Well-intentioned ideas that won't work in real life: green grocer liberalism

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

Seeing as you framed this as a reason you are conservative thread, how do you wrap your noodle around silly ineffective conservative programs like abstinance only sex education?

http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publi...abstinence.pdf

Simple.

I don't favor it. And I regard it as foolish elevation of ideology over reality.

[Rick]

Originally Posted by monstro

Do you think poor people make bad food choices because they are stupid orges who beat their wives?

Do you have any cites to back up your thinking?

Intelligence has nothing to do with it, nor does their wife beating status.
Humans are creatures of habit. If you grew up not eating fresh fruit you probably won't put down the Cheetos and grab an apple the first time you see a fresh apple in the corner store.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Well, it's my contention that even though the stores offer this food, few people will actually take advantage of it. This is a prediction consistent with other studies where similar ideas have been tried.

What is your prediction?

My prediction is that it will increase, to some amount, the amount of healthy food consumed. The level of which is dependent on a lot of factors. Also, as a pilot program, I think it is a worthy thing to experiment with, especially at the low price.

I admit, your revolutionary idea to do nothing is probably cheaper. But considering the level of obesity among the poor, this is worth examining.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Well, it's my contention that even though the stores offer this food, few people will actually take advantage of it. This is a prediction consistent with other studies where similar ideas have been tried.

What is your prediction?

The idea is that at least they will have the choice, which they do not have right now.

[monstro]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Well, it's my contention that even though the stores offer this food, few people will actually take advantage of it. This is a prediction consistent with other studies where similar ideas have been tried.

What is your prediction?

Let's say you are right and this green grocer idea is a waste of money.

Isn't there some benefit to actually finding out that it doesn't work then presuming it wouldn't without even trying? One benefit that I can see is that it would inform other, more practical solutions (that "middle ground" I mentioned earlier). Another is that you've got a sound argument for not doing something like it ever again. There is some value in being able to say to the angry mob, "We tried that already, remember?"

[monstro]

Originally Posted by Rick

Intelligence has nothing to do with it, nor does their wife beating status.
Humans are creatures of habit. If you grew up not eating fresh fruit you probably won't put down the Cheetos and grab an apple the first time you see a fresh apple in the corner store.

I eat a ton more healthy now than I did as a kid. And I didn't even grow up poor, just with parents who didn't know any better. Fresh vegetables? Ha! I didn't know that spinach isn't naturally slimy, salty, seaweed-looking stuff until I became an adult. At dinner we always ate two or three starches (rice with cinnamon toast AND canned corn...yum!) Salads were always tossed. I loved all of it, too.

I guess it's hard for me to assume that other people are so robotic in their food choices since my own history doesn't bear this out. The only reason I don't eat canned spinach is because I was exposed to the fresh stuff. And once you eat fresh, there's no going back.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by monstro

Let's say you are right and this green grocer idea is a waste of money.

Isn't there some benefit to actually finding out that it doesn't work then presuming it wouldn't without even trying? One benefit that I can see is that it would inform other, more practical solutions (that "middle ground" I mentioned earlier). Another is that you've got a sound argument for not doing something like it ever again. There is some value in being able to say to the angry mob, "We tried that already, remember?"

It is also important to point out that if we do find a program that does work, if the individuals do not have access to those foods it will be moot.

Personally I think they need to learn from the anti-smoking movement, social pressure+access would probably work over time.

We do know the best way to ensure your child is active, and thus will have good cardio health (one of the main issues with obesity is not the weight but this) is to try and steer them towards peer groups who are active.

I would image the same could be said with food. The main benefit i see for all the slow food and organic movements is not their claimed benefits but that encourages people to think about what they are eating and to realize and to develop a pallet for better foods.

[Farmer Jane]

Originally Posted by monstro

Let's say you are right and this green grocer idea is a waste of money.

Isn't there some benefit to actually finding out that it doesn't work then presuming it wouldn't without even trying? One benefit that I can see is that it would inform other, more practical solutions (that "middle ground" I mentioned earlier). Another is that you've got a sound argument for not doing something like it ever again. There is some value in being able to say to the angry mob, "We tried that already, remember?"

Do you regularly cherry-pick threads? I mean, Bricker already provided cites. But according to your logic, just because these programs don't work elsewhere doesn't mean it can't work in Philly.

Right.

(Where's that sarcastic thumbs smiley when you need it?)

