21 ms·

The poor can’t afford to follow public health advice

105 points by DanBC 7y ago

oneepic 7y ago
...both financially and mentally.
- Ensorceled 7y ago
  I don’t understand what you are saying here?
  - swampthinker 7y ago
    It's too cost prohibitive to be healthy, and even if it wasn't there is too much mental energy needed to be picky about which foods/ingredients you're buying (Checking labels, researching nutritional values, etc)
    - pknopf 7y ago
      The path of least resistance for the typical American is fatty foods and empty carbs. It takes effort to do anything else.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        Is there any good reason for that? Are fatty foods and empty carbs cheaper to produce than less processed, healthier food? More to the point, is there money to be made by making real food more readily available?
        learc83 7y ago
        For one it's much easier to make good tasting unhealthy food that it is to make good tasting unhealthy food. It is very easy to make things taste good by loading them with fat and sugar.
        akiselev 7y ago
        They hit the sweet spot (no pun intended) between addiction, profitability, and marketability (stuff like convenience, spoilage resistance, etc.).
        rtkwe 7y ago
        They're easier to store and last longer than fresh alternatives so they're both cheaper for the store to stock and sell and easier to use as a consumer because they won't go bad waiting to be used.
        kaibee 7y ago
        > Is there any good reason for that? No. > Are fatty foods and empty carbs cheaper to produce than less processed, healthier food? They are subsidized by the government, ie: Corn subsidies. That said, even without subsidies, I'd imagine that they'd be cheaper for another reason: You can store them long term without too much cost. > More to the point, is there money to be made by making real food more readily available? Not likely. Any advantage you squeeze out could probably be copied by another company willing to sell less healthy food. So the only your only real option for differentiation would be marketing how healthy your food is. But that requires people to care. If the government provided free healthy food to everyone, fully cooked, ready to go, at a reasonably well-prepared level, at as many locations as there are fast food restaurants, then, I think it would actually make some impact on health. Hm. Maybe the government should just subsidize salads at restaurants/fast food joints.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        > > More to the point, is there money to be made by making real food more readily available? > Not likely. Any advantage you squeeze out could probably be copied by another company willing to sell less healthy food. So the only your only real option for differentiation would be marketing how healthy your food is. But that requires people to care. I wasn't trying to make real food cheaper - just on par, so that the "path of least resistance" wasn't to eat garbage. We can't make people care. But can we make them not have to care so much, or try so hard?
        cannonedhamster 7y ago
        Meat is heavily subsidized as well. That farmer's markets, small farmers, and vegetable farmers get way less financial assistance than the sugar industry is really weird. Sugar beets, corn, and cane sugar are all pretty large crops that we provide assistance too.
        hanniabu 7y ago
        It's cheaper, engineered to be more addictive, and it takes little to no prep (ready to eat or just throw in the microwave, oven or stove to heat up). Healthier options have price tags of luxury goods, often 1.5x-3x the cost of the unhealthy version. Veggies are generally cheap, but require much more food prep unless you want to eat everything raw.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        That's a huge systemic failure of western civilization. The "path of least resistance" should be somewhat healthy. > It takes effort to do anything else. True. But the point of having a civilization is arguably that thriving should require less and less effort.
        jonfw 7y ago
        The path of least resistance is not a social issue, it's purely practical. It isn't a "failure of western civilization" that wheat based goods are an extremely economical way to satiate hunger. It is a failure of individuals that they fail to do anything outside of the path of least resistance.
        wongarsu 7y ago
        It's not some law of nature that corn syrup is cheap in the US and used in everything, it's subsidies. If the path of least resistance was bread and baked potatoes (both very cheap and efficient) the US would be in a better place than it is now.
        Retric 7y ago
        Grains are so heavily subsidized it distorts incentives. The actual costs without subsidies would significantly reduce the relative cost of greens etc and thus tend to a better diet for most people. We are actively and at great cost making things worse.
        raverbashing 7y ago
        To be honest not all places if "western civilization" encourage the consumption of: - massive consumption of empty calories in the form of soft drinks - huge portion sizes (as in, > 100% of recommended calories in a single meal) - "substitution" of non-processed foods by massively processed ones (either by cost, access, massive spread of fast food chains or just general culture)
  - klyrs 7y ago
    If you're poor, it's prohibitively expensive to maintain one's mental health -- the focus on nutrition is spot on, but it's lacking. If you're working 2 or 3 minimum wage jobs, you don't have time for self care. You can't afford therapy; time or money. You probably can't maintain a regular sleep habit, exercise schedule, etc.
PaulHoule 7y ago
What I find funny about food banks is that they often have products that are lower quality than you find on supermarket shelves. For instance, the food bank around here gives out cans of "tuna fish" that contain about 10% protein from soy that are imported from Mexico. They also have Peanut Butter imported from India. There was an article the other day about how you shouldn't give cans to charity because it is more cost effective for them to buy food through their supply chain but in this case it is more cost effective because their supply chain is getting worse stuff.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > They also have Peanut Butter imported from India. Wow what a scandal.
  - nothrabannosir 7y ago
    Sorry I'm just checking that this is sarcastic, because why should it matter that peanut butter is from India? Or did I miss a memo about Indian peanut butter?
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      You need to ask the person who thinks it’s so obviously an issue to use peanuts from India that it requires no explanation - the person I replied to.
      - PaulHoule 7y ago
        I'm not saying it is an issue, but I have never seen peanut butter from India for sale in the U.S before.
        ebg13 7y ago
        > I'm not saying it is an issue You did say that, though. You said "lower quality...for instance...peanut butter from India...worse stuff". If it's not an issue, why did you include it in a statement of issues?
fasteddie31003 7y ago
I am going to get flack for this but I believe both health and wealth are both highly correlated with personal will power. For instance, intermittent fasting for me has been the best thing I've done for my health and I really have no trouble doing it, but I do believe it takes significant will power.
- burkaman 7y ago
  "no trouble doing it" is the opposite of "significant will power".
- jahewson 7y ago
  If you look at the research then habit formation is all about not relying on willpower. Willpower is a limited resource and is easily drained. People do not form long-term behaviours by willpower alone. Yes, you need some willpower to start doing something new - but it’s all about habit formation after that. https://angeladuckworth.com/publications/ https://angeladuckworth.com/publications/
  - ulucs 7y ago
    > Willpower is a limited resource and is easily drained That study unfortunately failed to replicate https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scicurious/willpower-ego-depletion-social-psychology-replication https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scicurious/willpower-ego-de...
    - jahewson 7y ago
      Not the study I’m talking about.
- learc83 7y ago
  There is a correlation but the direction of causation isn't always the direction you would think. Take the famous delayed gratification study where kids were given 2 treats if they didn't eat the 1 that was placed in front of them. More recent studies have indicated that eating the treat immediately may be a developed response to deprivation. And that wealthier kids were more likely to delay gratification--possibly because their experience taught them to believe the adult when they said there would be to 2 treats available later. According to the new results, the will power displayed in the delayed gratification tests was a result of wealth not a cause of wealth.
