Imagine a world where farmers were rewarded not for quantity, but for quality—where subsidies didn’t prioritize mass production, but instead nutrient density, soil health, and actual human wellness.
Right now, subsidies overwhelmingly favor industrial-scale commodity crops—corn, soy, wheat. Not real food, not diverse, regeneratively grown produce, but the raw materials that fuel processed foods, factory-farmed livestock, and synthetic additives.
What if that changed?
What if farmers were paid based on the impact their food had on health? What if regenerative practices weren’t just morally and ecologically correct but also financially incentivized?
Picture a subsidy system that:
- Rewards farmers who grow nutrient-dense food proven to reduce disease risk.
- Incentivizes soil health and biodiversity instead of monocropping.
- Financially supports farms based on the long-term health benefits of their food—not just yield.
- Redirects funding away from mass-produced junk crops and toward local, high-quality food sources.
Suddenly, instead of farms competing to produce the most cheap calories, they would be competing to produce the most nourishing food. Instead of subsidies propping up ultra-processed diets, they would be strengthening local food systems that actively support human health.
This would flip everything—healthcare costs, disease prevention, economic structures around food access.
Would it be perfect? No. But would it be better than rewarding factory farms for flooding the market with nutritionally bankrupt products? Absolutely.
What do you think? Should farmers be paid based on the role their food plays in human health rather than just bulk production? Pull up a chair—this one’s got layers.