I supported the movement to fill food deserts up here in Denver until I read up on it.

I still do, but in a different way. Oddly enough, Wal-Mart may be the answer. That kind of answers the 'people not make the best decisions but they have options' thing.

I mean, you can lament how awful the Big Bad Mart stores are because they kill mom and pop businesses, but mom and pop businesses in food deserts kind of operate on overpriced food, liquor, and Fritos. Bribing them to sell bananas and squash is kind if elitist...and it apparently doesn't work.

[John Mace]

Bricker: Did you notice that this program was started before the studies you cited were published?

Also, is there some reason you didn't link to the article?

n.b.: I'm no fan of such programs, preferring to let people make their own choices. I'll also note that the Philadelphia experiment was partially funded with stimulus money. That was supposed to get the economy back on track, not fund social experiments.

[sleestak]

Originally Posted by monstro

But the thing is we are right. A liter of soda runs about $2. How many calories is this compared to $1 apple? Not even close, right?

I can buy a 1200 calorie meal for $5 at McDonalds. What in the produce aisle can I buy 1200 calories for $5?

For obtaining vitamins and minerals, the decision is a no-brainer. But for calories? THAT is a no-brainer too. It is a luxury for a person to weigh nutrients over calories. A poor person cannot afford luxuries, by definition.

And you assume that people buy food based on calorie content. They don't. They buy based on servings. When you compare food cost on servings, healthy food is cheaper.

Http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012...ods-cheap-food

Now, lets look at a family. $5 x 4 is $20 at McDonalds. (Note, McDs is usually more per person because of supersizing)

At my local Vons i can get a head of lettuce, two cucumbers and carrots for a buck a piece. That is $3. Dressing is another $2. A pound of pork chops is 2.49. Call it two pounds. That is another 5. Add in a pasta, mac and cheese is a buck a box and we will use 2. A gallon of milk is $3. For a grand total of $20. And that is way heaalthier than McDs. On a side note, I used Vons becuase they had prices online even though they are not cheap.

One is healthy, one is not and the price is the same.

Slee

[Farmer Jane]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Bricker: Did you notice that this program was started before the studies you cited were published?

n.b.: I'm no fan of such programs, preferring to let people make their own choices. I'll also note that the Philadelphia experiment was partially funded with stimulus money. That was supposed to get the economy back on track, not fund social experiments.

So it appears the program got major funding in 2010 - a year after the Ag study was published in 2009. Or several months. Anyway, good catch, John Mace.

“While some studies find a correlation between food accessibility and BMI and obesity, the causal pathways are not well understood,” the Agriculture Department concluded in a 2009 review of food desert research, noting elsewhere that “interventions aimed at increasing access to healthy foods may not be successful in addressing obesity.”

yadda yadda

Working with Food Trust, in the late 2000s Philadelphia began piloting healthy corner stores. In 2010, it ramped up efforts significantly when it received $25.4 million in stimulus funds meant to combat obesity and tobacco use. That initial grant was bolstered with $1.5 million more in funding from the Affordable Care Act’s Prevention and Public Health Fund, a $15 billion commitment to projects that promote preventive health.

Why we're spending $15B in preventive health when half of Americans don't have health insurance is beyond me, but that's just the liberal weenie in me talking.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Bricker: Did you notice that this program was started before the studies you cited were published?

Also, is there some reason you didn't link to the article?

n.b.: I'm no fan of such programs, preferring to let people make their own choices. I'll also note that the Philadelphia experiment was partially funded with stimulus money. That was supposed to get the economy back on track, not fund social experiments.

Heh yes there was quite a bit of cherry picking in the OP, the article doesn't even say what was claimed.

"Access to healthy food is just one piece of the puzzle, and we are committed to doing the work to help improve public health," Merrigan, of the USDA, said.

Anecdotal reports from shop owners suggest that sales of fresh produce have indeed increased alongside the surge in supply.

"Almost every day, people grab lettuce or something," says Catalina Morrell-Hunter, who has owned her North Philadelphia store for 15 years. Apples and oranges go fastest, and cilantro has proved popular in the largely Hispanic neighborhood. "I don't say I sell like an entire market does. But when people are short a carrot, they can come to the convenience store."

[even sven]

Call me elitest, but I'm all for this for totally selfish reasons. I live 1.5 miles from the nearest supermarket in an urban area where most people don't have cars. My local shopping choices are an overpriced specialty market that has some fresh food at obscene prices (am apple, for example, runs $1.75) or the nearby corner market that sells instant mac'n'cheese, canned chili, chips and ice cream.

