Here’s what we’ve learned in part one of this three part essay: the cost of paying for healthy food isn’t cheap. In part 2 we’re going to be discussing those in society that are on a fixed income and what the government can do to help. I’ll give you a hint, Michelle Obama would be pleased because it gets to the heart obesity, Republicans would get upset because it could pose a threat to corporate tax breaks, Michelle Bachmann would not have an opinion on it until her husband tells it to her and Sarah Palin would tell reporters her thoughts but she is too busy trying to remain relevant.
Those on a fixed income like senior citizens, welfare recipients and the working poor could benefit greatly from more money given to them for better food products. Cheetos are great but fresh fruit and vegetables would be a healthier choice. I too have stood in the grocery store really trying to justify spending $3 for a large bag of Doritos or $7 on 2 bags of frozen green beans. The green beans win but many don’t have that option. I’m thinking of senior citizens who spend tremendous amounts on medication and have little to spend on food. So they purchase Hamburger Helper because per the commercial it makes a great meal… it also lasts longer than vegetables that can rot on the counter.
NPR recently posted a great article about this very thing on their website, stating “Americans, on average, spend less than 10 percent of our money on food. A lot of people buy too much fast food — but from an economic standpoint, it is a good decision. The smartest, most rational decision is to eat the crappiest food, because everywhere you turn it's more accessible, more affordable and more convenient," says David Wallinga, a senior adviser in science, food and health at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis. He is one of the people who say federal farm policy leads directly to overeating”.
I suggest we took away farming subsidies and put some of that money into projects that promote healthy eating habits. This plan might work for a few but overall it would fall on deaf ears because telling someone with a tiny budget to spending it on healthier alternatives is great in theory but doesn’t feed them. What if some of those farm subsidies are also directed to those on government assistance, perhaps that would be a better approach? Explain the benefits of better food choices and give them a few more dollars to help with that. Would they still spend the money on junk food? Sure, some will. Some might be grateful for the opportunity to provide more well-balanced meals.
Take this journey with me: end farm subsidies, teach people how to eat better and fund them a bit to motivate them. So let’s speculate we’ve got better informed people standing in grocery aisles with a few extra bucks to buy better food. And next to them is their kid who wants to feel somewhat normal, not like a ‘welfare’ kid who at a young age knows there’s a big difference between the haves and the have-nots. All they want is to be like other kids with big name brand cereal for breakfast. Dad can now afford it occasionally but knows that’s not the best for his kid though its one of the few things he can now provide. So he buys Frosted Flakes.
Not so fast though; with farm subsidies gone, many speculate the cost of food products will go up. However Margo Wootan, the director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest Wootan says that environment isn't shaped by farm policy nearly as much as it is by food processors and marketers.
Per NPR’s article, “For example, even when corn prices doubled, the price of corn flakes barely moved. That's because food ingredient costs are miniscule compared to other expenses. On average, less than one in five dollars consumers spend on food actually goes to farmers and ranchers. Shipping, packaging, processing and marketing and selling make up the rest of your grocery bill. Companies are really competing very aggressively to sell their food and not somebody else's food," Wooten says. "And that's creating more and more food that Americans are eating, and as a result, we're gaining a lot of weight." And as a Wooten's group, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, regularly points out, processed foods are often loaded with salt, sugar and fat.
So do we leave farm subsidies as is and tell people they need to make better choices? It might work but if that were the case we wouldn’t be a nation getting fatter. Do we instead tell marketers to stop creating visually appealing products? Give them large corporate tax breaks to do so? Maybe legislate advertising? That worked for curbing tobacco being marketed to minors. But food?
Many would point to parents and say they are to control what their children eat. They’d be right however if the parents don’t know better or don’t care or can’t provide better, then what? Are we to become generations of fat kids who grow into fat adults, taking pills for blood pressure, hypertension, diabetes and a host of other problems?
I sure don’t have answers, I’m merely thinking out loud. We can continue eating junk food, getting fat, continue taking medication for the problems that arise from it which will continue funding pharmaceutical companies, who will continue to receive corporate tax breaks and use that extra money to continue funding politicians who do not remember the last time they had to make $1 last a week but have no qualms telling the nation they are returning family values to America. I do know today’s lie: its a lack of family values that’s the problem, not a glut of value meals at the drive-thru.
No comments:
Post a Comment