Big Food vs. Big Insurance

@ossobuco,

Okay. If you refuse to accept the point there's nothing I can do about it. It's about choices.

@ossobuco,

Long ago and far away, I lived in Venice, California, something of a unique place and another story.
Just before I moved there, Marina del Rey, a place of many plans, was developed. Venice was a town of red-lined houses (we had a hard time getting any bank to consider us) and the next place north was lower Santa Monica, which as it went west was called "Ocean Park". North of that was downtown Santa Monica. This whole area has subsequently changed in many ways.

Somewhere in the middle of my years there, I went to the marketwhich was just across Lincoln from a near-ghetto area. Perhaps you have heard of the Crips? Venice, an early family stronghold. I wouldn't call it all a high crime area on either side of the market, just not all that great economically.
I specifically remember the large display of burnt potato chips, which of course you didn't know until you bought and opened them. I gather, anecdotally, that this is typical of lower economy areas, that's where the chain markets used to send their lesser stuff.

That even happened to me here in New Mexico, as the market with the wretched baked goods near me seems to have been in a dismissed area and is just now being upgraded sporadically, in lurches I tend to welcome. I don't so much want that they gentrify, but that they improve quality. There seems to be this ongoing assumption that the poorer economic folk don't care and that is self fulfilling. It's ironic to me in that this isn't all that troubled an area, just non sophisticated suburban.

Dys and I have this argument going. I suppose he is right, that there is no use putting a good place in plainville given the nature of business success and the need for customers. Me, I think business underestimates the potential over time.

0 Replies

@spendius,

huh? I've just been writing a tome here, what point don't I accept, americans all have access to healthy food?

0 Replies

I was not raised in the ghetto, my husband was, as one of the few white boys back then. He got a full scholarship and became a writer and met me, eh, poor guy. Anyway, I remember the early days of his going with me to places I was well used to. I remember his rage about the Brentwood Country Mart. Inchoate, really. I thought I understood, and understood more.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

To edit that, I understood more, slowly.
My husband then is my ex now but we lasted for decades. We both learned a lot.

Past the diversion, back to Michael Pollan and the food system.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

They may have the funds - but they may not have the access.

If you say that they have the funds you concede my point.

Of course they would have access if they demanded it and had the funds. Instead they demand cheap and convenient food in order to free money and time for other choices and media plays a large role in determining and empowering the desires which lead to those alternative choices.

Your use of "they" ambiguously is the difficulty. I would use it to designate all those who live in the neighbourhood collectively deciding to not support a dear food outlet. Individuals then don't have access and their moaning about it is pointless.

2 Replies

@spendius,

The dear food outlets are making the choice - to not move into some neighbourhoods.

Someone may have $2 for a loaf of bread. A good $2 loaf of bread may be available somewhere in the city - but the person doesn't have the additional funds to get to that $2 loaf of bread, so they're stuck with the crap loaf of bread that is accessible in their neighbourhood.

Someone may have $2 to buy the ingredients to make two loaves of bread. However, the stores which sell the ingredients may not be in their neighbourhood.

Cities are set up stupidly - useful stores are not necessarily within walking distance. So people may have the funds, but not the access.

At the place Set used to live, you couldn't walk to any store without taking your life in your hands. The mini subdivision was on the side of a active highway, with no sidewalks - no pedestrian access. If you walked inside the subdivision to the edge of the highway, you could see a couple of grocery stores, but you couldn't get to them. Public transport was only available during very limited hours - some people, because of their work hours, could never get to the grocery store they could see.

I was able to make the choice to live somewhere that was walking distance to public transit as well as a couple of small grocery stores. That option isn't available to everyone. For example, they may work in a city that doesn't have an old city core that has small groceries - and may not be able to move elsewhere for work.

It isn't a case of people having endless options. Life's not like that.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Of course they would have access if they demanded it

you seem so naive when you say things like this

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

spendius wrote:
Of course they would have access if they demanded it

you seem so naive when you say things like this

It is a general principle and it does not take account of the complex forces which impinge on it and which are concerned with desires other than food.

Quote:

The dear food outlets are making the choice - to not move into some neighbourhoods.