There have been many nights where it's been too snowy or I'm too tired to do what it takes to get a real meal, and I've had some chips and Ben'n'Jerry's just because that's what's there. I'd welcome a local source of affordable produce with open arms.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Farmer Jane

So it appears the program got major funding in 2010 - a year after the Ag study was published in 2009. Or several months. Anyway, good catch, John Mace.



yadda yadda


Why we're spending $15B in preventive health when half of Americans don't have health insurance is beyond me, but that's just the liberal weenie in me talking.

Go look at the linked article, those studies were not broad nor were the programs.

And yes, you don't get to dictate the countries spending choices from the interwebs, feel free to run for congress.

But as far as I can remember there may have been some stories about them passing a law in an attempt to fix that health insurance issue...but I may be wrong.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Farmer Jane

So it appears the program got major funding in 2010 - a year after the Ag study was published in 2009. Or several months. Anyway, good catch, John Mace.

A vague reference to results from a study giving no details about how the study was conducted. The other two studies were after the program started. And this is an actual experiment, not just a survey based on existing situations. As a scientist, I'd hardly say that the three studies cited close the books on this and we know the answer. One might argue that the experiment in question isn't going to either, or that it's not a good experiment, but let's not pretend we already have the answers.

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by Farmer Jane

Why we're spending $15B in preventive health when half of Americans don't have health insurance is beyond me, but that's just the liberal weenie in me talking.

Isn't that money well spent whether everybody had great insurance or everybody has no insurance at all or anything inbetween? Either you've saved the insurance more money than you spent or you kept people healthier than they would have otherwise been.

[Farmer Jane]

Originally Posted by sleestak

And you assume that people buy food based on calorie content. They don't. They buy based on servings. When you compare food cost on servings, healthy food is cheaper.

There are a couple of things that get me really riled up. Children and health care. I agree with what you say - to a point. One of the problems is that poor people don't always 'have time' to cook. Well, once up on a time, before drive-thrus, people (gasp) cooked. Or ate sandwiches. I hate cooking and will probably never like cooking and my students can cook a lot more than I can. They also eat junk and laugh at my cottage cheese and fiber breads. So, the whole, "Well don't judge people for eating junk on the run!" doesn't fly with me.

And anyone who is buying a $5 meal at McDonald's (though I believe it's more in the larger cities) can't shop cheaply. Everyone knows a Colfax street burrito is cheaper and fills you up longer.

Still, soup over bread is a pretty cheap dinner. $1 can of soup over a couple slices of bread feeds at least 2. You're comparing eating out to eating in, and that's not fair.

I sometimes do the lunch runs at work because my boss has so much admin work to do during lunchtime. I spent $8 getting him a philly cheese steak and $6 at Wendy's on a medium sized #1 and $4 for a Chick-Fil-A sandwich.

Now, the Dollar Menu gets you a hot meal for a couple of bucks. I've definitely been there. But if I had to choose between a banana for .50 and a McChicken for $1 I'd go for the chicken. monstro is correct when she talks about food prices and how they can correlate to choices. But again, just because someone is plopping affordable food in front of you doesn't mean you'll buy it.

Our food habits are that - habits. And just like other lunch programs in the country (Chicago, LA) that tried to ban junk food and give healthy options (that the kids rejected), I'm going to venture a guess and say this program won't combat obesity. Or make people eat healthier.

Not surprisingly, KFC would like the state of PA to pay for its food. Link. That's apparently failed.

[Farmer Jane]

Originally Posted by John Mace

A vague reference to results from a study giving no details about how the study was conducted. The other two studies were after the program started. And this is an actual experiment, not just a survey based on existing situations. As a scientist, I'd hardly say that the three studies cited close the books on this and we know the answer. One might argue that the experiment in question isn't going to either, or that it's not a good experiment, but let's not pretend we already have the answers.

Here is the study. Well, the short version.

Again, Bricker said that liberals had a good idea but it wasn't going to work in practice because reality always trumps ideology.

This program has been done in other cities (or is being implemented) and we'll see if it works.

I'm not optimistic. Hope I'm wrong.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I'll also note that the Philadelphia experiment was partially funded with stimulus money. That was supposed to get the economy back on track, not fund social experiments.

