I believe the "artificially cheap simple carbs" is a secondary effect, with the primary effect of making corn cheap due to national security reasons. So before removing the subsidies, you'd want to have a plan for managing that risk.
The subsidies predate the "great grain robbery" where farmers sold large stockpiles to the Russians, which helped Nixon secure election victory. Before that, as part of the New Deal, was the Agricultural Adjustment Act which literally paid farmers to destroy livestock and not use land in order to boost prices for farmers. Strictly speaking, I don't think this was a case of national security.
Today it's just a case of entrenched interests: large key midwestern farmers would stand to lose money, whether you have a tax or reduce subsidies. They stand to gain more by not mitigating obesity rates.
Mind you they could diversify away from corn. If consumers eat whole grains or meat instead of sugar, that's still money for farmers. But it would entail growing pains.
I think tradition is certainly part of it, but I think that take misses some important nuances. A few:
- agriculture isn't necessarily fungible. Land that is used for one product isn't immediately capable of being used for another, or at the same value (monetarily or calorically)
- A large part of corn production is used for feedstock. That means there would be systemic issues in the production of meat if it had major disruptions. That's another reason why you can't just swap corn for meat production.
- subsidies sometimes trade efficiency for stability. This isn't always a bad thing. A volatile market can make farmers lose their hat. A significant amount of farmers are generational, meaning there aren't a lot of people starting out unless they grew up farming.
- corn isn't just about food. Part of the national security element is fuel (ethanol). Again, recognizing the inefficiencies, this is more about stability. Other agricultural products can be used for fuel (e.g., soybeans for diesel) but the distribution of fuel needs and agricultural capacity is not in their favor.
- I'd put this in the "tradition" bucket but there are political concerns. Politicians have to place nice with places like Iowa because of how political primaries are structured.
> agriculture isn't necessarily fungible. Land that is used for one product isn't immediately capable of being used for another
Key word being "immediately". That's right, but substitutions do exist. Hence, growing pains.
> A large part of corn production is used for feedstock. That means there would be systemic issues in the production of meat if it had major disruptions. That's another reason why you can't just swap corn for meat production.
Globally, soybeans are more often used, and these can (and do) grow in the US. Notwithstanding, you can just keep growing corn without subsidy - meat prices would go up. That could be politically contentious, but less total meat consumption could lead to better health outcomes.
> subsidies sometimes trade efficiency for stability
Leaving aside the question of balance, pros and cons:
Farmer stability is not inherently contingent on corn subsidy. Even if we wanted to keep subsidies as a constant, you can subsidize something else.
> part of the national security element is fuel (ethanol)
This doesn't require subsidy. The US produces more than half of the world's ethanol fuel. Notwithstanding that, fossil fuel extraction has also grown through fracking. I don't see the security angle at all.
I think we disagree that soil is fungible for growing crops. Even if I were to steelman your stance, it still requires considerable inputs to do so. All of this ends up making food cost more.
Similarly, I think making HFCS more expensive isn't likely to make foods less calorically dense. What it will do is make them more expensive as manufacturers put use more expensive alternatives.
I do think your ethanol stance is a circular argument. The US produces a lot of ethanol because of the subsidies, so it doesn't make sense to point to that production level as a reason to get rid of subsidies. Fracking is a good counterpoint, but also a politically contentious one if your stance is that the US should ramp up fracking to offset agricultural subsidies.
I certainly agree that subsidies have inertia that's hard to overcome. (My favorite example is the alpaca subsidy that was implemented for warm-weather clothing for the Korean War that stayed on the books until the 1990s). I also agree they need to be tailored to the current environment.
The bulk of your point seems to be we can get rid of subsidies in exchange for higher and less stable food prices. Historically, our food is quite cheap today but I find the idea that the proposed solution to obesity is to make food more expensive not very palatable (ha). I personally don't think that is a good tradeoff because my position is it's calories and not HFCS that is the largest contributor to the obesity problem. My OP was not saying "keep subsidies" but rather "be aware of the systemic effects of getting rid of subsidies". I think there are lots of arguments to get rid of corn subsidies, but I find the obesity one pretty weak. So the simple solution of "just get rid of subsidies" will create all these negative consequences that need to be managed for something that isn't likely to move the needle much on obesity. That doesn't seem like a great tradeoff and I'd label it as one of those simple solutions that sounds great as a sound byte but isn't particularly pragmatic. Going back to the original point, if your goal is to make food more expensive to curb obesity, there are probably more straightforward and effective ways of doing so that don't have all those additional factors.
The only way that take makes sense to me is if you think there is something unique about HFCS that leads to obesity compared to other sweeteners when controlled for calories. I don't think the science supports this.
> I think we disagree that soil is fungible for growing crops. Even if I were to steelman your stance, it still requires considerable inputs to do so. All of this ends up making food cost more.
To transition, yes. This is an upfront cost that can be alleviated, food does not need to cost more after-the-fact. Trump haphazardly paid off farmers in his previous tenure, it happens.
> Similarly, I think making HFCS more expensive isn't likely to make foods less calorically dense. What it will do is make them more expensive as manufacturers put use more expensive alternatives.
That is the point, I think. Those particular foods are calorie-dense.
> so it doesn't make sense to point to that production level as a reason to get rid of subsidies.
Unless you think production levels would fall to pathetic levels on the global stage, and that this production-level is essential, I don't see why not.
> I find the idea that the proposed solution to obesity is to make food more expensive not very palatable (ha).
Specific foods, to be clear. Packaged products with added sugar would be affected. Meat does not have to be if the new policies account for it.
> it's calories and not HFCS that is the largest contributor to the obesity problem
non-satiating (nil fiber + protein) caloric-dense foods facilitate higher calorie consumption. Sugar is not the only vehicle for this, but it's part of the equation. Sugary drinks deliver lots of calories for very little satiety, for example. Other vectors are flour + fat + salt, fried foods.
I agree that "just get rid of subsidies" can be overly simplistic, but it belongs in the conversation. The point is that cheap and highly-available highly-promoted junk food creates a perverse incentive for consumers to eat more of it at the expense of their health. It's everywhere, including school cafeterias.
Any large-scale national solution invariably entails some kind of deterrence. Either junk food costs more, or is less available, or healthier alternatives are actively promoted and cheaper ($$$, I would throw education in this category too). Pick your poison.
Ostensibly, cutting spending would be more popular with voters in general than increasing taxes and spending. Also, falling tobacco smoking rates are a major success story which can be attributed primarily to sin tax (high prices), eliminating advertisement, and educating the masses.
Most corn is actually farmed for meat production (beef, pork, and poultry) not human consumption. I doubt the farmer cares if their corn goes to a human or a cow, so long as they get the best price, and uncle sam fills in the rest.
Any politician that does that will be subject to a relentless disinformation campaign alleging they're taking food from hungry families, regardless of any factual basis or quality of outcomes.