tempsy 7y ago
I'm more surprised when I come across very rich people (e.g. VCs, CEOs, etc.) who are obese. You have all the money in the world and somehow made it to the top without the self-control and determination to take care of your body (and in turn mind)?
- the_economist 7y ago
  To me, this indicates that obesity is a function of something other than self-control and determination.
  - vorticalbox 7y ago
    Yup, eating to much and doing to little.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Nope. There are many other reasons. The most obvious one is self-medicating, either stress or some undiagnosed condition. People are good at unconsciously developing coping mechanisms.
      - marcusverus 7y ago
        Some people have medical issues causing obesity, sure, but we’re the same species we were 50 years ago. Any physiological cause of obesity in people today was also present then, presumably at the same rates. But they didn’t have an obesity epidemic. Whatever thing (or set of things) is driving the change in obesity rates, it is not a biological force that is outside of out control.
    - jpindar 7y ago
      That may be a good enough explanation for why one individual is fat. It doesn't explain why whole societies are becoming heavier. Something must have changed other than our species as a whole just becoming lazier for no particular reason.
  - 7y ago
the_economist 7y ago
Everyone can afford to fast, which is one of the best health levers we have access to.
- bachmeier 7y ago
  Rather than thinking of the six-figure professional overdoing it on ribeye and baked potato, think about a 20-year old without a job and no family to support them. On a good day they might have one meal of ramen noodles.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  Right, my five year old really enjoys going without food for extended periods of time. Crazy how hunger calms his temperament.
aszantu 7y ago
I'm a poor person (less than 750€/month) I do art (https://aszantu.deviantart.com https://aszantu.deviantart.com) It's funny how I don't use as much money since I went carnivore. My health has improved greatly, my depression went away. For about 3 months I was keto, basically unaffordable, so I cut the fresh greens and went with meat alone. 3 months of eating 1.5 KG pork every day, still expensive. went with about 500 grams of ground meat for about a year and after I figured out the keto-carnivore thing it's about 1 block of butter every 3 days as well as 250 grams of beef is enough to survive. I'm building my own mealworm farm for protein and fat as well as a snail hatchery for giant african snails for protein. as poor person you basically never know when you will have to rely on yourself. So I'm trying to build for self sufficiency with solar panel and car battery as well as my own food production. so many questions help! 1. Why? - I wanted to try it for the depression - it worked for multiple other ailments https://meatheals.com https://meatheals.com has a lot of similar stories - some people live like that for a long time now. 2. Will I die from scurvey or other nutrient deficiency? - I dont't know. Bloodwork looked okay. Cholesterol is high (Dave Feldman has some interesting things to say about that) Yes I do fear that I don't get some nutrients but I eat some organ meat now and then, add gelatine to my meat, drink milk and eat butter, eggs, cheese, fish, different animals, different states of fermentation now and then. 3. Did I supplement? - yes, I took magnesium citrate for a while but not taking any now, except for when I have a headache. When I still ate "normal", zinc did a lot for my depression. 4. why insects rather than plants? - Plants in general seem to give me allergic reactions -> Carbs and sugar seem to make me depressed, greens and onions seem to amplify anxiety, plant oils give me headaches. After having symptoms every time I tried another plant, I stopped trying and these trials are getting less and less. There is something about anti-nutrients in plants that seems to screw with the absorbtion of minerals and vitamins from food. 5. Did I talk to a doctor? - Yes, I did, she just sat there and noded asked for a blood test and that's it. LDL is high, trigs are low (Dave Feldman prediction for cholesterol) 6. what about cancer? protein spikes IGF1 or something? I don't know... I don't want to go back to Plants because they make me feel like shit. Everyone dies and I will too one day. There is some article of someone who researched the WHO connection of cancer and red meat, and it doesn't seem to hold up. 7. do I still have symptoms? - Yes, depression is there sometimes and anxiety as well. I've lived with them for so long that I still have the habits of depression and they're hard to break. But I've accomplished about 500 km of the camino trail in europe as well as worked 9-5 hours which was never possible for me before. Childhood hunger never leaves you,(also it feels like germany is destabilizing as a democratic system) hence the preparation for crisis.
madmax96 7y ago
>If everyone followed Public Health England’s eating advice, people in the bottom decile of household income would spend 74 per cent of their income on food I find this very interesting. I'm a graduate student in Midwest of the US. My income places me in the bottom 20% of household incomes. Not poor, but money must be carefully managed. In my experience, eating well isn't that expensive in terms of time or money, provided you are willing to adjust your diet. I keep good track of my finances and diet, and I spend nowhere near that figure (and I still wouldn't, even if I made half of what I do) and I have a pretty healthy diet and reasonably active lifestyle. What are in these guidelines making them so expensive? Or in the US, particularly in the Midwest, is the cost of food that much cheaper than the UK?
- wongarsu 7y ago
  Part of the advice [0] is "Over a third of the diet should come from fruit and vegetables". Also "Aim for at least two portions (2 x 140g) of fish a week". Neither of those two are necessarily cheap. However I don't see that approaching 74% of the income either when you choose sensible options for vegetables and fish. 0: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/742746/A_quick_guide_to_govt_healthy_eating_update.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
  - nradov 7y ago
    Canned or frozen vegetables are quite cheap in most industrialized countries.
  - bobthepanda 7y ago
    Interestingly enough, the FDA does not recommend eating more than 12 oz (~340g) of fish a week due to mercury concerns. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-and-epa-issue-final-fish-consumption-advice https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-and-...
    - jtuente 7y ago
      > This advice is geared toward helping women who are pregnant or may become pregnant – as well as breastfeeding mothers and parents of young children – make informed choices when it comes to fish that are healthy and safe to eat.
WhateverWorks 7y ago
Welcome in reality.
ekianjo 7y ago
> Public Health England’s eating advice, Not sure why there is no question if the Public Health advice is actually good to begin with. In France for decades the French authorities heavily promoted the consumption of milk-derivative products as part of a "healthy diet" and this seems to have sparked the percentage of people suffering from lactose intolerance. Eating advice is usually based on very poor quality data to begin with, and observational studies is not really good science either.
- raverbashing 7y ago
  > milk-derivative products as part of a "healthy diet" and this seems to have sparked the percentage of people suffering from lactose intolerance You're mixing up cause and consequence
  - ekianjo 7y ago
    Intolerance also develops from increased consumption.
ngngngng 7y ago
I ran out of money in college and didn't think to turn to loans, grants, parents, food bank or anything. I managed to keep paying rent but ran out of food except for a bag of flour and a gallon of oil. I literally lived on nothing but Navajo style fry bread. Just a simple water flour dough fried in some oil. It's absolutely insane to look back on, but it makes me understand how people fall into eating so terribly when you're poor. Looking back I would instead just eat potatoes, carrots, rice, beans, and try and throw some apples/oranges in there occasionally. Homemade bread when you've got time is a nice and cheap addition as well. You can live just fine on everything I just listed and it won't cost you much.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  The apples and oranges will be pretty pricey for a poor person. Should probably only do that when you're splurging. Also, if you're in a place where the rest of the list is too expensive, priority should be placed on the rice and beans. Potatoes and carrots aren't strictly speaking "necessary" when you're in crisis like that. Try to get a fishing rod and use your local lakes and rivers. Varying degrees of healthy there, but fishing can usually be done for free on off hours.
