Cheap Food Supply vs Obesity
 

In all of our discussions of whether we could actually survive without the huge corporate mega farms that rely on GMO's and chemicals we have focussed on the main benefit which is they provide a lot of cheap food for the world. I wonder how "we" would change if we did not have such an inexpensive supply of food, as far as our health is concerned. I heard that right now there are almost 500,000,000 people in the world that are considered obese. Maybe if we didn't have this unlimited food supply maybe we would cut back consumption if for no other reason than cost of food. We would be forced to eat a little healthier, and not have access to HFCS in every food product we buy. I know we could not survive without some of these large farmers, but if farmers were given incentives to grow locally grown fruits and vegetables like they are corn and beans, maybe more farmers would be willing to make the switch. How many billions are spent on Health Care reform, but could be some spent being proactive and improve what is fueling our bodies. Just like an automobile, proper maintenance in advance is way less expensive than taking your car to the shop all the time because of what we have been putting in it.

This is really the best article I have ever read on the subject and it explains why the poorer you are the more likely you are to be obese, please take the time to read it!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/ma...erland&emc=rss

Maybe we don't have such a oversupply of cheap food. Maybe it is more a question of distribution. Perhaps we should check with some of the 3rd world countries about raising the price of food.

The article Patt posted is the best example of how cheap food relates to obesity. Also the fact that we take mono culture crops like corn and use them for junk food like sodas. I don't think anyone became obese from cornmeal.

From the first page of the NYT article;
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/ma...erland&emc=rss
Growers of fresh produce are nearly always members of a cooperative or marketing group.

Ya know Patt, you & I butt heads a lot on these topics.

I kinda agree with you on your quote there, for a change.

I would add that a rather lazy lifestyle has evolved in this country for many of the poor people, which contributes a lot to it. But you have a point there too.

--->Paul

I don't know if cheap food itself is the problem. There have been members of this forum who have said they can prepare a healthy meal for as cheap or cheaper then buying processed food from the store. I think it's a matter of knowledge and the willingness to actually cook as opposed to opening up a can.

It's really not cheap when the health care costs are added on but then the average North American doesn't seem to look at many things in the long term.

The reason so many po' folks are obese is because meat and vegetables are more expensive than grain. Keeping that in mind, if food were more expensive then the obesity problem might get worse.

Your body really only needs about 500-1000 calories a day to be healthy. You do not need to eat meat to be healthy. Beans and some fresh vegis are just as good. I think part of it is education, or the lack there of on truely healthy food. Some people still think that eating a diet high in grains is good for you, that all fat is bad for you, and that the way to lower your colesterol is to stop eating fat (when in fact it is to stop eating sugar and starches) Poor education combined with food addiction will be the downfall of most I am afraid.

Ya know Terri, that's an intriguing point...

My husband recently lost his job and found a new one at much lower pay.
The first thing I did was go back to my "poor years" menus. More fillers (macaroni, rice, bread), less fresh fruits/veggies and meat. Because the cost of our groceries is one thing that I know I have immediate control over...

Fantastic article, Patt!

Yes, you can have a healthy diet on the cheap.

Many, many of the meals I fix cost less than $1 per person, and contain whole grains and veggies, along with meat, cheese, etc.

It's difficult. It takes work, and it takes cooking skills, and it also takes math skills and planning skills.

There are many reasons most people on a processed diet won't easily change. I touched on it a little bit here: http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sho...08#post4487508

Other people on the coupons and deals forums where I hang out have observed many of the same things I have in neighbors, family members, coworkers, etc who make excuses about why they can't do that.

1. Coupons are only for processed junk.
(False!!!!!!!)

2. Only poor people use coupons and/or shop sales
(80% of coupons are redeemed by the top 20% wealthiest people)

3. I don't have room to stockpile.
(You can get a lot under a bed! Some of the supercouponers live in tiny apartments and find ingenious ways to stash goods).

4. It takes too much time.
(Not if you get properly organized).

Of course, you also have the problems like the following:

5. People don't know how to cook and don't want to learn.

6. People are addicted to their junk diets and don't want to change.

7. Multi-generational welfare families don't see a need to shop sales. Why should they? When their food stamps run out, the church pantries feed them.

