More BS on the higher income segment

[widgeon13]

Study: Healthy eating is privilege of the rich

DONNA GORDON BLANKINSHIP
Published: Aug 4, 2011 8:14 AM
SEATTLE (AP) - A healthy diet is expensive and could make it difficult for Americans to meet new U.S. nutritional guidelines, according to a study published Thursday that says the government should do more to help consumers eat healthier.

An update of what used to be known as a food pyramid in 2010 had called on Americans to eat more foods containing potassium, dietary fiber, vitamin D and calcium. But if they did that, the journal Health Affairs said, they would add hundreds more dollars to their annual grocery bill.

Inexpensive ways to add these nutrients to a person's diet include potatoes and beans for potassium and dietary fiber. But the study found introducing more potassium in a diet is likely to add $380 per year to the average consumer's food costs, said lead researcher Pablo Monsivais, an assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology and the School of Public Health at the University of Washington.

"We know more than ever about the science of nutrition, and yet we have not yet been able to move the needle on healthful eating," he said. The government should provide help for meeting the nutritional guidelines in an affordable way.

He criticized some of the marketing for a healthy diet - for example, the image of a plate of salmon, leafy greens and maybe some rice pilaf - and said a meal like that is not affordable for many Americans.

Food-assistance programs are helping people make healthier choices by providing coupons to buy fruits and vegetables, Monsivais said, but some also put stumbling blocks in front of the poor.

He mentioned, as an example, a Washington state policy making it difficult to buy potatoes with food assistance coupons for women with children, even though potatoes are one of the least expensive ways to add potassium to a diet.

The study was based on a random telephone survey of about 2,000 adults in King County, Wash., followed by a printed questionnaire that was returned by about 1,300 people. They note what food they ate, which was analyzed for nutrient content and estimated cost.

People who spend the most on food tend to get the closest to meeting the federal guidelines for potassium, dietary fiber, vitamin D and calcium, the study found. Those who spend the least have the lowest intakes of the four recommended nutrients and the highest consumption of saturated fat and added sugar.

Hilary Seligman, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said Monsivais' research is an interesting addition to the debate about healthy eating and food insecurity, her area of expertise.

A lot of people assume the poor eat cheap food because it tastes good, but they would make better choices if they could afford to, said Seligman, who was not involved in the Health Affairs study.

"Almost 15 percent of households in America say they don't have enough money to eat the way they want to eat," Seligman said. Recent estimates show 49 million Americans make food decisions based on cost, she added.

"Right now, a huge chunk of America just isn't able to adhere to these guidelines," she said.

But Monsivais may have oversimplified the problem, according to another professor who does research in this area. Parke Wilde, associated professor at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, said it's not expensive to get all the nutrients a body needs to meet the federal guidelines.

What is expensive, in Wilde's opinion, are the choices Americans make while getting those nutrients.

He said diets get more and more expensive depending on how many rules a person applies to himself, such as eating organic or seeking local sources for food or eating vegetables out of season.

"The longer your list gets, the more expensive your list will be," he said.

Seligman said her list can get longer than Wilde's, but not everything is a choice. Adding to the cost of buying healthful food could be how far away from home a person needs to travel to get to a grocery store that sells a variety of fresh fruits and vegetables.

The government also affects food prices through the subsidies offered to farmers growing certain crops, she added.

[VaSteve]

I think the food pyramid isn't useful beyond age 10. "Hey kids, don't just eat crap all day". Anyone that thinks they have to "adhere" to it, isn't likely adhering to anything else the govt is giving guidelines on. Hell, we need to have pictures in the bathroom reminding people to wash their hands and sneeze in their sleeve. Argh.

[sammyg2]

But but but, it isn't their fault they live on crap junk food from mickey-D's, it's an economic thing! It has nothing to do with laziness and irresponsibility

Bullsheet, it's a responsibility and accoutability thing which prolly explains why they are poor and others are not.
They don't need more of my money, they need to either get their act together or starve. harsh as that sounds it is THE MOST COMPASSIONATE APPROACH!

Does anyone know how many gubmint programs there are to provide free breakfasts, free lunches, and free dinners?
No wonder we have an obesity problem, the gubmint keeps shoving my money down their throats!

[mnewport]

Interesting topic. I don't think I'd shove it in to the "higher income segment" category, as it's much more complex than that. Yes, income plays a factor, but not always. Mentality is part of the issue as well.

What about federal food policy with respect to farm subsidies? The system of subsidies we have in place essentially allows a food market whereby the more processed, high-calorie low nutrient foods are actually the cheapest. So this stuff that's actually the worst thing to eat is the most easily accessible to people in lower income brackets.

There's also the issue of cultural divide. Some people do not want to eat foods perceived as "healthy" or "organic". That's for weirdos and hippies (even though people from both sides of the political divide are interested in healthy eating).

Personally I doubt throwing government money at it is going to solve the issue.

[crustychief]

If you gave 20 dollars each to 10 people across the income spectrum for any kind of food and followed them, You would probably see the least wealthy going straight to Taco bell, Mc Donalds or 7-11, the middle of the road to subway or a grocery store and the most wealthy to whole foods or a grocery store. It wouldn't have anything to do with income, because you gave them the money, it is a function of their upbringing and / or ethics.

[stomachmonkey]

Many reasons for the disparity.

Economics is certainly a major factor but likely more so is culture.

As far as nutritional value goes bugs are healthier for you than the traditional meats that Westerners consume.

But there ain't no way in hell I'm convincing the wife that she should be eating Scorpions instead of steak or getting my kids to chow down on a bowl of Termites instead of Mac N Cheese.

[widgeon13]

Personal responsibility and what's easy.