Are those goals mutually exclusive? I would be surprised if adding fresh produce inventory didn't also create some jobs, and it sounded to me like there were also some new stores created as a result of this program.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Are those goals mutually exclusive? I would be surprised if adding fresh produce inventory didn't also create some jobs, and it sounded to me like there were also some new stores created as a result of this program.

It's an experiment. It's hard enough to know for certain how many jobs will be created by tried and true methods, much less with something that has never been done before.

And just to be clear, it's not like I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that some of the stimulus money got diverted into an experiment. I was just pointing out another problem with programs like these-- they have a way of sneaking into legislation whose intent is something else.

[Jamicat]

In a radius of One Mile around me (walking distance) there is...

5 Fast Food (Wendy's, Checker's, etc...(w/options of Salad and Fruit or Low Carb)
5 Restaurants (Pizza, Chinese, etc...(w/options of Salad and Fruit or Low Carb)
5 Sit Down Restaurants ( Italian, Mideastern, BBQ, etc...(w/options of Salad and Fruit or Low Carb)
5 Supermarkets (w/ Fresh Veg n Fruit)
5 Box Stores (w/ Fresh Veg's n Fruit)
5 Gas n Convenience Store (w/ Salad n Fruit)
5 CVS, Wallgreens, etc...(w/ Low Carb Food Options)
5 Pub's n Food (w/option for Low Carb)
5 Veggy n Fruit Stands


Where is there an instance of me not being able to Choose?

I choose to eat Crap most of the time, because that's what taste good and fills me up.

Personally I go back n forth between good n bad food.

Just because Healthy Food is there and accessible, does not make someone want to buy it.

On the other hand, If one of those "Veggy n Fruit Stands" were right next door to me, I might grab something there more often, as I need it, fresh Cilantro and such.



(I mentally counted all these places, there is a lot more of them in my area)

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Jamicat

Just because Healthy Food is there and accessible, does not make someone want to buy it.

On the other hand, If one of those "Veggy n Fruit Stands" were right next door to me, I might grab something there more often, as I need it, fresh Cilantro and such.

Clearly we need to do an experiment where everyone in the country has a fresh fruit/vegetable stand next door. That might also do something about the housing crisis, as we turn foreclosed properties into farmers' markets.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by John Mace

It's an experiment. It's hard enough to know for certain how many jobs will be created by tried and true methods, much less with something that has never been done before.

And just to be clear, it's not like I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that some of the stimulus money got diverted into an experiment. I was just pointing out another problem with programs like these-- they have a way of sneaking into legislation whose intent is something else.

I need to point out that there is a lack of evidence that the government can stimulate the economy at will. There is evidence that these attempts do stimulate votes for incumbents.

So I would say they are directly tied to the primary legislative intent of getting incumbents re-elected.

[septimus]

The U.S.A. spends about $2.5 trillion annually on health care, with poorer results than other developed countries, all of which have much lower spending per capita. The effects of poor diet, especially obesity, has a very significant effect on U.S. health costs and outcomes.

Simple arithmetic tells us that spending tens of billions of dollars to improve diets could be money well spent. Yet we have someone complaining about the cost of a $900,000 pilot program.

As others have pointed out, junk food is generally cheaper and much more convenient than a healthier diet. Many people lack the time to prepare food; many poor people lack the tools.

The debate should not be on the question of whether public policy should encourage better eating; it should be about how to do that. Banning sugary drinks in public schools is one simple step that has had positive effect. We need to explore other such ideas, not assume that unfettered Dog-eat-dog economics will achieve an optimal result automatically.

Government subsidies and taxes can play an important role. As iiandyiiii pointed out, the U.S. presently subsidizes corn production. That's a mistake.

I don't have specific programs to suggest, but right-wing reaction is a big problem. Whether you blame it on apathy, poor education, a rushed society, perverse subsidies, cynical advertising or whatever, the fact is that many Americans eat very poorly. Right-thinking people would want to find solutions.

Instead, many Americans rant about freedom, delight in blaming the victim or punishing the ignorant, regard corporations who cater to consumer ignorance as capitalism at its finest, and manage to ridicule even a $900,000 pilot program to give the underclass better access to vegetables.

Bah.

[Farmer Jane]

Philly was also boosted in $25M in stimulus, according to the OP.

But the attitude that $900,000 here, there and everywhere is no big deal part of the problem. This is the president who said he'd comb through every page to eliminate waste. Is trying this kind of thing a good idea? Sure! But it doesn't mean it will work.

