Why We’re Fat: It’s the Government and Wall Street’s Fault, Marion Nestle Says

[haha]

That's %*# preposterous...and evidently true. I'd never have believed it, thanks for clarifying. We subsidize tobacco growers while the Surgson General/HHS fights smoking and the DOJ sues tobacco companies (then their biggest civil case) - makes sense!

I inherited a small farm and a tobacco allotment. There were separate allotments for burley, flue cured and fire cured. Burley was my major thing. I never farmed it, but it was worth money anyway. I also was tobacco labor for my grandparents when I was a boy and teen.
Ha

 

[Mulligan]

I inherited a small farm and a tobacco allotment. There were separate allotments for burley, flue cured and fire cured. Burley was my major thing. I never farmed it, but it was worth money anyway. I also was tobacco labor for my grandparents when I was a boy and teen.
Ha

I got the privilege of making a few extra bucks in my 20s in a tobacco field. Cutting, spearing, stacking, then climbing up in barn rafters to hang. What a miserable, hard working, and nasty job! Would have tobacco stains all over hands and skin. Wipe the sweat out of your eye and next thing your eyes were burning from tobacco juice. Was a profitable government subsidy at the time for a farmer though.

 

[haha]

I got the privilege of making a few extra bucks in my 20s in a tobacco field. Cutting, spearing, stacking, then climbing up in barn rafters to hang. What a miserable, hard working, and nasty job! Would have tobacco stains all over hands and skin. Wipe the sweat out of your eye and next thing your eyes were burning from tobacco juice. Was a profitable government subsidy at the time for a farmer though.

I still love walking into a barn full of tobacco in late summer. You never forget the rich pungent smell.

Ha

 

[Katsmeow]

I just watched an interesting 4 piece series that talks about many of the issues raised in this thread. It is HBO, but can be watched on the HBO website for free.

HBO: The Weight of the Nation

Very, very interesting series and it does pin a lot on the issues related to food production and government policies that encourage food production that is really unhealthy.

Interesting stat: Less than 3% of US farmland is planted with fruits and vegetables.

 

[Midpack]

I just watched an interesting 4 piece series that talks about many of the issues raised in this thread. It is HBO, but can be watched on the HBO website for free.

HBO: The Weight of the Nation

Very, very interesting series and it does pin a lot on the issues related to food production and government policies that encourage food production that is really unhealthy.

Interesting stat: Less than 3% of US farmland is planted with fruits and vegetables.

We happened to catch most of it a few days ago by chance, and we thought it was very good with many surprising (to us at least) claims including the one in green above (wouldn't have guessed it).

 

[audreyh1]

Interesting stat: Less than 3% of US farmland is planted with fruits and vegetables.

Having driven across the country for many years this doesn't surprise me. You mostly see grains/grass, cotton and timber. The orchards and veggie fields are just tiny pockets.

 

[travelover]

Just as the tobacco executives soberly told congress that they had no idea that nicotine was addictive, I am confident that the processed food industry is looking out for the best interests of the nation.

 

[NW-Bound]

From the article quoted by the OP:

Wall Street "forced food companies to try and sell food in an extremely competitive environment," she says. Food manufacturers "had to look for ways to get people to buy more food. And they were really good at it. I blame Wall Street for insisting that corporations have to grow their profits every 90 days."...

Yes, the problem is definitely caused by the lower price of food, mostly junk food in the US, no doubt about it.

Our recent RV trip took us up to Banff. Though we had been to Canada several times before, this was the trip when we stayed the longest, and had more chances to observe the daily life there.

I saw that the cost of food, both served in restaurants and sold in grocery stores, ran something like 1.5x to 2x the prices in the US. As an example, I saw an avocado sold for $2.99 in Banff. A small 16-oz tub of salsa went for $5.99! I should have taken photos as proof.

And my observation was that the Canadians seemed a bit less heavy than the Americans!

Similarly, visitors to Europe cannot help noticing how the Europeans are thinner than US citizens. Of course food there is also more expensive. It is that simple: expensive food means people eat less. The Europeans also walk more.

In third-world countries, food may seem cheap relative to the cost elsewhere, but in terms of the income of the local people, it is not. People in poor countries spend a higher percentage of their income on food than people in developed countries do.

