Skip to main content
×
×
Home

The contribution of subsidized food commodities to total energy intake among US adults

  • Karen R Siegel (a1) (a2), Kai McKeever Bullard (a1), Mohammed K Ali (a1) (a2) (a3), Aryeh D Stein (a2) (a3), Henry S Kahn (a1), Neil K Mehta (a2), Amy Webb Girard (a2) (a3), KM Narayan (a2) (a3) and Giuseppina Imperatore (a1)...
Abstract
Objective

The contribution of subsidized food commodities to total food consumption is unknown. We estimated the proportion of individual energy intake from food commodities receiving the largest subsidies from 1995 to 2010 (corn, soyabeans, wheat, rice, sorghum, dairy and livestock).

Design

Integrating information from three federal databases (MyPyramid Equivalents, Food Intakes Converted to Retail Commodities, and What We Eat in America) with data from the 2001–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, we computed a Subsidy Score representing the percentage of total energy intake from subsidized commodities. We examined the score’s distribution and the probability of having a ‘high’ (≥70th percentile) v. ‘low’ (≤30th percentile) score, across the population and subgroups, using multivariate logistic regression.

Setting

Community-dwelling adults in the USA.

Subjects

Participants (n 11 811) aged 18–64 years.

Results

Median Subsidy Score was 56·7 % (interquartile range 47·2–65·4 %). Younger, less educated, poorer, and Mexican Americans had higher scores. After controlling for covariates, age, education and income remained independently associated with the score: compared with individuals aged 55–64 years, individuals aged 18–24 years had a 50 % higher probability of having a high score (P<0·0001). Individuals reporting less than high-school education had 21 % higher probability of having a high score than individuals reporting college completion or higher (P=0·003); individuals in the lowest tertile of income had an 11 % higher probability of having a high score compared with individuals in the highest tertile (P=0·02).

