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.
Heh yes there was quite a bit of cherry picking in the OP, the article doesn’t even say what was claimed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. :eek:
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.
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.
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.
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. :rolleyes:
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)
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.
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.
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. :dubious:
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. :smack: 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. :smack:
Bah.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.