Over the last couple of weeks, I've been taking the effort to eat a little better. I work in the CBD, everything from simple salads (we're talkin tofu, corn kernels, diced hardboiled eggs and lettuce) costs within the range of $8 to $14 (added salmon- yum). It keeps me filled for a good 3-4 hours till either an early dinner or a late afternoon snack.
In comparison, a burger king meal complete with fries and coke costs $6 (a hell lot cheaper) or a "Economical rice" complete with overly greasy vegetables, a fattening but delicious sweet & sour pork and luncheon meat for $3.50. Cheap yes- filling? No.
Worst of all, it encourages you to snack and nowhere does it ever add up to the $14 I pay for a healthful lunch.
Conclusion:
Healthy eating really does cost more.
That’s what University of Washington researchers found when they compared the prices of 370 foods sold at supermarkets in the Seattle area. Calorie for calorie, junk foods not only cost less than fruits and vegetables, but junk food prices also are less likely to rise as a result of inflation. The findings, reported in the current issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, may help explain why the highest rates of obesity are seen among people in lower-income groups.The scientists took an unusual approach, essentially comparing the price of a calorie in a junk food to one consumed in a healthier meal. Although fruits and vegetables are rich in nutrients, they also contain relatively few calories. Foods with high energy density, meaning they pack the most calories per gram, included candy, pastries, baked goods and snacks.The survey found that higher-calorie, energy-dense foods are the better bargain for cash-strapped shoppers. Energy-dense munchies cost on average $1.76 per 1,000 calories, compared with $18.16 per 1,000 calories for low-energy but nutritious foods.The survey also showed that low-calorie foods were more likely to increase in price, surging 19.5 percent over the two-year study period. High-calorie foods remained a relative bargain, dropping in price by 1.8 percent.Although people don’t knowingly shop for calories per se, the data show that it’s easier for low-income people to sustain themselves on junk food rather than fruits and vegetables, says the study’s lead author Adam Drewnowski, director of the center for public health nutrition at the University of Washington. Based on his findings, a 2,000-calorie diet would cost just $3.52 a day if it consisted of junk food, compared with $36.32 a day for a diet of low-energy dense foods. However, most people eat a mix of foods. The average American spends about $7 a day on food, although low-income people spend about $4, says Dr. Drewnowski.And fact of the matter is, unless you're a white collar worker earning a decent income- you're going to be choosing junk food. Ancedotally, though poverty is not restricted to race, it struck me as I watched a family of 4 (they were malay incidentally) board the feeder bus. Jovially tapping their EZ-link cards, McDonald bags in hand as they ambled towards their seats- I sat amongst them in the 2by2 seat facing configuration and mused at the "turbulence" as their massive body frames pressed into the seat.
Poverty is not a good thing. Particularly when it limits your lifestyle choices to foods that will bring you ill health like high cholestoral and heart disease. And I'm curious as to what our current leadership (the PAP) is thinking when foreign labor policy forces wages down particularly for the lower income group.
It’s easier to overeat junk food, Dr. Drewnowski adds, both because it tastes good and because eaters often must consume a greater volume in order to feel satisfied. Still, even those who consume twice as much in junk food calories are still spending far less than healthy eaters.“If you have $3 to feed yourself, your choices gravitate toward foods which give you the most calories per dollar,’’ said Dr. Drewnowski. “Not only are the empty calories cheaper, but the healthy foods are becoming more and more expensive. Vegetables and fruits are rapidly becoming luxury goods.”
And if healthy foods are becoming luxury foods- what does all this "at all cost GDP" eventually create?
In my opinion, a systematic downward spiral that kills:
- National Defense capabilities- as the majority lower to low-middle income families suffer from obesity and other obesity related illness
- Higher burden on the medical system- even with means testing, prolonged medical aid necessary to combating fat-related illnesses creates an untenable and eventually unaffordable level of medical aid needed just to sustain life
