What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.345 Comments
- blapierre, on 02/23/2008, -84/+420Wow, another graph straight out of "How to Lie With Statistics". If you are going to use a 3D object for displaying information you have to tie the information to the volume, not just length or width or depth.
Grain is 11 units while vegetables/fruits are 9 units. This is a ratio of about 1.2, the height of the grains section IS about 1.2x the height of the vegetables/grains section; however in the 3D object representing the data, the grain section is well over 2x the volume of the vegetables/fruits section. In reality the volume of the grains and vegetables/fruits sections should be close to the same size, however the impression given by this graph is the grains make up waaaaay more of the total then they actually do.
The effect is even worse on the pyramid to the left since a pyramid shape is being used and it's volume per height decreases as you move up the pyramid.
The only excuse for this kind of piss-poor graph making is complete ignorance or intentionally trying to mislead people. - homedaddy, on 02/23/2008, -16/+222That doesn't alter the underlying fact presented. We subsidize the crap out of meat production. If we had to pay the real cost of meat then people wouldn't eat pounds of it at each meal. I'm sure this doesn't include the health cost of our eating habits that these subsidies foster.
- quakerorts, on 02/23/2008, -8/+137Grains (corn, soy, wheat) and sugar are cheaper than real food (apples, asparagus, squash) because the government is in bed with large corporate farms and gives them billions in corporate welfare every year. That's why Americans are fat and unhealthy. Our government's priorities are backwards and the Western Diet is suffering for it.
- sockpuppets, on 02/23/2008, -1/+73A food pyramid killed his family. Show some respect.
- meshman, on 02/23/2008, -5/+74Unfair comparison. A salad is food.
- inactive, on 02/23/2008, -6/+68i didn't know people could that pissed off at food pyramids...
- drake77, on 02/23/2008, -1/+53The day we stop subsidizing the production of corn syrup will be a good day.
- scuvball, on 02/23/2008, -26/+76What's the issue? The graph is completely explained. There is no misleading information unless you base all of your learning capacity on volumetric visualization. In which case, I apologize.
- smacksaw, on 02/23/2008, -6/+54If there's an area where we need the free market, this is it. We need to end subsidies NOW.
- blkhwk86, on 02/23/2008, -5/+39You're skewing it. It is not cheaper to eat a salad over a Big Mac. I'm a college student and if you buy the individual ingredients for a salad such as lettuce, spinach, some salad dressing and various toppings it came out to a little under $15 a week for me. I felt better and lost about 50 pounds. It's all about convenience when it comes to a burger and over-value their time and think a burger is cheaper when it is worse in the long run. Federal subsidies are in to make a certain food more affordable to grow and therefore keep prices in general low. I'm sure some of that money that went to beef trickled down to the grains and out groups because how the hell are you going to raise cattle without feeding them something.
- JavertHolmes, on 02/23/2008, -5/+37Volumetric visualization has a larger impact on a large set of people than words. When your visualization is wrong, it *will* mislead people. I agree with the original poster.
- CraigMac, on 02/23/2008, -2/+33Everything you've said is correct, unfortunately. But the U.S. and it's citizens are not the only ones to suffer either. Due to large subsidies, farmers are encouraged to grow more than the nation actually needs, which has in turn led to 'dumping', where US grown grains are dumped into the markets of developing nations, undercutting local growers and putting them out of business.
The tide is shifting on this though, with biofuels. Overflow grains are now diverted into ethanol, with it's own issues of snatching food out of the hands of the poor who have come to rely on it.
In the end, it's all based on monocrop farming, which won't go the distance in the long term, as it's based on constantly taking from the soil and not giving back. Its days are numbered:
http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/26/the-rise-and-pre ... - inactive, on 02/23/2008, -4/+34"Note: Figures are correct, but visual representation is not to scale"
- johnpaul191, on 02/23/2008, -0/+29They make a point with subsidized foods, but it's also very skewed when you compare things on a McDonald's menu, for example. The burger is mixed with fillers, and been frozen and possibly came from a cow killed two years ago. That recent tainted meat thing recalled beef back to Feb 2006, and local schools found some meat that was "produced" in early 2006. 2 year old meat?!?! yikes!
Anyway, while they can warehouse meat for 2+ years in burger format to level out supply and demand, you can not really do that with fresh lettuce or spinach in a salad. Burgers could ride out a year long trucker's strike, while all veggies would rot in a matter of weeks. It's kind of crazy.
While a meat burrito at Taco Bell is cheap as dirt, it won't be anything like 99¢ at one of those chain places that doesn't use frozen meat.