The DFOs would be all over anywhere they thought they could make 10% returns on. You are suggesting that capitalist entrenpreneurship is in Rip van Winkle mode and I very much doubt that.

But if it is true that "Cities are set up stupidly" there isn't much to be said.

Quote:

some people, because of their work hours, could never get to the grocery store they could see.

But "some people" E tells us very little. You are now talking about planning laws. Should an employer set up in a location where the staff can't get to a grocery store. You almost make it seem that the ordinary American worker is not much above slave status.

The point I'm making is that it is a far more complex problem than Big Food v Big Insurance. You are what you eat and you are what you choose.

A store probably has to purchase 2 dozen,say, $2 loaves and it cannot afford to be left with 23 of them in order to satisfy the demand of the one who buys $2 loaves. Customers design shops.

Big Food will supply anything the customers want if a profit can be made and idealists will twist in the wind blaming everything and everybody but themselves.

If Bob's quote is correct and medical costs increase with cheap convenience foods you end up paying for dear food anyway in medical expenses and your only gain is the illness. You could easily be losing money as well. But if you are somebody is getting it.

It is an interesting question whether America could be fed healthily. Whether it is possible.

It's fiendishly complex.

1 Reply

@spendius,

gram and I were talking about "big food" just the other day.(not verra nicely)

Kroger made a deal with the local IGA king, and now all the grocery stores are out in the burbs.

(kroger bought all the competitors stores, then closed them up. they agreed to leave the KC market and gave some stores to the other guy if i remember correctly)

No inner city food outlets now but wally world and corner store type ethnic mom and pops...

0 Replies

There is always food available that is not junk food. It just may not be convenient, or as tasty but you can find rice and beans and water anywhere and that's a hell of a lot better, and cheaper, than junk food and soda. It just might not be as tasty and convenient.

I get the arguments that in America it's not easy to eat healthy. You might have to plan ahead, go and buy common staples like rice in bulk and learn to cook it yourself. Every time I leave America I lose weight, every time I live in America I gain weight. The lifestyles push you towards bad diet. Gas stations make as much money selling junk food as they do gasoline, and everywhere you turn there's a sugar fix that I've come to see as the cheapest form of entertainment in America. There's a huge variety of cheap food available in ever more convenient ways. You don't even need to get out of your car. It's a competition for how easy and cheap your mountain of calories can get to you.

But still, it is a matter of choice on some level. America gets more calories from sugary drinks than any other category of food. Everyone in America has access to water. The choice to drink soft drinks like water is not a matter of lack of access, it's a lifestyle choice. And with an average of over 20 tablespoons of sugar intake per day by Americans and over 300 calories a day coming from sugar this is the leading cause of obesity in America.

Instead of subsidizing this stuff we should be taxing it. Instead of schools making deals with junk food companies for the money we should be trying to keep them out of school. It's the crack of the very young, often combined with an addictive like caffeine. Like tobacco I think junk food should be taxed to pay for the societal cost. They are peddling something about as unhealthy.

2 Replies

probably a residual from eons of evolution but "a fat baby is a healthy baby" combined with junk food affordability/poor nutritional education and "busyness" leads to unhealthy diets.
Yesterday was my mum's 88th bday and when I thought of her, I thought of her favorite lunch/snack (cornbread crumpled into a glass of milk) so my lunch yesterday was cornbread crumpled into a glass of milk.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Have you any evidence Bob to show that what are called tobacco related illnesses are not actually more related to other factors such as bad diet and unhealthy working conditions or even psychological problems and that tobacco is blamed to shift attention.

Quote:

Like tobacco I think junk food should be taxed to pay for the societal cost.

Which undermines the argument tobacco prohibitionists often use that the cost of health care for smokers is the reason for prohibiting tobacco. I don't know for sure but I think tobacco taxes more than pay for those costs. Packs of 20 here are over £6 (about $9) and what would it cost to produce cabbage cigarettes.

There are two references to smoking in Melville's Redburn.

He refers to it as a "luxury" and he says that the Lascar he came across smoking at the dock gates was "quite communicative, like most smokers."