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    Bananas are a lot cheaper. But they’re not a domestic crop, so we can’t be pointing that out.
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      Well, I'm just trying to list things that won't potentially spike in price. Bananas are, calorie for calorie, a better option than most of the foods on the list. But I don't think any reasonable person would argue the fact that they occupy a very precarious place in the global food supply chain right now.
    - opportune 7y ago
      Bananas are not great nutritionally. Ok source of fiber, ok source of potassium, lots of calories
philipkglass 7y ago
It must steer clear of the idea that “all we have to do is convey to people how to eat sensibly and then everything will be fine,” he says. “That would be a significant step backwards.” “I’ll give you an example,” he adds, “If everyone followed Public Health England’s eating advice, people in the bottom decile of household income would spend 74 per cent of their income on food. So, there’s not much point telling them follow the healthy eating advice they can’t afford. I think I can see why. Here is Public Health England's "A Quick Guide to the Government’s Healthy Eating Recommendations": https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/742746/A_quick_guide_to_govt_healthy_eating_update.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... It advises people to eat more expensive meat (oily fish) in place of cheaper meats, and to eat large portions of fruits and vegetables. Those two factors look to explain the cost increase. The other advice (choose unsaturated oils, eat complex carbohydrates instead of simple ones) does not require buying more expensive foods. If you just bought foods according to the pictures and examples in the Public Health England brochure, you could spend a lot more money on food. It's possible to follow dietary recommendations without spending much (if any) more if you know how to budget and optimize, and if you already have a stove and refrigerator/freezer. I don't really think it's possible if you don't have a refrigerator/freezer. Limited transportation options can make it harder too. Worst of all, IMO, is that the brochure and linked eating guides contain no sample meal plans, shopping plans, or example prices/budgets. Bridging this sort of gap used to be (still is?) sometimes taught in Home Economics and Personal Finance classes in the United States. (I took both in high school.) It's also the sort of skill that children often used to acquire from their parents, but perhaps acquire less often now. It's way too hard for someone without that skill to go from this Healthy Eating brochure to a cost-and-health satisficing shopping plan with accompanying meal plans.
scythe 7y ago
The trouble is one of priorities. Even if you can’t afford to eat fresh fruit you can choose better options. Health recommendations are expressed in a huge package all at once, take it or leave it. Lean meat and fish in particular are also expensive and over-emphasized. You can get a similar protein/fat ratio by eating cheap meat or cheese with legumes or oats and it comes with fiber. Eggs are unfairly demonized. Only a tiny proportion of the population needs to limit egg consumption beyond what taste will do naturally. But protein is the most expensive macronutrient and eggs are a cheap source with relatively low fat and loads of vitamins. Cheese also falls into this category, with many people who do not currently have any tumors rigorously avoiding a small increase in their IGF-1, a hormone which performs many essential functions but slightly increases tumor growth rates. You can thank T. Colin Campbell for this absurdity. Potassium is very confusing. The most economical sources for most people are probably from canned tomato products, beans and fresh potatoes — the latter being a cheap vegetable whose nutritional value is highly underrated thanks to a proliferation of processed potato products. Most people, however, will reach for bananas and avocadoes — delicacies to the poor. Bread, too, deserves a more nuanced look. It ranges from sweet, thick and highly glycemic to relatively health-neutral and highly pragmatic wrt home-made lunches. “Bread” here can be extended to wraps and tortillas. “Don’t eat bread” is very often impractical. Pasta, on the other hand, is loved by diet authorities for its satiating bulk, but it’s a mess to make and requires you to wash a pot and a bowl. The rice cooker has yet to assume its rightful place on the counter. Home cooking in general has been neutered by making everyone terrified of adding butter or salt. So people choose between bland foods with no butter or salt or packaged foods with absurd amounts of salt, palm oil and artificial flavor. This advice should be revised with an eye to taste. It is not too surprising that health advice designed for the rich does not serve the poor. I don’t think the obesity crisis can be solved with health advice alone, but I also think the advice could be a lot better than it is. I don’t think we need to teach people to cook — people can learn to cook. Most people, however, do not have the number sense to assimilate hundreds of nutrition labels and prices into a diet strategy. That is difficult and boring. It doesn’t help that many products have such tiny serving sizes that the nutrient label is meaningless thanks to rounding errors. The system could be simpler and clearer. (Even with extreme effort I find myself constantly revising my own plans.)
- 7y ago
growlist 7y ago
It's not about economic poverty. Firstly food is (as I understand it) pretty much at its cheapest ever, even zero cost from food banks (notwithstanding the supposed shame, and I can tell you my family would have had no shame in taking food from a food bank when they were starving in rural Wales during the Great Depression, and this family history somewhat limits my sympathy to arguments about the shame of using food banks); secondly people are not poor in economic terms, with our definition of poverty having had to be changed (making it a relative measure) because it had ceased to be meaningful; and thirdly under rationing food was obviously strictly limited, and yet the nation was so (we are told) never fitter. The problem is that the person at the sharp is incapable for whatever reason of providing nutritious meals despite the basic conditions generally being available for them to do so. It's a poverty of history, culture, community, education, imagination, willingness, instinct, morale perhaps, but not money. None of that is the fault of the socially deprived, but the idea that more money will magically fix everything (as the left constantly parrot) is just as much of an untruth as the idea that the poor are too stupid and lazy to sort out their own lives. Apart from that I do think it's amazing that politicians are surprised that despair is increasing. When was the last time you heard a politician stand up and praise Britain and the British people absent virtue signalling about diversity etc.? Constantly demoralise people for decades, do nothing to properly integrate minorities nor construct a cohesive unified nation: get demoralised people.
silvestrov 7y ago
The word "food" occurs only 2 times in the body of the executive summary. So I think it's a stretch to use "can't afford" as the main title of the article. The full report doesn't have much to support it, it never shows us what food cost, how they're unable to afford it. At best it talks about "availability" of healthy food as if the supermarkets doesn't sell it. The report never considers that the unhealthy food might be a taste preference just like smoking even though everybody knows it's very unhealthy and very expensive. Giving up smoking isn't expensive, it's not money that stops people from quitting smoking. Low-income groups are more likely to consume fat spreads, non-diet soft drinks, meat dishes, pizzas, processed meats, whole milk and table sugar than the better-off (pg 133) My personal observation from observing shoppers in a number of supermarkets: poor people buys quite a lot more soft drinks than the well educated. The health of the poor is not improved much by giving them (free) fresh produce when they drink a couple of liters of non-diet Coca Cola every day. They end up obese or with diabetes which are the mother of all ills. An ounce of broccoli can't cure 2L of Coca Cola. I think the single most effective policy would be to ban sugar in drinks and severely restrict its use in fast food (and bread). The fat-free policies must be reverted to avoid foods using sugar as replacement for fat.
