Prohibiting new fast food restaurants in poor neighborhoods - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

UKking · 08-05-2008, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Banning fast food in poor neighborhoods.

The war on fat has just crossed a major red line. The Los Angeles City Council has passed an ordinance prohibiting construction of new fast-food restaurants in a 32-square-mile area inhabited by 500,000 low-income people.

We're not talking anymore about preaching diet and exercise, disclosing calorie counts, or restricting sodas in schools. We're talking about banning the sale of food to adults. Treating French fries like cigarettes or liquor. I didn't think this would happen in the United States anytime soon. I was wrong.

The mayor hasn't yet signed the ordinance, but he probably will, since it passed unanimously. It doesn't affect existing restaurants, and initially it will impose only a one-year moratorium. But that period is likely to be extended to two years or more, and the prohibition's sponsor hopes to make it permanent.

What we're looking at, essentially, is the beginning of food zoning. Liquor and cigarette sales are already zoned. You can't sell booze here; you can't sell smokes there. Each city makes its own rules, block by block. Proponents of the L.A. ordinance see it as the logical next step. Fast food is bad for you, just as drinking or smoking is, they argue. Community Coalition, a local activist group, promotes the moratorium as a sequel to its crackdown on alcohol merchants, scummy motels, and other "nuisance businesses." An L.A. councilman says the ordinance makes sense because it's "not too different to how we regulate liquor stores."

A few other cities and towns have zoned restaurants for economic, environmental, or aesthetic reasons. But L.A. appears to be the first to do it for health reasons. Last year, a public-interest law group at Johns Hopkins outlined the rationale: "Given the significance of the obesity epidemic in the United States and the scientific evidence and legal basis supporting the zoning of fast food outlets, municipalities have an effective, yet untried, tool to address obesity in their communities."

I assumed this idea would go nowhere because we Americans don't like government restrictions on what we eat. You can nag us. You can regulate what our kids eat in school. But you'll get our burgers when you pry them from our cold, dead hands.

How did the L.A. City Council get around this resistance? By spinning the moratorium as a way to create more food choices, not fewer. And by depicting poor people, like children, as less capable of free choice.

Start with the press release (PDF) issued a week ago by the moratorium's sponsor, Councilwoman Jan Perry. Its subhead says the ordinance will "help spur the development of diverse food choices." In the second paragraph, Perry declares,

This ordinance is in no way attempting to tell people what to eat but rather responding to the need to attract sit-down restaurants, full service grocery stores, and healthy food alternatives. Ultimately, this ordinance is about providing choices—something that is currently lacking in our community.

How does blocking new fast-food outlets provide more choices? It helps local officials "attract grocery stores and restaurants to the area, by preserving existing land for these uses," says the release. And why does the moratorium apply only to the poor part of town, around South-Central L.A.? A fellow council member explains: "The over concentration of fast food restaurants in conjunction with the lack of grocery stores places these communities in a poor situation to locate a variety of food and fresh food." Supporters of the moratorium call this state of affairs "food apartheid."

It's an odd slogan. As the encyclopedia Africana notes, apartheid was a racially discriminatory policy "enforced by white minority governments." Opening a McDonald's in South-Central L.A. is not government-enforced racial discrimination. But telling McDonald's it can open franchises only in the white part of town—what do you call that?

And what about the argument that people in South-Central need the government to block unhealthy food options because they're "in a poor situation" to locate better choices? This is the argument normally made for restricting children's food options at school—that they're more dependent and vulnerable than the rest of us. How do you feel about treating poor people like children?

It's true that food options in low-income neighborhoods are, on average, worse than the options in wealthier neighborhoods. But restricting options in low-income neighborhoods is a disturbingly paternalistic way of solving the problem. And the helplessness attributed to poor people is exaggerated. "You try to get a salad within 20 minutes of our location; it's virtually impossible," says the Community Coalition's executive director. Really? The coalition's headquarters is at 8101 S. Vermont Ave. A quick Google search shows, among other outlets, a Jack-in-the-Box six blocks away. They have salads. Not the world's greatest salads, but not as bad as a government that tells you whose salad you can eat.

Already, the majority leader of New York's city council wants to adopt food zoning, and several cities have phoned L.A.'s planning department to request copies of the ordinance. Hey, I'm all for better food in impoverished neighborhoods. Incentives for grocery stores are a great idea. But telling certain kinds of restaurants that they can't serve certain kinds of people is just plain wrong, even when you think it's for their own good.

I'm actually for the zoning law. I think food abuse can very much be put in the same category as alcohol or drug abuse, speaking as a person who battles her weight daily.

The first thing I did when looking at this article is to query for who the author is: William Saletan. Looks like he's a "liberal" Republican who doesn't discount that race could be a defining factor in someone's IQ. Yet, his article preaches about how our government is being too paternalistic in their treatment of poor people of south central LA (most of whom are not white). Hmmm...does he really believe that people of color have the brain capacity to think for themselves? That's debatable.

So then my next question is what are his motives in publishing this article.

I think what he's not saying and where his motives lie are in the belief that the free market will tell us what's best for us.

That is what I disagree with. As we have already established there is an epidemic of obesity in our country.
We can't just say, "if you don't like it go somewhere else."
Why, you ask?
Because we do not have freedom of choice, but an illusion of this freedom.

