Is Junk Food Cheaper

There was a great piece in the New York Times this week asking the question, "Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?"  The author, Mark Bittman, is a strong advocate of common sense nutrition.  If you read through his books, you'll see that he doesn't advocate extremely strict diets and generally takes an enormous amount of pleasure in food.  So of course, I'm a fan.

In his current piece, he argues that a family of 4 could reasonably spend $28 at McDonalds for a single meal while a much healthier meal of chicken, veggies and salad would put the family back a mere $14.  He quotes Marion Nestle (another person I admire):

“Anything that you do that’s not fast food is terrific; cooking once a week is far better than not cooking at all,” says Marion Nestle, professor of food studies at New York University and author of “What to Eat.”

In a statement that smells of "tough love", he tells us:
The real challenge is not “I’m too busy to cook.” In 2010 the average American, regardless of weekly earnings, watched no less than an hour and a half of television per day. The time is there.

It's clear that we need to spend more time in the kitchen.  That means all of us...men, women and children.  We all have busy lives.  If you have kids, then your life is even busier.  But the only way to combat epidemic levels of chronic disease in the U.S. is one bite at a time.  You always knew that eating healthy was important.  But isn't it nice to read that junk food is just as damaging to your wallet as it is to your waistline. 

More on Junk Food

Are your tax payer dollars partially responsible for the fattening of America?  The California Public Interest Research Group released some alarming numbers this week in a report titled, ""Apples to Twinkies: Comparing Federal Subsidies of Fresh Produce and Junk Food."  They state, "from 1995-2010, $16.9 billion in federal subsidies went to producers and others in the business of corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch and soy oils."

"If these agricultural subsidies went directly to consumers to allow them to purchase food, each of America's 144 million taxpayers would be given $7.36 to spend on junk food and 11 cents with which to buy apples each year — enough to buy 19 Twinkies but less than a quarter of one Red Delicious apple apiece," CALPIRG officials said in a statement.

I don't want to get into the discussion (for the moment) about whether or not high fructose corn syrup is a bad as we've heard.  In fact, the corn syrup industry has done a fine job introducing doubt (concerning corn syrups risks/benefits) into the public eye.  But let's realize that the vast majority of products containing these products are not healthy.  Are they incredibly bad?  Some are, some probably are not.  But they certainly are not health-inducing.  

The politics of these subsidies is enough to make your head swirl.  So let's dodge that debate and re-frame this information.

Many people have said, "If you want to know a man's priorities, watch where he spends his money."  In general, this will tell you what he prioritized; fun, scholarship, television, social activities, kids activities etc.  If we place this same question in the context of federal spending, is it fair to ask, "Uncle Sam- where are your priorities when it comes to food and health?"  The answer is disappointing and discouraging.

Soda and sweet drinks

The leading sentence in this article from U.S. News and World Report says it all.

"On any given day, half the people in the United States guzzle a sugary beverage like soda, sports drinks, or sweetened bottled water."

This leads up to nearly 175-273 extra calories per day.  To be clear, these are calories that you don't need.  There is no nutritional value and absolutely no positive health impact that these calories bring.  No vitamins, no minerals, no phytonutrients, no benefit.

As the article states, it's easy to dismiss this as a mere 175 calories.  But understand that when we talk about "empty calories" that is really a misnomer.  Those words mean the calories are empty of nutrients.  But it doesn't mean that those calories have no effect.  Actually, rather than saying "empty calories", we should call them "harmful calories."

There is a significantly increased risk of diabetes and metabolic syndrome in people that consume these sugary drinks regularly.  To put this in perspective, there are 26 million American diabetics and almost 80 million with metabolic syndrome.  That's over 100 million Americans with a significant blood sugar problem.  With a population of about 310 million (about 1/3 kids and 2/3 adults), that means about 1 in 2 American adults has a blood sugar problem.

So look around you.  In a football stadium filled with 80,000 screaming fans.  About half of them currently suffer from a blood sugar disorder that could have been easily prevented. This will lead to fatigue, some cancers, heart disease, mood disorders, chronic pain and a lot more.  

I suppose from a certain point of view, you could still argue that the 1 can of sugar soda per day is not a dealbreaker.  Maybe... maybe not.  But imagine if your childing is failing out of school because he is having a hard time keeping up.  Then he argues, "Mom- I just want to watch 30 minutes of TV after dinner.  What's wrong with that?"  Most of us could agree that for a straight A student, perhaps it's no big deal.  But when you're coming from behind, every moment counts.  Once you fall further behind, it becomes even harder to catch up.  Most of us has experienced this at some point in our life; in school, at work, with debt.

One out of 2 Americans are "behind" when it comes to their health.  That sugar soda a day is certainly not the sole determining variable.  But it certainly doesn't help matters.