but wait... isn't Pollan's argument that without subsidies that "entire real transaction" of Twinkies could be brought into a more realistically market-driven line with that of carrots? Or, rather, that if we subsidized vegetable growers instead (or no one at all) we could produce market conditions where twinkies and carrots are at least equally valued along this transaction, with the "added shelf life" as something that accurately reflects the higher economic value of twinkies over carrots, rather than something produced by subsidies and corn surpluses?
I actually read the article as suggesting that the "distorting" effect of subsidies in the US is so outrageously lopsided in favor of corn and soy that it is creating ecological problems (environmental and health prinicipally)--not economic ones. Why isn't that an argument for shifting them to healthier agro products produced in less monocultural forms? (I think that might be a rhetorical question). Also, my understanding, though very limited of EU subsidies is that they are primarily focused on small and medium size farms, not the megafarms of the US... but that may be propaganda? ck On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 09:52:14AM +0200, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: > > > So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of > > these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of > > roots? > > > > For the answer, you need look no farther than the > > farm bill. > > this makes no sense at all. farm subsidies are distorting, but the > reason it's cheaper to sell twinkies than carrots is not because it's > cheaper to produce one, but because twinkies have more shelf life, so > the cost of the entire retail transaction from production to sale (not > the cost of production itself) is much cheaper. > > this is also why a fresh carrot is more expensive than a frozen one, > which is more expensive than a canned one; or why coriander, which grows > like a weed, is expensive in a supermarket (has to be very fresh and is > bought in small quantities, at least in a western supermarket). > > anyway, europeans (and japanese) bave far greater carb-agro-subsidies > and are not as fat as americans. there are many reasons for this, and > one of them may be that fresh foods (which are usually healthier) are > valued more. of course, it makes perfect economic sense in that case for > them to be more expensive. > > in poor, starving societies where calorific value alone was the measure > of value, high-calory foods would be (and are) _more_ expensive, so the > rich are fatter - indeed, girth is traditionally a measure of wealth and > general well-being. and this is justifiable. if you only live till 40, > weight-related diseases are not a big problem. > > -rishab > > On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 10:22 +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote: > > >
