It’s not just frustrating, it’s obscene. The US has legislated a subsidies program that rewards the largest agriculture open field factories – calling them farms is a stretch – and allows giant food processors to buy commodity derivatives for a small percentage of what the fair market cost to produce them would be. This undermines small scale farmers, making it very difficult for them to compete when the thumb of subsidy is on the industrial side of the scale. The food safety legislation also favors giants in processing, and there are cases of outright intimidation and aggression against small farmers responsibly raising heirloom and non-commercial breed animals under the guise of “biosecurity” or “invasive species” actions. Meanwhile, these same subsidies make make nutritionally-questionable and ethically-dubious “food” – everything from Snicker’s bars to feedlot beef – cheap and the official nutrition advice of the US government is based more on getting rid of cheap subsidized wheat and corn than on any actual scientific proof as to what constitutes “healthy.” People in your situation are doubly screwed because (and I’m assuming this is a Type 2 diabetes situation) those foods most likely to raise blood sugar levels are also the foods most likely to be cheap. My point with this is that everything that touches food policy in the US isn’t so much a can of worms as an olympic pool full of snakes.
In the lead-up to the April constitutional referendum, the “no” campaign, which opposed the new presidential system, was surprisingly effective , given how remarkably uneven the playing field : the “yes” campaign benefited from open government support and blanket coverage by a press essentially beholden to the government. Some opposition figures, such as the leaders of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), are behind bars , and many of their followers were among those displaced by the fighting between the government and the PKK; as a result, many of these would-be “no” voters were denied the opportunity to cast their ballots in the referendum. Moreover, officials in AKP-controlled municipalities routinely had “no” campaign posters torn down and repeatedly broke up or banned “no” rallies. In the end, and despite significant evidence of voting irregularities, the “yes” campaign managed to squeak by with only percent of the vote. Erdogan may have consolidated his power, but not without betraying new electoral weaknesses.