…what sort of hit would our economy take?
Well, I think the pharmaceuticals would definitely be affected the most. A lot less people would be on a lot less pills and insulin. Doctors and hospitals would be treating fewer patients. Health insurance might actually go DOWN for a change, which would be nice.
It’s an unanswerable question. People who are at a healthy weight are frequently eating more expensive foods. The story of obesity in the US is really the story of poverty. Families have neither the time nor the money to afford less calorie dense foods that are prone to spoilage. Ivanka Trump’s diet is very expensive compared to frozen french fries and chicken tenders. What has happened is really a miracle of modern agriculture. Calorie dense foods are extremely inexpensive. Ridiculously so. Healthier foods require more preparation and are much more expensive. Americans can choose between fast, cheap, calorie dense and let’s be frank-good tasting foods or slower, expensive, lower calorie foods that require a great deal of preparation to be palatable.
In the long run, an economy full of healthy people is going to be better than an economy with a lot of unhealthy people.
But in the near term we would be buying considerably less food (unless we start wasting more than we do now.)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
But wouldn’t that food be much more expensive? And take more time to prepare for meals?
Is it? My impression is the diseases of obesity aren’t disabling until a person is retired anyway (60+). A person will have complications of obesity before that, but I don’t know to what degree they will destroy a person’s ability to contribute to the economy. They may be on multiple medications, need various ergonomic aids, have more pain, etc. but they can still work in their 40s and 50s.
Yeah there are people in their 50s who are disabled due to complications of obesity, but it seems somewhat rare (although I’m sure its more common in blue collar jobs than white collar ones).
Developing cancer in your 70s isn’t the same drag on the economy as developing paralysis from polio at age 4 is. With the former, your productive years are already behind you.
On paper, from an amoral standpoint, the economy probably does best if people are healthy and fit during their working years, then die quickly after retirement.
This is coming close to WAG territory, but let’s take a shot.
[The minimum daily food energy requirement is 1,800 kCal.
The average daily intake in the U.S. is 3,800 kCal.](List of countries by food energy intake - Wikipedia)
Can you say we only need to spend half our money on food, and shrink agriculture by 50%. Not exactly, because while the total agriculture/food sector is close to $1 trillion, $140 billion of that is exports of commodities to other countries (and that’s just commodities, not accounting for finished products or value-added production.)
Now we’re down to $860 billion. Cutting that in half would be $430 billion. But remember that food production in general is a volume business where producing two units costs less than producing 2x1 unit. So, yeah, you end up paying more per calorie that you consume. Not twice as much, but for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s the 47% difference between organic and non-organic food. Rounding to 50% brings it to $645 billion.
That means cutting our caloric intake in half ends up in maybe a 25% reduction in our food bill? I doubt it’s even that much, because we’re spending about half our food budget on restaurants.The cost per household for eating food not prepared by you (take-out or out-of-home) is $3,000/yr., and I bet that number won’t budge.
So now we’re down to a 12.5% reduction in the amount we as consumers spend on food. Now let’s consider the savings in reducing the healthcare and productivity costs of obesity. The figures I can find say $147 billion in healthcare and ($3.38 billion to $6.38 billion, so let’s call it) $5 billion in lost productivity.
Leading to a savings of roughly $107 billion in food and $152 billion in healthcare and productivity. $259 billion, not counting the disruption of employment in agricultural and health-related industries. Obviously a net boon to the economy, but maybe not as much as we’d hope.
The people who were spending less money on food would spend the money they saved on other things instead.
So: zero.
Like, spending money on groceries at “Whole Paycheck?” Let’s face it, their produce is gorgeous and healthy, but there’s a reason the store has that nickname.
Why? The OP is talking about reducing calorie intake, which just means less food. Reduced demand usually leads to LOWER cost, not higher.
I thought we were talking about eating less food, not about eating fancier food. Reducing calorie intake just means eating less of the same stuff we eat now. You can keep eating fast food as long as you eat less of it.
Seeing how powerful the drive to eat is, I’m not sure people would just compensate by spending elsewhere.
Anyway, the economic disruption from job losses in agriculture, food manufacture, supermarkets and restaurants (not to mention health care) would be intense, regardless of how other sectors of the economy might improve.
The U.S. weight loss market alone is estimated at around $68 billion (in 2017).
Except, you can’t satisfy hunger by cutting fast food portions.
I’ve tried eating 2/3 of a quarter pounder and skipping the fries. I’m still hungry when I leave.
I’m miserable within an hour and can’t concentrate on my desk work. I can’t complete important assigned projects. Coins go into vending machines and bad Snacking occurs.
I’ve tried it many times throughout my life. I get about five bites out of a quarter pounder and it’s gone.
I have had success skipping the fries and Coke. I keep a water bottle near by as I eat. A baggie of sliced carrots a couple hours later gets me through the afternoon.
What’s key is those 5 bites of that burger. Three just won’t get me through the afternoon. Fast food just isn’t that filling.
I agree that the health effects would have the most significant economic impact. As for the actual food, I doubt it would significant. Here is a fascinating video of an NIH researcher who models calorie consumption in the human body. He has a successful and detailed model of all the food inputs to the body and the resulting changes. It won’t come as a big surprise that most of what people think they know about food consumption is wrong.
But to the OP, the researcher is able to estimate that currently 40% of all the food produced in or imported into the US is wasted. As food costs have fallen, waste not surprisingly has increased. So reducing the consumption to a healthy weight isn’t going to make a big change in the total food produced.
And BTW, NCAS and similar clubs around the world are a fascinating and educational resource!This is either psychological, or you are over-estimating the calories in the non fast food alternatives. There’s no nutritional reason a 2/3 of a quarter-pounder would be less filling than a kale and grilled chicken sandwich (or whatever your healthy option is) with the same number of calories.
I agree, no reason to think it would have any impact plus or minus in the future size of the whole economy in the medium to long run because there’s less consumption of a particular item as the OP question tends to imply. Although, there could be indirect effects which eventually affected the size of the economy. Like, as has been mentioned, the labor force being more productive because less obesity. Another could be reduced environmental costs to offset the negative externalities of a bigger ag sector like fertilizer pollution for example locally/nationally. And if fewer calories meant shifting away from beef and pork, that might have a measurable effect on the future costs of countering or adapting to climate change.
A high calorie food will occupy less space than a low-calorie food. To get the same number of calories you’d have to eat a larger volume and hence fill your stomach more.
I wasn’t trying to substitute a different meal for my favorite quarter pounder meal.
I was addressing the question of only eating enough to maintain a healthy weight. I recognized that American meals are too large as a teen. It didn’t help that my parents insisted that I clean my plate. I started using portion control after leaving home. I don’t let the restaurant decide how much I eat. I eat a small portion and walk away.
Eating smaller fast food portions is the approach that I take. Supersize me, is not a part of my daily vocabulary. That’s step 1. Then I eliminate the Soda for either water or unsweetened ice tea. (I really prefer mixing just a little sweet tea with unsweetened. But, I can make myself drink it entirely unsweetened.)
They are the easiest steps to slash daily calories and something I do routinely to maintain my target weight. I have refused to use artificial sweeteners and diet soda my entire adult life.
My first post addressed my attempts at eating smaller portions of the food in a quarter pounder meal. That gets much harder because fast food contains high calories and doesn’t have a lot of bulk to fill my stomach.
If you are eating until you feel physically full, you are eating too fast. If you eat more slowly, your blood sugar will rise and you will feel satiated before you ever feel physically full.