Nutritional inequality: 91% due to demand, only 9% due to availability (food deserts)

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't observe this at all. I find that most people eat shit diets, even people with decent incomes.

There's a range--most people eat things that are far from perfect, but few simply eat the stuff he's talking about.

I did not read through the entire pdf. What edibles are you talking about? Give me examples.

My point is that where I work everyone has a decent income. There is absolutely no reason for people to be subsisting on sweets, processed junk, deep fried and fast food, but that is what the majority of folks eat. So I am agreeing with the thrust of the OP, limited though it is, that people choose to eat mostly convenient, health damaging crap even when they have the means to improve their diets and make themselves healthier.

I also found this not so surprising

Public health studies typically find that healthy diets cost more per calorie; see Rao et al. (2013)
for a meta-analysis of 27 studies. Unsurprisingly, fresh produce is significantly more expensive per
calorie than all other categories, regardless of neighborhood income. However, the figure shows
that after excluding fresh produce, healthy foods are actually about eight percent less expensive
than unhealthy foods.

 

[J842P]

I did not read through the entire pdf. What edibles are you talking about? Give me examples.

My point is that where I work everyone has a decent income. There is absolutely no reason for people to be subsisting on sweets, processed junk, deep fried and fast food, but that is what the majority of folks eat. So I am agreeing with the thrust of the OP, limited though it is, that people choose to eat mostly convenient, health damaging crap even when they have the means to improve their diets and make themselves healthier.

I also found this not so surprising

Public health studies typically find that healthy diets cost more per calorie; see Rao et al. (2013)
for a meta-analysis of 27 studies. Unsurprisingly, fresh produce is significantly more expensive per
calorie than all other categories, regardless of neighborhood income. However, the figure shows
that after excluding fresh produce, healthy foods are actually about eight percent less expensive
than unhealthy foods.

I bet the effects of eating less calories but more fresh produce would on average improve health outcomes ignoring the other factors given the current normal diets.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I did not read through the entire pdf. What edibles are you talking about? Give me examples.

My point is that where I work everyone has a decent income. There is absolutely no reason for people to be subsisting on sweets, processed junk, deep fried and fast food, but that is what the majority of folks eat. So I am agreeing with the thrust of the OP, limited though it is, that people choose to eat mostly convenient, health damaging crap even when they have the means to improve their diets and make themselves healthier.

I also found this not so surprising

Public health studies typically find that healthy diets cost more per calorie; see Rao et al. (2013)
for a meta-analysis of 27 studies. Unsurprisingly, fresh produce is significantly more expensive per
calorie than all other categories, regardless of neighborhood income. However, the figure shows
that after excluding fresh produce, healthy foods are actually about eight percent less expensive
than unhealthy foods.

I bet the effects of eating less calories but more fresh produce would on average improve health outcomes ignoring the other factors given the current normal diets.

Imagine the effect on health and cost if one labored in their own garden for these vegetables.

 

[untermensche]

That requires owning property.

The natural tendency of capitalism is for more and more to own no land and for fewer and fewer to own more and more.

Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution, they emerge together, took people off the land and turned them into tools of production.

The emergence of unions helped give people a little comfort. In the US it was a bloody fight as owners killed workers who wanted decent conditions and pay.

The death of unions in the last 40 years has not been a good thing for any workers.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I bet the effects of eating less calories but more fresh produce would on average improve health outcomes ignoring the other factors given the current normal diets.

Imagine the effect on health and cost if one labored in their own garden for these vegetables.

Folks around here have community gardens as well as back yard gardens. Lots of old Eastern Europeans who live with their hands in the dirt, but not enough. I wish more folks would convert those suburban nazi lawns into living organisms. Some no doubt spend more money on chemicals for their grass than they do on healthy food. Given a choice of healthy food they'd go for taste and convenience, not health. Problem is there's no financial incentive, perceived or real, to being healthy in this country.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I did not read through the entire pdf. What edibles are you talking about? Give me examples.

My point is that where I work everyone has a decent income. There is absolutely no reason for people to be subsisting on sweets, processed junk, deep fried and fast food, but that is what the majority of folks eat. So I am agreeing with the thrust of the OP, limited though it is, that people choose to eat mostly convenient, health damaging crap even when they have the means to improve their diets and make themselves healthier.

I also found this not so surprising

Public health studies typically find that healthy diets cost more per calorie; see Rao et al. (2013)
for a meta-analysis of 27 studies. Unsurprisingly, fresh produce is significantly more expensive per
calorie than all other categories, regardless of neighborhood income. However, the figure shows
that after excluding fresh produce, healthy foods are actually about eight percent less expensive
than unhealthy foods.

Canned vegetables are cheaper than both produce and Entemann's.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Canned vegetables are cheaper than both produce and Entemann's.

