4 ms·
From a dietary point of view this is good, [assuming you can still afford to eat].
by gilrain 8y ago
From a dietary point of view this is good, [assuming you can still afford to eat].
- benj111 8y agoI spent some time reasoning whether this would increase costs for those at the very bottom. I suppose it could, assuming they didn't buy mote fresh produce instead of processed. But in Tha situation they either don't want to change their diet (so its their choice?) or they already have an ideal diet, no processed food to stop consuming. I'm not sure how big the latter population is though.
- darkerside 8y agoNot everybody simply has the option (budget) to buy and eat healthier. I don't totally disagree with your points, but there are tradeoffs here too.
- jamiek88 8y agoNot just buying it but preparing and cooking it too. A single mother working two jobs with a small kitchen struggles to get the time to prep or to afford to buy in bulk to prep in advance.
- benj111 8y agoI'm not convinced that fresh produce is more expensive than processed, or that it necessarily takes longer. That is predicated on being able to cook, and having some form of kitchen. But yes there are tradeoffs. I hope we can all agree that everyone has a right to eat. But that people don't have the right to eat steak every day. So somewhere in the middle there is a diet that people have a right to. There's a tremendous grey area in there, but I think its reasonable to expect people to prioritise a healthy diet first, although again there is a limit to that. I'm also not sure how far your line of reasoning is from objecting to taxes on cigarettes or alcohol, on the basis it will hit less well off people hardest. I don't want to deny poorer people nice things, but that shouldn't be carte blanche to keep 'bad' things cheap. Half the problem is that processed food encompasses coke, chocolate, cake as well as frozen peas and baked beans. So we could just be talking past each other here.