Also consider that McDonalds is charging you over $1.00 for a cup with ice and sugar water. The profit margin on a cup of soda (or coffee) is astronomical. I'm sure they do all the math on what the average order. While the profits on some items are less, they make it up somewhere else. - mrNesbitt, on 02/23/2008, -5/+28It's not just about your health. Meat & Dairy production puts a huge strain on the environment. If you're going to choose to have a harmful diet shouldn't you at least have to pay the actual cost of it? Why should my tax dollars be spent making your steak cheaper while I still have to pay 'full price' for my meals?
- anogenic, on 02/23/2008, -2/+25What's new? We all know they just want us to get fat and die young...
- Winston84, on 02/23/2008, -11/+33I think he's complaining about the fact that he has to read instead of just look at pretty pictures ..
- Hitchhiker90, on 02/23/2008, -4/+25You ever had a Big Kahuna burger? Want a bite? They're real tastey. Well if you like burgers give them a try sometime. Me, I can't usually get them because my girlfriend's a vegetarian, which pretty much makes me a vegetarian. I do love the taste of a good burger.
- ccheath, on 02/23/2008, -0/+20POUNDS?
- Fabozz, on 02/23/2008, -1/+20Buried as inaccurate.
The article says "almost 75% of U.S. government subsidies go into meat and dairy production," and offers as proof a link to a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy# ... That article, however, does *not* back up the claims. Instead, it states that 3.7% of subsidies go to dairy production (as if there were any "dairy" in the cheese Big Macs use) and *no*--nil, zip, zero, nada, zilch--go to beef production. Maybe they're calling the 35.4% of subsidies that go to "feed grains" (primarily corn) as a subsidy of beef production. However, as you can read at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html, in fact the most significant corn subsidies are for the production of ethanol fuel, which actually raises feed costs for the livestock industry by about a billion dollars a year. Regardless, 39.1% is nowhere near "almost 75%." - satman33, on 02/23/2008, -2/+21There are lies, damn lies then statistics. Dollar menu salads FTW. Just watch out for the dressing, that ***** will kill you.
- molochi, on 02/23/2008, -12/+30"Unfair comparison. A salad is what food eats."
There, I fixed that for ya. - flip2trip, on 02/23/2008, -0/+18we need to stop producing all products laced with so much sugar that our kids are coming out of the womb with tooth decay and diabetes...
- VeganG, on 02/23/2008, -1/+19No, it's subsidized because of giant lobby groups like The Dairy Council, etc. Hell, there's COMMERCIALS on TV for pork, cheese, etc. Not a certain BRAND of these things, but the things in general. Doesn't that strike anyone as odd?
- KibibyteBrain, on 02/23/2008, -3/+21Well, you can live off a Big Mac a day probably, but you'd need a few dollar menu salads. The real reason burgers are so cheap is that you can freeze beef and keep it forever. Try to do that with a salad. The costs of running a restaurant are mainly in waste, not the actual cost of materials, unless you are like a steakhouse or the like.
- Rohhob, on 02/23/2008, -17/+34Wow, if only you could use some of the effort you put into your comment into reading comprehension.
- 3tcp, on 02/23/2008, -1/+18It isn't just the subsidies for certain goods and industries, it's also the regulations that mandate use of certain products (i.e. ethanol), quota's to restrict foreign competition (i.e. high fructose corn syrup vs sugar cane) and the crowding out effect where the subsidies for feed corn mean less land will be devoted to growing vegetables.
- CraigMac, on 02/23/2008, -3/+19Hi CaptMonkey, I don't disagree re actual ownership, but I think that's a bit of an overly simplistic way of looking at it. The report you've referenced, for example, states that:
"Large-scale family farms and nonfamily farms account for 73 percent of production".
The report also gives a couple of nice pie charts that give the breakdown on this.
Essentially, your report strengthens the picture that most farms in the U.S. today are large monocrop systems. Your report also shows that small scale livestock farming is a complete minority. Actual ownership isn't the issue as much as how they're run, and who are getting the subsidies. Additionally, the whole supply, marketing, transport and retail chain for these large farms are corporate owned. - inactive, on 02/23/2008, -0/+15MMMM THIS IS A TASTY BURGER....Do you mind if I wash it down with your delicious beverage?
