This is from the http://www.uspirg.org website. Our tax dollars should only go to things that serve the public good, yet we’re handing out taxpayer subsidies to big agribusinesses to help subsidize junk food. Huge, profitable corporations like Cargill and Monsanto are pocketing tens of billions in taxpayer dollars, and turning subsidized crops into junk food ingredients — including high fructose corn syrup.
These taxpayer giveaways are all the more absurd at a time when one in three kids is overweight or obese, and obesity-related diseases like diabetes are turning into an epidemic.
Obesity Quick Facts:
Diets high in saturated fats impair learning and memory.
Once an adult problem, diabetes associated with obesity is growing among children.
One in three school-age children are overweight or obese.
The rate of childhood obesity has tripled in the last 30 years.
With Congress looking at ways to trim spending and reduce the deficit, cutting this kind of wasteful spending has the potential to bring together allies from across the political spectrum.
But big agribusiness will fight to protect their billions in subsidies. We know, because in 2008, they spent $200 million lobbying and on campaign contributions.
No one in Congress wants to be seen standing up for taxpayer giveaways to junk food, and with public concern about obesity and federal spending at all time highs, your support can help us finally beat Big Ag and end subsidies for junk food.
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.
Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).