8. Low income people with poor education often simply don't have the brains to figure it all out. They don't have the math and planning skills. And an awful lot of them can't wrap their mind around the concept of how it works. They don't understand how buying 12 jars of peanut butter or 2 cases of green beans today at 75% off the regular price will save them money in the future.

I think I'll start sending the skeptics to this thread: http://www.weusecoupons.com/upload/m...454-works.html

Obesity is because people eat too much and exercise too little. :grumble:

The link you posted is broken.

I disagree with your #1--while there may be a FEW coupons for name-brand stuff like rice or flour, the MAJORITY of coupons is for crap food--coupons are simply a MARKETING tool to get you to buy NAME BRAND products. You really think the manufacterers care about you "saving" money?

I agree with the rest, it's not an issue of cheap food, it's the age old thing of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. It IS cheaper to make from scratch.

If this one does not work, use the link in your first post in this thread.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/ma...erland&emc=rss

I think it comes down to cheap / hyper-processed foods have fewer nutrients in them. The body knows what it needs and that's what produces many cravings. I think that since many of these manufactured foods have less nutrients people need to eat more to get those nutrients. So much of what people eat today is filler (carbs)... and that just gets piled onto one's body as fat.

I can also state without a doubt that the conventionally accepted idea that the healthiest of diets is the high carb / low-fat diet is a complete lie. I personally struggled with my weight for many, many years. And the more high-carb, low-fat / no-fat stuff I ate the bigger I grew.

When a friend proposed the radical solution of dropping simple carbs and increasing my fat intake I literally laughed at him. But I was desperate and really tired of "dieting". So I tried it his way for a few weeks and wow, what a difference. I felt better, I was NEVER hungry, and I lost a couple of pounds. So I gave it some more time and little by little I dropped weight and became more healthy.

Today I eat a good, old-fashioned diet of fresh veggies, meat, potatoes, and moderate portions of wheat-based foods / simple carbs. We avoid processed foods as much as possible. I'm healthy and I no longer struggle with my weight. Essentially, I eat like my grandparents did.

The answers to so many of our modern-day problems lie not in the future and some promised technology... the answers lie in the past. Our ancestors knew so much more than we are generally prepared to admit.

maybe healthy in concentration camp guidlelines--enough to keep em alive long enough to pound sand for a few months till the new trainload of chubs come in

as in 500 base handout and the other 500 is made up of rats and bugs

or maybe if your a guru somewhere who sits and meditates 24/7 and gets their cals from sungazing(evolved to photosynthesis? actually sungazing is an interesting thing and probably has merit...but "eating" from the sun is just whack)

totally agree with this. good food shared with friends and family is an art and a sacrament as well(which has also been lost on modern gluttons)

I don't remember if that article explains it or not but the whole process of buying food when you are poor is complicated by several factors. The really obvious one to researchers is the one in the quote above: you can buy far more calories of junk then you can of healthy food for your dollar. So when you are poor and you go to the store and you have to pack a weeks worth of lunches for your kids and you can get a whole package of cookies for $1 vs. 5 apples for $2.50 what will you pick? If you only have a dollar you pick the cookies.

Add on top of that the fact that poverty increases stress and when we are stressed our bodies send out cravings for what? Fat and sugar. So now you are hit with a double whammy the food is financially weighted to make you buy the junk and your body is screaming for it too. It's honestly no wonder that people make bad choices.

All I want to see is for us to stop subsidising Twinkies and Coke with super low priced corn and wheat and start subsidising those apples. Make at least one half of the choice easier.

We went through 2 1/2 years where we were very poor, we had lost a job and then had to take one that paid way too low but we were determined to work and make our own way. Food was always hard, I remember going to the grocery when we first got that job and I had 10 dollars to feed us for 7 days (family of 5). They had mac and cheese 5 boxes for a dollar, dried beans and rice, grits, a loaf of white bread, a jar of peanut butter and some milk was what I got. White pasta, white bread, white grits, and processed stuff to go on it. But I had to feed us and I had to get as many cheap calories as I could. That was 16 years ago and I can still remember looking at the produce section trying to figure out week after week how to eke out a few oranges or bananas or apples for the kids. I don't think I ate a piece of fruit or drank a glass of milk for those whole 2 1/2 years. If we could afford it the kids got it.