So, what is the solution? Should the gummint tax the daylight out of junk food, candies, [-]sugared[/-] soft drink, high-carb snacks? Could we trust the gummint to keep that money to pay for healthcare? What have they done with the cigarette taxes?

I have read that healthy veggie and fruits are expensive in inner cities, and poor people may not have access to them. Could be true as I do not live there. However, I live in the outskirt of a metropolitan area with a population of 5 million. A grocery store near us has frequent sales of 5 avocados for $1. Yes, they are a bit smaller than the "premium" kind, but taste just as good. So, I have 2 instead of 1. There are plenty of other veggies such as squash, zucchini, cabbage, etc... that one can get for around $1 per pound or much less.

Question: If people do not want to eat healthy, how do we force them to? Is this still a free country where people can choose their food, among other lifestyle choices?

 

[flyfishnevada]

I think the article places way to much blame on Wall Street. All companies have to make profit or they go out of business. Most of them seek to maximize that. Food is no different. And yes, the government is subsidizing this crop and not that one.

But no one makes people buy food they don't want. Hostess makes a Twinkie, people eat them, they make more, people eat more, but it all stems from the demand. We eat Twinkies because they taste good, not because some jerk on Wall Street demanded Hostess make a profit.

I'm always skeptical of the idea that personal choices are a public health issue. Sure, we are all in some giant insurance pool and largely isolated from out own health choices, or at least from paying for them. I always smell a rat. Someone is looking to tell other people how to live and posing as some kind of advocate. I call all of this, smoking, obesity, drugs, alcohol and every other supposed public health crisis that has been dreamed up over the years, the price of living in a free society. You might be the thin, healthy dude and think this doesn't affect you, but someday these people will decide whatever it is you do is a public concern and they will come after you.

 

[Mulligan]

I think the article places way to much blame on Wall Street. All companies have to make profit or they go out of business. Most of them seek to maximize that. Food is no different. And yes, the government is subsidizing this crop and not that one.

But no one makes people buy food they don't want. Hostess makes a Twinkie, people eat them, they make more, people eat more, but it all stems from the demand. We eat Twinkies because they taste good, not because some jerk on Wall Street demanded Hostess make a profit.

I'm always skeptical of the idea that personal choices are a public health issue. Sure, we are all in some giant insurance pool and largely isolated from out own health choices, or at least from paying for them. I always smell a rat. Someone is looking to tell other people how to live and posing as some kind of advocate. I call all of this, smoking, obesity, drugs, alcohol and every other supposed public health crisis that has been dreamed up over the years, the price of living in a free society. You might be the thin, healthy dude and think this doesn't affect you, but someday these people will decide whatever it is you do is a public concern and they will come after you.

Im not as strongly committed as you are fly, but I definitely lean your way. Government influences aside, we still can go over to the apple aisle instead of the high fructose corn sugar aisles if we want. I have two line of defenses for my healthy eating. Either keeping the hole under my nose closed, or keeping the wallet in my pocket. Option 2 works best for me. Once purchased I can ravage a big bag of chips in no time!

 

[Letj]

Im not as strongly committed as you are fly, but I definitely lean your way. Government influences aside, we still can go over to the apple aisle instead of the high fructose corn sugar aisles if we want. I have two line of defenses for my healthy eating. Either keeping the hole under my nose closed, or keeping the wallet in my pocket. Option 2 works best for me. Once purchased I can ravage a big bag of chips in no time!

Many people are ignorant about proper food choices and often eat they way their parents taught them. I am afraid that some people need the government to tell them how to eat and how to make the right choices. Let's not forget that we are all products of adaptation, more or less. The food industry understands that very well and effectively markets to the unenlightened.

 

[Midpack]

Question: If people do not want to eat healthy, how do we force them to? Is this still a free country where people can choose their food, among other lifestyle choices?

Even putting the health implications aside. I agree with you, but how about letting food producers compete without subsidies? Choices would be different, to what extent isn't clear. A lot of people have been voluntary persuaded to quit smoking over the last few generations, so there is an successful example?

I think the article places way to much blame on Wall Street. All companies have to make profit or they go out of business. Most of them seek to maximize that. Food is no different. And yes, the government is subsidizing this crop and not that one.

But no one makes people buy food they don't want. Hostess makes a Twinkie, people eat them, they make more, people eat more, but it all stems from the demand. We eat Twinkies because they taste good, not because some jerk on Wall Street demanded Hostess make a profit.

