|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
What Separates A Healthy And Unhealthy Diet? Just $1.50 Per Day
If you want to eat a more healthful diet, you're going to have to shell out more cash, right? (After all, Whole Foods didn't get the nickname "Whole Paycheck" for nothing.)
But until recently, that widely held bit of conventional wisdom hadn't really been assessed in a rigorous, systematic way, says Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health.
So he and his colleagues decided to pore over 27 studies from 10 different developed countries that looked at the retail prices of food grouped by healthfulness. Across these countries, it turns out, the cost difference between eating a healthful and unhealthful diet was pretty much the same: about $1.50 per day. And that price gap held true when they focused their research just on U.S. food prices, the researchers found in their meta-analysis of these studies. ...
Link
|
That's pretty interesting. However, what did they categorize as healthful and unhealthful? I guess I need to dive into the source and figure out what they actually researched. Honestly, it makes quite a lot of sense, and I've never really understood why people say eating healthy is expensive... or difficult to cook (one of the two, invariably).
|
Nothing on availability, ehh? The price point of healthy food (and the according one for junk food) is merely one component of the US's fat and eat stupid problem.
|
On December 08 2013 04:47 farvacola wrote:
Nothing on availability, ehh? The price point of healthy food (and the according one for junk food) is merely one component of the US's fat and eat stupid problem.
If healthy is only $1.50 a day extra, consumers should be financially able to demand healthy food from retailers. Why they don't in some cases, is a good question.
|
If that 1.50 does not take into account things like the opportunity cost of shopping/travel time or the budget casuistries that go into the poor's estimation as to what they can and can not afford, it serves as a neat talking point and nothing more.
|
It is odd. I've done a lot of looking myself and it really doesn't take much money to eat healthy, or to eat in general.
I think these two components contribute significantly:
Some people are just bad at shopping for bargains/cheapness.
In certain areas, especially some inner city areas; there aren't good supermarkets so you have to buy from smaller stores that have higher prices.
|
On December 08 2013 05:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 04:47 farvacola wrote:
Nothing on availability, ehh? The price point of healthy food (and the according one for junk food) is merely one component of the US's fat and eat stupid problem. If healthy is only $1.50 a day extra, consumers should be financially able to demand healthy food from retailers. Why they don't in some cases, is a good question.
Healthy food, healthy life choices, healthy lifestyle? It makes so much sense, why doesn't everybody do it!
Culturally, we've seen a move away from generally cooking your own food, including vegetables. We've seen more acceptability of constant high-fat and/or sugary foods as the normal meal. Thank God all the green nuts have not gotten to my non-organic vegetables ... they're very cheap. Same with eggs and dairy.
Aside from the verbal/light advertising associated with informing citizens about the benefits of healthy eating, I don't see a big government role in the whole thing.
|
On December 08 2013 02:52 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 17:59 Introvert wrote:On December 07 2013 14:35 IgnE wrote:On December 07 2013 10:58 coverpunch wrote:On December 07 2013 09:31 IgnE wrote:On December 07 2013 07:11 aksfjh wrote:On December 07 2013 03:41 IgnE wrote:On December 07 2013 03:22 aksfjh wrote:On December 07 2013 02:25 WhiteDog wrote:On December 06 2013 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Yes, agreed, that's the implication. But what's the mechanism for driving the wages down? Is it something like wage subsides increase the amount of people willing to work and that increased supply drives down the price for unskilled labor? "Willing to work" makes everything you say wrong. It's not a simple market, people, at this level of income, do not "desire" to work, they have to. I f the subsides were to end, Walmart would be forced to drive wages up because the wages would go under a subsistance level, subsistance level that dictate the level of the lowest income (since Adam Smith). The supply and demand modelisation of labor market is so 1930ish btw. What about all the work showing that an increase in minimal wage can go along with a decrease in unemployment ? Not necessarily. Because the unskilled are often uneducated about risks and obscure problems that occur, they would be willing to work for less than the lowest "necessary" income level to remain competitive in the market. They would expose themselves to higher levels of risk, and in the case that they didn't prepare at all, cause great cumulative damage to society and the economy as those risks turned into disasters. You seem to be talking about some kind of transition period where people briefly work below subsistence levels before everything turns into shit and rebellion is in the air. Seems like he was talking about the untenable, rebellion in the air turning point. This happened quite a bit back before the Great Depression (and some during). There's a reason why children were encouraged to work, and not just because they could fit into maintenance areas. The entire family was expected to work in order to get ahead. If somebody in the family couldn't work, then the family was stuck with barely enough to afford food and clothing on 12-16 hour workdays. and back in paleolithic times the women and children foraged while the men hunted. people died when the winter came or the hunts failed. wait, how does this relate to the present again? It relates to the probability of seeing armed insurrection or a revolution in modern developed countries based on relative poverty. I think it's a ridiculous argument and "pay more taxes or I'll rob you" is a really bad direction to approach inequality. Desperate times call for desperate measures. "Hey why were you born with all this wealth while we are starving. You need to give us some." It's more ridiculous to think that the wealthy are going to do shit all about redistribution except accumulate more. But our precious Constitution and society! What about the sanctity of private property? I suppose if you knew some of our history you might actually know what the framers thought about these things! I don't suspect you do, however. A key phrase is "tyranny of the majority." At most you know a singular quote (or two) from Madison that proves everything is "for the rich." What did American Tories think of this "tyranny of the majority?" What happened to their property? How about the Confederates? What about their property and freedoms?