We learned a lot in those years and we slowly shifted to healthier choices when we could we wound up mostly vegetarian by the end of it. Doesn't seem quite right though that young families who are working hard and trying should have their food situation made so difficult though does it?

in my recent studies (and watching this film "Fathead" and reading this book "Good calorie bad calorie" by Gary Taubes) I have learned that our government has been lying to us about what we really should be eating for our health..that the food pyramid is a lie forced onto us by the government in the 1970's and that really most people should be eating very very few carbohydrates and eating much more protein and fats..alzheimers and a lot of memory problems are cheifly caused by not having enough fat in our diet, but we are constantly told to cut back on fats ..and meats..but it is a lie..watch the film and read the book..as soon as i limited my carbs severely and started eating fats and meat proteins as well as eggs and nuts..i lost 20 pounds in a matter of a few weeks, my memory was sharper, i could wear 3 sizes smaller clothes, my blood pressure is now LOW, my blood sugar has stabilized, and i feel full of energy, sleep good and really feel 100 % better. These books and films will show you how the lies came about and have been supported by our government..please don't move this..it isn't political it is about health..check it out..go to Gary Taubes (google on internet and read some excerps from his book)

That one works. :) I thought it was a new article. Not sure I understood your point then?

The real problem is that there's big profit in junk / processed foods. And as long as there's big profits to be had... crap-food producers are going to do everything in their power to advertise and extol the benefits of their products.

I also think that simple carbs, especially sugar, affect the body like a drug. Just give a room full of kids some sugar and watch the near-instant change in their behavior.

I personally found it way easier to give up cigarettes than sugar. Seriously. I had major withdrawal symptoms when going on some of my no-sugar kicks. So the population is hooked. And it's a legal product.

Perhaps if we came to view sugar as we do caffeine it would be less socially acceptable to push the stuff on the population and kids.

I got a bit hung up on that one, too.
"your body" meaning what exactly? Every size? Every activity level?

Does this mean the basal metabolic rate thing is completely bogus?

http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/question457.htm

"Your basal metabolic rate (BMR) is the amount of energy your body needs to function at rest. This accounts for about 60 to 70 percent of calories burned in a day and includes the energy required to keep the heart beating, the lungs breathing, the eyelids blinking and the body temperature stabilized. In general, men have a higher BMR than women. One of the most accurate methods of estimating your basal metabolic rate is the Harris-Benedict formula:

Adult male: 66 + (6.3 x body weight in lbs.) + (12.9 x height in inches) - (6.8 x age in years)
Adult female: 655 + (4.3 x weight in lbs.) + (4.7 x height in inches) - (4.7 x age in years) "

******
I worked the formula and get 1496.8 cals. I eat roughly 2000 cals a day(I dont' count that is my target), add in 200 cals to simply digest this food--(I'll just round up the first to 1500)--1700 cals. I know I burn minimum 1000 cals in my daily workouts(this doesn't include garden puttering, chores, sitting at the computer...), since I'm working on losing the last of my baby fat the 2000-2300 range lets me lose the fat and keep/build the muscle.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5091394_da...ents-kids.html
a BABY gets by on 650 cals a day.
1000 cals does not grow a growing child. at least a healthy one.

(and of course these cals need to be healthy balanced nutrition, NOT Twinkies and Mountain Freakin Dew!!!!!)

and another thing--that basal metabolic rate is *probably* based on an ambient temp of 70'

My point was in response to this:
Does anyone have any suggestions as to what kind of incentives to offer farmers to make that switch?

From USDA FY 2009 budget
total budget $95 Billion.
Domestic Nutrition Assistance Participation and Funding; $62 Billion. 65% of total budget
Food Stamps, $40.2 Billion. 42% of total budget
Farm Support Programs, $10.5 Billion. 11% of total budget
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/...08/02/0030.xml

I wondered about the obesity of poorer people here in our economically poor county. To me, junk food seems expensive. DD is a nurse (RN, BSN). She sees the end result of obesity (often literally the very end of life) at work in the critical care unit of the hospital. I asked her and she said the junk foods are cheap. I didn't believe her. In the grocery store one day she pointed out how cheap the junk food can be. She was right! You could buy all sorts of highly-processed food-like stuff for cheap. I just hadn't noticed - we stick to basics and have to watch our pennies. But the junk food WAS cheap.

