rest of the world.

tfks t1_jb9ggh0 wrote on March 7, 2023 at 12:55 PM

The industry doesn't have to die. I did also use the word flounder. These industries need to be subsidized enough that they could provide food rations to the American people in times of catastrophe. If they're below that threshold and the global food supply becomes significantly restricted, it risks economic and societal collapse. Is the subsidy balanced in that way? I honestly don't know and I've never once seen anyone addressing that in these threads about food subsidies.