- ahelwer 7y ago
  Your prescribed initiative to improve the lives of poor people is to remove one of the few cheap pleasures available to them? I think many people here understand how stress and mood inform eating habits. Who among us has not indulged after a particularly bad day? Now imagine that bad day was every day, and you don't have the money, time, and energy to drown your feelings with healthier activities like strenuous exercise. The best way to improve the lives of poor people is to give them money. Enough with this know-better-than-thou ban & incentize crap. Poor people get jerked around enough already.
  - silvestrov 7y ago
    When that "pleasure" ends up making peoples live a lot worse, then yes I do want to remove it. If we were never to take away pleasures no matter their consequences, you could just as well legalize "the Russian Krokodil" (don't google images that).
turc1656 7y ago
"If everyone followed Public Health England’s eating advice, people in the bottom decile of household income would spend 74 per cent of their income on food" Bullshit. I'll preface what I'm going to say next by saying I'm in the US and I know this was a UK report - but I highly doubt things are so incredibly different over there in terms of cost. That being said, there's utterly no way that has to be the case. Raw produce (not meats) from a farmer's market or most major supermarkets are very cheap. I can spend $30-$40 and have enough for 3-4 people for a full week. Also, sausage is usually very cheap. I buy the store brand (which happens to be delicious) and it's usually <$3 per lb. The 73% beef from Walmart is cheap as hell and usually hovers around $3-$3.25 per lb most of the time. One of those burgers (quarter-pounder, so 4 oz) has 340 calories and is a dream for anyone doing keto. So that $3 package contains about 1350 to 1400 calories! The cereal I make myself has only 4 ingredients and is loaded with healthy carbs (steel cut oats, flax seed, walnuts, and raisins). $12 to $15 dollars buys a bag of each of those ingredients which all have around 15 or so servings - that's over two weeks...or less than a dollar a day (per person). And that is a very high calorie breakfast, BTW. Water costs essentially nothing per gallon. Eggs are cheap and super healthy. There's plenty of cheap, tasty cheeses you can buy in bulk, too. You can get whole seasoned, rotisserie, cooked and ready-to-eat chickens for $5! That's multiple meals for a single person or a meal for an entire family. And I don't live in a rural part of the US where prices are cheaper - I live in an expensive area of the northeast. You can easily feed a family of 4 on $125 a week using the items I outlined above (along with other cheap options).
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  I fully agree. But the intersection of people who read articles like this and buy their food at Walmart (or any other source that specifically tries to be low cost) and pay attention to the prices is likely quite small so people who tend to read and discuss these kinds of articles forget how cheap food can be at the low end. Eggs at my local Walmart are $1.20-$1.70/dozen (depending on large/medium/small/white/brown), milk is $2.19/gal and you can get several different large loafs of wheat (or white) bread for under $2. It's been awhile since I've done the shopping but IIRC boneless chicken breast is under $2/lb and ground beef is $3.xx/lb.
wtdata 7y ago
My parents were born very poor (they were both taken out of school and put to work at 11 years old - yeah let this sink in for a minute). They did work all their lives until they retired though, specially my mom that having no job formation kept picking up any jobs she could find. My father went to school at night (started studying again while he was forcibly conscripted for war) and had two jobs. We always did eat very healthy at home. First because my parents saw that as one of the priorities (they never went to dinner out, lunch out, even coffee out in my early years, since they couldn't afford that lifestyle and keep their finances in a proper state... I guess the only luxury we had was having a dog - for which I am very grateful), second because they would take the time and effort to prepare a proper meal (yes, even after arriving home from working all day in their physically demanding jobs) and the ingredients to a healthy meal are cheap, but it takes effort to put that kind of meal together. All this happened in what is today a somewhat rich western European country. It really bothers me (and I guess other people like me), this culture of constantly dismissing people lack of self responsibility. In the EU (and I would go as far as saying, in the all 1st world), if you are willing to work and to watch how you spend your money (and this means closely, no 5$ latte like another article today just talks about, or ordering pizza because you don't want to prepare dinner), anyone can end up having a comfortable life.
throwing838383 7y ago
Here, even in super expensive CA, In college I got by with less than 2-3$ per day on rolled oats (70c per lb), Onions, potatoes, flax seeds, green peppers, bananas, whole wheat flour etc, all of which were less than 1$ per lb if you go to the right stores (for example Sprouts). Going to McDonalds is much more expensive, something like 20$ per day! With the proper education, you can eat cost effectively and very healthily. And, I know it's really controversial to say this because of the decades of conditioning we've received from the dairy and meat industry, but Meat and Dairy aren't needed in the diet, and have been shown to even cause cancer, heart disease and heart stroke for many. (source Forks over Knives, the documentary, plus the China study -> check it out, seriously.)
- apazzolini 7y ago
  It's nice that while you were in college and had obligations of 12-18 hours a week, you found the time to shop at multiple stores to maximize your savings. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people (single moms, for example) that work 80 hours a week at three minimum wage jobs, each of which purposefully employ people at non-full-time hours to avoid needing to provide benefits, and they just don't have the time to go to research prices and recipes, visit multiple stores, go home exhausted, and still find time to cook.
- learc83 7y ago
  >Going to McDonalds is much more expensive, something like 20$ per day! If you're ordering off of the value menu it's nowhere near that expensive in most of the country. >rolled oats (70c per lb), Onions, potatoes, flax seeds, green peppers, bananas, whole wheat flour etc Most of those particularly the wheat flour requires significant preparation--knowledge, time, a stocked and functioning kitchen. A lot of those people in the bottom 10% of income in the UK aren't going to have an oven. >With the proper education, Yes, proper education, plus time, plus a working kitchen. 3 things that the very poor aren't likely to have. And keep in mind this was when you were a single college student, not a working single mother with 2 small kids.
opportune 7y ago
I wonder why supermarkets themselves aren't making more blue-apron style meal plans aimed at different income categories. It is a relatively inexpensive way to value-add items you already have and differentiate yourself from other supermarkets. And you can help people that either don't know/don't care about nutrition (enough to come up with a nutrition regime) eat healthy; perhaps creating the meal kits could be partially subsidized by the gov. You can feed someone very well for $50/week. And you can even do it in a way that requires only low-effort cooking: meat that can be baked, microwaveable vegetables, eggs that can be simply boiled or cooked in a pan with butter, pasta and oatmeal. Dairy products, fruits, some vegetables, and nuts can just be eaten without processing. Canned food that can be eaten right out of the can or just heated up. Assuming a main reason poor people don't eat healthier food is due to lack of time, cognitive overhead, or lack of knowledge (not only re: what food is healthy or not, but also how to optimize nutrition/f(cost, time, effort)) it could help. I don't have time to go into how it's even possible healthy food could take 75% of someone's income (assuming that person has an income of $10k/year, that is over $140/week) but there are surely compromises you can make to get the majority of the benefits of eating healthy food without spending nearly that much.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  I'm surprised the government, some nonprofit or some university's sociology department isn't doing this. It wouldn't be hard to publish a weekly newsletter with meals for various family sizes that can be made at various price points using all SNAP-compatible ingredients. How much would it really cost to send a weekly pamphlet of cheap and not nutritionally terrible meal ideas to the address of every kid who gets free lunch?

105 points by DanBC 7y ago

oneepic 7y ago

...both financially and mentally.

Ensorceled 7y ago
I don’t understand what you are saying here?
- swampthinker 7y ago
  It's too cost prohibitive to be healthy, and even if it wasn't there is too much mental energy needed to be picky about which foods/ingredients you're buying (Checking labels, researching nutritional values, etc)
  - pknopf 7y ago
    The path of least resistance for the typical American is fatty foods and empty carbs. It takes effort to do anything else.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      Is there any good reason for that? Are fatty foods and empty carbs cheaper to produce than less processed, healthier food? More to the point, is there money to be made by making real food more readily available?
      - learc83 7y ago
        For one it's much easier to make good tasting unhealthy food that it is to make good tasting unhealthy food. It is very easy to make things taste good by loading them with fat and sugar.
      - akiselev 7y ago
        They hit the sweet spot (no pun intended) between addiction, profitability, and marketability (stuff like convenience, spoilage resistance, etc.).
      - rtkwe 7y ago
        They're easier to store and last longer than fresh alternatives so they're both cheaper for the store to stock and sell and easier to use as a consumer because they won't go bad waiting to be used.
      - kaibee 7y ago
        > Is there any good reason for that? No. > Are fatty foods and empty carbs cheaper to produce than less processed, healthier food? They are subsidized by the government, ie: Corn subsidies. That said, even without subsidies, I'd imagine that they'd be cheaper for another reason: You can store them long term without too much cost. > More to the point, is there money to be made by making real food more readily available? Not likely. Any advantage you squeeze out could probably be copied by another company willing to sell less healthy food. So the only your only real option for differentiation would be marketing how healthy your food is. But that requires people to care. If the government provided free healthy food to everyone, fully cooked, ready to go, at a reasonably well-prepared level, at as many locations as there are fast food restaurants, then, I think it would actually make some impact on health. Hm. Maybe the government should just subsidize salads at restaurants/fast food joints.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        > > More to the point, is there money to be made by making real food more readily available? > Not likely. Any advantage you squeeze out could probably be copied by another company willing to sell less healthy food. So the only your only real option for differentiation would be marketing how healthy your food is. But that requires people to care. I wasn't trying to make real food cheaper - just on par, so that the "path of least resistance" wasn't to eat garbage. We can't make people care. But can we make them not have to care so much, or try so hard?
        cannonedhamster 7y ago
        Meat is heavily subsidized as well. That farmer's markets, small farmers, and vegetable farmers get way less financial assistance than the sugar industry is really weird. Sugar beets, corn, and cane sugar are all pretty large crops that we provide assistance too.
      - hanniabu 7y ago
        It's cheaper, engineered to be more addictive, and it takes little to no prep (ready to eat or just throw in the microwave, oven or stove to heat up). Healthier options have price tags of luxury goods, often 1.5x-3x the cost of the unhealthy version. Veggies are generally cheap, but require much more food prep unless you want to eat everything raw.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      That's a huge systemic failure of western civilization. The "path of least resistance" should be somewhat healthy. > It takes effort to do anything else. True. But the point of having a civilization is arguably that thriving should require less and less effort.
      - jonfw 7y ago
        The path of least resistance is not a social issue, it's purely practical. It isn't a "failure of western civilization" that wheat based goods are an extremely economical way to satiate hunger. It is a failure of individuals that they fail to do anything outside of the path of least resistance.
        wongarsu 7y ago
        It's not some law of nature that corn syrup is cheap in the US and used in everything, it's subsidies. If the path of least resistance was bread and baked potatoes (both very cheap and efficient) the US would be in a better place than it is now.
        Retric 7y ago
        Grains are so heavily subsidized it distorts incentives. The actual costs without subsidies would significantly reduce the relative cost of greens etc and thus tend to a better diet for most people. We are actively and at great cost making things worse.
      - raverbashing 7y ago
        To be honest not all places if "western civilization" encourage the consumption of: - massive consumption of empty calories in the form of soft drinks - huge portion sizes (as in, > 100% of recommended calories in a single meal) - "substitution" of non-processed foods by massively processed ones (either by cost, access, massive spread of fast food chains or just general culture)
- klyrs 7y ago
  If you're poor, it's prohibitively expensive to maintain one's mental health -- the focus on nutrition is spot on, but it's lacking. If you're working 2 or 3 minimum wage jobs, you don't have time for self care. You can't afford therapy; time or money. You probably can't maintain a regular sleep habit, exercise schedule, etc.

PaulHoule 7y ago

What I find funny about food banks is that they often have products that are lower quality than you find on supermarket shelves. For instance, the food bank around here gives out cans of "tuna fish" that contain about 10% protein from soy that are imported from Mexico. They also have Peanut Butter imported from India. There was an article the other day about how you shouldn't give cans to charity because it is more cost effective for them to buy food through their supply chain but in this case it is more cost effective because their supply chain is getting worse stuff.

chrisseaton 7y ago
> They also have Peanut Butter imported from India. Wow what a scandal.
- nothrabannosir 7y ago
  Sorry I'm just checking that this is sarcastic, because why should it matter that peanut butter is from India? Or did I miss a memo about Indian peanut butter?
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    You need to ask the person who thinks it’s so obviously an issue to use peanuts from India that it requires no explanation - the person I replied to.
    - PaulHoule 7y ago
      I'm not saying it is an issue, but I have never seen peanut butter from India for sale in the U.S before.
      - ebg13 7y ago
        > I'm not saying it is an issue You did say that, though. You said "lower quality...for instance...peanut butter from India...worse stuff". If it's not an issue, why did you include it in a statement of issues?

fasteddie31003 7y ago

I am going to get flack for this but I believe both health and wealth are both highly correlated with personal will power. For instance, intermittent fasting for me has been the best thing I've done for my health and I really have no trouble doing it, but I do believe it takes significant will power.

burkaman 7y ago
"no trouble doing it" is the opposite of "significant will power".
jahewson 7y ago
If you look at the research then habit formation is all about not relying on willpower. Willpower is a limited resource and is easily drained. People do not form long-term behaviours by willpower alone. Yes, you need some willpower to start doing something new - but it’s all about habit formation after that. https://angeladuckworth.com/publications/ https://angeladuckworth.com/publications/
- ulucs 7y ago
  > Willpower is a limited resource and is easily drained That study unfortunately failed to replicate https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scicurious/willpower-ego-depletion-social-psychology-replication https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scicurious/willpower-ego-de...
  - jahewson 7y ago
    Not the study I’m talking about.
learc83 7y ago
There is a correlation but the direction of causation isn't always the direction you would think. Take the famous delayed gratification study where kids were given 2 treats if they didn't eat the 1 that was placed in front of them. More recent studies have indicated that eating the treat immediately may be a developed response to deprivation. And that wealthier kids were more likely to delay gratification--possibly because their experience taught them to believe the adult when they said there would be to 2 treats available later. According to the new results, the will power displayed in the delayed gratification tests was a result of wealth not a cause of wealth.