Ok thanks. :)

I think we have taken a few steps in the right direction. A very tiny portion of this funding now goes to help Farmer's markets and some of the food assistance programs give Farmer's Market vouchers for fresh fruits and vegetables. Programs like WIC that actually limit what can be bought are better too. I would like to see the Food stamps program give coupons for specific things: meat, milk, fruits and vegetables, staples like rice and beans etc. Give classes too on how to budget, shop and cook. And that is just assuming we have to continue any of it at all of course. I'd be happy to see the whole program slowly dismantled to give time for everything to shift without too much hardship.

Basically what we want to see is the balance shifted. I want to see those 5 apples for the school lunchbox cost the same or less than the cookies. I mean honestly why do they cost more? Why is it that a cookie with 20 different ingredients shipped from all over the country, mixed up and baked in a factory and with fancy packaging and marketing added costs less that 5 small apples?

That's the number one fallacy about coupons and THE fallacy that drives supercouponers the CRAZIEST.

Almost every staple, non-processed item I buy is with coupons. And that includes fresh produce and fresh meat.

I've been there a few times.

I have NEVER seen a coupon in my local paper/etc for fresh produce. MAYBE one for a buck off of meat when you buy a bottle of BBQ sauce, attached to the bottle.

Frankly I quit couponing when it did not reimburse me the cost of buying the Sunday/Wednesday paper to get the coupons. There are simply not coupons for the things I buy.

It's just me, and I mean this lightheartedly, but I don't get off on getting stuff I wouldn't buy anyway for supa cheap, just to say I can;)

Of course cheap food is to blame for obesity. If it were not for cheap food then most of us would starve. It has been in the form of health that we feed all the people but if you want it to be otherwise you will agree with the poster. There is more to regulating food that is to meet the eye. One that regulates food can have a weapon that will destroy or make sure that he stayed on the good side of the one that is regulate the food. When you regulate food you are regulating the one thing that everybody needs to stay alive. Who do you think is the one that regulate food?:censored::eek:

I wonder what would happen if the rules of food stamps only included produce, meats, whole grains, etc. What would happen if people on welfare could only buy healthy foods from that money?

What if people receiving food stamps were required to take cooking classes and classes on how to organize and plan meals for their families in order to receive those benefits?

I'm all for smaller government... but since the welfare system is so horribly mis-used, maybe changing some of the rules for hand-outs would benefit those who suffer greater percentages of obesity. I'm not trying to start a political debate on this topic.

In response to Ladycat's comment #8 "8. Low income people with poor education often simply don't have the brains to figure it all out. They don't have the math and planning skills. And an awful lot of them can't wrap their mind around the concept of how it works. They don't understand how buying 12 jars of peanut butter or 2 cases of green beans today at 75% off the regular price will save them money in the future."

I disagree... I've seen plenty of people work the government system to eke out every penny they can. That's nearly a full time job in itself... and takes plenty of math and planning. What people like this are lacking is a desire to use their talents honestly.

We are back to the growers cooperatives/marketing groups. When the supply is controlled, the price can be controlled also. Look at the oil and gas industry as an example that everyone should be familiar with.

I seldom see coupons in the Sunday inserts for meat and produce. But then again, Sunday inserts account for, what, about 0.1% of the coupons that are out there?

I buy only what I need. For supa cheap, of course.

The ones who milk the system have no interest in couponing or deal seeking.

The ones who do NOT milk the system are the ones who could really benefit from supercouponing, but they can't figure it out even when you try to explain it.

Many would sell their stamps (Link cards around here) for 1/2 the face value and use the money to buy what they wanted, including non-food items. I've stood in line in the store more than once and heard the conversations about what the going rate is.

First- the concept of 'cheap food' to a family who is struggling due to the economy is somewhat laughable. I'm not a gourmet.. I stick with pretty basics (a meat, a veg, a starch). There is very little cheap about it, even when I've grown the birds or raised the garden myself (although the garden is definitely somewhat cheaper!!)


I keep seeing the blame on this thread placed on those with foodstamps. There is no doubt SOME of the people on fs definitely buy a whole lotta junk. But there are probably just as many families on fs who try to do it healthy... and have more access to it than families like mine.. struggling to get by without boxes of mac&ch.

I would like to see the statistics on percentage of population on fs, and then the stat on percentage of the population who is obese. I'm betting there are at least as many people who are overweight that aren't getting that way without working.

You are right! There are both kinds of fs recipients!

Go to the link in post #26, that will give you an estimate of numbers for USDA FY 2009.