The NYT discusses the impact of higher wheat prices around the world. One of the effects is that people in some parts of the world can no longer afford enough bread.
This really should not be a surprise, but it might be to the NYT editorial board. They have repeatedly condemned U.S. agricultural subsidies in strong terms, claiming that they were obstructing development in many poor countries. While there was some truth to the NYT's complaints, the reality is far more ambiguous. The higher world agricultural prices that would come from eliminating U.S. subsidies benefit producers in the developing world, however they hurt consumers. The net effect on the developing world from eliminating these subsidies is likely to be small in either direction, and there is no doubt that there are some big losers in the process.
The NYT was very misleading in implying that the elimination of U.S. agricultural subsidies unambiguously helps the developing world, as this article makes clear.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. For over 30 years, The American Prospect has delivered independent reporting that exposes corporate power, investigates political corruption, and analyzes threats to our democracy. Unlike many media outlets, we’re not owned by billionaires or corporations—we’re powered by readers like you.
Today’s independent journalism faces unprecedented challenges. Your support makes our reporting possible and keeps our work free and accessible to all. Whether it’s $5 or $50, every contribution helps sustain our nonprofit newsroom.
Join our community of supporters and make a donation today to help keep independent journalism thriving.
Copyright 2025 | The American Prospect, Inc. | All Rights Reserved