Look, there's a McDonald's on every street corner. I have so much choice.
I can choose to buy a salad at McDonald's. That means I have choice. Have you looked at the nutritional content of said salad? Is it actually good for you? What is it made of?

The free market does not have morals and it does not care if you are obese. The free market wants your money.

I applaud LA for admitting that there are corporations that are targeting the poor and that they as a city would like to protect them.

LoganSnake · 08-05-2008, 10:07 AM

About damn time. Sure, many would be against being told what to do and what to eat, but it's a start in promoting a healthier lifestyle.

However, they should open up a Subway instead of a McDonald's in that area.

kutulu · 08-05-2008, 10:12 AM

It is not LA's business to enforce dietary restrictions on their populace.

From the article:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Councilwoman Jan Perry

This ordinance is in no way attempting to tell people what to eat but rather responding to the need to attract sit-down restaurants, full service grocery stores, and healthy food alternatives. Ultimately, this ordinance is about providing choices—something that is currently lacking in our community.

This is such crap. A sit-down restaurant is not a healthy alternative to fast food. Escpecially when we are talking about the chain restaurants that would be looking at this area as a potential market. If you compare the calorie, sodium, fat contents, etc. in a typical meal from a sit-down restaurant to a meal from a fast food joint, the fast food joint wins easily.

Cynthetiq · 08-05-2008, 10:19 AM

Because subway is healthier????

"SUBWAY is a registered trademark of Doctor's Associates Inc" It is owned by doctors and associates! It must be healthy!

Take a better look at their nutritional specs and you'll find they are not healtier by any stretch of the means for a majority of their food.

As far as them zoning, cities are free to do so. It doesn't matter, people do what they do because that's what they want. So they'll drive further out for McDonald's. I drove FAR to go to Carl's Jr. when I lived in LA because that's what I wanted when I could have easily gotten a McD, BK, or Jack in the Box.

This also doesn't address the small strip mall eateries that may also have "bad" food. So they penalize the large corporation.

Yep, when the cities and states don't get the taxes from the businesses, they'll scrambe to raise taxes on the individuals directly.
-----Added 5/8/2008 at 02 : 20 : 38-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

It is not LA's business to enforce dietary restrictions on their populace.

From the article:

This is such crap. A sit-down restaurant is not a healthy alternative to fast food. Escpecially when we are talking about the chain restaurants that would be looking at this area as a potential market. If you compare the calorie, sodium, fat contents, etc. in a typical meal from a sit-down restaurant to a meal from a fast food joint, the fast food joint wins easily.

yep. The Olive Garden, Chili's, TGIFriday's all them corporate restaurants are not better than McDs especially when the upsell the appetizers and deserts.

ngdawg · 08-05-2008, 10:28 AM

I see nothing wrong with the ordinance as long as it includes ALL chains like TGIFs, Applebee's, etc.
I wish someone in this county had the balls to place a moratorium on strip malls, at least 3 of which are going up right now in a 5 mile radius

LoganSnake · 08-05-2008, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Because subway is healthier????

Sure, if you eat a shit sammich like Jarred did with no condiments and one piece of meat.

But you might as well eat a salad. They should open salad bars.

Willravel · 08-05-2008, 10:45 AM

Maybe being friendlier to supermarkets than fast food joints would be a good idea because supermarkets are more likely to generate revenue and attract people to the shopping areas. Ignoring the fact that fast food really isn't cheaper than healthy food, the economic opportunity cost of having a McDonalds, Burger King and Taco Bell instead of a Safeway should be obvious.

kutulu · 08-05-2008, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoganSnake

About damn time. Sure, many would be against being told what to do and what to eat, but it's a start in promoting a healthier lifestyle.

However, they should open up a Subway instead of a McDonald's in that area.

What makes Subway so much better than McDonald's? Subway's ad campaign that all their stuff is so great for you is BS. Look at their nutritional information. See the fine print:

Quote:

Subs with 6 grams of fat or less include wheat bread, lettuce, tomatoes, pickles, onions, green peppers and olives. All other sandwich values include cheese unless otherwise noted.

Salads contain meat/poultry, standard vegetables and do not include salad-dressing or croutons.

Addition of other condiments and fixings will alter nutrition values.

So the sub that is so low in calories and fat is half the size for a normal meal AND it has no cheese or condiments. The nutritional information for the salads assumes you eat it without any dressing.

Essentially they are misrepresenting what a typical person is going to eat. To me that borders on false advertising. Get a footlong tuna sub and you are looking at 1100 calories, 60 grams of fat and 2000 mg of sodim. Add in the chips and you are up to about 1500 calories. Add the 32 oz soda and you are at about 2000 calories. It is the same as McDonald's.
-----Added 5/8/2008 at 02 : 52 : 11-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Maybe being friendlier to supermarkets than fast food joints would be a good idea because supermarkets are more likely to generate revenue and attract people to the shopping areas. Ignoring the fact that fast food really isn't cheaper than healthy food, the economic opportunity cost of having a McDonalds, Burger King and Taco Bell instead of a Safeway should be obvious.

Supermarket food is really only better if you are going to cook your own meal. If the intent is to make people healthy then they need to ban supermarkets from selling processed frozen food crap.