[MarKoBrow]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

But but but, it isn't their fault they live on crap junk food from mickey-D's, it's an economic thing! It has nothing to do with laziness and irresponsibility

Bullsheet, it's a responsibility and accoutability thing which prolly explains why they are poor and others are not.

So that's why they poor exist? Thanks for sharing your insight. May I quote you on this perhaps share it with others so they to can become enlightened?

[Rick Lee]

But the study found introducing more potassium in a diet is likely to add $380 per year to the average consumer's food costs, said lead researcher Pablo Monsivais, an assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology and the School of Public Health at the University of Washington.

Is $380 really all that divides rich and poor here? Let's see, when I go to the store and buy broccoli crowns a few time per week for $.99 or $1.49/lb, depending on whether they're on sale or not, I don't feel rich. Asparagus is usually $3.99/lb. and I can't bring myself to pay that. So I only buy when it's on sale. Amazingly, when I cook this stuff, I always steam it. So I guess I'm paying for the water and power there too. I find it much cheaper to eat healthy than going out all the time. Where do they get this stuff and who pays for these meaningless studies? (Probably Hugh)

[Tervuren]

Snickers bar - $1, an entire Cucumber, $0.79

Hmm, which is the healthier choice, which cost more? I've switched as much as possible from eating packaged snack foods, to instead having several raw vegetables in the fridge. Mostly carrots as I love those. I'm actually surprised how cheap a lot of vegetables are compared to alternate snack foods.

The interesting thing about statistics is that causation and correlation are not always the same. There probably are nutritional cheap alternatives, but it doesn't fit in what they want to eat.

[pwd72s]

Using class envy to forward a political agenda...an old but effective ploy.

[Hugh R]

Thanks for realizing that Rick.

I think people eat what they are taught to eat. If you ate McD as a way of life with your parents, that is probably what you eat as an adult. I ate at a McD a few months ago and thought to myself, this really isn't very good. In HS I ate their more often, but liked BK better.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by pwd72s

Using class envy to forward a political agenda...an old but effective ploy.

What's the political agenda there?

I agree with the poster who said the biggest factor in food choice is culture.

[AirKuhl]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

What's the political agenda there?

Same as always, entrench themselves even more into our lives and wallets:

"... that says the government should do more to help consumers eat healthier."

[jyl]

There's a couple aspects to this.

First, buying healthy raw food and cooking it in a tasty way is not expensive, if you know how to cook from scratch.

Buying healthy prepared or convenience processed food is expensive. (Tuna steaks at grocery store $15/lb. Whole 4 lb bonito at Chinese market $5.) Buying "super healthy" raw food is expensive. (Organic free-range 5 lb chicken $12, regular Perdue 5 lb broiler $6.) So, if you can cook and aren't nutso about organic-everything, you can feed a family healthy food at a reasonable cost.

However, processed and junk food is very cheap - sometimes cheaper than buying raw food for scratch-cooking. Packaged food companies and fast-food chains buy raw food far, far cheaper than you, the retail customer, buy at the grocery store. The processing is very automated, it doesn't cost them much to shred a bunch of chicken, press it into a nugget, coat it with a batter, cook and freeze. As a result, you can buy a 2 lb bag of frozen pre-cooked chicken nuggets for $2.50 versus $6 for a whole raw broiler chicken that yields about 3 lb of standard edible parts.

So, yeah, you can cook healthy meals for very reasonable cost. But for the same or less cost, you can pack in unhealthy, processed, packaged food.

Poor doesn't mean stupid, but poor can (doesn't always) mean not well informed or educated. Including about nutrition and why that sodium-laden box of frozen "nuggets" is not the best thing to feed your kids.

[RWebb]

how did they decide the mix of foods in the study?

[Superman]

I suspect the bigger issue than monetary cost is the time cost. Many American families have nobody at home to prepare the meals. Processed foods are more convenient and faster, which meshes with the bulk of American lifestyles. Taking the time to prepare a sauce, cook vegetables, cook meat and lay out a four or five-course meal with bread is nearly as expensive as processed foods and is just not in our time budget.

Italians are famous for their red sauces and pizza. French for their sauces and egg dishes. Americans......hot dogs and hamburgers.

[LWJ]

I was calling BS on this until I read Supe's post. He has a point. I made Kimchi last night. Healthy, tasty, cheap. But, there is a small time investment.

My wife is 24 hours stay at home. She cooks from scratch. We eat well and our food bill is much less than many.

Goodpoint Superman. Now I am rethinking this.

Larry

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by AirKuhl

Same as always, entrench themselves even more into our lives and wallets:
"... that says the government should do more to help consumers eat healthier."

The government has to decide whether it cares about public health or not. "Eat what you want, ride your Harley without a helmet, smoke cigarettes, the government doesn't care," and "The law says ER's must treat everyone who shows up," are two contradictory policies. Which one should we follow?

[Christien]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

The government has to decide whether it cares about public health or not. "Eat what you want, ride your Harley without a helmet, smoke cigarettes, the government doesn't care," and "The law says ER's must treat everyone who shows up," are two contradictory policies. Which one should we follow?

Well, you can follow our model and tax the living daylights out of cigarettes and alcohol. Pack of smokes is $9 or so, from what I hear. A case of cheap beer is $25, 26 oz. bottle of cheap booze is $25 or $30, cheapest 750ml bottle of wine is $7.

Not saying it's the right or wrong way, but if my tax dollars are going to pay for your health care and you choose to squander your health, damn right you're going to pay for it in advance.

Many people here say that if you're admitted to the hospital with lung cancer and you're a smoker, your bill should be on your own dime. The problem with that is that free health care is in our constitution.