I'm always skeptical of the idea that personal choices are a public health issue. Sure, we are all in some giant insurance pool and largely isolated from out own health choices, or at least from paying for them. I always smell a rat. Someone is looking to tell other people how to live and posing as some kind of advocate. I call all of this, smoking, obesity, drugs, alcohol and every other supposed public health crisis that has been dreamed up over the years, the price of living in a free society. You might be the thin, healthy dude and think this doesn't affect you, but someday these people will decide whatever it is you do is a public concern and they will come after you.

I'm all for personal responsibility believe me, and for companies making profits. But when "we" subsidize some foods and it lowers the apparent cost, that does induce people to eat the lower cost foods to some if not a large extent. What's wrong with subsidizing no food producers (or all equally for that matter) and letting market competition sort it all out? If people knew what they were really paying for corn & soy food products, they would eat more whole foods. Like I said above, it would only shift the balance, I am not claiming corn & soy would be wiped out by any means.

Isn't the fallacy that subsidies don't lower prices at all, they just lower what you pay at the store, and put foods that aren't subsidized at some disadvantage? It's amazing how often the public falls for this nonsense, there are countless examples...

 

[kombat]

Just as the tobacco executives soberly told congress that they had no idea that nicotine was addictive, I am confident that the processed food industry is looking out for the best interests of the nation.

I must admit, I'm a little cynical about this "processed" food bogeyman.

What is "processed" food? Is cured deli-meat "processed?" Is pasteurized milk "processed?" Are the little packets of flavoured instant oatmeal "processed?" Is my protein powder "processed?" A pre-marinated grilling steak? Pesticide-treated lettuce? Whole-grain flour tortilla wraps? Apple juice?

I consume all of those things (in moderation), and I'm extremely healthy. Is it possible "processed" foods aren't the bad guy after all, and are in fact necessary in order to ensure safety and a reasonable shelf-life for food?

 

[Midpack]

I must admit, I'm a little cynical about this "processed" food bogeyman.

What is "processed" food? Is cured deli-meat "processed?" Is pasteurized milk "processed?" Are the little packets of flavoured instant oatmeal "processed?" Is my protein powder "processed?" A pre-marinated grilling steak? Pesticide-treated lettuce? Whole-grain flour tortilla wraps? Apple juice?

I consume all of those things (in moderation), and I'm extremely healthy. Is it possible "processed" foods aren't the bad guy after all, and are in fact necessary in order to ensure safety and a reasonable shelf-life for food?

That's fine. Then what is your explanation for the trends (refer to post #18 if you like)? Not only has obesity increased dramatically in the US, it seems to be getting worse relative to other industrialized nations (increasing faster in the US).

 

[Midpack]

I must admit, I'm a little cynical about this "processed" food bogeyman.

What is "processed" food? Is cured deli-meat "processed?" Is pasteurized milk "processed?" Are the little packets of flavoured instant oatmeal "processed?" Is my protein powder "processed?" A pre-marinated grilling steak? Pesticide-treated lettuce? Whole-grain flour tortilla wraps? Apple juice?

I consume all of those things (in moderation), and I'm extremely healthy. Is it possible "processed" foods aren't the bad guy after all, and are in fact necessary in order to ensure safety and a reasonable shelf-life for food?

That's fine. Then what is your explanation for the trends (refer to post #18 if you like)? Not only has obesity increased dramatically in the US, it seems to be getting worse relative to other industrialized nations (increasing faster in the US).

Processed is a relative term. Presumably you'd agree that a Twinkie is more processed than a banana? And presumably you'd agree there are more processed foods available today than generations past?

 

[Bestwifeever]

Im not as strongly committed as you are fly, but I definitely lean your way. Government influences aside, we still can go over to the apple aisle instead of the high fructose corn sugar aisles if we want. I have two line of defenses for my healthy eating. Either keeping the hole under my nose closed, or keeping the wallet in my pocket. Option 2 works best for me. Once purchased I can ravage a big bag of chips in no time!

I want my share of the subsidy dollar to go straight to potato chips.

 

[Mulligan]

Many people are ignorant about proper food choices and often eat they way their parents taught them. I am afraid that some people need the government to tell them how to eat and how to make the right choices. Let's not forget that we are all products of adaptation, more or less. The food industry understands that very well and effectively markets to the unenlightened.