I don't blame the President for funding it at all. But it's being replicated elsewhere with little result...and we have no idea if there will be studies to see if the Philly program works. It's shocking how much the government doesn't audit or make itself accountable, even with the Government Accountability Office.

Philadelphia has spent quite a bit on the food desert issue. Millions. The Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative got $30M from the state and raised another $120M. They give grants and loans to mom and pop shops in low-income areas.

The government has spent billions over the years trying to get people to be healthy and make the right lifestyle choice. Yet obesity rates are rising. What's a gubmint to do?

[monstro]

Originally Posted by Farmer Jane

Do you regularly cherry-pick threads? I mean, Bricker already provided cites. But according to your logic, just because these programs don't work elsewhere doesn't mean it can't work in Philly.

I can find evidence to support a cynical view of anything. I can point to the failures of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars as evidence that war just doesn't work (hmm, maybe there's something to that). I can point to the presence of incompetent school teachers as evidence that college education is a waste of time. I can point to the fact that clapping my hands won't make it rain as evidence that flying aircraft can't change the weather.

Do you see where I am going with this?

Originally Posted by septimus

I don't have specific programs to suggest, but right-wing reaction is a big problem. Whether you blame it on apathy, poor education, a rushed society, perverse subsidies, cynical advertising or whatever, the fact is that many Americans eat very poorly. Right-thinking people would want to find solutions.

That's what I am thinking too.

What is the conservative solution to poverty-related obesity? Stationing prim-faced schoolmarms at check-out counters to issue judgment at "bad" consumer purchases, round the clock? Taking EBT cards away from people who buy Fruity Pebbles over Kashi? Not doing a damn thing but complaining about all the fat poor people?

If poor people are too stupid and immoral to make healthy choices when choices become available to them, then there is no solution, right? It's an intractable problem, like hurricanes and earthquakes. We might as well just accept the reality and stop complaining.

[Farmer Jane]

So, monstro, do you think these programs will work? Why or why not? Didn't you spend a lot of time educating us today on how much easier it is for a poor person to buy a cheap $5 McDonald's meal instead of invest in something nutritious?

[WhyNot]

One of the things I rarely hear mentioned, and perhaps this is because people are too afraid of being called racist for it, is that you really can't expect to succeed going in and providing people with access to the wrong varieties of fruits and vegetables for their cultural background.

When my clients tell me about what they eat, I rarely hear the urban black ones mention broccoli or peapods. If you put broccoli or peapods in their convenience stores, I don't think they're going to buy them. Put some collards and green tomatoes in there and I bet they'd move better. Not because, stereotypically, Black People like collards and green tomatoes, but because actual, individual black people like collards and green tomatoes. Some of them, of course, and others don't, but they seem to be much more popularly mentioned than broccoli or peapods or other things I see in cell-o packets at Walgreens.

In other words...is anyone doing any actual on the ground research to find out what people in this particular neighborhood actually like to eat, but don't have daily access to?

[monstro]

Originally Posted by Farmer Jane

So, monstro, do you think these programs will work? Why or why not? Didn't you spend a lot of time educating us today on how much easier it is for a poor person to buy a cheap $5 McDonald's meal instead of invest in something nutritious?

Can you please address me in a different tone, Farmer? Like, without the pointed questions designed to elicit a negative response?

I wouldn't expect to see instant results from any program. With the implementation of anything new and radical, there will be unforesee hitches (like the issue WhyNot brings up about culture) and there will be unhappy parties. When it comes to changing people's lifestyles, expect to wait even longer for positive results to show up. Maybe it will take another generation for losses to be offset by gains.

The question isn't "Will it work?" It's how much do people really care about an issue to make sure it works. If they expect success to manifest itself in quick, readily apparent results, then they will always be disappointed. But if they are willing to invest in both time and money while adopting an adaptive management strategy, then things suddenly don't seem so unrealistic and daunting.

[Farmer Jane]

Studies Question the Pairing of Food Deserts and Obesity

I just don't believe monstro when she says that so many of these people in urban don't have access to proper food. Growing up for part of my life in a rural area, I definitely did not have access to proper food. We had a Mini Mart and a bar. But...one thing about cities is the ability to find food anytime, anywhere. Stocking kale at a local mini mart does NOTHING when there's a Chinese place, a burrito stand, a Wendy's, a McDonald's, a Save-a-Lot, etc.

