But… you still have to get to McDonalds. Why do you count that towards the “price” of groceries, but ignore it in regards to McDonalds? You should assume that the cost of travelling is the same in both places, it seems.
The $5 of turkey and bread doesn’t buy as many calories as the $5 at McDonalds, which means it has both its pros and its cons. If you think about having to get a minimum of 1500 calories per day, the cheapest way to do that is with fat. If you think about having to get a maximum of 1500 calories per day, the easiest way to do that is without fat.
In other words, if you look at it from the perspective of how cheaply can a person eat, you’ll find that the cheapest way for them to get their necessary calories is with “junk” foods.
If you look at it from the perspective of how nutritiously can a person eat, you’ll find that the best way for them to get their necessary calories is with “non-junk” foods.
The problem is that these two impulses are at war. 1500 calories of lean meats and veg will cost you more than 1500 calories of Twinkies. There’s no doubt that the former is better for you than the latter, but there is also no doubt that the latter is cheaper than the former.
I just don’t trust any government to handle this well. In Minnesota, we have a 6-6.5% sales tax, that isn’t applied to food in a grocery store. Bread isn’t taxed, snack foods aren’t taxed. That works just fine for me. But imagine that they were going to decide WHICH foods from the grocer would be taxed. Minnesota is the home of several food companies. You can bet that they would be lobbying very hard to have they products on the “not taxed” list, while their competitors end up on the “taxed” list. Is ice cream not health and cheese is? How about low cal ice cream. Where to you put frozen meals. Does it matter if it’s meatloaf, mashed potatoes and gravy vs a “lean” meal? Where does fruit juice fall?
I can’t imagine the amount of time and effort that would go into putting together a list for this, and then next year, it would have to be done all over again, because of new foods, or new medical studies.
From my travels in the less than wealthy neighborhoods, you’ll find fast food joints much, much easier than supermarkets. The situation isn’t much different in the wealthier neighborhoods (you just have a higher percentage of more expensive places to eat). When I was visiting my cousin at the UofChicago, I took us gambling. Because of the construction on I-90, I couldn’t get on a ramp and had to drive paralell along the tollway through the poor neighborhoods. I think I saw one market, and there were a ton of fast food joints (and liquor stores). You’ll see nearly the same composition in the richer neighborhoods/suburbs (but just less liquor stores for some reason).
This deals partially with the concept that economists call “opportunity cost”, which has already been implicitly discussed by other posters.
A person who goes to the closest McDonald’s isn’t just buying a Big Mac with fries and a Coke. They are buying convenience that a grocery store just can’t match. Fruit compared to candy is fine, but neither candy nor fruit make a satisfying meal on their own, nor does a visit to the grocery store. The preparation of a substandard meal by an incompetent cook (about which I happen to know quite a lot) is a costly enterprise, though not in the sense that most people imagine when they think of costliness. It doesn’t help that the kitchenly-disadvantadged are left with unsatisfactory dining experiences after their strenuous exertions.
There is also some research to support similar ideas. From the journal The Future of Children (which seems to be available only by subscription), John Cawley’s article “Markets and Childhood Obesity Policy” has this to claim:
I don’t know how well founded this particular research is, but this is more than just a baseless hypothesis floating around the ether to be idly plucked by anyone who wants to put it forth as an argument. There is a very real problem here that the convenient, cheap food is the unhealthier food.
Anorexia is very dangerous. I can see a tax on people who are too skinny. Someone has to decide. I will tell you where to send the naked pictures . I will send a hit squad for those too fat or too thin. Trust me I can do this.
That may be, if the produce is in-season. But yeah, I’ll go with you on that. The cost is in time, not money.
I am one of those people who works two jobs. I do not have the TIME to prepare a lot of food. This goes doubly so for people who have children. Cheap, easy-to-make junk food from the store (I’m thinking microwave dinners and heat-and-eat burritos) and McDonalds is a hell of a lot cheaper in time (time until you go to your next job, or time that you could be sleeping) and it gets your kids fed and stops them complaining.
Yes, there are easy to make, healthy meals. A lot of poor people don’t have the time or resources available to them to research them. They’re just trying to eke out a living.
So I think a tax on junk food is rediculous. The food itself isn’t inherently bad for you. Empty calories are not bad for you unless you consume a lot of them on a regular basis. Fat is not bad for you unless you consume a lot of it, on a regular basis. Maybe there should be a self-control tax? But then again, healthy food can get expensive - in both time and money - so then we’d be punishing the poor for being poor.
~Tasha
It’s not about how much fat they put into burgers and fries!! It’s the size of the portions!! There’s no poisons, only doses.
We should force fast food places to sell food in smaller portions. It’ll work much better than simply making fast food more expensive.
The rise of the dollar menu, in fact, is a good step in that direction. I am not sure how exactly such a law would be written, but if food could always be purches in one-dollar increments it will solve a lot of problems. It’s not like people really want to eat that much, they just consume what’s put in front of their face. (Many even feel bad if they throw something away.) Also, the seductive deals of “biggie size for $0.35” have to be stopped. Linear pricing only.
Also, I think we should mandate enriching fast food with vitamins and minerals. It is a complete attrocity that despite being fat, people are often actually malnourished! In 21st century America!
No, actually severe calorie restriction is the only thing proven by science (for nearly every species studied, although not as much research’s been done for humans) to prolong life 30%-50%, and prolong youth and stave off disease by as much. I have no idea where people come up with the ridiculous idea that anorexia is bad when it’s the healthies thing ever discovered. Malnutrition is bad, and an anorexic MUST get the necessary vitamins, minerals, and proteins. If he does, he’ll outlive all of you.