People buy fast food because they don't want to cook. Period. If you remove that unhealthy choice they will just make another unhealthy choice.

Lasereth · 08-05-2008, 11:10 AM

I am for the government removing ALL unhealthy foods from restaurant food chains, grocery stores, whatever. I know what it's like to be addicted to unhealthy food and it was the worst time of my life. Combine low income or depression with it and game over, you're gonna stuff your face with HFCS and as much sugar and plastic food you can eat. I took my own initiative of declaring personal war against fast food places and I go out of the way to not eat at McDonald's, Burger King, etc. These places are out to make money, not provide good food. That means they're going to make addictive, fattening foods that are the worst substance you could put in your body all for the $$$$$.

Make it so number 1.

I would love to see everyone healthy. The world WOULD be a better place without unhealthy, morbidly obese people, and when I say a better place, I mean a better place FOR THESE PEOPLE. I know what it's like to be super fat and I know the absolute feeling of "I'm a lost cause" that people get. Once you get really fat it is unbelievably hard to get out of the routine. Way too hard for most people...so yes, I would support the government banning unhealthy food.

Willravel · 08-05-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Supermarket food is really only better if you are going to cook your own meal. If the intent is to make people healthy then they need to ban supermarkets from selling processed frozen food crap.

People buy fast food because they don't want to cook. Period. If you remove that unhealthy choice they will just make another unhealthy choice.

It's about offering a healthy choice. Some people will eat junk food no matter what, but if you're only close to a fast food restaurant, then you're forced to go hungry or eat rubbish. If you don't want to cook, but you're hungry, there are plenty of healthy options at your average supermarket. Grab a piece of fruit and a ready-made salad. Grab some cold cuts. The possibilities are endless, even for an individual who doesn't want to prepare food. And many supermarkets have a deli, which can serve up any number of choices that are healthier than a Jack in the Box or Pizza Hut.

Stare At The Sun · 08-05-2008, 11:27 AM

WTF ever happened to individual accountability?

If you don't want to eat fatty food, STOP EATING AT PLACES THAT SERVE IT!

Willravel · 08-05-2008, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stare At The Sun

WTF ever happened to individual accountability?

If you don't want to eat fatty food, STOP EATING AT PLACES THAT SERVE IT!

Everything within 5 minutes walking distance of my work is fast food: McDoands, Jacks, Pizza my Heart, Ben and Jerry's, Iguana's, etc. The closest supermarket is a 15 minute walk or a drive in downtown traffic. I like to bring my lunch from home, but there are times when unforeseeable circumstances mean that I have to fend for myself when 12:00 rolls around. I'll occasionally get a McDonalds salad sans meat and dressing, but I still get the feeling I'm eating crap.

LoganSnake · 08-05-2008, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Essentially they are misrepresenting what a typical person is going to eat. To me that borders on false advertising. Get a footlong tuna sub and you are looking at 1100 calories, 60 grams of fat and 2000 mg of sodim. Add in the chips and you are up to about 1500 calories. Add the 32 oz soda and you are at about 2000 calories. It is the same as McDonald's.

Well, shit, don't get the Coke and chips. There's an idea. Subway also has juices and water for sale.

They're not misrepresenting anything. You can plainly find all info on their site if you want to.

Stare At The Sun · 08-05-2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Everything within 5 minutes walking distance of my work is fast food: McDoands, Jacks, Pizza my Heart, Ben and Jerry's, Iguana's, etc. The closest supermarket is a 15 minute walk or a drive in downtown traffic. I like to bring my lunch from home, but there are times when unforeseeable circumstances mean that I have to fend for myself when 12:00 rolls around. I'll occasionally get a McDonalds salad sans meat and dressing, but I still get the feeling I'm eating crap.

So you have to plan ahead, or walk farther, god forbid.

Why you want the government telling you what you can and can't eat is beyond me.

ratbastid · 08-05-2008, 12:02 PM

This is fairly "Mommy Government", even for me.

I'm still very very liberal, I promise!

Bill O'Rights · 08-05-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

It's about offering a healthy choice. Some people will eat junk food no matter what, but if you're only close to a fast food restaurant, then you're forced to go hungry or eat rubbish.

You make it sound as though it's an either/or choice. I think that a lot of people eat too much fast food. Hell...myself included, for that matter. But, I don't think that there are very many people that subsist entirely on fast food. There may be a McDonald's, Burger King, KFC and a Long John Silver's on the way to the grocery store...but the grocery store is still there. Just because Wendy's is the closest thing to your house doesn't mean that if you don't eat there you go hungry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stare At The Sun

WTF ever happened to individual accountability?

My thoughts, exactly.

Willravel · 08-05-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stare At The Sun

So you have to plan ahead, or walk farther, god forbid.

Why you want the government telling you what you can and can't eat is beyond me.

It's proper city planning, not the government telling you what to eat. Instead of only having fast food within a 1 mile radius of my office, why not have at least one market? It doesn't need to be a super-gigantic Safeway, just something that doesn't have a clown promoting it's deep fried menu. And I don't always have time to devote 40 minutes to getting lunch.