That's one way to ignore what I said.
To be nitpicky for a second- throughout the revolution, the nation was pretty evenly split. It was ~33% for the crown, ~33% for the revolution, and ~33% were indifferent. (all these numbers are, of course, approximate.)
But moreover, that was not democratic tyranny.
The confederates got their land razed to the ground because they were in a war against their own countrymen... The northern generals had a very "aggressive" policy, in that regard. But that was a war.
Not tyranny of the majority.
By the way, the Confederate government treated people and citizens horribly, confiscating land, property, etc. They were so desperate that by the end they had taken massive amounts from the people under them.
That wasn't tyranny of the majority, either.
|
On December 07 2013 17:59 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 14:35 IgnE wrote:On December 07 2013 10:58 coverpunch wrote:On December 07 2013 09:31 IgnE wrote:On December 07 2013 07:11 aksfjh wrote:On December 07 2013 03:41 IgnE wrote:On December 07 2013 03:22 aksfjh wrote:On December 07 2013 02:25 WhiteDog wrote:On December 06 2013 08:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 06 2013 07:29 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
He is implying the assistance is what permit Walmart and Mc Donalds to give such low wages in the first place. Yes, agreed, that's the implication. But what's the mechanism for driving the wages down? Is it something like wage subsides increase the amount of people willing to work and that increased supply drives down the price for unskilled labor? "Willing to work" makes everything you say wrong. It's not a simple market, people, at this level of income, do not "desire" to work, they have to. I f the subsides were to end, Walmart would be forced to drive wages up because the wages would go under a subsistance level, subsistance level that dictate the level of the lowest income (since Adam Smith). The supply and demand modelisation of labor market is so 1930ish btw. What about all the work showing that an increase in minimal wage can go along with a decrease in unemployment ? Not necessarily. Because the unskilled are often uneducated about risks and obscure problems that occur, they would be willing to work for less than the lowest "necessary" income level to remain competitive in the market. They would expose themselves to higher levels of risk, and in the case that they didn't prepare at all, cause great cumulative damage to society and the economy as those risks turned into disasters. You seem to be talking about some kind of transition period where people briefly work below subsistence levels before everything turns into shit and rebellion is in the air. Seems like he was talking about the untenable, rebellion in the air turning point. This happened quite a bit back before the Great Depression (and some during). There's a reason why children were encouraged to work, and not just because they could fit into maintenance areas. The entire family was expected to work in order to get ahead. If somebody in the family couldn't work, then the family was stuck with barely enough to afford food and clothing on 12-16 hour workdays. and back in paleolithic times the women and children foraged while the men hunted. people died when the winter came or the hunts failed. wait, how does this relate to the present again? It relates to the probability of seeing armed insurrection or a revolution in modern developed countries based on relative poverty. I think it's a ridiculous argument and "pay more taxes or I'll rob you" is a really bad direction to approach inequality. Desperate times call for desperate measures. "Hey why were you born with all this wealth while we are starving. You need to give us some." It's more ridiculous to think that the wealthy are going to do shit all about redistribution except accumulate more. But our precious Constitution and society! What about the sanctity of private property? I suppose if you knew some of our history you might actually know what the framers thought about these things! I don't suspect you do, however. A key phrase is "tyranny of the majority." At most you know a singular quote (or two) from Madison that proves everything is "for the rich."
