Demi
Sat, Oct-13-07, 01:57
NewsTarget.com
Government subsidies: the reason why cancer-causing foods are so cheap and readily available
Friday, October 12, 2007 by: S.A Ramratan
That bag of chips that you decided to forgo is significantly cheaper than that bag of organic apples. If you think about it, it doesn’t really make sense. The bag of chips has gone through several manufacturing steps, and so has the bag that contains the chips. The apples have gone through no manufacturing, the bag through some manufacturing. There are labour costs associated with both products – so why the huge price difference? Two words: government subsides. To give you an idea of the amount of money the US government gives specific farmers, the sugar industry received 1.2 billion in 2005, wheat 1.1 billion in 2005 and livestock 2.7 million in 2005. These are just estimates, but the impact can be seen. It is not because the bag of apples is more expensive, but the fact that manufactured foods are unrealistically cheap that the price disparity is so evident. As you can see, these products fall under the “avoid” category for the anti-cancer diet. But if you are budget conscious, and many of us are, many will be pulled financially towards buying cancer-promoting foods.
So if the US government subsidises the cancer promoting foods, what about anti-cancer foods? There is little reliable data showing organic fruit and vegetable a farm receiving subsides like those for sugar, wheat or livestock. Organic farms tend to be small, too small in fact to participate in the government programs aimed at huge farm operations. Their diverse crops don’t qualify for support, which is typically aimed at huge monochromatic crops, such as corn. For example, flax subsides totalled $914 000 over a ten year period. That is less than one million dollars over ten years. The sugar industry would laugh at that.
If you think it stops there – it doesn’t. Due to the fact that many of these cancer-promoting foods are unnaturally cheap –the profits they make are subsequently unnaturally higher. The marketing and advertising for some of the industries that take these subsidised crops to make manufactured foods, is staggering. Coke alone has a $2 billion dollar annual marketing budget.
Anti-cancer foods, specifically organic foods, have been growing at an electrifying pace – somewhere near 15-20 percent per year over the past decade. This is not due to a $2 billion dollar marketing campaign. The growth of this sector of foods is to the benefit of all, as long as organic standard are kept high. The prevalence of anti-cancer foods, and the adopting of an anti-cancer diet could cut the cost of cancer to the US by $63 billion annually if those preventable cancers are avoided.
What can we do to bring the cost of organic down?
If the US government gave subsides on the same scale as sugar, wheat or livestock, the prices would go down. But the likelihood of that may be slim. The vested interested in keeping the money where it is going could be difficult to overcome. But given that the organic industry is exploding, without the huge marketing budget, it seems we are influencing the market with our buying power. Continue to shop local, organic, and from ethical sources. Right now the cost may be higher financially, but how can we measure the increased lifespan and quality of life that comes with being robustly healthy for a long, long time?
Yes, buying organic, and eating the anti-cancer foods may cost more now, but the price of chemotherapy, the damage to the organs, and the loss of quality of life, to me, is worth the extra price. If you follow the guidelines above, you will be healthy now, and in the future! Prevention is the cure!
Read the study for yourself: http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/19
http://www.newstarget.com/022118.html
Government subsidies: the reason why cancer-causing foods are so cheap and readily available
Friday, October 12, 2007 by: S.A Ramratan
That bag of chips that you decided to forgo is significantly cheaper than that bag of organic apples. If you think about it, it doesn’t really make sense. The bag of chips has gone through several manufacturing steps, and so has the bag that contains the chips. The apples have gone through no manufacturing, the bag through some manufacturing. There are labour costs associated with both products – so why the huge price difference? Two words: government subsides. To give you an idea of the amount of money the US government gives specific farmers, the sugar industry received 1.2 billion in 2005, wheat 1.1 billion in 2005 and livestock 2.7 million in 2005. These are just estimates, but the impact can be seen. It is not because the bag of apples is more expensive, but the fact that manufactured foods are unrealistically cheap that the price disparity is so evident. As you can see, these products fall under the “avoid” category for the anti-cancer diet. But if you are budget conscious, and many of us are, many will be pulled financially towards buying cancer-promoting foods.
So if the US government subsidises the cancer promoting foods, what about anti-cancer foods? There is little reliable data showing organic fruit and vegetable a farm receiving subsides like those for sugar, wheat or livestock. Organic farms tend to be small, too small in fact to participate in the government programs aimed at huge farm operations. Their diverse crops don’t qualify for support, which is typically aimed at huge monochromatic crops, such as corn. For example, flax subsides totalled $914 000 over a ten year period. That is less than one million dollars over ten years. The sugar industry would laugh at that.
If you think it stops there – it doesn’t. Due to the fact that many of these cancer-promoting foods are unnaturally cheap –the profits they make are subsequently unnaturally higher. The marketing and advertising for some of the industries that take these subsidised crops to make manufactured foods, is staggering. Coke alone has a $2 billion dollar annual marketing budget.
Anti-cancer foods, specifically organic foods, have been growing at an electrifying pace – somewhere near 15-20 percent per year over the past decade. This is not due to a $2 billion dollar marketing campaign. The growth of this sector of foods is to the benefit of all, as long as organic standard are kept high. The prevalence of anti-cancer foods, and the adopting of an anti-cancer diet could cut the cost of cancer to the US by $63 billion annually if those preventable cancers are avoided.
What can we do to bring the cost of organic down?
If the US government gave subsides on the same scale as sugar, wheat or livestock, the prices would go down. But the likelihood of that may be slim. The vested interested in keeping the money where it is going could be difficult to overcome. But given that the organic industry is exploding, without the huge marketing budget, it seems we are influencing the market with our buying power. Continue to shop local, organic, and from ethical sources. Right now the cost may be higher financially, but how can we measure the increased lifespan and quality of life that comes with being robustly healthy for a long, long time?
Yes, buying organic, and eating the anti-cancer foods may cost more now, but the price of chemotherapy, the damage to the organs, and the loss of quality of life, to me, is worth the extra price. If you follow the guidelines above, you will be healthy now, and in the future! Prevention is the cure!
Read the study for yourself: http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/19
http://www.newstarget.com/022118.html