Stare At The Sun · 08-05-2008, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

It's proper city planning, not the government telling you what to eat. Instead of only having fast food within a 1 mile radius of my office, why not have at least one market? It doesn't need to be a super-gigantic Safeway, just something that doesn't have a clown promoting it's deep fried menu. And I don't always have time to devote 40 minutes to getting lunch.

Then open one yourself. The market demand obviously isn't that high, and most people are content to pack their own lunch, or eat fast food.

Bill O'Rights · 08-05-2008, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

IInstead of only having fast food within a 1 mile radius of my office, why not have at least one market?

If it were economical viable, there would be.

I really don't know to many people that go to a grocery store for lunch. Lunch is usually a cafe, diner, cafeteria, roach coach, street vendor, fast food, chain restaraunt, or even brown bagging it. But, unless the grocery store has a restaraunt in it, I don't see people going there for lunch. Most people use the grocery store to stock up on food, not eat an individual meal.

That's why you see quick restaraunts around the business districts, and grocery stores closer to the residential areas. Of course there will be some overlap, but you get the gist.

Willravel · 08-05-2008, 12:33 PM

There are also healthy restaurants that could be moving in, though. Maybe people are just too stupid to self regulate.

CinnamonGirl · 08-05-2008, 12:39 PM

On the one hand, I like the idea. On the other hand, this makes me cringe. A little too much government in my personal life, y'know?

And really, they're just treating a symptom, not the disease. If they're really concerned about the health of citizens, why not step up nutritional education, and add more physical education classes? Start younger, don't try to change habits of people that have been unhealthy for years.

I have to admit it would be nice to see more health food stores than fast food places. But I'd also like to be able to eat French fries on the rare occasions I indulge.

Bill O'Rights · 08-05-2008, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Maybe people are just too stupid to self regulate.

Yeeeeaaah...that's where natural selection should kick in. Not the government.

Cynthetiq · 08-05-2008, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Yeeeeaaah...that's where natural selection should kick in. Not the government.

I always thought that was the reason for the railroad tracks near El Camino Real, small way to let CalTrain thin out the herd a little.

genuinegirly · 08-05-2008, 01:02 PM

I am all for legislating whatever the heck the community wants on a city level.
Go for it.

I just hope that people from the poor neighborhoods that will be affected were adequately represented in this decision.

Miss Mango · 08-05-2008, 01:03 PM

I guess the unemployed people in those neighborhoods will just have to go somewhere else and find a job....

UKking · 08-05-2008, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

This is such crap. A sit-down restaurant is not a healthy alternative to fast food. Escpecially when we are talking about the chain restaurants that would be looking at this area as a potential market. If you compare the calorie, sodium, fat contents, etc. in a typical meal from a sit-down restaurant to a meal from a fast food joint, the fast food joint wins easily.

I agree that a "sit-down" restaurant is not necessarily a better choice. The spokesperson for the city council also mentioned that they hoped to attract grocers through this ordinance as well.

But even sit-down restaurants engender a different eating atmosphere than their fast food counterparts. You're not guzzling down a burger in one hand with your other hand on the wheel, mindlessly stuffing your face before you run to your next obligation.

I think the main point I was trying to convey, and that the LA city council was trying to convey, is that they would like to see more options besides fast food.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CinnamonGirl

On the one hand, I like the idea. On the other hand, this makes me cringe. A little too much government in my personal life, y'know?

And really, they're just treating a symptom, not the disease. If they're really concerned about the health of citizens, why not step up nutritional education, and add more physical education classes? Start younger, don't try to change habits of people that have been unhealthy for years.

I have to admit it would be nice to see more health food stores than fast food places. But I'd also like to be able to eat French fries on the rare occasions I indulge.

This is a great point. I think that the ordinance is probably one tactic of fighting this beast.
In the larger picture, this alone will not solve the obesity problem, but its a start.

Bear Cub · 08-05-2008, 03:17 PM

Go ahead and ban fast food in low income areas.

How many Nature's Ways and organic food markets are going to pop up and accept WIC?

Fast food places thrive in low income areas, because its what people can afford.

Willravel · 08-05-2008, 03:39 PM

Healthy food is cheaper than fast food, bc.

Bear Cub · 08-05-2008, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Healthy food is cheaper than fast food, bc.

Maybe out your way it is. $14 in fast food could feed me for a week, eating twice a day. As it is, I can barely squeak by at $60 for reasonably healthy groceries. If you can get me seven days worth of healthy food for $14, by all means.

Mango: If things worked that way, the world would be such a lovely place. Unfortunately, driving the poor out of the ghettos typically results in turning decent neighborhoods into slums, rather than encouraging them to be a positive influence in the work force.

Willravel · 08-05-2008, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Cub

Maybe out your way it is. $14 in fast food could feed me for a week, eating twice a day. As it is, I can barely squeak by at $60 for reasonably healthy groceries. If you can get me seven days worth of healthy food for $14, by all means.

Well this is just plain wrong. Even getting the most efficient food at McDonalds so far as mass to cost, double cheeseburgers, you're looking at only eating 2 double cheeseburgers a day. Unless you're not human, you can't survive on that.