There are some urban places that are true food deserts. Sun Valley in Denver is one. That neighborhood is a shithole.

Most of these kids in urban areas that the government is targeting are latchkey kids or they have far too much say in their food decisions. As for places that really do need grocery stores, what about the fact that there's a low profit margin in running a grocery store? If there was a demand, wouldn't there be a supply already?

The Denver program is taking pages from the Philly program. Because in Denver, Safeway is pushing to get money to open up grocery stores in these neighborhoods. The VP of the regional area is the co-chair of our task force. But Safeway has capital already...and Safeway isn't even the cheapest option for produce. (The Mexican grocery stores & Wal-Mart are.)

But I'd much rather see a real grocery store put in a poor neighborhood than pushing a mom and pop candy shop to sell bananas. At least, I think it's a better model. Only time will tell. Unfortunately, the data isn't looking good.

[monstro]

Oh yes...

If a person only has McDonald's at their avail, then they have no choice but to eat at McDonald's, correct? If you present the person with another option and he refuses it, fine. You can be as judgmental as you want. But you can't be judgmental about choices he is unable to make.

I grew up right across from a Mom and Pop store. I guess we were lucky because it had a produce section, but the bins were frequently full of spoiling, misshapen, fly-blown food. But the junk food aisle was always pristine and well-stocked. We had options--this much is true. But it's insane to insist those options cost the same or that our purchasing decisions in that store were predictive of our behavior in a totally different one.

[Farmer Jane]

Originally Posted by monstro

Oh yes...

If a person only has McDonald's at their avail, then they have no choice but to eat at McDonald's, correct?

You have got to be kidding. I just said that a real grocery store is better than a mom and pop store selling brown bananas. But you apparently refuse to listen. I'm tired of this debate tactic.

Also, please provide data that says McDonald's is the only food option for many Americans.

[monstro]

Originally Posted by Farmer Jane

Studies Question the Pairing of Food Deserts and Obesity

I just don't believe monstro when she says that so many of these people in urban don't have access to proper food.

I am pleading with you to stop, Farmer. I haven't said this in this thread or any other.

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by fumster

I prefer the conseratives approach: we know what's best, let's do the opposite.

Try again. Quite obviously, you know nothing about conservatives.

We don't say that we know better. What we do say is make your own choices but take responsibility for your actions. That's why The War On Big Gulps is so asinine. Let people drink all the Big Gulps and eat all the sugar, etc., that they want. But they shouldn't expect society to take care of them when they pork up to 400 pounds and have heart problems and diabetes. Actions have consequences.

[Farmer Jane]

So your story about the woman eating junk at a mini mart after a double shift was never posted?



You've made it very clear that you refuse to judge anyone's food choices or the government's response to them. (Unless, of course, the government wants to restrict paying for cookies.)

[Eonwe]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Try again. Quite obviously, you know nothing about conservatives.

We don't say that we know better. What we do say is make your own choices but take responsibility for your actions. That's why The War On Big Gulps is so asinine. Let people drink all the Big Gulps and eat all the sugar, etc., that they want. But they shouldn't expect society to take care of them when they pork up to 400 pounds and have heart problems and diabetes. Actions have consequences.

Except that fat, Big-Gulping republicans do expect to be taken care of. That's the pathetic irony of all this. Because 99% of those "I'm a grown-up boy and can make my own choices and accept the consequences" people will sure as hell take advantage of whatever cheap/free/subsidized options there are out there, principles be damned.

[Odesio]

There are places in the United States where access to healthy food is problematic. I work on one such area in Little Rock. If you want to go to a grocery store you need a car. Otherwise you've got a few fast food places, liquor stores, one outrageously expensive corner grocer and some gas station convenience stores. If you don't have an automobile you're out of luck.

[ZPG Zealot]

Originally Posted by Farmer Jane

...you can get a full meal at McDonald's for $5?

Also, if you are a female, you don't need to be eating 1200 calories in one meal.

Not necessarily, some poor women do day laborer work (landscaping, cleaning debris or brush, etc.) if they can get it. It pays better, but it's hard, physical labor that will easily absorb the energy of a 1200 callorie meal.

[ZPG Zealot]

Originally Posted by WhyNot

One of the things I rarely hear mentioned, and perhaps this is because people are too afraid of being called racist for it, is that you really can't expect to succeed going in and providing people with access to the wrong varieties of fruits and vegetables for their cultural background.

