In this article I respond to the obligation to institute the policy of decoupled crop subsidies as is provided in Pilchman’s article “Money for Nothing: Are decoupled Crop Subsidies Just?” With growing problems of poor nutrition in the United States there have been two different but related phenomenon that have appeared. First, the obesity epidemic that has ravaged the nation and left an increasing number of people very unhealthy; and second, the phenomenon of food deserts where individuals are unable to access fresh fruits and vegetables. A possible solution to this problem, as has been proposed by some, is to institute a decoupled crop subsidy that would increase the production of fruits and vegetables in the United States. In this paper I explore the possible unintended consequences of this policy and how it may violate liberal international conceptions of justice. I conclude that there must be further empirical research before anyone can call decoupled crop subsidies an obligation to justice.

中文翻译：

---

Just Food：为什么我们需要更多地考虑将脱钩作物补贴作为对正义的义务

在这篇文章中，我回应了 Pilchman 的文章“一劳永逸：脱钩作物补贴是否公正？”中规定的制定脱钩作物补贴政策的义务。随着美国营养不良的问题日益严重，出现了两种不同但相关的现象。首先，已经席卷全国的肥胖流行病使越来越多的人非常不健康；其次，个人无法获得新鲜水果和蔬菜的食物沙漠现象。正如一些人提出的那样，解决这个问题的一个可能的办法是制定一种脱钩的作物补贴，以增加美国水果和蔬菜的产量。在本文中，我探讨了该政策可能产生的意想不到的后果，以及它如何可能违反自由主义的国际正义观。我的结论是，必须有进一步的实证研究才能将脱钩的作物补贴称为正义的义务。