Here's something funny, though:
1 head of lettuce: $1
4 apples: $2
8 Chicken thighs: $5
Broccoli: $2
1/2 gallon of milk: $1.50
1 dozen eggs: $2.00
1 pound of lentils: ~$0.50

$14 total. This could possibly feed someone for 5 days (assuming you also have unlimited water). 14 cheeseburgers? I doubt you'd make it past 3 and you're going to be very sick.

Halx · 08-05-2008, 05:39 PM

If you want your food, you're going to WAIT FOR IT!

Cynthetiq · 08-05-2008, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Well this is just plain wrong. Even getting the most efficient food at McDonalds so far as mass to cost, double cheeseburgers, you're looking at only eating 2 double cheeseburgers a day. Unless you're not human, you can't survive on that.

Here's something funny, though:
1 head of lettuce: $1
4 apples: $2
8 Chicken thighs: $5
Broccoli: $2
1/2 gallon of milk: $1.50
1 dozen eggs: $2.00
1 pound of lentils: ~$0.50

$14 total. This could possibly feed someone for 5 days (assuming you also have unlimited water). 14 cheeseburgers? I doubt you'd make it past 3 and you're going to be very sick.

thse are cali prices....

1 head of lettuce: $2.99 (very small pathetic little head of lettuce)
4 apples: $2 (these are really small pathetic little apples)
Broccoli 1/2 head $2.50
1/2 gallon milk $2.50
1 dz eggs $3.49
1 lb lentils: $1.00

chinese food roast pork over steamed rice: $3.50 enough for 2-3 meals
4 meat dumplings $1
1 bowl hot sour soup $1.50
carne guisado, rice, beans $6.00 enough for 2-3 meals.
slice of pizza $2
hot dog $1.25

here it's cheaper and easier to eat out....

Bear Cub · 08-05-2008, 06:00 PM

Things are definitely cheaper in your neck of the woods, Will. The only thing on that list that is comparable to prices around here was the lettuce. Hell, 5 skinless chicken breasts strips cost me $14.97 this evening before tax, and that was the cheaper store brand. 1/2 gallon of the cheap skim milk, $2.49 this evening before tax. Mind you, this was also with the grocery store discount card.

As for the fast food, I must not be human then. Between Wendy's and Taco Bell, that's about what I spent weekly for a few semesters of college. And I'm no small guy, either.

Cynthetiq · 08-05-2008, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Healthy food is cheaper than fast food, bc.

I've been researching the food industry for the past 2 years as I believe that is the direction my career will be moving in, if not directly at least where I will be starting a business.

This is another area you have no idea what you are talking about. There are many studies that show that healthy food is in fact more expensive than "junk" food. This isn't endemic to the US it is also similar in other countries.

Quote:

View: A High Price for Healthy Food
Source: NYTimes
posted with the TFP thread generator

A High Price for Healthy Food
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.

But 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.”

filtherton · 08-05-2008, 07:21 PM

So poor folks buy more junk food because they've counted the calories?

I don't know about that. $4 to buy some hot pockets fills me up just as much as $3.50 for an organic frozen burrito and a plum.

Willravel · 08-05-2008, 07:23 PM

Ah, but you've made a rookie mistake: basing everything on calories. Compare my menu to the McDonalds menu on calories and I've had my ass handed to me, but it's not that simple at all. My diet featured variety, vitamins and minerals, fiber, healthy fats, and not even the whisper of a preservative or artificial additive. What does this mean? This means a more balanced diet will mean a better metabolism and better general health.

For anyone in school, test my theory. On test day, have a McDonalds Sausage and egg abortion sandwich with hash fried so deep that you can taste gasoline. And shoot, for kicks, wash it down with a diet cola. Next test rolls around have a small bowl of shredded wheat in soy milk and some heart healthy eggs with mushrooms, peppers, and a glass of water (which washes down a multivitimin). Roughly the same caloric count (plus or minus). In addition to getting more than twice the volume of food, you're going to have more energy. BUT HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?! It's the quality of the calorie, of course.

Not only that, but the fact that you've had a substantially higher mass of food also means you feel more full and aren't hungry for a while longer. This is why people who count calories don't starve.

Until you compensate for quality of calorie and the mass of the food, you're missing a lot of the equation and you're presenting an incorrect answer.

Cynthetiq · 08-05-2008, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

So poor folks buy more junk food because they've counted the calories?

I don't know about that. $4 to buy some hot pockets fills me up just as much as $3.50 for an organic frozen burrito and a plum.

Maybe for you, but the average consumer doesn't buy an organic frozen burrito or a plum. I doubt the fellows in South Central LA are eating organic frozen burritos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Ah, but you've made a rookie mistake: basing everything on calories. Compare my menu to the McDonalds menu on calories and I've had my ass handed to me, but it's not that simple at all. My diet featured variety, vitamins and minerals, fiber, healthy fats, and not even the whisper of a preservative or artificial additive. What does this mean? This means a more balanced diet will mean a better metabolism and better general health.

For anyone in school, test my theory. On test day, have a McDonalds Sausage and egg abortion sandwich with hash fried so deep that you can taste gasoline. And shoot, for kicks, wash it down with a diet cola. Next test rolls around have a small bowl of shredded wheat in soy milk and some heart healthy eggs with mushrooms, peppers, and a glass of water (which washes down a multivitimin). Roughly the same caloric count (plus or minus). In addition to getting more than twice the volume of food, you're going to have more energy. BUT HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?! It's the quality of the calorie, of course.