When my clients tell me about what they eat, I rarely hear the urban black ones mention broccoli or peapods. If you put broccoli or peapods in their convenience stores, I don't think they're going to buy them. Put some collards and green tomatoes in there and I bet they'd move better. Not because, stereotypically, Black People like collards and green tomatoes, but because actual, individual black people like collards and green tomatoes. Some of them, of course, and others don't, but they seem to be much more popularly mentioned than broccoli or peapods or other things I see in cell-o packets at Walgreens.

In other words...is anyone doing any actual on the ground research to find out what people in this particular neighborhood actually like to eat, but don't have daily access to?

This is a very good point. My neighborhood has grocery stores within walking and bicycling distance. I rarely shop at them unless it's picking up one or two items fast because while they have plenty of fresh and cheap vegetables, fruit, etc. their selections is mostly tailored to Mexican Americans. Good, healthy tortillas are fresh made in the store, but not rye bread. I hope they are doing some research into what the local people might actually want to eat.

[MaxTheVool]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Try again. Quite obviously, you know nothing about conservatives.

We don't say that we know better. What we do say is make your own choices but take responsibility for your actions. That's why The War On Big Gulps is so asinine. Let people drink all the Big Gulps and eat all the sugar, etc., that they want. But they shouldn't expect society to take care of them when they pork up to 400 pounds and have heart problems and diabetes. Actions have consequences.

It's worth pointing out that the big gulp ban was proposed by a republican mayor, and that Jon Stewart, who is much of a spokesman for the generally liberal opinion as there is, devoted an entire segment of his show to mocking it mercilessly.

I agree that there are some parallels between banning big gulps and actual policies that actual liberals actual support, but they're only parallels, it is in NO way a liberal policy.

[MsWhatsit]

I'm a liberal who thinks that policies like big gulp bans or trans fat bans or Super Size bans are insanely stupid, if you're looking for more data points.

Programs like the one mentioned in the OP sound like they might be worth trying, although if they've already been tried and found not to be effective, then it's time to try something else instead.

[monstro]

Farmer, I didn't say anything about "urban" anything or urban people not having any choices. If you can't remember what I have said, please keep my name out of your posts.

Do poor people have very many choices? No, they don't, and I don't see how you can sit there and say otherwise. On my way to walking to work, I get to a stretch of town where the closet grocery store is two miles away. That isn't far if you have a car, but if you get around on foot and bus pass, it's a chore. But there is a 7-11. It's my go-to spot if I should find myself in need of water if it's hot.

What options do they offer? To their credit, they do have some meager fruit options available. You can get a banana for sixty cents and a cupful of grapes for $2.00. Together, about that's 150 calories, some fiber, and some vitamins for $2.60 (excluding tax).

You know how much a honey bun costs? A dollar. You know how many calories a honey bun provides? Not 150. Not 300. But 450. And it will make you feel full and satisfied. A banana and a handful of grapes? Not so much.

If you've got a dollar to buy lunch with, the right choice is NOT clear. You don't have a plethora of options, all costing the same. Some options are definitely more cost-effective than others.

Twisting my words will not make it easier for you to debate with me.

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

It's worth pointing out that the big gulp ban was proposed by a republican mayor, and that Jon Stewart, who is much of a spokesman for the generally liberal opinion as there is, devoted an entire segment of his show to mocking it mercilessly.

Hey! Stop messing up a perfectly good stereotype theory with FACTS, mister! I'm gonna tell Stephen Colbert on you!

(And yeah, this leftist liberal hippie chick thinks the Big Gulp ban is absolutely stupid, too.)

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by MsWhatsit

I'm a liberal who thinks that policies like big gulp bans or trans fat bans or Super Size bans are insanely stupid, if you're looking for more data points.

I'd call myself a conservative. Yet I would be all for a trans fat ban or limit. This assumes two things. Trans fat is actually bad as some claim. And that substitutes are only marginally more expensive. Kinda like requiring iodine in salt or certain vitamins in bread. In these cases the cost to the consumer are almost invisible but the benefits to them and society can be quite substantial.

[MaxTheVool]

As for the overall issue, I don't have much to say about the actual example under discussion, but I think the generic philosophical issue is an interesting one worth talking about.

