5 ms·

Just search "food capitalism", eg https://www.popmatters.com/foodies-guide-to-capitalism-interview-2518372029.html https://www.popmatters.com/foodies-guide-to-c

Just search "food capitalism", eg https://www.popmatters.com/foodies-guide-to-capitalism-interview-2518372029.html https://www.popmatters.com/foodies-guide-to-capitalism-inter... or https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/11/a-public-option-for-food https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/11/a-public-option-for-f... "Food is actually the perfect example of a system in which the presence of a profit motive is having incredibly destructive human consequences. That’s because it introduces a terrible incentive: to sell people the products they’ll get addicted to rather than the products that are good for them. Americans live on junk food; they have terrible diets, with too much sodium, too many calories, too much sugar, and too few fruits and vegetables. "

bitwize 8y ago
The market has failed us, so let's take power over food production away from the market and give it to the government. You know, the same government that implemented corn subsidies and told everyone that a low-fat, high-carb diet was a really good idea. Wait, what?
- jacknews 8y ago
  or just tax unhealhty food ... The proper place of government is to regulate markets, so that they deliver social good, not spiral into self-serving vortices. Adam Smith said roughly this.
  - bitwize 8y ago
    That's just the problem, innit -- if the taxation were applied according to FDA dietary recommendations, the wrong food would be taxed. Assuming that the government will make the problems with food go away with regulatory pressure relies on the assumption that the government is as enlightened about dietary needs as you are (or claim to be). In reality -- even absent the graft rampant in American politics -- that's not the case.
    - jacknews 8y ago
      Well someone is going to decide the food environment. Should be it be private companies, who deliver the "tastiest" food, to maximize profit, or should it be government with their well-meaning but wrong pronouncements? Given we still don't know for sure what the health recommendations should be (which I think is largely why govt advice is wrong), I would plump (ahem) for well-meaning.
  - Frondo 8y ago
    Not sure about that alleged proper place of government (it is, after all, the thing we're supposed to vigorously debate, not declare as a just-so thing), but I'm all on board with getting subsidies out of sugar, corn, beef, and all the other garbage we subsidize. Heck, if we're going to tax or subsidize anything, tax unhealthy food and subsidize the shit out of vegetables (and to a much less extent, fruits, so long as they're bound for market whole, and not just like oranges to be turned into juice). And subsidize fresh produce markets in food deserts. What we're doing now is the worst of all possible worlds, though. We subsidize the most environmentally destructive and health-destructive foods, with entirely predictable results.
  - toast0 8y ago
    Taxing unhealthy food only works if the foods that the government decides are unhealthy are actually unhealthy, and they don't avoid declaring things unhealthy that are healthy. How many years has the us government been anti-fat, but ok with sugar; how well has that served us? Also, it presupposes that a food's healthiness is universal to all people.
S_A_P 8y ago
I cant ever foresee a situation where I think the government is in the best position to decide what farmers grow, what livestock is produced and what I should put on my plate. just no.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  That's what you have in the US right now though. Subsidies go to unhealthy foods.
- jacknews 8y ago
  Why is the opposite of capitalism always government? Feral free-market capitalism clearly isn't delivering what we want when it comes to food, but the alternative isn't communism. It's better incentives and/or punishments for the market. That certainly is where government (which, incidentally, represents the people, or should do), has a place.
  - bluecalm 8y ago
    I am not sure what you mean by feral free market but what we have in US and EU doesn't look like that. There are tons of subsidies and regulations making a lot of things unprofitable to grow (cause you get cash for free when you grow junk food) and a lot of things unpractical (hard to have small simple farm when you have to comply with tons of laws just to ask eggs from a few hens you have).
    - jacknews 8y ago
      By 'feral' I mean 'unfettered', wild. I agree the subsidies are not helpful, but I think they exist to politically support farmers rather than to encourage particular foods. That said (to use the latest irksomely popular phrase), I don't think the agricultural subsidies are the whole, or even major part of the story of the food environment.
  - S_A_P 8y ago
    My thought on this is that how else would you compel change in the market? I don't think any other entity could do so. Of course I am no expert in this so I am willing to listen and consider what the alternatives are. Also just want to clarify that I do not think that our state of agribusiness is perfect and not in need of some systemic change. There are tons of perverse incentives out there that have created some of the problems we face. However, I feel like a lot of that was caused by government intervention. I don't see this as a left vs right issue either, as both sides are guilty here.