Not only that, but the fact that you've had a substantially higher mass of food also means you feel more full and aren't hungry for a while longer. This is why people who count calories don't starve.

Until you compensate for quality of calorie and the mass of the food, you're missing a lot of the equation and you're presenting an incorrect answer.

again, you don't know what you are talking about. While there is something to the nutrition values, there isn't when it comes to the cost of the nutrition versus the total cost of food. Healthier food costs more to produce and costs more to purchase. It is that simple.

I've been spending alot of free time talking to nutritionists, food scientists, food service workers, food manufacturers for the better part of my spare time in the past 3 years.

http://www.csrees.usda.gov/newsroom/...ce_of_food.pdf

Quote:

I19 March 2008 - Recent studies show that the cost of high-calorie foods are less likely to be affected by inflation and, on average, cost less than low-calorie foods. With obesity plaguing the United States, this trend may hinder low-income families from adopting a low-calorie diet.

Funding from USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) enabled researchers at the University of Washington to examine the price trends of different food choices.

Adam Drewnowski, director of the Center for Public Health and Nutrition at the University of Washington, and colleagues checked the prices of 372 foods sold at local supermarkets in the Seattle area, comparing the prices with calorie density. High-calorie foods included items like peanut butter and granola, while the lowest-calorie foods were mostly fresh fruits and vegetables.

Defined this way, low-calorie foods tend to be rich in nutrients like vitamins and minerals. Conversely, high-calorie foods are rich in calories, but tend to be low in nutrients. The study found that lower-calorie foods cost more per calorie, while more calorie-dense foods showed a lower cost per calorie. Bargain shoppers get a better deal purchasing high-calorie foods rather than low-calorie foods. This study then explored the effect of inflation on the lower- versus higher-calorie foods.

The researchers found the price of calorie-dense food was less likely to rise as a result of inflation. During the 2-year study, the price of high-calorie food decreased by 1.8 percent, whereas the price of low-calorie foods increased by 19.5 percent. Considering most bargain shoppers are trying to stretch their incomes as far as possible, the findings may help explain why the highest rates of obesity are among people in lower-income groups.

Based on a standard 2000-calorie diet, the researchers found a diet consisting primarily of calorie-dense foods costs $3.52 a day, but a diet consisting primarily of low-calorie food costs $36.32 a day. The average American eats a variety of foods throughout the day, spending $7 a day.

"If you have $3 to feed yourself, your choices gravitate toward foods which give you the most calories per dollar,'' Drewnowski said. "Not only are the empty calories cheaper, but the healthy foods are becoming more and more expensive. Fresh vegetables and fruits are rapidly becoming luxury goods."

Those facts may better explain the popularity of calorie-dense foods in the food selection patterns among groups with limited economic resources. Nutrition education programs can address this challenge and provide additional help for planning healthy meals.

Quote:

Nearly One-third Of The Calories In The US Diet Comprised Of Junk Food, Researcher Finds
ScienceDaily (June 2, 2004) — BERKELEY – A new analysis of the foods Americans eat finds that sugary snacks and sodas reign supreme over healthier options such as vegetables and fruit.

Gladys Block, professor of epidemiology and public health nutrition at the University of California, Berkeley, has quantified the types of foods the United States population eats and ranked them by the amount of calories they contribute.

Her findings, published in the June issue of the Journal of Food Chemistry and Analysis, reveal that three food groups - sweets and desserts, soft drinks and alcoholic beverages - comprise almost 25 percent of all calories consumed by Americans. Salty snacks and fruit-flavored drinks make up another five percent, bringing the total energy contributed by nutrient-poor foods to at least 30 percent of the total calorie intake.

"What is really alarming is the major contribution of 'empty calories' in the American diet," said Block. "We know people are eating a lot of junk food, but to have almost one-third of Americans' calories coming from those categories is a shocker. It's no wonder there's an obesity epidemic in this country."

For her analysis, Block used data from 4,760 adults who took part from 1999 to 2000 in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Participants in the survey were asked to report all the foods they ate in the prior 24 hours. For comparison, Block also analyzed NHANES III data collected between 1988 and 1994.

Block categorized food codes from both of the NHANES surveys into 144 total food items. She then categorized those items into 23 food groups.

Among the food items, soft drinks and pastries led the list of top 10 foods contributing the most calories to the American diet. As the leader of the pack, sodas alone contributed 7.1 percent of the total calories in the U.S. population. Foods such as hamburgers, pizza and potato chips rounded out the top five food items.

When comparing the rankings from the NHANES III survey with the 1999-2000 data, Block did not find major changes. Under the food group category, bread, rolls and crackers contributed 10.7 percent of calories in the earlier survey but only 8.7 percent in the later one. Soft drink consumption was up slightly, from 6 percent of calories in 1988-1994 to 7.1 percent in 1999-2000.

Block's calculations took into account the number of respondents who reported eating a particular food item, the portion sizes of the food, and the nutrient and energy content of the food. For example, the calories provided by sodas were summed up from individual reports and then divided by the total number of calories consumed by the entire population to get the proportion of energy provided. The foods then were ranked by their contribution to the total energy intake.