Frozen is somewhere in the middle. Healthier than canned and cheaper than fresh.

But canned is still healthy if you read the labels and buy the basics. Canned black beans are good food.

Entemann's

 

[bilby]

The fresh produce supply chain - from farm, to market, to grocer, to consumer is (in the developed world) by FAR the best way to obtain fresh fruit and vegetables, by almost any measure.

There's nothing wrong with doing it for fun; But don't kid yourself that the food you grow is of better quality, or lower cost, or higher nutritional value, or safer than that which you can buy at the shop - it is none of those things.

If people won't eat the vegetables that are sold in the shops, then trying to encourage them to grow and eat vegetables from their own backyards is a total non-starter.

The entire history of civilization has been one of helping more and more people to get away from trying to grow their own food, and to instead let the experts (farmers) produce food, while they do other, more productive, things.

The 'everyone should go back to growing their own food' movement is regressive conservatism in the old sense - predicated on the very definitely false assumption that things were better in some glorious past from which we have sadly moved away. Growing your own food is, for the VAST majority of us, a waste of our valuable time. If you want to waste time on a hobby that makes you smile, then go for your life - but don't pretend that your hobby of growing carrots is any more virtuous than watching movies, or building model railways, or playing football.

The problem of 'junk food' is one of demand, not supply. There is more than enough fresh food for everyone who wants it; If people don't want it, encouraging them to grow it themselves is a massive non-starter.

 

[laughing dog]

There's nothing wrong with doing it for fun; But don't kid yourself that the food you grow is of better quality, or lower cost, or higher nutritional value, or safer than that which you can buy at the shop - it is none of those things.

When home grown produce is picked and eaten at its peak time, it is generally tastier and better quality than similar food that was harvested much early and shipped in. Whether home grown food is safer or not than food at the store depends on how the food is grown, but it may be safer.

And, it may be the case that getting someone to grow their own food may induce them to eat such food, but I expect that would a rare outcome.

What one eats is mostly a question of habit, so the issue is getting people in the habit of eating nutritional foods. Making it easier to obtain nutritional food helps, but it will not be enough.

 

[bilby]

There's nothing wrong with doing it for fun; But don't kid yourself that the food you grow is of better quality, or lower cost, or higher nutritional value, or safer than that which you can buy at the shop - it is none of those things.

When home grown produce is picked and eaten at its peak time, it is generally tastier and better quality than similar food that was harvested much early and shipped in.

It might be; but that's not likely - farmers have access to better pesticides, have a more precise treatment and irrigation regime, and more strict quality controls. High quality home grown produce usually only comes at the cost of very high levels of waste - and as a result, very high costs (although these may not be directly apparent). Your home grown tomato might taste a bit better than the one from the shops (or you might be able to persuade yourself that it does), but to get it, you throw out ten times as many that spoiled or were inedible.

Whether home grown food is safer or not than food at the store depends on how the food is grown, but it may be safer.

Or, FAR more likely, less safe. Food sold commercially is typically (and unsurprisingly) safer than food grown with no restrictions on quality, nor on appropriate use of fertilizer or pesticides, nor with control over contamination from various sources.

Food safety is a non-issue in the developed world (except for 'organic' produce, which, like home grown, is rather less safe - e.coli contamination from the use of manure rather than safer modern fertilizers, for example, is a growing problem).

And, it may be the case that getting someone to grow their own food may induce them to eat such food, but I expect that would a rare outcome.

What one eats is mostly a question of habit, so the issue is getting people in the habit of eating nutritional foods. Making it easier to obtain nutritional food helps, but it will not be enough.

Indeed.

 

[Elixir]

I take (and agree with) most of your points, but...

Your home grown tomato might taste a bit better than the one from the shops (or you might be able to persuade yourself that it does), but to get it, you throw out ten times as many that spoiled or were inedible.

Not necessarily so. I think I "wasted" about 6-8 tomatoes TOTAL this last growing season. Ate 60-80 of them (or more), and put up many many more. They put every store-bought tomato in the region to shame, not even close. Blind taste tests confirmed... and there's no mistaking the difference in winter, when we open a bag of our frozen tomatoes and use them for sauce, compared to store-bought or canned.
Other veggies might be closer - our spinach is great, and mayve more tender than what you can get at a store, but pretty similar when in season. But the tomatoes cannot be mistaken for what's in the stores, organic or otherwise.

Also - I've visited commercial tomato farms, and their "waste" percentage is much higher than mine.
Maybe you Roos are tomato-impaired?

 

[laughing dog]

It might be; but that's not likely - farmers have access to better pesticides, have a more precise treatment and irrigation regime, and more strict quality controls. High quality home grown produce usually only comes at the cost of very high levels of waste - and as a result, very high costs (although these may not be directly apparent). Your home grown tomato might taste a bit better than the one from the shops (or you might be able to persuade yourself that it does), but to get it, you throw out ten times as many that spoiled or were inedible.

Homegrown tomatoes are picked when they are ripe. Ones at the store are harvested before they have ripened. There is a difference. As to the rest of your points, depending on the plot and the grower, they may be true or they may not be true. My wife grows wonderful tomatoes, and we don't throw any.

Or, FAR more likely, less safe. Food sold commercially is typically (and unsurprisingly) safer than food grown with no restrictions on quality, nor on appropriate use of fertilizer or pesticides, nor with control over contamination from various sources.

Whether it is safer or not depends on many factors. And if you think farmers have more control over contamination from many sources compared to a homeowner, that depends.

Now, do I think all homegrowers grow better and safer food? No. Do I think everyone should grow their own food? No, and I am thankful there are many farmers who produce good food. But I know from experience that homegrown produce can be safer and better tasting than just about anything in a store. The pears from my pear tree only cost me the time and effort of harvesting them at the right time. And they are objectively better tasting than those at the local markets.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I take (and agree with) most of your points, but...

Your home grown tomato might taste a bit better than the one from the shops (or you might be able to persuade yourself that it does), but to get it, you throw out ten times as many that spoiled or were inedible.

Not necessarily so. I think I "wasted" about 6-8 tomatoes TOTAL this last growing season. Ate 60-80 of them (or more), and put up many many more. They put every store-bought tomato in the region to shame, not even close. Blind taste tests confirmed... and there's no mistaking the difference in winter, when we open a bag of our frozen tomatoes and use them for sauce, compared to store-bought or canned.
Other veggies might be closer - our spinach is great, and mayve more tender than what you can get at a store, but pretty similar when in season. But the tomatoes cannot be mistaken for what's in the stores, organic or otherwise.

Also - I've visited commercial tomato farms, and their "waste" percentage is much higher than mine.
Maybe you Roos are tomato-impaired?

There is no comparison between the taste of a store bought and home grown tomato. Even the experts agree that store bought tomatoes are bred for convenience, appearance and ability to ship, not taste.

If you buy from a small scale producer you will sometimes get a peach that tastes like it was just picked, but that is rare.

The thing is that most people do not know - because they have never tasted - is what fresh actually tastes like.

Grow some strawberries yourself and compare their taste to ones at the store. The store berries will look fabulous but will eat like cardboard.

I grew a bunch of butternut squash and pumpkin this summer. Lots are still stored in the cellar just sitting on the shelf. At 2.99 per pound locally there's a lot of very healthy eating waiting for me.

I agree that if I worked those hours instead I'd be richer but I would be less healthy certainly. Half my life spent working is enough. Not that desperate for more money.

I've been eating freeze dried pears for some months now. Had I bought them instead I'd have spent a small fortune.

We need people to continue to garden and orchard, if for no other reason than that we don't forget what real food tastes like.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I'm pretty sure the point isn't whether you bought a tomato or picked a tomato, but whether or not you ate the tomato - or mashed it up and mixed it with a 1/4 cup of butter, 1/4 cup of Franks Red Hot, chili powder, and cayenne pepper and spread it over some chicken wings that were coated in egg wash and flour and fried in oil.

Or bought some frozen buffalo wings in the store for way less and threw them in the microwave.

I promise you if you are eating just tomatoes you are doing it right regardless of the origin.

aa

 

[repoman]

I think that fructose - in all forms including cane sugar (glucose-fructose disaccharide)- is a pinpoint but very important aspect for the health of the whole nation.

I am going to order dextrose (glucose) powder as a sweetener instead of "sugar" which is glucose-fructose. It is only 80% as sweet as sugar, but it doesn't cause the metabolic disruptions of fructose.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I did not read through the entire pdf. What edibles are you talking about? Give me examples.

My point is that where I work everyone has a decent income. There is absolutely no reason for people to be subsisting on sweets, processed junk, deep fried and fast food, but that is what the majority of folks eat. So I am agreeing with the thrust of the OP, limited though it is, that people choose to eat mostly convenient, health damaging crap even when they have the means to improve their diets and make themselves healthier.

I also found this not so surprising

Public health studies typically find that healthy diets cost more per calorie; see Rao et al. (2013)
for a meta-analysis of 27 studies. Unsurprisingly, fresh produce is significantly more expensive per
calorie than all other categories, regardless of neighborhood income. However, the figure shows
that after excluding fresh produce, healthy foods are actually about eight percent less expensive
than unhealthy foods.

I bet the effects of eating less calories but more fresh produce would on average improve health outcomes ignoring the other factors given the current normal diets.

1) Some produce has so little in the way of calories (most things where you eat leaves or stems) that of course it's expensive per calorie.