I think you would have to go further than educate to reach your desired results. I believe you would have to choose for them WHAT to eat, not how. I think the bad foods would either have to be banned or taxed until it is not viable for the masses to afford to consume them. Are consumers misinformed on healthy frozen food choices laced with sodium? Sure. But for the regular junk food, I pretty sure most people know potato chips, cookies, and fries are not as nutritious as a carrot or apple, and a 44oz Big Gulp has more calories than a 16 oz. In my mind anyways education isnt the solution as much as self discipline and control are.
I am not in favor of government subsidizing the corn industry. But even if they didn't, I would be surprised if it changed eating behaviors much. If a bag of chips doubled in price overnight, it wouldn't be the factor in whether I purchased them or not.

 

[kombat]

That's fine. Then what is your explanation for the trends (refer to post #18 if you like)? Not only has obesity increased dramatically in the US, it seems to be getting worse relative to other industrialized nations (increasing faster in the US).

Of course, I don't have the answers, but in my opinion, there are numerous factors at work, and while an increase in availability of processed foods may be one of them, I don't believe it's a major one.

Basically (and this is just my opinion), I think the two biggest factors are

• Technology has made it easier for our true colours to shine through
• Economic factors have conspired to rob us of the time to prepare proper meals

Humans have always loved fat, sugar, and salt. With increases in factory farming, production automation, dramatic improvements to transportation infrastructure, marketing, and other elements, attaining that "instant gratification" of a salty or sugary treat has become easier and cheaper (relative to income). Whereas in the past, we had no choice but to make a stew or bake a chicken, now we can just pop a Hungry Man frozen dinner in the microwave and be done with it.

Secondly, I believe previous generations were more likely to have one member dedicated to maintaining the household (typically Mom). Thus, that individual had the time to spend preparing home-cooked meals from scratch (and had the knowledge to pass on to her offspring). I think more recent generations are more economically strained (between escalating costs of housing, education, and health care, which have all dramatically outpaced inflation), necessitating two earners per household instead of one.

With two frazzled parents arriving home at 6:00 PM after an already long day, the motivation to prepare a healthy meal just isn't there. So they resort to instant (less healthy) food. Furthermore, they never develop the wide range of cooking skills their parents had, so they cannot pass those on to their own children, who then leave the nest, able to do little more than boil water and prepare Kraft Dinner.

I think the problem is a lot bigger than the size of soda pop at the movie theater.

 

[Midpack]

I think you would have to go further than educate to reach your desired results. I believe you would have to choose for them WHAT to eat, not how. I think the bad foods would either have to be banned or taxed until it is not viable for the masses to afford to consume them. Are consumers misinformed on healthy frozen food choices laced with sodium? Sure. But for the regular junk food, I pretty sure most people know potato chips, cookies, and fries are not as nutritious as a carrot or apple, and a 44oz Big Gulp has more calories than a 16 oz. In my mind anyways education isnt the solution as much as self discipline and control are.
I am not in favor of government subsidizing the corn industry. But even if they didn't, I would be surprised if it changed eating behaviors much. If a bag of chips doubled in price overnight, it wouldn't be the factor in whether I purchased them or not.

The question is not whether you/we would swear off buying chips altogether. If the price of chips doubled overnight, you can bet the number of bags of chips purchased would decline and (all else being equal) the number of units of alternatives would increase (with nothing being one of the alternatives). It would take someone smarter than me to quantify, but there would be a change...and people might be inclined to make smarter choices more often (I agree most people have to know about healthier choices in general).

 

[kombat]

I think the bad foods would either have to be banned or taxed until it is not viable for the masses to afford to consume them.

I really dislike this approach. I strongly feel that in a free society, people have to be free to make the "wrong" choice. Otherwise what's the point of living?

Moreover, if I live the rest of my life healthily, but want a little bag of potato chips for my birthday, why should I be denied that choice, just because my rotund neighbor doesn't know when to say "enough?"

Are consumers misinformed on healthy frozen food choices laced with sodium?

Is it possible we are misinformed about the dangers of sodium?