bitwize 8y ago

The market has failed us, so let's take power over food production away from the market and give it to the government. You know, the same government that implemented corn subsidies and told everyone that a low-fat, high-carb diet was a really good idea. Wait, what?

jacknews 8y ago
or just tax unhealhty food ... The proper place of government is to regulate markets, so that they deliver social good, not spiral into self-serving vortices. Adam Smith said roughly this.
- bitwize 8y ago
  That's just the problem, innit -- if the taxation were applied according to FDA dietary recommendations, the wrong food would be taxed. Assuming that the government will make the problems with food go away with regulatory pressure relies on the assumption that the government is as enlightened about dietary needs as you are (or claim to be). In reality -- even absent the graft rampant in American politics -- that's not the case.
  - jacknews 8y ago
    Well someone is going to decide the food environment. Should be it be private companies, who deliver the "tastiest" food, to maximize profit, or should it be government with their well-meaning but wrong pronouncements? Given we still don't know for sure what the health recommendations should be (which I think is largely why govt advice is wrong), I would plump (ahem) for well-meaning.
- Frondo 8y ago
  Not sure about that alleged proper place of government (it is, after all, the thing we're supposed to vigorously debate, not declare as a just-so thing), but I'm all on board with getting subsidies out of sugar, corn, beef, and all the other garbage we subsidize. Heck, if we're going to tax or subsidize anything, tax unhealthy food and subsidize the shit out of vegetables (and to a much less extent, fruits, so long as they're bound for market whole, and not just like oranges to be turned into juice). And subsidize fresh produce markets in food deserts. What we're doing now is the worst of all possible worlds, though. We subsidize the most environmentally destructive and health-destructive foods, with entirely predictable results.
- toast0 8y ago
  Taxing unhealthy food only works if the foods that the government decides are unhealthy are actually unhealthy, and they don't avoid declaring things unhealthy that are healthy. How many years has the us government been anti-fat, but ok with sugar; how well has that served us? Also, it presupposes that a food's healthiness is universal to all people.

S_A_P 8y ago

I cant ever foresee a situation where I think the government is in the best position to decide what farmers grow, what livestock is produced and what I should put on my plate. just no.

maxxxxx 8y ago
That's what you have in the US right now though. Subsidies go to unhealthy foods.
jacknews 8y ago
Why is the opposite of capitalism always government? Feral free-market capitalism clearly isn't delivering what we want when it comes to food, but the alternative isn't communism. It's better incentives and/or punishments for the market. That certainly is where government (which, incidentally, represents the people, or should do), has a place.
- bluecalm 8y ago
  I am not sure what you mean by feral free market but what we have in US and EU doesn't look like that. There are tons of subsidies and regulations making a lot of things unprofitable to grow (cause you get cash for free when you grow junk food) and a lot of things unpractical (hard to have small simple farm when you have to comply with tons of laws just to ask eggs from a few hens you have).
  - jacknews 8y ago
    By 'feral' I mean 'unfettered', wild. I agree the subsidies are not helpful, but I think they exist to politically support farmers rather than to encourage particular foods. That said (to use the latest irksomely popular phrase), I don't think the agricultural subsidies are the whole, or even major part of the story of the food environment.
- S_A_P 8y ago
  My thought on this is that how else would you compel change in the market? I don't think any other entity could do so. Of course I am no expert in this so I am willing to listen and consider what the alternatives are. Also just want to clarify that I do not think that our state of agribusiness is perfect and not in need of some systemic change. There are tons of perverse incentives out there that have created some of the problems we face. However, I feel like a lot of that was caused by government intervention. I don't see this as a left vs right issue either, as both sides are guilty here.