Isn’t part of the reason unhealthy food is so unhealthy is that it’s so cheap? It’s a lot cheaper do squeeze a bunch of refined corn products into a tube and call it a Twinkie than to make an organic cake out of real ingredients and deal with the 3 day shelf-life it would have.
The only way healthy food, if we’re talking about prepared foods here, to get any cheaper would be to make them out of cheaper components, which would remove the healthiness.
Which would explain my disdain for the allowance of this to occur. Sin taxes could apply here.
Don’t disagree.
Except, if healthy foods were more affordable than unhealthy foods, how would we eaters of healthy food be able to maintain our smug demeanor about doing so? They would have to make ultra-premium, even-more-healthy food we could lord over everyone else.
Yes, but if people are already making choices based on what is cheaper I don’t think they are going to take well to the concept of their grocery costs increasing because someone else likens twinkies to cigarettes. I think the better option would be to subsidize the other fruits and vegetables the way they do corn.
Because the healthy food producers don’t have a strong lobby?
I make peanut butter-banana-dark choco smoothies pretty frequently. I was having the same problem and then I hit on a brilliant idea: Bananas freeze beautifully.
Because I’m using them in smoothies, I break up each banana into smaller chunks and toss it in a zip loc baggie. When I need to make a smoothie, I just yank the baggie out of the freezer, dump the frozen banana in the blender and it turns out that frozen bananas give my smoothies the consistency of milkshakes.
I have no idea if they go mushy upon thawing, if you’re just wanting to snack on a bit of fresh fruit. I can tell you that blueberries also freeze easily and frozen blueberries are one of my favorite hot summer snacks.
Ok, I laughed.
This probably hit’s close to the point. My question is why people in power allow it to happen this way…
In a separate thread I stated that interest groups are running our company and running it into the ground, imo.
Since you ignored my post, I guess I’ll repeat myself. You start your thread out with this statement:
One could argue that it’s your thesis. But your solution isn’t to make anything cheaper! Time and again you’ve suggested that the way to make things more affordable is to raise the cost of cheaper unhealthy alternatives! That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
Erm… the “healthy food lobby” idea sort of falls apart here. I’m pretty sure that the same companies are producing the “healthy” beef, chips, and butter as the regular beef, chips, and butter.
Besides, if you’re really concerned with eating healthy, skip anything that can only be called “healthy”. The answer is not “healthy” potato chips, it’s *fewer *potato chips.
Well, my premise is that taxing “unhealthy foods” would lead more producers into creating “healthy foods”. This would cause market competition allowing the healthier foods to come down in price.
Then what do I make with the resulting hamburger soup?
I’m not concerned about eating healthy. I make enough to cover the increased expenditure of eating right, but alot of folks just don’t enjoy that luxury. If it wasn’t cheaper to eat like shit, no one would eat shit.
Um… Hamburger soup!
But those things ARE shit. If you’re concerned about the poor eating healthy, well… they should be encouraged (like everyone else) to eat things that are actually GOOD for them, which also happen to be affordable.
I don’t eat primarily veggies, rice, beans, pasta, and lean meats and fish because I can’t afford “healthy” chips. I eat them because they’re good for me. Not, you’ll notice, “good” for me.
You have yet to demonstrate that it is cheaper to “eat like shit”. In fact, you have plainly ignored everyone in this thread who has bothered to point out how cheap it is to eat healthy foods.
I noticed that too while studying in Kyoto. I thought buying your food daily was great because you could only take what you could carry home (the closest markets were in alleys with no room for shopping carts, let alone parking spaces.) Markets were smaller and more numerous so your chances of living within walking distance was higher and it didn’t seem like a chore like it would be here in America. Unfortunately, I think that it wouldn’t fly back here since not many people are able to live close enough to walk to a store (unsafe neighborhoods, crossing major roads, etc.) and the habit of shopping with gigantic carts and buying five of everything to stockpile because it’s on sale this week is too ingrained in our lifestyle.
This topic was the cover story in the latest Time Magazine: Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food
There’s a cover story on this month’s Time magazine on exactly this topic:
Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food
On preview: D’oh!
The shelf life has a lot to do with it for perishables.
Out of every load of produce, a store can pretty much count on having to dispose of X% having to be disposed of, resulting not only in the initial loss of the investment, but of the disposal fee itself.
Skim milk has a much shorter shelf life than whole milk, half and half and cream. Poultry tends to be more perishable than beef or pork. The more of these items that have to be thrown out, the higher the prices have to be to maintain the same profit margin.