Eden H. sent in this image, found at FlowingData, that shows the categories federal ag subsidies fall into, compared to federal recommendations for how often we should eat those types of food (originally found at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine):
Just to clarify, the 73.8% figure for meat and dairy on the left doesn’t refer just to direct subsidies; it also includes subsidies for crops that are grown primarily to feed livestock. The “grains” category (13.23%) refers to grains grown for human consumption. If you included all grains in one category it would be much larger, but somewhat misleading in that the vast majority of grains grown in the U.S. aren’t intended for people to eat.
Without subsidized grain, keeping livestock in confined feeding facilities to fatten them up would be much more expensive, if not entirely cost-prohibitive. Thus, farm subsidies are an essential component of U.S. agribusiness.
Comments 29
More wall-punching annoyances « RUB THE BELLY — May 18, 2010
[...] More wall-punching annoyances Why does a salad cost more than a Big Mac? [...]
Nizam Arain — May 18, 2010
Good data, but whoever designed this graph is guilty of statistical malpractice. The heights of the pyramid segments correspond to the proportional breakdowns of the different categories of foods, but rendering them as 3-dimensional pyramids rather than as, for example a pie chart, results in a distortion of the data.
For example, look at the pyramid on the left. The meat/dairy block is supposed to represent about 3/4 of the volume of the pyramid, and the remaining blocks on top are supposed to represent about 1/4, but because the pyramid is tapered at the top and wider at the bottom, the meat/dairy block looks like >90% of the volume of the pyramid.
Vidya — May 18, 2010
The ratio is even worse when you consider that meat and dairy are only on the food pyramid at all because every attempt by health professionals to remove them altogether has met with outcries and bribes from the meat and dairy lobbies. So, almost 75% of subsidies are going to "foods" which are widely agreed to be harmful to human health.
technicolorsheep — May 18, 2010
Slightly OT, but I'm confused: Seriously, who can eat 11 servings of grain a day? I barely make it to 9 servings of fruit and veg, if at all… or is this pyramid meant to be for a whole week?
Anonymous — May 18, 2010
Looks like the "Brawndo" pyramid from idiocracy.
SadSadie — May 18, 2010
Anyone who is interested in this type of data (hell, screw that...anyone who is interested in the food they eat) should watch this:
Food Inc.
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/The_Passionate_Eye/ID=1464545109
This is an amazing documentary that explains everything every North American consumer needs to know and understand about how completely insane our system of food production is, and why we need to change it NOW.
Please watch it!
Dominic — May 19, 2010
As a low-carb dieter, two things: 1) we shouldn't assume that the chart on the right is indeed what is best for us (check out Gary Taubes's "Good Calories, Bad Calories"), and 2) the "salad costs more than a Big Mac" bit is kind of disingenuous. Sure, it is objectively true, if we are comparing one of those McD's premium salads (which does come with a piece of chicken, by the way). Carbohydrates (grains, starches, corn and its products, sugar) are actually the cheapest and most plentiful food, on the consumer end--I would know, because I avoid them.
Starved for Attention: The US Double Standard « Speaker's Corner — August 2, 2010
[...] the way that our agriculture subsidies directly affect what products are grown in what capacity. Here are some links on this [...]
In Defense of Food | So Much Cooler Online — April 27, 2011
[...] The above graphic is from TheSocietyPages.org. [...]
- healthfoodstorelocator.com — April 27, 2011
[...] The above graphic is from TheSocietyPages.org. [...]
Dale H. (Day) Brown — September 17, 2014
Remember Bush's ranch? Lotsa politicians own hobby operations, so agricultural policy is designed to minimize the cost and maximize any profit from these vacation farms & ranches. Which is partly why the number of family farms has been declining despite increased federal funding.