And again when the crew ran short--" and deprived of a solace and a stimulus, on which sailors so much rely while at sea, the crew became absent, moody and sadly tormented with the hypos......They would sit on their chests, forlorn and moping; with a steadfast sadness, eyeing the forecastle lamp, at which they had lighted so many a pleasant pipe. With touching eloquence they recalled those happier evenings--the time of smoke and vapour; when, after a whole day's delectable 'chawing', they beguiled themselves with their genial, and most companionable puffs."

As with soldiers in action.

Tobacco tax revenue here in 2006-7 was £10 billion. A fifth or sixth of total NHS costs. I wonder what the uncommunicative, unsolaced, unstimulated, absent, moody, tormented hypochondriacs cost not counting the strain they put on everybody they come across.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

Quote:

probably a residual from eons of evolution

Certainly. Fat was a valuable commodity and hard to find. A rare boost.

Now they can make as much as you can eat and make it easy to get at and the craving from the eons of evolution is still with us.

In The Bible the priests retained the fat from sacrificial victims.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Have you any evidence Bob to show that what are called tobacco related illnesses are not actually more related to other factors such as bad diet and unhealthy working conditions or even psychological problems and that tobacco is blamed to shift attention.

Unfortunately, it seems that smokers are also less likely to worry as much about healthy diets - which makes sense when you think about it - if someone is going to take the risks inherent in smoking, they'd probably be less likely to worry about getting their daily requirements of fruits and vegetables

Quote:

Behav Med. 2009 Spring; 35(1): 14"22.
doi: 10.3200/BMED.35.1.14-22.

PMCID: PMC2687811
Copyright © 2009 Heldref Publications
A Comparison of Smokers' and Nonsmokers' Fruit and Vegetable Intake and Relevant Psychosocial Factors
Jennifer B. McClure, PhD, George Divine, PhD, Gwen Alexander, PhD, Dennis Tolsma, MPH, Sharon J. Rolnick, PhD, Melanie Stopponi, MPA, CHES, Julie Richards, MPH, and Christine C. Johnson, PhD
Dr McClure and, Ms Richards are with the Group Health Center for Health Studies in Seattle, WA.Drs Divine,Alexander, and, Johnson are with the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, MI.Mr Tolsma is with Kaiser Permanente Georgia in Atlanta.Dr Rolnick is with HealthPartners in Minneapolis, MN.Ms Stopponi is with the Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado in Denver.
For comments and further information, address correspondence to Dr Jennifer B. McClure, Group Health Center for Health Studies, 1730 Minor Ave., Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101, USA (email:[email protected]).

Abstract
The authors examined the relation between smoking status and fruit and vegetable (FV) consumption among a population-based sample and examined differences in psychosocial factors that may influence diet and inform intervention efforts. The authors recruited adults (N = 2,540) from 5 US health plans to participate in a Web-based dietary intervention trial. At baseline, smokers ate fewer FV servings per day (p < .001) and were less likely to meet the 5 A Day goal (p < .001). Smokers reported lower self-efficacy, overall motivation, and intrinsic motivation for meeting daily FV recommendations. Fewer smokers expected that eating 5 FV servings a day would reduce their risk for diabetes (p = .02) or obesity (p = .008). Smokers are an important target group for dietary intervention. Intervention efforts should attempt to increase smokers' motivation and confidence in their abilities to change their eating patterns and educate them about the health benefits of eating FV.
Keywords: diet, health behavior, motivation, self-efficacy, smoking

Diets rich in fruits and vegetables (FV) are associated with decreased morbidity and mortality from a variety of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, stroke, hypertension, diabetes, and certain types of cancer.1 Eating FV may also play an important role in managing weight and preventing obesity.2 Despite the health benefits, most people fail to eat the recommended daily servings of F V. According to results from the 2005 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey, 32.6% of US adults consume 2 or more servings of fruit per day and only 27.2% of adults consume 3 or more servings of vegetables per day.3 As a nation, Americans are far from reaching the Healthy People 2010 objectives of increasing to 75% the percentage of people who consume at least 2 daily fruit servings and to 50% the percentage of people who eat at least 3 vegetable servings per day.4
Although Americans as a whole have unhealthy diets, smokers appear to have worse diets than their nonsmoking counterparts. Prior epidemiological studies have shown that smokers consume more fats, alcohol, and caffeine and less fruit, vegetables, and fiber than nonsmokers.5"7 These unhealthy habits are evident even among adolescent smokers. Teenage smokers are more likely to skip meals8,9 and eat less healthy foods10 than their nonsmoking counterparts.