- inactive, on 02/23/2008, -1/+16***** graph.... good article
- JavertHolmes, on 02/23/2008, -1/+15I agree.. the pyramid *volumes* are misleading. A more interesting set of numbers would have been ratios of subsidy shares : # of servings per day shares
In that case you have:
Meats/proteins at 3.17:1 subsidy share versus daily serving share
Grains at 0.3:1
Fruits/veggies at 0.01:1
Which show hundreds and thousandfold ratios between meat and the other two.. I'd appreciate if someone could check my math, as I'm doing this posting half distracted. - ArmandoM, on 02/23/2008, -2/+15I'm looking forward to my 5 lb. steak tonight.
- exomni, on 02/23/2008, -0/+13I haven't eaten over 1x10^1000 burgers.
Get chomping, *****. - DeadElephant, on 02/23/2008, -1/+14It costs 8 cents for BK to make a king sized soda, cup, straw, soda and cover. They charge upwards of $2.00, something like that. Do the math.
- exomni, on 02/23/2008, -0/+12If you buy the individual ingredients for a hamburger such as crappy meat, a crappy bun, a single leaf of lettuce blended up into goo, and a bulk sized jar of mayonnaise and ketchup, each hamburger costs about 15 cents to make. That comes to a grand total of $3.15 a week if you eat three hamburgers a day every day.
- superyounan1, on 02/23/2008, -1/+13its much cheaper in the U.S to be fat than it is to be skinny: the government takes our money and subsidizes the foods that make us fat and sick, then uses very little on health care. Its as if the government wants us to live shorter sicker lives.
whats wrong with supply and demand? promising to end subsidies to special interests doesn't exactly put you on the fast track to office. I think its safe to say that a vast majority of politicians, just by the mere fact that they were elected, are willing to compromise their principles at the sight of a dollar - JrGhoull, on 02/23/2008, -1/+13i find it ironic to be talking about the curruption of government, and then using a nutriants chart from the 50s. do you know why they say to eat so much bread? because it was basically the bread corporations who designed the original chart.
- acrodev, on 02/23/2008, -5/+17The reason is because the fast-food "meat" is mass-produced in factories that inject all kinds of crap into the "meat" to make it bigger and less nutritious. Add in the health costs and you're way better eating the salad. Add in the environmental impact and eventually we're all wallowing in pig feces.
- faskippy, on 02/23/2008, -0/+121. Empty dressing into small cup.
2. Dip fork into dressing.
3. Stab salad with aforementioned fork.
First thing you taste is the dressing, but you actually get much less of it this way. At the end, you will barely notice a dent in the dressing, and you tasted it just fine. - Jelfish, on 02/23/2008, -2/+14The picture is wrong and therefore a detriment to the presentation of the information (i.e. just a table would have been better).
- inactive, on 02/23/2008, -2/+13To Quote Black Sabbath -- "Killing Yourself to Live"
- Typhoon2009, on 02/23/2008, -0/+11That's because Big Macs are crap. I'd wager that it'd be cheaper for me to get a salad (pre-made or just the ingredients) than it would be to get proper ground beef.
- michaelfitz, on 02/23/2008, -3/+14The answer: SUBSIDIES.
- Creamedweasel, on 02/23/2008, -0/+11They could've used a 2-d triangle to present this much better. Then everyone would be happy.
- BossKey, on 02/23/2008, -1/+11"... or to complain about capitalism..."
No, this can't be a complaint about capitalism. If strict capitalism was in use, there would be no food subsidies (government handouts), and without so much tax money supporting meat, we might be motivated by price to eat more nutritiously. - Tiak, on 02/23/2008, -0/+9It says, "Note: Figures are correct, but visual representation is not to scale" I would assume it is not originally their image... The actual numbers stll show things as screwed up... Even had it been rendered accurately, according to the food pyramid (which generally sucks), meat should only be 20% of one's diet, but is 73% of all subsidies.... It is still a significant difference.
- sundownjoe, on 02/23/2008, -0/+8Keep in mind that there are no subsidies for the beef industry. The subsidies go to grain producers which reduces feed prices. I come from a ranching family and support the end of subsidies to grain producers. Of course, our ranch produces 95% of our own feed so we wouldn't be significantly impacted.
Also, it isn't as easy as some think to just turn a cattle ranch into a vegetable/grain producer. My family's land can not produce many crops except feed grain and a few acres of potatoes and corn. Certain land is just better suited for raising livestock and using it for other foods is not sustainable. - Leomarth, on 02/24/2008, -0/+8It's a fine example of why government shouldn't subsidize anything.
- exomni, on 02/23/2008, -0/+8Amen to that!
It's despicable that people are digging you down for such a rational comment. - dash1185, on 02/23/2008, -0/+8here you idiot, the correct version :
http://i27.tinypic.com/2a0cfiu.jpg
huge difference isn't it ? -
Show 51 - 100 of 342 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 