Conclusions

Over 50 % of energy in US diets is derived from federally subsidized commodities.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The contribution of subsidized food commodities to total energy intake among US adults
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The contribution of subsidized food commodities to total energy intake among US adults
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The contribution of subsidized food commodities to total energy intake among US adults
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
* Corresponding author: Email yuo0@cdc.gov
References
Hide All
1. Murray, CJ, Atkinson, C, Bhalla, K et al. (2013) The state of US health, 1990–2010: burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors. JAMA 310, 591608.
2. Mannisto, S, Kontto, J, Kataja-Tuomola, M et al. (2010) High processed meat consumption is a risk factor of type 2 diabetes in the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention study. Br J Nutr 103, 18171822.
3. Micha, R, Wallace, SK & Mozaffarian, D (2010) Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation 121, 22712283.
4. Pan, A, Sun, Q, Bernstein, AM et al. (2011) Red meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: 3 cohorts of US adults and an updated meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 94, 10881096.
5. Narayan, KM, Zhang, P & Kanaya, A (2006) Diabetes: the pandemic and potential solutions. In Disease Control Priorities, pp. 591604 [DT Jamison, J Breman and A Measham, editors]. New York: Oxford University Press.
6. Muraki, I, Imamura, F, Manson, JE et al. (2013) Fruit consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: results from three prospective longitudinal cohort studies. BMJ 347, f5001.
7. Ogden, CL, Carroll, MD, Kit, BK et al. (2012) Prevalence of Obesity in the United States, 2009–2010. Hyattsville, MD: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.
8. Cheng, YJ, Imperatore, G, Geiss, LS et al. (2013) Secular changes in the age-specific prevalence of diabetes among US adults: 1988–2010. Diabetes Care 36, 26902696.
9. Go, AS, Mozaffarian, D, Roger, VL et al. (2014) Heart disease and stroke statistics – 2014 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 129, e28e292.
10. Brody, JE (2013) Dietary report card disappoints. New York Times, 23 September. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/dietary-report-card-disappoints/?_r=0 (accessed July 2015).
11. Environmental Working Group (2012) 2012 EWG Farm Subsidy Database. http://farm.ewg.org/ (accessed January 2012).
12. Powell, LM & Chaloupka, FJ (2009) Food prices and obesity: evidence and policy implications for taxes and subsidies. Milbank Q 87, 229257.
13. Eyles, H, Ni Mhurchu, C, Nghiem, N et al. (2012) Food pricing strategies, population diets, and non-communicable disease: a systematic review of simulation studies. PLoS Med 9, e1001353.
14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011) NHANES – Questionnaires, Datasets, and Related Documentation. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes_questionnaires.htm (accessed June 2012).
15. US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (2013) National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 26. Nutrient Data Laboratory Home Page. http://www.ars.usda.gov/nutrientdata (accessed September 2013).
16. US Department of Agriculture (2004) USDA Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies, 1.0 Beltsville. MD: USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Food Surveys Research Group.
17. Bowman, S, Friday, J & Moshfegh, A (2008) MyPyramid Equivalents Database, 2.0 for USDA Survey Foods, 2003–2004. Beltsville, MD: Food Surveys Research Group, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture.
18. Bowman, S, Martin, C, Friday, J et al. (2010) Food Intakes Converted to Retail Commodities Database (FICRCD) for Foods in the CSFII 1994–1996 and 1998, NHANES 1999–2000, and WWEIA, NHANES 2001–2002: Methodology and User Guide. Beltsville, MD and Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service and Economic Research Service.
19. US Environmental Protection Agency (2013) What We Eat in America – Food Commodity Intake Database, 2003–2008 (WWEIA-FCID 2003-08). http://fcid.foodrisk.org (accessed September 2013).
20. Weber, JA & Becker, N (2006) Framing the farm bill. J Am Diet Assoc 106, 1354, 13561357.
21. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2012) Feed Grains Database. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/feed-grains-database/ (accessed June 2012).
22. Glinsmann, WH, Irausquin, H & Park, YK (1986) Evaluation of health aspects of sugars contained in carbohydrate sweeteners. Report of Sugars Task Force, 1986. J Nutr 116, 11 Suppl., S1S216.
23. Duffey, KJ & Popkin, BM (2008) High-fructose corn syrup: is this what’s for dinner? Am J Clin Nutr 88, issue 6, 1722S1732S.
24. Jerardo, A (2002) The Import Share of US-Consumed Food Continues to Rise. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
25. US Census Bureau (2014) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS). http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/index.html (accessed October 2014).
26. US Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (2015) Healthy Eating Index. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/healthyeatingindex (accessed June 2015).
27. Alhazmi, A, Stojanovski, E, McEvoy, M et al. (2014) The association between dietary patterns and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. J Hum Nutr Diet 27, 251260.
28. Mozaffarian, D, Hao, T, Rimm, EB et al. (2011) Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain in women and men. N Engl J Med 364, 23922404.
29. Mozaffarian, D & Ludwig, DS (2010) Dietary guidelines in the 21st century – a time for food. JAMA 304, 681682.
30. Mozaffarian, D, Appel, LJ & Van Horn, L (2011) Components of a cardioprotective diet: new insights. Circulation 123, 28702891.
31. Willett, WC (2012) Nutritional Epidemiology, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
32. Beghin, JC & Jensen, HH (2008) Farm policies and added sugars in US diets. Food Policy 33, 480488.
33. Rickard, BJ, Okrent, AM & Alston, JM (2012) How have agricultural policies influenced caloric consumption in the United States? Health Econ 22, 316339.
34. Alston, JM, Summer, DA & Vosti, SA (2006) Are agricultural policies making us fat? Likely links between agricultural policies and human nutrition and obesity, and their policy implications. Rev Agric Econ 28, 313322.
35. Food & Water Watch & The Public Health Institute (2011) Do Farm Subsidies Cause Obesity? Dispelling Common Myths About Public Health and the Farm Bill: A White Paper Washington, DC/Oakland, CA: Food & Water Watch/The Public Health Institute.
36. Alston, JM, Summer, DA & Vosti, SA (2008) Farm subsidies and obesity in the United States: national evidence and international comparisons. Food Policy 33, 470479.
37. Franck, C, Grandi, SM & Eisenberg, MJ (2013) Agricultural subsidies and the american obesity epidemic. Am J Prev Med 45, 327333.
38. Dangour, AD, Hawkesworth, S, Shankar, B et al. (2013) Can nutrition be promoted through agriculture-led food price policies? A systematic review. BMJ Open 3, e002937.
39. Glickman, D & Veneman, AM (2013) The essential role of food and farm policy in improving health. Health Aff (Millwood) 32, 15191521.
40. Wallinga, D (2010) Agricultural policy and childhood obesity: a food systems and public health commentary. Health Aff (Millwood) 29, 405409.
41. Jackson, RJ, Minjares, R, Naumoff, KS et al. (2009) Agriculture policy is health policy. J Hunger Environ Nutr 4, 393408.
42. Muller, M, Schoonover, H & Wallinga, D (2007) Considering the Contribution of US Food and Agriculture Policy to the Obesity Epidemic: Overview and Opportunities. Minneapolis, MN: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.
43. American Farmland Trust (2010) 13 million more acres. http://www.farmland.org/news/pressreleases/13-Million-More-Acres.asp (accessed August 2012).
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Public Health Nutrition
  • ISSN: 1368-9800
  • EISSN: 1475-2727
  • URL: /core/journals/public-health-nutrition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Siegel supplementary material
Table S4

 Word (28 KB)
28 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Siegel supplementary material
Figure S1

 Word (77 KB)
77 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Siegel supplementary material
Table S3

 Word (12 KB)
12 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Siegel supplementary material
Table S2

 Word (70 KB)
70 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Siegel supplementary material
Table S1

 Word (59 KB)
59 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed