Encryptshun wrote:A head of iceberg lettuce, sure. But what other fresh produce could you buy for less than the cost of an equivalent weight of junk food (when you can get a pack of hot dogs on sale for a buck and a bag of chips for 99 cents)? Plus you still need protein and some amount of fat to live. You can go to McDonald's and get a 5,000 calorie meal for under 6 bucks. How much would an equivalent caloric intake of healthy food cost?
Also, you are assuming that all people have access to fresh produce in the first place. So-called "food deserts" are becoming increasingly common in urban areas (which happen to also contain that highest density of people who live below the poverty line and individuals on public assistance programs). In these places, where people don't necessarily have access to transportation, getting to a grocery store to buy that head of lettuce could cost you up to 5 times what the head of lettuce costs. Local businesses have zero incentive to sell fresh fruits and vegetables because they have relatively small shelf life and they are unable to find distributors to sell to them on such a small scale, so they instead stock up on what does sell -- junk food, alcohol, and maybe a few less-perishable staples such as bread.
The problem with the argument that "if there's enough demand, the stores will change what they carry" is that the stores end up defining the culture which reduces the likelihood of advocacy for changing the products. Example, tofu and edemame are both incredibly good for you and excellent meat-replacements. But just try getting my mom or grandparents to give up their red meat in favor of something that looks like a bar of soap. So therefore try finding tofu or edemame in any of the grocery stores around where they live (rural Missouri).
So the net net is that we have a junk-food culture driven and sustained by very slick, very targeted marketing and allowed to perpituate through ignorance, poverty, and apathy. Sooner or later, we need to move past the "well, it doesn't affect me, so I'm not going to worry about it" conservative attitude (and if you think that politicians aren't paid by the junk food industry to tell you that nothing is wrong and don't worry about it then you need to go work for a company that sells junk food).
That latter isn't directed at you, Bex -- just a general statement about how a growing percentage of our population assesses priorities.
Mo sides taken here. There is someone to blame at every level of our 'obesity epidemic.' first, the statement about a head of lettuce being cheaper than a bag of chips. Correct. But lets disect that statement a step further. Something that aggravates me to no end is that a bag of chips (which is roughly 2-2.5 potatoes) is cheaper than 2 potatoes. This gets under my skin for a few reasons.
1. That potato grown to make the chips probably came from another country. Discount labor, but add cost for transportation (not to mention the environmental impact, but I digress, this is about food cost).
2. Potatoes meant for the chips is mechanically washed, peeled, sliced, dried, fried, packaged, shipped and slotted on a grocery store shelf ALL before it gets to your home. There is a cost associated with each and every step of the processing! Not to mention the labor involved.
3. Finished good is sold for $0.99 - $1.49. Finished good takes more time and steps to harvest, process, and sell and somehow STILL costs less to purchase than the equiliviant amount of raw potato from the produce section. Inexcusable.
4. (f*** me, I work in food processing).
Regarding the trends and deserts- Chad has an excellent point about the less desirable neighborhoods having poor access to fruits and vegetables. Especially when the worse food is cheaper. Some additional thoughts I have are that not everyone that is in the region becomes associated with becoming overweight. Just those who aren't active AND/OR working the type of labor/employment associated with their socioeconomic status. Which is; mother with 3+ kids, the children themselves, and the folks who sit on their bums and speak about the man keeping them down (aka, MOST of the population of the impoverished area). The father, on the other hand, typically works a labor intensive job and isn't (or isn't as) overweight as the rest of the family. For him (or her) the trade off for 5,000 calories from a $6 value meal is a superb deal. Calories in --> calories out. For this person, the cost of the meal is a plus, but it is also survival- given that the availability of the proper nourishment is limited.
I agree that demand is suited by the stores in the area, but from the business owners point of view, the profit margin on soda, candy, and chips is greater than the fruit, veg, etc which, as mentioned, have a shorter shelf life. I may be an idealist, but I believe that if pressured by competition such as a new local grocer who carries limited variety of lower cost produce (apples, oranges, bananas, juice and romaine instead of plums, peaches, soda and spring mix), those unfortunate folks who WANT those goods will find you. While business may be slow to start, I'd bet that it picks up and so long as you're also selling lottery tickets and beer, you'll start to gain market share from the junk food riddled convenience store which (I would hope) causes competition and more availability and competition within the region.
But, this is all speculation. Those large companies who dominate the convenience store shelves and the restaurant soda fountains have deep pockets for lobbying in their favor. Their organization is far superior to the collation of produce (if there is such a thing). In order to turn this into a solution, the people need to be educated, and with that, the resources have to be available. Unfortunately, in these areas, education is in short supply and that becomes a whole different conversation about fear of authority, etc. lets bring this back to food though- the problem isn't just in the areas mentioned. As noted in the original topic, "privileged" folk have a perception that 'eating fat' is cool, too. There are changes all around the board that need to be made. Unfortunately, its gotten so unruly that the federal and state governments are considering 'sugar taxes' on beverages. The argument of "big brother always watching me, tellin' me what to do" then arises, but then those same folk will still complain about being overweight and obese which puts a HUGE burden on our medical costs, well, for those of use who take pride in our good standing health anyway. Its not as if being healthy, eating properly, or exercising is actually difficult, its just fallen out of prospective. Its equiliviated to "work." Again, inexcusable. If you HAVE to eat, might as well be good for you, if you HAVE to exercise, go hike some mountains and enjoy it, or row a boat, f***, even fish burns more calories than channel surfing. Again, this all boils down to education and a new message. Its just not there...
And I'm out of breath from arguing for the moment except: "Nigga what the FV CK is JUICE?! I want that purple stuff. Sugar, water, purple. Thats the ingredients."