RSS Feed MenuLike millions of aging suburban dads across this continent, summer for me means family time, road trips, and pit stops for food at places we wouldn’t ordinarily go to.
As a child, I remember that gas stations were particularly uninspired places when it came to snacking. Outside a few choices of potato chips – with uninteresting flavors and in bags that (in retrospect) were very small – the gas station was a place for gas, yesterday’s newspaper, and not much more.
No longer. I’m not exactly sure when gas stations were transformed into food oases, complete with tony coffees and millions of varieties of energy bars, but today’s fill up has multiple meanings.
Gas stations with their many food options seem to be more about snacking then, well, gas. And that Twinkie, the giant candy bar, and the super-big bottle of Coke come with modest price tags.
It’s long been noted that in recent years, fruit and vegetable prices have been rising in the United States. In contrast, those sweet drinks that your kids beg you for at the Exxon off the I-95 have gotten cheaper.
Writing in The New York Times Magazine, Michael Pollan quantifies that change:
[T]he real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (a k a liquid corn) declined by 23 percent.
It’s also true, however, that measured by price per calorie, yields an even more surprising result. Pollan draws on the work of Adam Drewnowski:
A few years ago, an obesity researcher at the University of Washington named Adam Drewnowski ventured into the supermarket to solve a mystery. He wanted to figure out why it is that the most reliable predictor of obesity in America today is a person’s wealth. For most of history, after all, the poor have typically suffered from a shortage of calories, not a surfeit. So how is it that today the people with the least amount of money to spend on food are the ones most likely to be overweight?
Drewnowski gave himself a hypothetical dollar to spend, using it to purchase as many calories as he possibly could. He discovered that he could buy the most calories per dollar in the middle aisles of the supermarket, among the towering canyons of processed food and soft drink. (In the typical American supermarket, the fresh foods–dairy, meat, fish and produce–line the perimeter walls, while the imperishable packaged goods dominate the center.) Drewnowski found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips, he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice.
Pollan and Drewnowski were very much on my mind as of late. So were Neil Gandal and Anastasia Shabelansky, both from the Tel Aviv University. They considered BMI and price sensitivity at the supermarket.
What did they find?
[Other things equal,] we find that a woman of average height who stated that prices were “not important at all” when purchasing food products had a weight circumference 4.5 centimeters (roughly 1.8 inches) smaller than those who stated that price was “very important.”
The full paper, published in the Forum for Health Economics and Policy, can be accessed with free registration here. (Or without registration here.)
It’s become popular to tout a soda tax as a way of addressing rising obesity rates. The argument: if Pollan, Drewnowski, Gandal and Shabelansky are all correct and high-calorie choices are motivated by less affluent shoppers making “value” purchases, why not push up the price of that cola? But as a trip to Exxon or Shell reveals, it’s not just the soda that’s the problem. So much of the American diet has become high-calorie foods.
What then to consider? How about the farm bill, which subsidizes corn and other crops?
As Pollan notes: “Like most processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat – three of the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of some $25 billion a year.”
In an age of record deficits, do we really need to fund our own obesity problems?
Carney // Aug 26, 2010 at 12:28 pm
The lower you go on the socio-economic ladder, the lower IQs go as well.
Low IQ is closely correlated with poor impulse control, high time preference, low ability to defer gratification, low ability to consider consequences (especially in the long term), etc. – traits that all point toward poor decision making in all fields, including nutrition.
While some mitigation is possible on the margins with wise policies, “breaking” the link between poverty and obesity is as hopeless as breaking the link between poverty and low academic performance, unemployment, crime, addiction, illegitimacy, easily preventable disease, etc.
Cindyflo // Aug 26, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Another part of the equation is mobility and convenience – many really poor people live in places that are not that close to large grocery stores; they need to take the bus, which can be a drag if you have several bags and transfers. They end up buying an awful lot of their food at those gas stations, which are not known for their fresh fruits and veggies….
sinz54 // Aug 26, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Gratzer:
You’re right, we should certainly end the farm subsidies to agribusiness’ corn. (This is one place where fiscal conservatives like us part company with GOP politicians from farm districts.)
But why are all the fruits and vegetables so much more expensive these days? The answer is the long-term decline of the dollar plus globalization. Check the produce at your local supermarket. Much of it is imported from other countries. And when the exchange rate makes dollars cheaper, the cost of these products in dollars will rise.
PracticalGirl // Aug 26, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Sinz:
I agree with you. I live in a produce-rich area. Local supermarket chains and large farmer’s markets provide me with a rich, affordable harvest. And yet, if I go into a national chain, there’s so many of the same products I can find locally, stamped “Product of Mexico” or “Chile” or “Indonesia”. Would you be in favor of shifting farm subsidies to help expand and increase local production and distribution of high quality, high-nutrition-value fruits and vegetables to make them more readily available and affordable? And what to do with the corn farmers who rely on governement subsidies to sustain their businesses?
easton // Aug 26, 2010 at 2:02 pm
“The lower you go on the socio-economic ladder, the lower IQs go as well.”
Where did you come up with that silliness? Over a billion chinese are quite poor, they manage not to be fat, and since the Chinese have the highest savings rate they also know how to defer gratification, in addition, there is very little illegimacy, addiction, crime, etc.
