When we opened up a recent edition of The New York Times and saw the headline "The Obesity-Hunger Paradox," we got excited. Maybe, we thought, someone was finally tackling the issue of world hunger and how the obesity debate could ironically hinder U.S. farmers' ability to address this problem.

And then we read the piece. Needless to say, we were disappointed.

The article focused on the Bronx in New York City, and a local conundrum that researchers call "food insecurity." This phenomenon occurs when people cannot afford healthy foods at the grocery store and instead buy "junk food" at pizza, doughnut, and convenient stores.

We just shook our heads. Yet another missed an opportunity to highlight the real hunger vs. obesity problem we're facing.

It's a fact: Obesity is a real problem in America while worldwide, the need for food has never been greater. Living in this country, we sometimes forget that a child dies from malnutrition every six seconds, and more than one billion people are living with hunger. And these stats could get worse.

The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization says the world will need to double its food supply by 2050 to feed a growing world population, or we will face massive hunger.

American farmers are arguably better equipped than any to meet tomorrow's food, fiber, and fuel needs—that is, unless ag opponents are successful in using the obesity debate to effectively neuter them.

The argument: Americans are fat because U.S. farmers have been too successful in making food cheap and abundant. Eliminating federal funding for staple crops like wheat, corn, soybeans, and rice to drive up the price of processed foods is the solution they offer. That money would be redirected to small producers of organic, locally grown fruits and vegetables, which in turn would make farms less efficient and leave fat Americans with fewer low-priced food options.

Sound a bit silly? That's because it is.

Penalizing rural America will not trim waistlines or deal with the undeniable obesity problem in this country. Folks in the Bronx are eating things like pizza, ice cream, and hot dogs because they taste good, not because New York is running low on cheap apples. And the newspaper overlooked one key point: Eating healthy would actually be cheaper in the Bronx.

A quick Internet search found numerous well stocked Bronx grocers like the Stop and Shop grocery on 691 Co Op City Boulevard. There, a three-pound bag of apples will only set you back $3.99. A nutritious banana costs less than a first-class stamp. Even a four-pound bag of organic oranges costs just $4.99.

All of which cost less than most snack foods you find on the Bronx street corners.

A Big Mac in New York City? Just more than four bucks, virtually the same price as a 3-pound bag of apples. Or the example used in the Times article of an impoverished, obese character in the movie "Precious," who eats a bucket of fried chicken for breakfast? The smallest bucket KFC sells—six pieces—costs $9.99.

This is a symptom of a bigger problem: Tacitly, or directly, blaming the American farmer for high obesity rates. Take a column written by Rob Hotakainen of McClatchy Newspapers, who takes a more direct route, saying "If you're feeling fat these days, blame Congress." The article goes on to demonize farmers, and practically begs Congress to stop supporting certain parts of the farm belt, restricting an industry that could help solve the world's hunger problems.

A survey conducted by Archer Daniels Midland Co. showed that if each of the top 15 food-producing nations, with an emphasis on the United States, consistently produced 80 percent of their best yields, the world would significantly increase production without adding acres of land. ScienceDaily just published an article that stated, "Feeding the world in 2050 will require a substantial increase in food production."

But that can't be done if the farm belt is forced to downsize and become less efficient in the name of fighting obesity.

Starving the world while attempting to force Americans to make smarter eating choices? That truly is an obesity-hunger paradox.