tempsy 7y ago

I'm more surprised when I come across very rich people (e.g. VCs, CEOs, etc.) who are obese. You have all the money in the world and somehow made it to the top without the self-control and determination to take care of your body (and in turn mind)?

the_economist 7y ago
To me, this indicates that obesity is a function of something other than self-control and determination.
- vorticalbox 7y ago
  Yup, eating to much and doing to little.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Nope. There are many other reasons. The most obvious one is self-medicating, either stress or some undiagnosed condition. People are good at unconsciously developing coping mechanisms.
    - marcusverus 7y ago
      Some people have medical issues causing obesity, sure, but we’re the same species we were 50 years ago. Any physiological cause of obesity in people today was also present then, presumably at the same rates. But they didn’t have an obesity epidemic. Whatever thing (or set of things) is driving the change in obesity rates, it is not a biological force that is outside of out control.
  - jpindar 7y ago
    That may be a good enough explanation for why one individual is fat. It doesn't explain why whole societies are becoming heavier. Something must have changed other than our species as a whole just becoming lazier for no particular reason.
- 7y ago

the_economist 7y ago

Everyone can afford to fast, which is one of the best health levers we have access to.

bachmeier 7y ago
Rather than thinking of the six-figure professional overdoing it on ribeye and baked potato, think about a 20-year old without a job and no family to support them. On a good day they might have one meal of ramen noodles.
EpicEng 7y ago
Right, my five year old really enjoys going without food for extended periods of time. Crazy how hunger calms his temperament.

aszantu 7y ago

I'm a poor person (less than 750€/month) I do art (https://aszantu.deviantart.com https://aszantu.deviantart.com) It's funny how I don't use as much money since I went carnivore. My health has improved greatly, my depression went away. For about 3 months I was keto, basically unaffordable, so I cut the fresh greens and went with meat alone. 3 months of eating 1.5 KG pork every day, still expensive. went with about 500 grams of ground meat for about a year and after I figured out the keto-carnivore thing it's about 1 block of butter every 3 days as well as 250 grams of beef is enough to survive. I'm building my own mealworm farm for protein and fat as well as a snail hatchery for giant african snails for protein. as poor person you basically never know when you will have to rely on yourself. So I'm trying to build for self sufficiency with solar panel and car battery as well as my own food production. so many questions help! 1. Why? - I wanted to try it for the depression - it worked for multiple other ailments https://meatheals.com https://meatheals.com has a lot of similar stories - some people live like that for a long time now. 2. Will I die from scurvey or other nutrient deficiency? - I dont't know. Bloodwork looked okay. Cholesterol is high (Dave Feldman has some interesting things to say about that) Yes I do fear that I don't get some nutrients but I eat some organ meat now and then, add gelatine to my meat, drink milk and eat butter, eggs, cheese, fish, different animals, different states of fermentation now and then. 3. Did I supplement? - yes, I took magnesium citrate for a while but not taking any now, except for when I have a headache. When I still ate "normal", zinc did a lot for my depression. 4. why insects rather than plants? - Plants in general seem to give me allergic reactions -> Carbs and sugar seem to make me depressed, greens and onions seem to amplify anxiety, plant oils give me headaches. After having symptoms every time I tried another plant, I stopped trying and these trials are getting less and less. There is something about anti-nutrients in plants that seems to screw with the absorbtion of minerals and vitamins from food. 5. Did I talk to a doctor? - Yes, I did, she just sat there and noded asked for a blood test and that's it. LDL is high, trigs are low (Dave Feldman prediction for cholesterol) 6. what about cancer? protein spikes IGF1 or something? I don't know... I don't want to go back to Plants because they make me feel like shit. Everyone dies and I will too one day. There is some article of someone who researched the WHO connection of cancer and red meat, and it doesn't seem to hold up. 7. do I still have symptoms? - Yes, depression is there sometimes and anxiety as well. I've lived with them for so long that I still have the habits of depression and they're hard to break. But I've accomplished about 500 km of the camino trail in europe as well as worked 9-5 hours which was never possible for me before. Childhood hunger never leaves you,(also it feels like germany is destabilizing as a democratic system) hence the preparation for crisis.

madmax96 7y ago

>If everyone followed Public Health England’s eating advice, people in the bottom decile of household income would spend 74 per cent of their income on food I find this very interesting. I'm a graduate student in Midwest of the US. My income places me in the bottom 20% of household incomes. Not poor, but money must be carefully managed. In my experience, eating well isn't that expensive in terms of time or money, provided you are willing to adjust your diet. I keep good track of my finances and diet, and I spend nowhere near that figure (and I still wouldn't, even if I made half of what I do) and I have a pretty healthy diet and reasonably active lifestyle. What are in these guidelines making them so expensive? Or in the US, particularly in the Midwest, is the cost of food that much cheaper than the UK?

wongarsu 7y ago
Part of the advice [0] is "Over a third of the diet should come from fruit and vegetables". Also "Aim for at least two portions (2 x 140g) of fish a week". Neither of those two are necessarily cheap. However I don't see that approaching 74% of the income either when you choose sensible options for vegetables and fish. 0: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/742746/A_quick_guide_to_govt_healthy_eating_update.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- nradov 7y ago
  Canned or frozen vegetables are quite cheap in most industrialized countries.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  Interestingly enough, the FDA does not recommend eating more than 12 oz (~340g) of fish a week due to mercury concerns. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-and-epa-issue-final-fish-consumption-advice https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-and-...
  - jtuente 7y ago
    > This advice is geared toward helping women who are pregnant or may become pregnant – as well as breastfeeding mothers and parents of young children – make informed choices when it comes to fish that are healthy and safe to eat.

WhateverWorks 7y ago

Welcome in reality.

ekianjo 7y ago

> Public Health England’s eating advice, Not sure why there is no question if the Public Health advice is actually good to begin with. In France for decades the French authorities heavily promoted the consumption of milk-derivative products as part of a "healthy diet" and this seems to have sparked the percentage of people suffering from lactose intolerance. Eating advice is usually based on very poor quality data to begin with, and observational studies is not really good science either.

raverbashing 7y ago
> milk-derivative products as part of a "healthy diet" and this seems to have sparked the percentage of people suffering from lactose intolerance You're mixing up cause and consequence
- ekianjo 7y ago
  Intolerance also develops from increased consumption.

ngngngng 7y ago

I ran out of money in college and didn't think to turn to loans, grants, parents, food bank or anything. I managed to keep paying rent but ran out of food except for a bag of flour and a gallon of oil. I literally lived on nothing but Navajo style fry bread. Just a simple water flour dough fried in some oil. It's absolutely insane to look back on, but it makes me understand how people fall into eating so terribly when you're poor. Looking back I would instead just eat potatoes, carrots, rice, beans, and try and throw some apples/oranges in there occasionally. Homemade bread when you've got time is a nice and cheap addition as well. You can live just fine on everything I just listed and it won't cost you much.