As to IQ’s, I would put up any typical lower class neighborhood against the old British House of lords and all the upper class twits there.
Of course you can break the link between poverty and obesity. This is not a question of absolute poverty, no one in my extended Chinese family is remotely fat, my mother in law is actually pretty skinny and my father in law is built like a mack truck, it is not lack of money, and being that they are from simple peasant stock have little education, yet they are quite healthy, disease free, employed, and so on.
I am also not talking just about China, go to Japan or South Korea.
Most Americans are overweight, rich, poor, and middle class. Mike Huckabee ballooned up to 300 pounds before he went on a strict diet and lost a lot of it, (he has since gained some of it back) but millions of poor do the same it is just that they are not in the public eye when they do it.
There is no reason to be condescending, lower IQ or economic status does not mean stupid, though there are many stupid people in this group there are plenty of stupid rich or high IQ people. The prisons are full of them (granted, a lot of them go to club fed)
JeninCT // Aug 26, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Cindyflo wrote:
“Another part of the equation is mobility and convenience – many really poor people live in places that are not that close to large grocery stores; they need to take the bus, which can be a drag if you have several bags and transfers. They end up buying an awful lot of their food at those gas stations, which are not known for their fresh fruits and veggies….”
This sounds an awful lot like Michelle Obama’s gripe, but the fact is, fruits and vegetables are expensive and perishable, so regardless of how close or far away the store is, people are only going to buy so much and will only buy what will get eaten within a few days.
JeninCT // Aug 26, 2010 at 3:29 pm
easton wrote @ Carney:
“Where did you come up with that silliness? Over a billion chinese are quite poor, they manage not to be fat, and since the Chinese have the highest savings rate they also know how to defer gratification, in addition, there is very little illegimacy, addiction, crime, etc. …
There is no reason to be condescending, lower IQ or economic status does not mean stupid, though there are many stupid people in this group there are plenty of stupid rich or high IQ people. The prisons are full of them (granted, a lot of them go to club fed)”
I agree with you, easton (probably for the first time!).
Oldskool // Aug 26, 2010 at 4:38 pm
I’ve believed for a long time that someone could make a fortune if they started a fast food chain selling real food like baked meats alongside beans ‘n greens. And p&j sandwiches. The stuff we grew up on before fast food took off in the 1970s. All they’d have to do is make it taste as good as homeade and that wouldn’t be so hard. The only way to get food like that today is in higher priced restaurants even though it’s cheap to make at home.
cheves222 // Aug 26, 2010 at 4:49 pm
I hear you, brother. But . . . good luck with getting the $$ taken away from farmer’s. Those people (and the pensioners) can’t get enough, and never will get enough. And they have some kinda pull in DC. Sigh.
JeninCT // Aug 26, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Oldskool wrote:
“I’ve believed for a long time that someone could make a fortune if they started a fast food chain selling real food like baked meats alongside beans ‘n greens.”
Boston Market has that type menu. It’s very good, although pretty high in fat and salt. Wish there was one close to me!
sinz54 // Aug 26, 2010 at 8:30 pm
PracticalGirl: Would you be in favor of shifting farm subsidies to help expand and increase local production and distribution of high quality, high-nutrition-value fruits and vegetables to make them more readily available and affordable?
It sounds like your local farms don’t need subsidies, since they’re holding their own.
What they need is a level playing field so the big chains don’t undercut them in price.
And the best way to do that is to phase out all subsidies to agribusiness. Agriculture subsidies were started in the 1930s by FDR to cope with the massive failures of farms in the “Dust Bowl” era. But that was 70 years ago. Agriculture subsidies have outlived their usefulness.
freedomrings // Aug 27, 2010 at 8:49 am
I agree, get rid of farm subsidies!
sinz54 // Aug 27, 2010 at 9:33 am
Oldskool: “I’ve believed for a long time that someone could make a fortune if they started a fast food chain selling real food like baked meats alongside beans ‘n greens.”
Subway Restaurants aren’t bad. Their sandwiches do have real meats in them, not fried, not that much fat. Though they do have too much sodium.
The World May End…Have a GREAT Weekend! | The Peterson Post // Aug 27, 2010 at 12:05 pm
[...] This is a strong article from FrumForum addressing some solutions for fighting obesity. I’ve known for some time that corn, soy and wheat are killing people, but it will take time [...]
JeninCT // Aug 27, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Sinz wrote:
‘Subway Restaurants aren’t bad. Their sandwiches do have real meats in them, not fried, not that much fat. Though they do have too much sodium.’
Their sandwiches are awful, though. Quiznos are decent, though. Not sure how big a chain they are but they have soup and salads as well.
Rabiner // Aug 27, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Not sure what’s the complain about Subway. It’s simplistic with the only complaint really being if you don’t like their bread. Vegetables aren’t changing from place to place, same for cheese. Meat quality may be an issue as well but i’ve found it’s fine.
Carney // Aug 29, 2010 at 7:04 pm
easton, JeninCT, northeast Asians have a high average IQ (about 105, compared to 100 for whites), but of course when saddled with Communism even the highest potential population group will be poor.
easton, your claim that class makes no difference when it comes to weight and behavior is feel-good silliness. It’s well documented that the poor are much more likely to be overweight and obese (at least in the US).