A bunch of the framers had different opinions. I bet most of the people in this thread rent rather than owning their property, however, so by the opinions of those pro-specie pro-rentier founders, most of us shouldn't even be allowed to vote.
|
On December 08 2013 05:21 farvacola wrote:
If that 1.50 does not take into account things like the opportunity cost of shopping/travel time or the budget casuistries that go into the poor's estimation as to what they can and can not afford, it serves as a neat talking point and nothing more.
I don't buy this argument. Thinking to when I lived in a kinda ghetto part of Atlanta, there was a great international grocery store nearby that had a huge variety of fresh, and cheap vegetables for sale. Less than a 5 minute drive or 15 minute bus ride from my area. Even with that availability, the fast food restaurants in my area were always packed like you wouldn't believe at around 6 PM. And it's not like the people at that grocery store were rich, it was pretty much all nepalese, afro-caribbeans, east asians, south asians, etc. A lot of these people were definitely not well off but they could still afford to shop there because it really isn't that expensive and wasn't that hard to get there. The poorer people in my neighborhood would just rather eat mcdonald's over firing up the stove.
Granted, this is all anecdotal data, and there probably truly are so called "food deserts" where groceries are not available, but it seems to me that these food deserts are more a consequence of less demand for groceries rather than some sort of nefarious plot to deny poor people the ability to purchase groceries.
|
On December 08 2013 06:56 ZeaL. wrote:
Granted, this is all anecdotal data, and there probably truly are so called "food deserts" where groceries are not available, but it seems to me that these food deserts are more a consequence of less demand for groceries rather than some sort of nefarious plot to deny poor people the ability to purchase groceries.
systematic oppression never requires a nefarious plot, if only it were that simple
|
On December 08 2013 06:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 05:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 08 2013 04:47 farvacola wrote:
Nothing on availability, ehh? The price point of healthy food (and the according one for junk food) is merely one component of the US's fat and eat stupid problem. If healthy is only $1.50 a day extra, consumers should be financially able to demand healthy food from retailers. Why they don't in some cases, is a good question. Healthy food, healthy life choices, healthy lifestyle? It makes so much sense, why doesn't everybody do it! Culturally, we've seen a move away from generally cooking your own food, including vegetables. We've seen more acceptability of constant high-fat and/or sugary foods as the normal meal. Thank God all the green nuts have not gotten to my non-organic vegetables ... they're very cheap. Same with eggs and dairy. Aside from the verbal/light advertising associated with informing citizens about the benefits of healthy eating, I don't see a big government role in the whole thing.
When you say healthy food, wouldn't you mean something organic? I think you're on the side of the green nuts, you just don't know it/don't want to accept it. (Just having vegetables doesn't make it 'healthy food'). I've seen The first lady promoting healthier lifestyles but she was ostracized and condemned, so I'm not surprised there isn't a bigger push.
|
On December 08 2013 07:15 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 06:34 Danglars wrote:On December 08 2013 05:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 08 2013 04:47 farvacola wrote:
Nothing on availability, ehh? The price point of healthy food (and the according one for junk food) is merely one component of the US's fat and eat stupid problem. If healthy is only $1.50 a day extra, consumers should be financially able to demand healthy food from retailers. Why they don't in some cases, is a good question. Healthy food, healthy life choices, healthy lifestyle? It makes so much sense, why doesn't everybody do it! Culturally, we've seen a move away from generally cooking your own food, including vegetables. We've seen more acceptability of constant high-fat and/or sugary foods as the normal meal. Thank God all the green nuts have not gotten to my non-organic vegetables ... they're very cheap. Same with eggs and dairy. Aside from the verbal/light advertising associated with informing citizens about the benefits of healthy eating, I don't see a big government role in the whole thing. When you say healthy food, wouldn't you mean something organic? I think you're on the side of the green nuts, you just don't know it/don't want to accept it. (Just having vegetables doesn't make it 'healthy food'). I've seen The first lady promoting healthier lifestyles but she was ostracized and condemned, so I'm not surprised there isn't a bigger push.
No, I was really referencing the study. Let me quote it again for you
On December 08 2013 03:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +What Separates A Healthy And Unhealthy Diet? Just $1.50 Per Day
If you want to eat a more healthful diet, you're going to have to shell out more cash, right? (After all, Whole Foods didn't get the nickname "Whole Paycheck" for nothing.)