bilbo0s 7y ago
The apples and oranges will be pretty pricey for a poor person. Should probably only do that when you're splurging. Also, if you're in a place where the rest of the list is too expensive, priority should be placed on the rice and beans. Potatoes and carrots aren't strictly speaking "necessary" when you're in crisis like that. Try to get a fishing rod and use your local lakes and rivers. Varying degrees of healthy there, but fishing can usually be done for free on off hours.
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  Bananas are a lot cheaper. But they’re not a domestic crop, so we can’t be pointing that out.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    Well, I'm just trying to list things that won't potentially spike in price. Bananas are, calorie for calorie, a better option than most of the foods on the list. But I don't think any reasonable person would argue the fact that they occupy a very precarious place in the global food supply chain right now.
  - opportune 7y ago
    Bananas are not great nutritionally. Ok source of fiber, ok source of potassium, lots of calories

philipkglass 7y ago

It must steer clear of the idea that “all we have to do is convey to people how to eat sensibly and then everything will be fine,” he says. “That would be a significant step backwards.” “I’ll give you an example,” he adds, “If everyone followed Public Health England’s eating advice, people in the bottom decile of household income would spend 74 per cent of their income on food. So, there’s not much point telling them follow the healthy eating advice they can’t afford. I think I can see why. Here is Public Health England's "A Quick Guide to the Government’s Healthy Eating Recommendations": https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/742746/A_quick_guide_to_govt_healthy_eating_update.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... It advises people to eat more expensive meat (oily fish) in place of cheaper meats, and to eat large portions of fruits and vegetables. Those two factors look to explain the cost increase. The other advice (choose unsaturated oils, eat complex carbohydrates instead of simple ones) does not require buying more expensive foods. If you just bought foods according to the pictures and examples in the Public Health England brochure, you could spend a lot more money on food. It's possible to follow dietary recommendations without spending much (if any) more if you know how to budget and optimize, and if you already have a stove and refrigerator/freezer. I don't really think it's possible if you don't have a refrigerator/freezer. Limited transportation options can make it harder too. Worst of all, IMO, is that the brochure and linked eating guides contain no sample meal plans, shopping plans, or example prices/budgets. Bridging this sort of gap used to be (still is?) sometimes taught in Home Economics and Personal Finance classes in the United States. (I took both in high school.) It's also the sort of skill that children often used to acquire from their parents, but perhaps acquire less often now. It's way too hard for someone without that skill to go from this Healthy Eating brochure to a cost-and-health satisficing shopping plan with accompanying meal plans.

scythe 7y ago

The trouble is one of priorities. Even if you can’t afford to eat fresh fruit you can choose better options. Health recommendations are expressed in a huge package all at once, take it or leave it. Lean meat and fish in particular are also expensive and over-emphasized. You can get a similar protein/fat ratio by eating cheap meat or cheese with legumes or oats and it comes with fiber. Eggs are unfairly demonized. Only a tiny proportion of the population needs to limit egg consumption beyond what taste will do naturally. But protein is the most expensive macronutrient and eggs are a cheap source with relatively low fat and loads of vitamins. Cheese also falls into this category, with many people who do not currently have any tumors rigorously avoiding a small increase in their IGF-1, a hormone which performs many essential functions but slightly increases tumor growth rates. You can thank T. Colin Campbell for this absurdity. Potassium is very confusing. The most economical sources for most people are probably from canned tomato products, beans and fresh potatoes — the latter being a cheap vegetable whose nutritional value is highly underrated thanks to a proliferation of processed potato products. Most people, however, will reach for bananas and avocadoes — delicacies to the poor. Bread, too, deserves a more nuanced look. It ranges from sweet, thick and highly glycemic to relatively health-neutral and highly pragmatic wrt home-made lunches. “Bread” here can be extended to wraps and tortillas. “Don’t eat bread” is very often impractical. Pasta, on the other hand, is loved by diet authorities for its satiating bulk, but it’s a mess to make and requires you to wash a pot and a bowl. The rice cooker has yet to assume its rightful place on the counter. Home cooking in general has been neutered by making everyone terrified of adding butter or salt. So people choose between bland foods with no butter or salt or packaged foods with absurd amounts of salt, palm oil and artificial flavor. This advice should be revised with an eye to taste. It is not too surprising that health advice designed for the rich does not serve the poor. I don’t think the obesity crisis can be solved with health advice alone, but I also think the advice could be a lot better than it is. I don’t think we need to teach people to cook — people can learn to cook. Most people, however, do not have the number sense to assimilate hundreds of nutrition labels and prices into a diet strategy. That is difficult and boring. It doesn’t help that many products have such tiny serving sizes that the nutrient label is meaningless thanks to rounding errors. The system could be simpler and clearer. (Even with extreme effort I find myself constantly revising my own plans.)

7y ago

growlist 7y ago

It's not about economic poverty. Firstly food is (as I understand it) pretty much at its cheapest ever, even zero cost from food banks (notwithstanding the supposed shame, and I can tell you my family would have had no shame in taking food from a food bank when they were starving in rural Wales during the Great Depression, and this family history somewhat limits my sympathy to arguments about the shame of using food banks); secondly people are not poor in economic terms, with our definition of poverty having had to be changed (making it a relative measure) because it had ceased to be meaningful; and thirdly under rationing food was obviously strictly limited, and yet the nation was so (we are told) never fitter. The problem is that the person at the sharp is incapable for whatever reason of providing nutritious meals despite the basic conditions generally being available for them to do so. It's a poverty of history, culture, community, education, imagination, willingness, instinct, morale perhaps, but not money. None of that is the fault of the socially deprived, but the idea that more money will magically fix everything (as the left constantly parrot) is just as much of an untruth as the idea that the poor are too stupid and lazy to sort out their own lives. Apart from that I do think it's amazing that politicians are surprised that despair is increasing. When was the last time you heard a politician stand up and praise Britain and the British people absent virtue signalling about diversity etc.? Constantly demoralise people for decades, do nothing to properly integrate minorities nor construct a cohesive unified nation: get demoralised people.

silvestrov 7y ago

The word "food" occurs only 2 times in the body of the executive summary. So I think it's a stretch to use "can't afford" as the main title of the article. The full report doesn't have much to support it, it never shows us what food cost, how they're unable to afford it. At best it talks about "availability" of healthy food as if the supermarkets doesn't sell it. The report never considers that the unhealthy food might be a taste preference just like smoking even though everybody knows it's very unhealthy and very expensive. Giving up smoking isn't expensive, it's not money that stops people from quitting smoking. Low-income groups are more likely to consume fat spreads, non-diet soft drinks, meat dishes, pizzas, processed meats, whole milk and table sugar than the better-off (pg 133) My personal observation from observing shoppers in a number of supermarkets: poor people buys quite a lot more soft drinks than the well educated. The health of the poor is not improved much by giving them (free) fresh produce when they drink a couple of liters of non-diet Coca Cola every day. They end up obese or with diabetes which are the mother of all ills. An ounce of broccoli can't cure 2L of Coca Cola. I think the single most effective policy would be to ban sugar in drinks and severely restrict its use in fast food (and bread). The fat-free policies must be reverted to avoid foods using sugar as replacement for fat.

