In "The End of Overeating," Dr. David Kessler sketches this very useful, very accurate image: When customers step up to the McDonald's counter and pull out their $4.50 (or whatever), it's as though Uncle Sam is standing next to them, pulling out his wallet and paying another dollar (or whatever), because of the ways the federal government subsidizes corn.

Another way to look at USDA subsidies, though, is as a comparison: We underwrite processable foods, but not fresh fruits and vegetables. So what do people eat more of? 

OK, it's more complicated than that, but not very: The very small group of corporations that control food production use their enormous political influence to win such subsidies. That makes their products cheaper than fresh produce, so people are more likely to buy them. That demand, and the resulting economies of scale, distorts the market further.

The government didn't set out to have us eat more processed food than fresh produce, but its actions have led us there.

That's what makes a small USDA pilot project that will give food-stamp recipients incentives to eat fresh foods. From the Washington Post:

Twenty million dollars isn't much when you consider that the government budget for food stamps was more than $56 billion in 2009. But philosophically, it represents a shift. For decades, the government treated hunger and obesity as unrelated phenomena. The anti-hunger lobby supported that position, arguing that a mandate on what kind of food needy people should eat is both impractical and smacks of paternalism.

I'd argue that nutrition has become a poverty issue because of corn and other subsidies. I am very price-conscious, about food as much as anything, but I have the option to devote more of our income to better food if I want. People living closer to the economic edge have no choice to buy fast food and other processed food products for survival.

I'm not an economist and I don't know what the effects of removing all subsidies would be (and we'll never find out, for I can't imagine the political cataclysms that would have to transpire first). But this pilot, which will be carried out in western Mass., might help show what could happen.

It is my experience that people who say they don't like vegetables are rarely exposed to them in a fresh or relatively simply cooked state. I tend to make a lot of veggies at mty place, and whenever I serve them, they not only get eaten, they get raves. My niece was that rare bird, a vegetarian who didn't like veggies, but she likes mine, and has started preparing them in the same simple ways I do.

This ain't bragging about my food skills — the whole point is how little I do to them: roasted, sauteed, a little steaming, a little frying (without breading). Flavored with garlic, ginger, sesame, or whatever spice I grab from the rack. 

In the world, these dishes, though simple, still need preparing, instead of being able to drive up and drive away. Additionally, the processors, according to "The End of Overeating," "Fast Food Nation," and other sources, are doing all they can to make each of their products appeal to eaters on as many levels as possible, by adding sugar to practically everything, among other tactics.

Against these influences, will the pilot result in people who eat more fresh food? I'm eager to find out. 

I read about this project in the Post, but I learned about it from the blog at Crop to Cuisine, which I'm finding is a trove of interesting reading.