The rest of the article can be found here:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2687811

I was reminded of this because I went camping with some chainsmoking vegetarians once and it happened to be my birthday so I bought a steak to grill and chip ahoy cookies (since we couldn't bake a cake). Well, their tofu had gone bad in our cooler (we didn't have enough ice and this was in Florida) and they didn't have any food to eat - so I offered them some steak as they sat smoking around the campfire. They heckled me for eating it and wouldn't touch it - but the next morning when I got up = I found they had eaten every single one of my cookies.
No protein with their tobacco - but plenty of sugar.

British people know how to get their veg at breakfast - I love sauteed tomatoes or mushrooms or toast - as well as beans on toast. How much does that cost? 2p for the slice of bread and 5 or 10p for a couple of mushrooms or a tomato sliced up.

0 Replies

Some of the biggest donators to food pantries are companies like Kellogg's, Con-Agra, Kraft, Tyson, Perdue etc. They love giving away their crap (usually on the verge of expiration) to the poor. They create brand loyalty with truck loads of Fruity Pebbles, Oreo cookies, frozen fried chicken nuggets, canned fruit in heavy syrup, corn chips etc. No food pantry can afford to turn away so many calories. I've seen families given grocery bags full of nothing but sugar, fake fats and white starch that is meant to feed them for a week. It's no wonder so many of the poor are overweight and sick.

When poor people see real fruit and vegetables they basically beg for them. I've meet kids that have never tasted a fresh peach or mango. It's not lack of desire it's lack of money.

1 Reply

@Green Witch,

What is up with that syrupy canned fruit, anyway? Is there no other way to pack it? The frozen fruit I see is usually too green to eat, unless you more or less take it like medicine. The fresh fruit isn't fresh.

0 Replies

I see a lot of westerners argue that being poor makes it harder to eat well. I have the opposite opinion, that westerners are so comparatively rich that they can't bring themselves to eat healthy.

Most of the world is dirt poor. They don't have access to fresh imported fruits and vegetables either, and they eat healthy because the cheapest stuff everywhere is pretty healthy. Typically it's when you can afford to choose what you will eat that people tend to get obese. If you have a bit of spending money then you can buy the junk, but just about anywhere in the world, junk food is much more expensive than the world's main food sources: rice and pulses (beans, lentils etc).

The world's main calorie source is rice. America's main calorie source is soft drinks. Most of the world can't afford to drink the amount of soft drinks we do. And in poor countries the more money you have the more calories you consume. Not because the poor people are going hungry, but because junk food with empty calories is actually more expensive.

American's can buy rice for less than they pay for junk food. Rice is cheaper, even in America, than the junk food. With this recession there are some people blogging about their tightened budgets and these guys are doing it for about $1 a day.

On their blog they explain that they've been eating a lot of rice and beans, like the billions of people who live this way that they are imitating:

Quote:

We are eating a good deal of bean, rice, chickpea, and tomato based foods. I am sure there are infinite numbers of meals that we could create, if we had the time to look.

It really can be done in America if you are willing to put up with the bland food (tasty tends to be fattening), cooking and less variety. And besides all that just eat less. That is actually cheaper if you are poor. Of course, it's just not very convenient, and is pretty darn boring. But most of the world isn't rich enough to eat the junk we do, it's actually cheaper to eat the way they do even in America.

4 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

America's main calorie source is soft drinks

For REAL????!!!!!!!

I need to look that up re Australia.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

I'm not going to argue on that since I agree. I eat a lot of pulses and other vegetables, usually in soups, and I make soups usually twice a week and they last for a few days. I eat more noodles than rice, but since I just got a 5 pound bag of calrose rice, that may be changing soon. Because I can, I sometimes add some meat or fish to those soups.

What the larger poorer world does that americans are generally spoiled about is to eat the same food every day. Individuals vary, but that's a big general cultural difference.

RH was right back there. Some inner citiesare very grocery store deprived. South LA used to be very problematic for stores and transportation was ridiculously bad.

2 Replies

Big Food vs. Big Insurance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know