Eating healthy is expensive. Think about the last time you visited a fast-food restaurant. Why is a salad often twice the price of a burger?

Many people consider this inevitable but reality is far more complicated. Several powerful forces influence the price of food, including government bills relating to one impactful term — agricultural subsidies.

Subsidies are money paid by the government to outside companies or individuals to incentivize their work, according to the International Monetary Fund. Airlines, car manufacturers, energy companies and other industries are subsidized in the U.S. because the government considers them to work for the public good.

Agricultural subsidies — money paid to farmers or agricultural businesses — are no different, on the surface.

Marc Bellemare, McKnight presidential chair in applied economics at the University of Minnesota, said agricultural subsidies exist to lower the cost of food for consumers and raise revenue for farmers.

Both of these intentions are positive. Farming is a volatile industry where bad weather for just one year can decimate farmers, and the entire sector is in long-term decline, according to Bellemare. Subsidies are supposed to provide a safety net so farmers can stay afloat.

However, the distribution of agricultural subsidy payments is deeply flawed, as more money flows to certain farms over others, according to Anne Schechinger, Midwest director at Environmental Working Group. 

“Most subsidies go to the largest and wealthiest farms, and that’s not an accident,” Schechinger said. “That’s how the programs are designed. Between 1995 and 2023, the top 10% of farm subsidy recipients got almost 80% of payments, so it’s really concentrated, and the smallest farmers get hardly any money.”

The distribution of which crops are most subsidized is even more problematic.

“We don’t see a lot of money going to people who grow food like fruits and vegetables,” Schechinger said. “We see the money going to four main crops like corn, soybeans, wheat and cotton.”

According to Bellemare, these unequal subsidies cause differences in food prices. For example, corn producers receive huge sums of money from the government, so all products made from corn can be sold at lower prices than healthy fruits and vegetables.

“What gets subsidized tends to be cheaper,” Bellemare said. “And those food producers and processors are rational decision-makers. If a factor of production gets cheaper, they’re going to  use more of it. It’s more than a correlation, it’s a cause and effect.”

Corn and sugar are subsidized more than any other crops, according to Bellemare. However, according to research by the American Action Forum, less than 1% of corn grown in the U.S. is the sweet corn humans eat. 

More often, corn is used in processed foods, and due to subsidies, certain corn products are more dominant in the U.S. than other countries, according to Bellemare. Rarely are these products healthy. High fructose corn syrup is one example.

According to Bellemare, because corn is subsidized so much in the U.S., high fructose corn syrup is cheaper to make and included in more products. Bellemare said high fructose corn syrup was used in fewer products where he grew up in Canada. 

Consuming many products with high fructose corn syrup and added sugar is unhealthy and increases the risk of several diseases.

Processed foods are not the only products that benefit from extremely cheap corn. According to Schechinger, corn is also used frequently as animal feed, making the supply chain for meat and animal products less expensive.

“It’s tricky to narrow down the price impact of subsidies, but it definitely makes the production of meat cheaper,” Schechinger said. “When corn and soybeans are subsidized and fed to cows and pigs that makes it a lot cheaper for animal farmers to produce. So it definitely has an impact on the cost of meat, or at least the production of meat.”

Meat can be a healthy source of protein, but many Americans consume it in excess. The average American eats three times more meat than the global average.

Clearly, the agricultural subsidy program needs to be reformed so vegetables and fruits are not disadvantaged. Low-income people often have no choice but to eat less healthy foods because the difference in price is so large, according to Bellemare.

Samantha Mosallam, a third-year student at the University, said it is much easier to buy unhealthy foods like chips, soda and snacks instead of fruits, vegetables or anything with low carbohydrates because the difference in price is so large.

“I started gardening because I’m tired of trying to buy at the store and it being really expensive,” Mosallam said.

Unfortunately, reducing agricultural subsidies significantly is impractical because the American economy is already so entrenched in the system that it would lead to economic turmoil, according to Bellemare. A stronger first step would be equalizing subsidies for fruits and vegetables with other crops to make them more affordable.

According to Schechinger, the biggest barrier to reforming the agricultural subsidy system is the same reason it exists in the first place — lobbying. Many large meat and corn businesses contribute money to politicians’ campaigns, incentivizing them to vote in favor of larger subsidies.

“Agricultural business spends more money on lobbying than either the fossil fuel industry or the defense industry,” Schechinger said.

So, the government doesn’t only control what we eat, as agriculture businesses also control our government. Fixing this cycle of subsidies, lobbying and unhealthy food will be difficult, but it is possible.

“If you want to change how subsidies are sent out and what the money goes to, it’s an important time now to be emailing or calling your congressman,” Schechinger said.

The flawed agricultural subsidy system has endured for far too long. The time for change is now.