It is not uncommon for government officials to enact legislation that directly contradicts provisions of current policy; this can be seen most obviously in its steady support of tobacco subsidies despite its national anti-smoking campaign. As it turns out, the same is now true of obesity.
In 2010, the Healthy, Hungry Kids Act was enacted, providing the USDA with a $4.5 billion budget to curb obesity in children using school lunches. This notion is based on the premise that students are unhealthy because they lack clear knowledge about the health risks of choosing Oreos over oranges (essentially blaming parents for their child’s lack of healthy decisions). But in world structured by incentives, surely this is not the only reason.
Anyone who has ever shopped at the grocery store has noticed that healthy foods are significantly more expensive than the foods found in the “junk” isle. Dually, these individuals will find that the ingredients found in an apple do not include high fructose corn syrup, soybean oils, corn syrup or cornstarch, but that most of the items in the junk aisle do. According to a study entitled “Apples to Twinkies” by the United States Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), the reason behind these correlations is government subsidies. In fact, between 1995 and 2010, the United States spent $17 billion subsidizing the four previously mentioned ingredients, commonly found in junk foods.
By lowering the costs of these ingredients, the government is lowering the cost of junk food, disincentivizing healthy eating habits. Thus, one simple solution to obesity is allowing all food prices to rise to their natural price based on supply and demand. But, instead, the government is attempting to promote healthy foods as it lowers the cost of unhealthy food. Talk about counteraction.