But until recently, that widely held bit of conventional wisdom hadn't really been assessed in a rigorous, systematic way, says Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health.
So he and his colleagues decided to pore over 27 studies from 10 different developed countries that looked at the retail prices of food grouped by healthfulness. Across these countries, it turns out, the cost difference between eating a healthful and unhealthful diet was pretty much the same: about $1.50 per day. And that price gap held true when they focused their research just on U.S. food prices, the researchers found in their meta-analysis of these studies. ... Link
The cost differential was for healthy food and it made pointed comparison to healthfulness vs Whole FoodsPaycheck. I opposed her actual materialized school lunch programs, not the principal of a first lady encouraging the country to eat healthy foods and doing at least overtones to maintaining a garden of her own.
I happen to live in Southern California, so my definition of green nuts might be different than yours, and perhaps warped if you take an average person's thoughts. It goes further than healthy eating and more into pure-organic lifestyle, and a very studious opposition to GMO in all foods. I don't want to derail the discussion, since it started with the price-point on healthy foods and the ridiculously low ~$1.50 delta.
|
Cooking healthy meals for yourself is considerably cheaper than eating at a fast food restaurant. (At least it is here in Germany.) Provided of course you don't buy organic food which is markedly more expensive for no proven benefit in quality or healthiness. It's a bit different for heavily processed foodstuff which can be worse for your health.
|
On December 08 2013 07:01 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 06:56 ZeaL. wrote:
Granted, this is all anecdotal data, and there probably truly are so called "food deserts" where groceries are not available, but it seems to me that these food deserts are more a consequence of less demand for groceries rather than some sort of nefarious plot to deny poor people the ability to purchase groceries. systematic oppression never requires a nefarious plot, if only it were that simple
So what is the source of systematic oppression? A mix of human nature and separate classes? Unknown variables? I'm curious.
|
On December 08 2013 07:55 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 07:01 sam!zdat wrote:On December 08 2013 06:56 ZeaL. wrote:
Granted, this is all anecdotal data, and there probably truly are so called "food deserts" where groceries are not available, but it seems to me that these food deserts are more a consequence of less demand for groceries rather than some sort of nefarious plot to deny poor people the ability to purchase groceries. systematic oppression never requires a nefarious plot, if only it were that simple So what is the source of systematic oppression? A mix of human nature and separate classes? Unknown variables? I'm curious.
it's just the way that the system organizes itself. It doesn't require intention or agency on the part of individuals. that's the point of (for all its limitations) the Foucauldian notion of "power" as a force which structures and organizes an entire social field, rather than as a top-down agency that engages in some sort of conscious oppression. It's about self-reinforcing cycles (e.g. poverty -> ignorance -> poverty, or exclusion -> cynicism and resignation -> exclusion, etc etc) or structural necessities (e.g. the need to have a 'reserve army of the unemployed' for the smooth functioning of capitalist labor markets and disciplining of labor). so when we talk about access problems and food deserts, it's not enough to say "well if there were demand for good food it would exist," because you are ignoring the self-reinforcing nature of the problem - people who grow up in food deserts and eat nothing but fast food are essentially trapped because they don't know anything else and haven't been educated about nutrition. it's therefore just ignoring the problem to say "well they are rational consumers, it is their own fault if they are all in terrible health."
|
It is no coincidence that the poorest, the least educated, and the least healthy are almost always one and the same.
|
wouldn't it be more accurate to say the force IS the structure and organization of the social field?
|
On December 08 2013 09:09 Roe wrote:
wouldn't it be more accurate to say the force IS the structure and organization of the social field?
no, because power is below the surface. institutions which seem to be technically managed and objective (hospitals, law courts, schools, etc) are actually shot through with power in a way that is not immediately obvious.
|
On December 08 2013 09:12 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 09:09 Roe wrote:
wouldn't it be more accurate to say the force IS the structure and organization of the social field? no, because power is below the surface. institutions which seem to be technically managed and objective (hospitals, law courts, schools, etc) are actually shot through with power in a way that is not immediately obvious.
oh you were referring to institutions - I thought you were saying that things like our psychology and ways of social assembly and institutionalizing are the force that structures the social field, which I think would be a deeper analysis of the phenomenon wouldn't it? (P.S. I should probably just read some Foucault to get up to date on the material  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