"It's important to emphasize that sweets, desserts, snacks and alcohol are contributing calories without providing vitamins and minerals," said Block. "In contrast, such healthy foods as vegetables and fruit make up only 10 percent of the caloric intake in the U.S. diet. A large proportion of Americans are undernourished in terms of vitamins and minerals. You can actually be obese and still be undernourished with regard to important nutrients. We shouldn't be telling people to eat less, we should be telling people to eat differently."

Block also published a recent analysis of physical activity among the U.S. population that found that Americans are primarily sedentary. "The combination of our sedentary lifestyle with our poor eating habits goes a long way to explain the current rise of overweight and obese Americans," said Block.

djtestudo · 08-05-2008, 08:00 PM

Man this thread is getting good

(I can still use a smiley like that, right?)

Willravel · 08-05-2008, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

again, you don't know what you are talking about.

Uh huh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

While there is something to the nutrition values, there isn't when it comes to the cost of the nutrition versus the total cost of food. Healthier food costs more to produce and costs more to purchase. It is that simple.

Corn costs more to produce than high fructose corn syrup? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Oh, and I'll bet oats are REALLY expensive when compared to aspartame.

Your article fails in a major way: it's not put together by people who are budgeting.

Quote:

...a diet consisting primarily of low-calorie food costs $36.32 a day...

HA! I've been on a low calorie diet for years and I only spend that much a day when I eat out or have a formal (read: splurge) meal. I'll bet I could spend half that on low calorie food and have a wonderful day of food that is slightly over 2000 calories.

Smart consumers, or consumers who are aware that an 80 calorie apple that costs $0.59 will leave you just as full and energized as a 440 calorie Double Cheeseburger from McDonalds that costs $1.00, would be able to sit down for a few minutes and figure out how to eat healthy on a tight budget and manage to be much more efficient than someone who eats fast food.

Cynthetiq · 08-05-2008, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Uh huh.

Corn costs more to produce than high fructose corn syrup? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Oh, and I'll bet oats are REALLY expensive when compared to aspartame.

Your article fails in a major way: it's not put together by people who are budgeting.

HA! I've been on a low calorie diet for years and I only spend that much a day when I eat out or have a formal (read: splurge) meal. I'll bet I could spend half that on low calorie food and have a wonderful day of food that is slightly over 2000 calories.

Smart consumers, or consumers who are aware that an 80 calorie apple that costs $0.59 will leave you just as full and energized as a 440 calorie Double Cheeseburger from McDonalds that costs $1.00, would be able to sit down for a few minutes and figure out how to eat healthy on a tight budget and manage to be much more efficient than someone who eats fast food.

Yes, HFCS is a by product that has become monetized. HFCS is easier to sustain constant costs than SUGAR which is what it was meant to replace. HFCS is not cheaper to produce than corn, cheaper to predict and hedge profits. Sugar is quite expensive as a commodity which is why you see HFCS as a replacement in cheap foodstuffs wherein sugar is not required such as cakes, cookies, candies.

ERS/USDA Briefing Room - Sugar and Sweeteners: Data Tables

Quote:

Cost of wholesale Sugar
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/sugar/Data/Table04.xls

Cost of HFCS
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/sugar/Data/TABLE09.XLS

Annual US Per capita consumption of Coke in servings: 411

People in the United States: 297,890,000

Servings of Coke in the US, per year: 122,432,790,000

How much a 5 cent cost increase in sweetner, per serving, would affect the bottom line of Coca Cola: $6,121,639,500

How much a penny cost increase in sweetner, per serving, would cost Coca-Cola: $1,224,327,900

How much 1/10th of a cent increase in sweetner, per serving, would cost Coca-Cola: $122,423,790.

An alternative organic you'll start seeing this year is agave nectar as an organic sweetener. It's not cheap and isn't really all that healthy for you either.

ummm yes it is put together by people who are budgeting. It is put together by people who are monitoring how people SPEND their money. It may not be the way that YOU budget, but it is how other people budget.

08-05-2008, 10:07 AM	#2 (permalink)
LoganSnake We work alone Location: Cake Town	About damn time. Sure, many would be against being told what to do and what to eat, but it's a start in promoting a healthier lifestyle. However, they should open up a Subway instead of a McDonald's in that area. __________________ Maturity is knowing you were an idiot in the past. Wisdom is knowing that you'll be an idiot in the future. Common sense is knowing that you should try not to be an idiot now. - J. Jacques

08-05-2008, 12:39 PM	#21 (permalink)
CinnamonGirl She's Actual Size Location: Central Republic of Where-in-the-Hell	On the one hand, I like the idea. On the other hand, this makes me cringe. A little too much government in my personal life, y'know? And really, they're just treating a symptom, not the disease. If they're really concerned about the health of citizens, why not step up nutritional education, and add more physical education classes? Start younger, don't try to change habits of people that have been unhealthy for years. I have to admit it would be nice to see more health food stores than fast food places. But I'd also like to be able to eat French fries on the rare occasions I indulge. __________________ "...for though she was ordinary, she possessed health, wit, courage, charm, and cheerfulness. But because she was not beautiful, no one ever seemed to notice these other qualities, which is so often the way of the world." "Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?"

