Subsidies don't make people fat. People make people fat.

The Ruminant needs to put to rest the notion that farm subsidies are making people fat.

The theory goes something like this: farm subsidies encourage farmers to grow corn, contributing to an abundant supply of high fructose corn syrup that is so cheap that soda makers basically have no rational choice but to include the stuff in their products.

As a result, the theory continues, soda and snack prices have fallen so low, when adjusted for inflation, that soda and snack companies are practically giving the stuff away, according to the New York Times.

What's more, according to a recent report, fruit and vegetable prices have increased by 40 percent between 1985 and 2000.

So you might think the Ruminant isn't the only one being fattened up for the slaughter.

Not so fast.

With corn prices as high as they are — thanks primarily to a national ethanol mandate Congress is poised to increase — corn farmers are responding to the market, not to farm subsidies. Farm subsidies only impact planting decisions when market prices are low. Even then, corn farmers will have plenty of reasons to grow corn.

Fruit and vegetable prices and production are driven by many factors, including the weather, market orders, pests, concentration, energy prices, import restrictions, and labor shortages, just to name a few.

What's more, roughly 80 percent of our fruit and vegetables producers are in the path of sprawl — especially in places like California and Florida — so the rising cost of land is a factor as well. In recent years, the number of farms harvesting vegetables fell by 11 percent and the number of farms with orchards fells by 6 percent.

What about laws that prohibit subsidized farmers from planting fruits and vegetables on lands now used to grow subsidized crops? Letting farmers plant fruits and vegetables on these lands would have little impact on production or prices, according to a USDA report.

So, lots of things impact the price of a potato, but farm subsidies is not one of them.

Here's the thing: farm products make up a small fraction of the cost of the food. The cost of growing and harvesting the "food" reflects just 16 percent and 19 percent of the price you pay at the store for fresh and processesed fruits and vegetables, respectively. Unless you shop at a farmer's market, most of your food dollar goes to transport, process and market what you eat, not grow it.

Here's something else you probably won't read in the New York Times: Americans are eating a lot more fruit and vegetables than we did 20 year ago. We 're still not eating 5 to 10 servings a day, as the Ruminant recommends, but we're doing better.

That's not to say there aren't things USDA can do help promote healthier food choices, especially among children. As Reps. Earl Blumenauer and Dennis Cardoza have proposed, USDA should dramatically expand programs to provide healthy fruit and vegetable snacks in schools, build more farmers markets, and increase other links between consumers and local farmers.

Too many low-income Americans lack access to healthy food or can't feed their kids. And, cutting subsidies for corn to help feed the hungry and expand healthy food choices will certainly help address America's rising rates of obesity-related illnesses, such as diabetes

But, writers like Michael Pollan who blame farm subsidies are using the same sloppy logic as farm subsidy supporters: that is, that farm subsidies keep certain foods cheap (and make people fat).

So, why are so many American's struggling with obesity? It's not just because we're couch potatoes. It's because we make bad food choices and because we're couch potatoes. The only people getting fat from farm subsidies are a few big farmers who collect the lion's share of farm subsidies and their fat cat lobbyists.

Restructuring and reducing farm subsidies will help fight obesity — by providing new resources to promote healthy food choices, not by changing the price of chips.