Back in the 80's, eggs were good for you. Then for a while, they were bad (cholesterol!). Then it was just the yolks that were bad - you could still eat the whites. Then it turned out there wasn't as much cholesterol in the yolk as they thought, and the benefits of the "perfect" protein in eggs outweighed the risks of a little cholesterol. What are they this year - good or bad? I've lost track.

Then of course there's bacon. Salty and fatty and loaded with cholesterol, they were the poster-food for unhealthy indulgence. Then Dr. Atkins came along and said it was fine, as long as you don't eat carbs. The Paleo crew and others joined in. So what's the verdict on bacon? Is it an artery-clogging villain, or a wrongfully-maligned source of energy-rich protein?

My point is, what if we ban all these sodium-rich foods, only to later discover/realize that we actually need a little sodium? What if we had banned bacon and eggs in a knee-jerk reaction to their "dangers?"

I really think a big part of any solution needs to be education, and forming proper habits EARLY. If one never learns how to properly handle "bad" foods, then those foods still hold control over their lives. It's like a debtor who cuts up all their credit cards and turns their finances over to their parent. They still haven't learned how to handle money, they're just expecting "someone else" to save them from themselves. We need to teach these people how to manage their own money/diet, not hold their hand and do it for them.

 

[Midpack]

Of course, I don't have the answers, but in my opinion, there are numerous factors at work, and while an increase in availability of processed foods may be one of them, I don't believe it's a major one.

<snip> post #43 above.

I think the problem is a lot bigger than the size of soda pop at the movie theater.

All very good points! I think processed foods are significant, but I wouldn't pretend to rank them all either. I'm questioning why we accept exacerbating the influence of processed foods with subsidies, when it does not really lower the cost at all. "We" just give advantages to some food producers over others, which contributes to several other problems...

Like you, I'm not for banning or taxing select foods (just the flip side of subsidies), I'd just like to see a level playing field for all food production. From there, "free to choose..."

 

[Mulligan]

The question is not whether you/we would swear off buying chips altogether. If the price of chips doubled overnight, you can bet the number of bags of chips purchased would decline and (all else being equal) the number of units of alternatives would increase (with nothing being one of the alternatives). It would take someone smarter than me to quantify, but there would be a change...and people might be inclined to make smarter choices more often (I agree most people have to know about healthier choices in general).

I am in full agreement with you that our nations diet is not good. And Kombats comment on "cooking" by convenience instead of nutritiously is spot on, too. A certain segment of the population values healthy eating and some do not. Its funny but reading peoples posts and their opinions seem to reflect their viewpoints on governments role in society, even when we are talking about food. I am no exception. I practice pretty decent health habits, but even my defects, I am aware of them, I just choose not to do it. I have to admit my libertarian leanings, so that is why I advocate personal responsibility and choice including self destructive ones to a degree. I am no fan of government possibly contributing to the problem through subsidizing, but I also don't think the government should tell me what to eat either. Just my opinion, and everyone on this thread makes great points.

 

[donheff]

I tend to agree with the end subsidies and let the market sort it out crowd. I would like to tax "empty calorie" junk food as a disincentive but I don't think we know enough about which ones are truly bad to do that (a la the eggs and bacon debate). We would end up simply distorting the market and destroying some businesses while others (just as bad) sneak in through the gaps. Right now, for example, I suspect the only broad consensus would be to tax sugary sodas but even that would favor diet sodas with the unknown risks of artificial sweeteners. But we sure as heck shouldn't be subsidizing the production of HFCS.

 

[DoingHomework]

...the one thing people almost universally wish to avoid is death. Until more people somehow come to associate obesity and death, they simply won't worry enough about obesity to resist the lure of cheap, tempting food.

But that hasn't worked for smoking!

 

[kombat]

the one thing people almost universally wish to avoid is death

But that hasn't worked for smoking!

I saw a fascinating program once (I forget the name) that actually examined this topic. The "self-preservation" instinct in humans is one of -if not the most - powerful instincts inherent to mankind. So why do humans engage in self-destructive behaviour like smoking?

Their conclusion had to do with the time horizon. Our "self-preservation" instinct only kicks in for immediate mortal threats. Long-term hazards like smoking don't trigger it, and thus don't register as a fatality risk.

It was a fascinating program, I wish I could remember the name. But the conclusion applies equally to diet as it does to smoking. Without the threat of imminent mortal harm, telling people that "smoking/fatty foods" will kill them will not act as an effective deterrent.