08-05-2008, 01:02 PM	#24 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	I am all for legislating whatever the heck the community wants on a city level. Go for it. I just hope that people from the poor neighborhoods that will be affected were adequately represented in this decision. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

08-05-2008, 03:17 PM	#27 (permalink)
Bear Cub The Reverend Side Boob Location: Nofe Curolina	Go ahead and ban fast food in low income areas. How many Nature's Ways and organic food markets are going to pop up and accept WIC? Fast food places thrive in low income areas, because its what people can afford. __________________ Living in the United Socialist States of America.

08-05-2008, 05:39 PM	#31 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	If you want your food, you're going to WAIT FOR IT! __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

08-05-2008, 10:28 AM	#5 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	I see nothing wrong with the ordinance as long as it includes ALL chains like TGIFs, Applebee's, etc. I wish someone in this county had the balls to place a moratorium on strip malls, at least 3 of which are going up right now in a 5 mile radius

08-05-2008, 10:45 AM	#7 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Maybe being friendlier to supermarkets than fast food joints would be a good idea because supermarkets are more likely to generate revenue and attract people to the shopping areas. Ignoring the fact that fast food really isn't cheaper than healthy food, the economic opportunity cost of having a McDonalds, Burger King and Taco Bell instead of a Safeway should be obvious.

08-05-2008, 11:10 AM	#9 (permalink)
Lasereth Knight of the Old Republic Location: Winston-Salem, NC	I am for the government removing ALL unhealthy foods from restaurant food chains, grocery stores, whatever. I know what it's like to be addicted to unhealthy food and it was the worst time of my life. Combine low income or depression with it and game over, you're gonna stuff your face with HFCS and as much sugar and plastic food you can eat. I took my own initiative of declaring personal war against fast food places and I go out of the way to not eat at McDonald's, Burger King, etc. These places are out to make money, not provide good food. That means they're going to make addictive, fattening foods that are the worst substance you could put in your body all for the $$$$$. Make it so number 1. I would love to see everyone healthy. The world WOULD be a better place without unhealthy, morbidly obese people, and when I say a better place, I mean a better place FOR THESE PEOPLE. I know what it's like to be super fat and I know the absolute feeling of "I'm a lost cause" that people get. Once you get really fat it is unbelievably hard to get out of the routine. Way too hard for most people...so yes, I would support the government banning unhealthy food.

08-05-2008, 11:27 AM	#11 (permalink)
Stare At The Sun Eh? Location: Somewhere over the rainbow	WTF ever happened to individual accountability? If you don't want to eat fatty food, STOP EATING AT PLACES THAT SERVE IT!

08-05-2008, 12:02 PM	#15 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	This is fairly "Mommy Government", even for me. I'm still very very liberal, I promise!

08-05-2008, 12:33 PM	#20 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	There are also healthy restaurants that could be moving in, though. Maybe people are just too stupid to self regulate.

08-05-2008, 01:03 PM	#25 (permalink)
Miss Mango Psycho	I guess the unemployed people in those neighborhoods will just have to go somewhere else and find a job....

08-05-2008, 03:39 PM	#28 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Healthy food is cheaper than fast food, bc.

08-05-2008, 06:00 PM	#33 (permalink)
Bear Cub The Reverend Side Boob Location: Nofe Curolina	Things are definitely cheaper in your neck of the woods, Will. The only thing on that list that is comparable to prices around here was the lettuce. Hell, 5 skinless chicken breasts strips cost me $14.97 this evening before tax, and that was the cheaper store brand. 1/2 gallon of the cheap skim milk, $2.49 this evening before tax. Mind you, this was also with the grocery store discount card. As for the fast food, I must not be human then. Between Wendy's and Taco Bell, that's about what I spent weekly for a few semesters of college. And I'm no small guy, either. __________________ Living in the United Socialist States of America.

08-05-2008, 07:21 PM	#35 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	So poor folks buy more junk food because they've counted the calories? I don't know about that. $4 to buy some hot pockets fills me up just as much as $3.50 for an organic frozen burrito and a plum.

08-05-2008, 07:23 PM	#36 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Ah, but you've made a rookie mistake: basing everything on calories. Compare my menu to the McDonalds menu on calories and I've had my ass handed to me, but it's not that simple at all. My diet featured variety, vitamins and minerals, fiber, healthy fats, and not even the whisper of a preservative or artificial additive. What does this mean? This means a more balanced diet will mean a better metabolism and better general health. For anyone in school, test my theory. On test day, have a McDonalds Sausage and egg abortion sandwich with hash fried so deep that you can taste gasoline. And shoot, for kicks, wash it down with a diet cola. Next test rolls around have a small bowl of shredded wheat in soy milk and some heart healthy eggs with mushrooms, peppers, and a glass of water (which washes down a multivitimin). Roughly the same caloric count (plus or minus). In addition to getting more than twice the volume of food, you're going to have more energy. BUT HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?! It's the quality of the calorie, of course. Not only that, but the fact that you've had a substantially higher mass of food also means you feel more full and aren't hungry for a while longer. This is why people who count calories don't starve. Until you compensate for quality of calorie and the mass of the food, you're missing a lot of the equation and you're presenting an incorrect answer.

08-05-2008, 08:00 PM	#38 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	Man this thread is getting good (I can still use a smiley like that, right?) __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun