Healthy eating only for the rich?

Originally posted by Flyer
Maybe people who are on minimum wage or benefits shouldnt breed unless they can afford to feed their offspring with the quality of food they deserve.

I second that motion. I do believe at least part of the problem with all of this is the fact people tend to try and live outside of their means.

Originally posted by Hypntick

Originally posted by Flyer
Maybe people who are on minimum wage or benefits shouldnt breed unless they can afford to feed their offspring with the quality of food they deserve.

I second that motion. I do believe at least part of the problem with all of this is the fact people tend to try and live outside of their means.

So you don't see a problem with how the government is portioning the money it gives to certain farmers and not others?

Look at the big picture here and try to put yourself in someone elses shoes for a change.

Originally posted by Enrikez
So you don't see a problem with how the government is portioning the money it gives to certain farmers and not others?

Look at the big picture here and try to put yourself in someone elses shoes for a change.

i agree with both of you, especially about government subsidizing. look at school lunches for example!

Originally posted by scientist

Originally posted by Enrikez
So you don't see a problem with how the government is portioning the money it gives to certain farmers and not others?

Look at the big picture here and try to put yourself in someone elses shoes for a change.

i agree with both of you, especially about government subsidizing. look at school lunches for example!

Can we agree then that the government is not making healthy eating a priority, through their use of taxpayers money, while the general population could do more to protect themselves at the same time?

reply to post by Loki


Loki, don't worry about these guys. You don't have to prove yourself to them by anything other than your thoughtful posts.

reply to post by Enrikez


Maybe in Canada and the US but here in the UK theyve just made all school meals healthier.


"In autumn 2006, school dinners in England officially excluded crisps, chocolate, fizzy drinks and ‘low-quality’ meat. School children are now served at least two portions of fruit and vegetables with every meal and deep-fried food is restricted to two portions per week."

www.bbc.co.uk...

So thats a step in the right direction.

Teach kids to eat right at a young age and they are more likely to take that into later life.

Originally posted by Enrikez
Can we agree then that the government is not making healthy eating a priority, through their use of taxpayers money, while the general population could do more to protect themselves at the same time?

absolutely. i'm not going to sit here and blame anybody for anything. The only debate I have, is with this concept of eating healthy must be expensive. That is what the fast food marketing execs want. I mean, that is the EXACT motive they are working with. Fast food is cheaper, faster, better.

Loki, don't worry about these guys. You don't have to prove yourself to them by anything other than your thoughtful posts.

im not trying to be argumentative or belligerent. I would really like to have Loki explain this concept of healthy = expensive, so that maybe I can provide an alternate perspective.

reply to post by eagle32


Any more edits? I make that 4 or 5 already.

Theres several great examples of irony in this post, shame you didnt mean them though.

Edited to remove a generally insulting post.

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 20-11-2007 by Duzey]

reply to post by scientist


That's easy, I just got back from the grocery store, I had to pick up ingredients for a dish I'm making this Thanksgiving for my family.

I spent extra time in the produce section because this topic was on my mind.

The cheapest produce that I saw there was a head of green leaf lettuce priced at 1.69 per lb. Lettuce has little to no substance and is mainly water, so while it may be healthy, you are essentially paying for food that will not last long as far as hunger is concerned, will not store well because it is lettuce.

Let's create an imaginary salad dinner for 4.

You'd need at least 3 of these heads of lettuce.
You'd need probably 2 bell peppers (priced at 1.99 EACH!)
Carrots, Celery, priced at 2.19/lb
Tomatoes, if you like them, were .99 each.
Onions aren't that expensive, but people like them in their salads.
Let's not forget the price of other things people would want in their salad, perhaps a boiled egg, perhaps some salad dressing, perhaps balsamic vinegar and olive oil.

There are also no guarantees that your children won't cry hungry again in an hour or two. Generally, you need to consume a higher volume of produce to equal energy intake from another source high in protein.

Other things I noticed:

Milk was around 5.00 per gallon, a staple for young children

So called organic or all-natural food was at least 60 cents more by pound for all produce.

A box of hamburger helper and a 1 lb tube of ground beef will cost you 1.98, and feed 3-4 easily.

Originally posted by Loki

So called organic or all-natural food was at least 60 cents more by pound for all produce.

Ill agree with you there, there used to be a time when low calorie foods here were more expensive than the normal stuff. I never bought it until the price came down.

The same is true for organic food, it is too expensive compared to non organic food.

Perhaps the governments should subsidise organic foods instead of paying farmers to throw away crops because they produce more than their quota.

Originally posted by Loki
I spent extra time in the produce section because this topic was on my mind.

first of all, fresh markets and farmers markets are where you find the good prices, not a supermarket. That being said, let's jump in.

Originally posted by Loki
The cheapest produce that I saw there was a head of green leaf lettuce priced at 1.69 per lb. Lettuce has little to no substance and is mainly water, so while it may be healthy, you are essentially paying for food that will not last long as far as hunger is concerned, will not store well because it is lettuce.

an average head of lettuce is probably around 350-500 grams (.75-1.25 lbs). A head of lettuce will also feed 4 people, depending on the size of the head, and the size of the salads being prepared. So far, that's approximately $.25 per appetizer. Not so bad. Eggs are less than $1 per 6 here, so adding a hard-boiled egg to each salad is only $.15 or so, now at $.40 each. 2 bell peppers (get the green, they are cheapest always) means another $.50 each plate (I wouldn't have gotten them from the supermarket anyways) - running total of $.90

I find it hard to believe you would use an entire pound of celery and carrots in a single meal, even for 4 people. You could also get cherry tomatoes instead of regular ones.

as for the dressing, that's unnecessary. You could just as easily put some pepper on the salad and eat it like that - but most people that cook have olive oil and vinegar already anyways. To incorporate these costs as being specific to a salad is stretching. divide that bottle of oil by about 200, and that's the price you are paying for the oil.

I am confident that you can make a filling salad, with dressing for under $1 per person, which is at least matching that of a fast food joint. Unfortunately, we may disagree on portion size, especially since you seem to be implying that you would need 3 heads of lettuce for 4 people. I would consider that at least 3x a normal portion.

Originally posted by Loki
you need to consume a higher volume of produce to equal energy intake from another source high in protein.

do you have any research (links) to back that up, or is it just something you heard? not all produce has the same amount of protein, and if you are implying that animal protein is in some way superior, i find that laughable.

Originally posted by Loki
Milk was around 5.00 per gallon, a staple for young children

Cow’s milk is suited to the nutritional needs of calves, who have four stomachs and gain hundreds of pounds in a matter of months, sometimes weighing more than 1,000 pounds before they are 2 years old. i won't even comment on the price. I use to be a huge milk drinker - gallon per day was not out of the question sometimes, but I haven't had any for many years now, and will never go back. Again, I won't comment on the price since I drink soy milk now, which is at least double the price in some places. The point is, I would not consider milk to be healthy, so the price is irrelevant anyways. Water is healthier, and much cheaper.

Originally posted by Loki
So called organic or all-natural food was at least 60 cents more by pound for all produce.

correct. never said anything about buying the organic brands and etc. again, you are better off at the farmers/fresh market for anything like that - NOT the supermarket. that is the last place you would want to buy anything "organic." the point is, you buy the meat (organic or not) uncooked, unprocessed. You cook and season it yourself. It's cheaper. see what i mean now?

Originally posted by Loki
A box of hamburger helper and a 1 lb tube of ground beef will cost you 1.98, and feed 3-4 easily.

right, which would be cheaper than having someone else make it for you.. but better yet, look at the ingredient list on that hamburger helper. Instead of being lazy, and buying the seasoning and noodles all packaged together, buy the items separately. that way it's healthier and cheaper.

Interesting discussion you all have going here. One I can speak on with some degree of knowledge as I am a chef.

To start, both sides of the argument here are correct. It can cost more to eat healthy. This depends on where you live though. If you live in or near a agricultural centre, you should be able to buy fruits and vegetables cheap for most of the year. Along with what little bit of meat you actually need in your diet. But most of us don't so we have to rely on markets for our food. Which drives up the cost of our food because of the added cost to the supplier to get the product to you. Every time food changes hands along the way, the price goes up.Add the fact that government subsidies ,as mentioned, are given in the most part to the industries that we require the least of in our diets. For us in the northern half of the continent, the things we need most in our diets have to travel the farthest to get to us, yet those same crops get the least amount of help from governments. Does that make sense?


Then you get these mega companies that can mass produce that processed crap they call food for next to nothing so they can afford to sell it to you for dirt cheap and still make huge profits.For example, I was at my local super market this evening grabbing a couple of things, one of which was soy milk. $3.79 for a two litre. I also noticed that you could get on special 4 2l of pop(or soda) for $4. So the crap, sugar and additive full pop, cost $4.96 total with tax and deposit for 8l of it while the healthy, nutrient rich soy milk cost me $3.79 for 2l. Oh and the pop was placed in a high traffic area where everyone that came into the store would see. So, which one would you buy if you were poor and had little money to spare for food?


Then there's your fast food joints. All I will say about them is they have conducted the most successful, mass marketing, brainwashing campaign in history. They have ingrained themselves into our everyday life like nothing else. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it's discovered in the future that some of the crap they add into the stuff they pass off as food, turns out to be highly addictive. Remember the Tobacco companies told us for a long time that nicotine wasn't addictive.