2) Produce is something where it really pays to shop around. Around here that generally means the Hispanic markets--most of which are located in the ok but not great neighborhoods. The quality isn't quite as good as in the more expensive places but generally that just means you have to take a bit more care picking it. Today's pickings: Celery 3/$. Bell peppers 5/$. Red onions 4#/$. Beets 4#/$. We passed on the tomatoes at 2#/$ because the quality was lacking. They also had yellow apples (I don't know the exact variety) 3# bag/$ but we currently have gobs of fruit, we didn't look at them.

Another store, a bit farther away that we didn't go to: Fuji apples 4#/$. Bananas 3#/$. Oranges 4#/$.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I bet the effects of eating less calories but more fresh produce would on average improve health outcomes ignoring the other factors given the current normal diets.

Imagine the effect on health and cost if one labored in their own garden for these vegetables.

1) Other than soil prep (if you live where that's a big deal) it's not that much labor.

2) I don't really think you save that much growing your own. We grow a lot of fruit but we do it for taste, not to save money. The stuff you buy in the store is chosen first for being able to get to market in decent shape, taste is very secondary to that. Home grown stuff doesn't need to be able to survive the trip to market, the varieties you buy in the nursery are much tastier.

 

[blastula]

This can't be correct. It's my understanding that people lack individual agency and are instead victims of invisible structural oppression. Can't blame people for their own choices, ya know.

Says the guy who think genes are everything.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why are we living longer if the corporations are poisoning us?

Corporations are rigid dictatorships.

All decisions are made at the top.

There's some truth in this. But there is a place for "dictatorship" and top-down, for some decision-making.

The people at the top of these processed food corporations deliberately have decided to poison the food supply. For profit.

But then why is our food supply today the healthiest it has ever been? The food safety laws have helped, but the industry controls most of this and also controls those who enforce the laws. With some increases of the regulations playing a role, the profit-making food industry makes it possible for intelligent consumers, including the poor, to eat healthier than ever before. Isn't this part of what has increased the life expectancy to the highest it's ever been?

But if the food industry has been poisoning us, then our life expectancy should be decreasing, not increasing.

(The recent small decline in U.S. life expectancy is clearly due to individual bad behavior factors and not to any food poisoning.)

The next generation will be filled with obesity and diabetes because of the choices of the scum you defend.

90% of that problem would be solved by a general sugar tax on all food products. Perhaps 5% by a sodium tax. Just a small tweak to the system, and the profit-making food industry overall is making us healthier and increasing our life span.

The labeling laws, about ingredients etc., can be improved. Overall the industry deserves a B or B+. WalMart is getting better at offering some good choices at low prices. It's not their fault that so many poor people still demand the junk. Corporate America's main function is to give us what we want, not to look after our personal health by withholding bad stuff from us. The choices are there for those who choose what's healthy and those who choose junk.

Poor people can get to a WalMart and other good sources if they choose to make the effort, no matter where they live.



Is "Ensure" (nutrition drink) a healthy product? At Gitmo they force-fed the prisoners with Ensure, so it seems the Federal Government is endorsing this product as healthy. (Or is it poison, and they were really trying to KILL those prisoners with it?)

It contains all the recommended vitamins and minerals, but not mega-doses like most of the supplements.

Meanwhile, WalMart offers an Ensure copycat product at lower cost. I noticed a slight reduction in the sugar content in this product, a year or 2 ago. So it seems the industry slowly moves in the right direction. Overall Corporate America slowly improves what it serves up to consumers, or at least to those who make intelligent choices.

Another meanwhile, Kroger offers a low-priced yogurt product with low sugar. So a poor person can get yogurt, which is healthy, and without the extra sugar in most yogurt products.

Though it contains sucralose (splenda) artificial sweetener. But isn't this sweetener OK (contrary to the earlier artificial sweeteners)?

(Don't most poor people live close enough to a Ralph's or Food-4-Less? Can't they get on a bus? What's their problem?)

And what about "Whole Wheat" Bread? Is this healthier? It's not too expensive. The cost of "100% whole wheat bread" has decreased a bit in recent years, rather than increased. And they've mostly eliminated the "hydrogenated oil" and "high-fructose corn syrup." So, isn't this going in the right direction, even for the poor (if they just make the right choice)? The real problem is that they just don't give a damn. ("You can lead a horse to water, but . . . etc.)

Or are all wheat products really "poison" and slowly killing us? If so, then they're killing the rich just as much as the poor.

 

[DBT]

Big business employs professional marketeers who use every trick in the book to sell their products to consumers, making it appear like a desirable lifestyle choice, glamorous even, a form of conditioning to sell gunk that may be full of trans-fat, sugar, starch, addictive, generating a captive market, but of little nutritional value, in fact doing more harm than good. It verges on criminal behavior, like tobacco companies were doing in their heyday.