Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food

[nadinbrzezinski]

Horror stories about the food industry have long been with us — ever since 1906, when Upton Sinclair's landmark novel The Jungle told some ugly truths about how America produces its meat. In the century that followed, things got much better, and in some ways much worse. The U.S. agricultural industry can now produce unlimited quantities of meat and grains at remarkably cheap prices. But it does so at a high cost to the environment, animals and humans. Those hidden prices are the creeping erosion of our fertile farmland, cages for egg-laying chickens so packed that the birds can't even raise their wings and the scary rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria among farm animals. Add to the price tag the acceleration of global warming — our energy-intensive food system uses 19% of U.S. fossil fuels, more than any other sector of the economy.


********

A food system — from seed to 7‑Eleven — that generates cheap, filling food at the literal expense of healthier produce is also a principal cause of America's obesity epidemic. At a time when the nation is close to a civil war over health-care reform, obesity adds $147 billion a year to our doctor bills. "The way we farm now is destructive of the soil, the environment and us," says Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist with the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

********

So what's wrong with cheap food and cheap meat — especially in a world in which more than 1 billion people go hungry? A lot. For one thing, not all food is equally inexpensive; fruits and vegetables don't receive the same price supports as grains. A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of potato chips or 875 calories of soda but just 250 calories of vegetables or 170 calories of fresh fruit. With the backing of the government, farmers are producing more calories — some 500 more per person per day since the 1970s — but too many are unhealthy calories. Given that, it's no surprise we're so fat; it simply costs too much to be thin.

(more)
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1917458-1,00.html

As I have said i recent discussions, our current food system is not cheap... as much as it seems to be. And eating healthy, due to the way subsidies work... is not cheap either.

Now this also means that Americans have to just NOT vote with their wallets, but also get involved in the debate over the AG bill. It is coming, and it is high time we completely revise our views on food, how we eat, how we take care of the land, and dam it what is supported and what is not. Government has a role at the policy level. That is the AG bill, the Agricultural bill and it is revised every five years.

So time to do your homework because what we are doing, for multiple reasons, is not sustainable. Obesity is just the main VISIBLE consequence of this.

[Bonobo]

1. Indeed! People used to pay a MUCH higher percentage of their income on food.

Or, before money, spend vastly more time in acquiring themselves.

But we needed to free up that time so people could work in a capitalistic system (like it or not).

So now people get all their "stuff: done quickly so they can hurry up and work and then hurry up and shop.

We all need to return to what it means to be human.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. The COST of producing that food, at the gross level

was also higher

Think about it this way.

In 1966 you spent 18% of your income in food.

Today you spend 10%

Care to ask how much you spend in health care?

17%

Coincidence?

[Bonobo]

3. No way is it a coincidence.

Health care is a racket like anything else, a circular system in which the opponents enter into complicit relationship with each other.
Police dependent upon crime, health care providers dependent on the sick, etc.
So in the end, it is still better from a certain economics POV to let people get sick and then treat them rather than prevent the illness.

It's why marijuana is also illegal in part.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. I see it more as... obesity has gone up

therefore diabetes, high blood pressure and other obesity related chronic diseases have gone up.

Part of the solution to health care is also to change how we eat, ergo our national food policy, ergo what we subsidize and what we don't subsidize. Reality is subsidies are part of the system, but what we chose to subsidize leads to a lot of consequences, some intended, some not.

But the health crisis is also part of what is wrong with our cheap food policy

As to why weed is not legal, it should be. But it goes back to the 1911 treaty to control substances, and it is international.

It failed, but that is a whole different rant.

[flvegan]

5. *cough* go vegan *cough*

:o

:hide:

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Even as Vegan you sitll have choices

:-)

And the AG bill still matters.

[unpossibles]

11. +1. Or even go vegetarian...

heck, even just cut down on meat and animal products. Saves money and is better for the environment.

[izquierdista]

7. Chickens

I recently got three hens and I have a new found respect for their place in the natural world. Chickens have evolved to be probably the best commensal organism for the human. They turn garbage into food (eggs). Modern suburbia is devoid of chickens, and each house turns out pounds of edible garbage per week (at least edible in the eyes of a chicken, i.e., vegetable peels, coffee grounds, stale bread, moldy cheese, etc.) in addition to grass clippings and other yard trimmings that could be recycled by chickens instead of sent to the landfill. The goat is a poor second, as the egg is much more versatile in cooking than milk, and goats require more care than chickens.

We shouldn't be buying our eggs from huge poultry concentration camps, which use first run, not recycled feed. The amount of space needed to keep a few chickens is small indeed for the recycling service they provide. Visit 'The City Chicken' at http://home.centurytel.net/thecitychicken/tractors.html and do your part to opt out of big agribusiness.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. I worked for a while in a chicken coup

you do not have to convince me of how wrong the conditions are.

Unfortunately in most cities it would be hard to have two or three... (and do parrots count?) They also eat some of this food that most of us would think twice. Ok, they beg for steak.

But that is going to be one change that will be needed, so people can raise two or three chickens, for eggs, and if need be, Sunday dinner.

It would also bring the eater closer to the food chain. I mean people have no idea where their food comes from... except plastic and saran wrap.

:-(

[XemaSab]

9. While I support the idea of this post

discussing everything in terms of calories is a little disingenuous.

An ounce of potato chips has 160 calories. In the example above, a dollar would get you 7.5 ounces of chips.

A large apple weighs 7.9 ounces, and has 116 calories total, or 14 calories per ounce. This apple would cost you 68 cents.

A dollar, therefore, would get you more food (by weight) if you spend it on apples, but more calories if you spend the dollar on chips. :shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Which is the point of the article

read the whole article. The way food is priced and chiefly subsidized has led to a crazy situation, where the apple sauce is cheaper than the fresh apple.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. kick