If you are a smart shopper and take the time to prepare enough to eat for more than one meal, it will cost you less than fast food(I include food that you can buy already to take home and cook and microwave meals, not just restaurants). There in lies the problem though. People don't have the time to do this or won't make the time. Remember that old saying..."Time is Money". So it's easier to buy the prepackaged, premade lasagna and just pop it in the oven or the microwave than it is to buy all the ingredients and make it. Most don't take the time to think that penny for penny, you could probably get three meals if you made it yourself. It is seen as time saved now. Which on one level could be viewed as lazy but on another could be seen as a reflection of our society as a whole, instant gratification.

What it comes down to for me is that our western society has lost its way when it comes to food. The example of the people's of Bangladesh used earlier is a great one, although it can be said that the poor there aren't obese because they have no food. The urbanization of our world has taken away the appreciation of where food comes from and what it takes to actually grow food. Now we just expect the grocery store's to have every thing ready for us so we can just pop in, grab a box of this or a package of that, go home and have our meal in front of us in a few minutes. I even noticed tonight that they have precooked beef roasts, ready to microwave for a dollar less than the same roast cost raw!! I looked on the package and there where over a dozen ingredients.I just had to shake my head. People have lost the love for taking the time to actually prepare meals, for themselves or for thier family, and in doing so, have left ourselves open to the problems that entails. I actually agree with Flyer on some of his points; we don't have any one to blame but ourselves for what we have let happen.


Sorry if this post is rambling all over the place. This is a subject that I have some strong feelings about but I am tired tonight. If you want anything clarified, just ask. I'll try and make a little more sense after some rest.

amazing post, and many good points. I have to admit, I may be lucky to have always lived near fresh markets, but even out of the last 3 large cities (in 3 diff states) I have lived in, all 3 had weekly markets.

pop, cost $4.96 total with tax and deposit for 8l of it while the healthy, nutrient rich soy milk cost me $3.79 for 2l. Oh and the pop was placed in a high traffic area where everyone that came into the store would see. So, which one would you buy if you were poor and had little money to spare for food?

best answer: water! Shoot, even sugar water is better than soda. Being a healthy-minded, thrifty shopper (sometimes), I've learned that the cheapest non-sugar water drink is apple cider. It's much cheaper than any other juice on average. Water is a good thing to get used to. It can save your life even.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a dog, or any other animal, choose soda over water, ever.

reply to post by GAOTU789


Great post. I gave you a star.

This is a nice addition to the discussion. Thanks for posting.

Originally posted by GAOTU789
Sorry if this post is rambling all over the place. This is a subject that I have some strong feelings about but I am tired tonight. If you want anything clarified, just ask. I'll try and make a little more sense after some rest.

Excellent post and I agree. The grocery stores are full of manufactured "foods" because we are either too lazy or too busy to cook from scratch, to the point that many staples now cost more.
Supply and demand, IMHO.
In fact, a grocer in my area now has baking needs (flour, sugar, spices, salt, etc. ) in the next to last aisle in back of the store, near the soaps and bulk items.

I am not rich, but I do try to eat healthy.
There are local bakeries, a local Amish store, farmer's markets in warm months and vegetable stands where I can get romaine lettuce for 99-cents per pound and apples for about 79-cents per pound.

To eat healthier, try not to buy items from the center of the grocery store. That where all the uber-processed and expensive foods are located.

reply to post by scientist


Ya water is extremely important. I keep 4-8l in my fridge all the time. Not bottled though. I just filter my tap water and put it into 4l containers. Good and cold and the best thing for quenching thirst.

Something I forgot also. With the rising cost of fuel, water shortages, droughts and on and on, everybody but the wealthiest are going to have to start thinking about frugal shopping or learning how to grow urban gardens on roof tops. It could be the only way any of us will be able to afford to eat healthy diets in the not to distant future.


[edit on 20-11-2007 by GAOTU789]

The human body evolved for near-starvation conditions. Why not re-engineer it to better tolerate a high-carb high-fat North American diet? That will make millions of people healthier and happier.

Healthy eating only for the rich???

Stands to reason if your rich you can afford to eat healthy...

Now how about the poor?

The poor can be divided into two classes...

The non working poor......ie welfare recipients or people on disability or pension....

And the working poor......minimum wage or low income earners....

In most of the first world, the non working poor are forced into a constant juggling of finances simply to maintain ANY food on the table in addition to shelter and other neccesities....

The working poor are hardly any better off financially and have the added disencentive of huge constraints on their time....

Its easy to dismiss people as " to lazy " to eat healthy but if you are living on, or worse raising a family on a limited budget, while working full time ( often two or more jobs ) to make ends meet, finding the time to NOT be lazy.....( meaning shopping multiple sources/ preparing non instant meals..) can be nigh impossible

just my 2 cents, speaking from experience....