ahelwer 7y ago
Your prescribed initiative to improve the lives of poor people is to remove one of the few cheap pleasures available to them? I think many people here understand how stress and mood inform eating habits. Who among us has not indulged after a particularly bad day? Now imagine that bad day was every day, and you don't have the money, time, and energy to drown your feelings with healthier activities like strenuous exercise. The best way to improve the lives of poor people is to give them money. Enough with this know-better-than-thou ban & incentize crap. Poor people get jerked around enough already.
- silvestrov 7y ago
  When that "pleasure" ends up making peoples live a lot worse, then yes I do want to remove it. If we were never to take away pleasures no matter their consequences, you could just as well legalize "the Russian Krokodil" (don't google images that).

turc1656 7y ago

"If everyone followed Public Health England’s eating advice, people in the bottom decile of household income would spend 74 per cent of their income on food" Bullshit. I'll preface what I'm going to say next by saying I'm in the US and I know this was a UK report - but I highly doubt things are so incredibly different over there in terms of cost. That being said, there's utterly no way that has to be the case. Raw produce (not meats) from a farmer's market or most major supermarkets are very cheap. I can spend $30-$40 and have enough for 3-4 people for a full week. Also, sausage is usually very cheap. I buy the store brand (which happens to be delicious) and it's usually <$3 per lb. The 73% beef from Walmart is cheap as hell and usually hovers around $3-$3.25 per lb most of the time. One of those burgers (quarter-pounder, so 4 oz) has 340 calories and is a dream for anyone doing keto. So that $3 package contains about 1350 to 1400 calories! The cereal I make myself has only 4 ingredients and is loaded with healthy carbs (steel cut oats, flax seed, walnuts, and raisins). $12 to $15 dollars buys a bag of each of those ingredients which all have around 15 or so servings - that's over two weeks...or less than a dollar a day (per person). And that is a very high calorie breakfast, BTW. Water costs essentially nothing per gallon. Eggs are cheap and super healthy. There's plenty of cheap, tasty cheeses you can buy in bulk, too. You can get whole seasoned, rotisserie, cooked and ready-to-eat chickens for $5! That's multiple meals for a single person or a meal for an entire family. And I don't live in a rural part of the US where prices are cheaper - I live in an expensive area of the northeast. You can easily feed a family of 4 on $125 a week using the items I outlined above (along with other cheap options).

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
I fully agree. But the intersection of people who read articles like this and buy their food at Walmart (or any other source that specifically tries to be low cost) and pay attention to the prices is likely quite small so people who tend to read and discuss these kinds of articles forget how cheap food can be at the low end. Eggs at my local Walmart are $1.20-$1.70/dozen (depending on large/medium/small/white/brown), milk is $2.19/gal and you can get several different large loafs of wheat (or white) bread for under $2. It's been awhile since I've done the shopping but IIRC boneless chicken breast is under $2/lb and ground beef is $3.xx/lb.

wtdata 7y ago

My parents were born very poor (they were both taken out of school and put to work at 11 years old - yeah let this sink in for a minute). They did work all their lives until they retired though, specially my mom that having no job formation kept picking up any jobs she could find. My father went to school at night (started studying again while he was forcibly conscripted for war) and had two jobs. We always did eat very healthy at home. First because my parents saw that as one of the priorities (they never went to dinner out, lunch out, even coffee out in my early years, since they couldn't afford that lifestyle and keep their finances in a proper state... I guess the only luxury we had was having a dog - for which I am very grateful), second because they would take the time and effort to prepare a proper meal (yes, even after arriving home from working all day in their physically demanding jobs) and the ingredients to a healthy meal are cheap, but it takes effort to put that kind of meal together. All this happened in what is today a somewhat rich western European country. It really bothers me (and I guess other people like me), this culture of constantly dismissing people lack of self responsibility. In the EU (and I would go as far as saying, in the all 1st world), if you are willing to work and to watch how you spend your money (and this means closely, no 5$ latte like another article today just talks about, or ordering pizza because you don't want to prepare dinner), anyone can end up having a comfortable life.

throwing838383 7y ago

Here, even in super expensive CA, In college I got by with less than 2-3$ per day on rolled oats (70c per lb), Onions, potatoes, flax seeds, green peppers, bananas, whole wheat flour etc, all of which were less than 1$ per lb if you go to the right stores (for example Sprouts). Going to McDonalds is much more expensive, something like 20$ per day! With the proper education, you can eat cost effectively and very healthily. And, I know it's really controversial to say this because of the decades of conditioning we've received from the dairy and meat industry, but Meat and Dairy aren't needed in the diet, and have been shown to even cause cancer, heart disease and heart stroke for many. (source Forks over Knives, the documentary, plus the China study -> check it out, seriously.)

apazzolini 7y ago
It's nice that while you were in college and had obligations of 12-18 hours a week, you found the time to shop at multiple stores to maximize your savings. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people (single moms, for example) that work 80 hours a week at three minimum wage jobs, each of which purposefully employ people at non-full-time hours to avoid needing to provide benefits, and they just don't have the time to go to research prices and recipes, visit multiple stores, go home exhausted, and still find time to cook.
learc83 7y ago
>Going to McDonalds is much more expensive, something like 20$ per day! If you're ordering off of the value menu it's nowhere near that expensive in most of the country. >rolled oats (70c per lb), Onions, potatoes, flax seeds, green peppers, bananas, whole wheat flour etc Most of those particularly the wheat flour requires significant preparation--knowledge, time, a stocked and functioning kitchen. A lot of those people in the bottom 10% of income in the UK aren't going to have an oven. >With the proper education, Yes, proper education, plus time, plus a working kitchen. 3 things that the very poor aren't likely to have. And keep in mind this was when you were a single college student, not a working single mother with 2 small kids.

opportune 7y ago

I wonder why supermarkets themselves aren't making more blue-apron style meal plans aimed at different income categories. It is a relatively inexpensive way to value-add items you already have and differentiate yourself from other supermarkets. And you can help people that either don't know/don't care about nutrition (enough to come up with a nutrition regime) eat healthy; perhaps creating the meal kits could be partially subsidized by the gov. You can feed someone very well for $50/week. And you can even do it in a way that requires only low-effort cooking: meat that can be baked, microwaveable vegetables, eggs that can be simply boiled or cooked in a pan with butter, pasta and oatmeal. Dairy products, fruits, some vegetables, and nuts can just be eaten without processing. Canned food that can be eaten right out of the can or just heated up. Assuming a main reason poor people don't eat healthier food is due to lack of time, cognitive overhead, or lack of knowledge (not only re: what food is healthy or not, but also how to optimize nutrition/f(cost, time, effort)) it could help. I don't have time to go into how it's even possible healthy food could take 75% of someone's income (assuming that person has an income of $10k/year, that is over $140/week) but there are surely compromises you can make to get the majority of the benefits of eating healthy food without spending nearly that much.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
I'm surprised the government, some nonprofit or some university's sociology department isn't doing this. It wouldn't be hard to publish a weekly newsletter with meals for various family sizes that can be made at various price points using all SNAP-compatible ingredients. How much would it really cost to send a weekly pamphlet of cheap and not nutritionally terrible meal ideas to the address of every kid who gets free lunch?