And yes, one part of the general liberal mindset is to see problems in society, and to try to come up with ways that government can help solve those problems. Frequently that involves spending tax money. And, liberals being as susceptible to stupidity, short-sightedness and/or corruption as any other people, these solutions are undoubtedly sometimes terrible ideas, and sometimes purely schemes to line the pockets of rich liberal donors. But I certainly believe that the general "use governmental power and money to make society better" idea is one that has proven itself to be incredibly beneficial over the course of US history.

A few other comments concerning various things that have been brought up so far this thread:
(1) The point of stimulus money, as I understand it, is to be spent on things, and thus get "out there" and get the wheels of the economy turning again. Therefore, a program like this is a perfectly appropriate use of stimulus money... as are most things other than "extremely corrupt politician just pockets it and walks away".
(2) A bit of rhetoric that pops up frequently in discussions like this is "liberals think they know what's best for you". Which is kind of meaningless. Everyone thinks they know what's best for you. Conservatives think that learning English and not having pre-marital sex is best for you, liberals think that eating organic produce and not consuming nuclear power is best for you. Or whatever. The question is what they do with that opinion. When liberalism is at its best, I think what it does with that opinion is set things up to discourage something without banning it, or encourage something without requiring it. Cigarette taxes and warning labels are a good example of that... and the proposal under discussion in this thread aspires to that goal as well. Now, my natural snarkiness compels me to point out that there are some cases where conservatives think they know what's best for you (don't smoke pot, don't get gay married) where they are clearly the ones supporting laws restricting rights... But overall, I don't so much think that liberals come out better on the "think they know what's best for you" competition as I just think it's a meaningless and fairly ill-defined thing to say in the first place, particularly when it's presented as this smug encapsulation of the entire concept of liberalism.
(3) Speaking purely for myself, I don't think the government should be in the business of banning big gulps, but I think that taxing big gulps is a perfectly reasonable thing to do (I mean, I'm not saying it SHOULD be done, but I'm saying that it certainly COULD be done without setting off any warning bells for me). I also think it's far more reasonable for the government to put restrictions on what business can or can not do than on what individuals can or can not do. When evaluating a proposed law that limits what individuals can/can not do, you both have to convince me that your law will make society better, AND that it does not violate individual rights. When evaluating a proposed law that limits what businesses can or can not do, only one of those requirements must be met. (OK, it's a bit more complicated than that, if anyone wants to really get into the precise details...)

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

We don't say that we know better. What we do say is make your own choices but take responsibility for your actions.

Nah, conservatives don't tell people how to live their lives. They don't try to legislate who may marry whom. They don't try to tell women what they can and can't do with their own bodies. They would never suggest you can't use marijuana in your own home. I could go on.

The truth is some conservatives spend a large part of their lives telling others what they can and can't do. To pretend otherwise is simply foolish.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by MaxTheVool

It's worth pointing out that the big gulp ban was proposed by a republican mayor, and that Jon Stewart, who is much of a spokesman for the generally liberal opinion as there is, devoted an entire segment of his show to mocking it mercilessly.

I agree that there are some parallels between banning big gulps and actual policies that actual liberals actual support, but they're only parallels, it is in NO way a liberal policy.

Um... Did I miss a memo? Michael Bloomberg proposed the Big Gulp ban. Not a Republican.

[MsWhatsit]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Um... Did I miss a memo? Michael Bloomberg proposed the Big Gulp ban. Not a Republican.

I had to check Wiki to confirm Bloomberg's political affiliation, because I was sure he was a Republican. Just to save everyone else the time:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

A Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his registration in 2001 and ran for mayor as a Republican, winning the election that year and a second term in 2005. Bloomberg left the Republican Party over policy and philosophical disagreements with national party leadership in 2007 and ran for his third term in 2009 as an independent candidate on the Republican ballot line.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by monstro

Let's say you are right and this green grocer idea is a waste of money.

Isn't there some benefit to actually finding out that it doesn't work then presuming it wouldn't without even trying? One benefit that I can see is that it would inform other, more practical solutions (that "middle ground" I mentioned earlier). Another is that you've got a sound argument for not doing something like it ever again. There is some value in being able to say to the angry mob, "We tried that already, remember?"

Prior studies already exist. How many times should we need to try this?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Bricker: Did you notice that this program was started before the studies you cited were published?

Also, is there some reason you didn't link to the article?

n.b.: I'm no fan of such programs, preferring to let people make their own choices. I'll also note that the Philadelphia experiment was partially funded with stimulus money. That was supposed to get the economy back on track, not fund social experiments.

No, because it's not so.

The Leeds study was done in 2003.