The NYT reports about a study by University of Washington researchers, which has found that calorie for calorie, unhealthy, energy-dense, junk food is much more cheaper than low calorie vegetables and fruits. This coupled with the fact that junk food prices are less likely to rise as result of inflation, makes the researchers conclude that the poor are more susceptible to obesity.
A survey of 370 foods sold at supermarkets in the Seattle area 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. The study also found that 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. The average American spends about $7 a day on food, although low-income people spend about $4.
Dr Adam Drewnowski, Director of the Center for Public Health Nutrition at the University of Washington claims in an article, "Diets composed of refined grains, added sugars, and added fats are more affordable than diets based on lean meats, fish, fresh vegetables and fruit. There is an inverse relationship between energy density (kJ/g) and energy cost ($/MJ), such that energy-dense foods also provide the most dietary energy per dollar. Good taste, high convenience, and even more important - the low costs of sweets and fats may indeed lead to over eating and weight gain. Not surprisingly, the highest rates of obesity are found among population groups with the highest poverty rates and least education."
It is easier to overeat junk food, both because it tastes good and because eaters 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. Dr. Drewnowski says, "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."
There have been numerous arguments made in favor of an obesity tax obesity tax that would penalize such high energy, junk foods. Dr. Drewnowski's studies support the claim and reinforces the socio-economic explanation for obesity. There is a case for using this tax to partially finance food subsidies.
But any imposition of an obesity tax will have to be seen in the light of the impact of the consequent price rise on the poor, given their dependence on such foods. This in turn has to be balanced with the resultant health benefits and savings on health care costs, which will reduce the total cost incurred by the poor.
5 comments:
I guess the price differential between energy-intense, high-calorie junk and low-caloried nutritios foods is still a phenomenon of the West and not so in our country (or for that matter, anywhere in the third world). True, it's more expensive to buy fruits almost anywhere. However, there are fruits that still are considered easy on the pocket by anyone and rich in nutrients at the same time - like guava and papaya.
Junk food is still expensive here and I hope it continues to be so. And, at least in India, poor people are NOT more obese than those that are NOT poor. My two cents.
Thanks for that observation. I agree with most of it. But increasingly the price differential is widening and the junk food phenomenon is gaining ground, especially in the urban centers.
But aren't fruits and increasingly even vegetables, much more expensive than sweets and fried snacks? I suppose that an apple, grapes, cauliflower, or carrot is beyond the means of most lower middle class poor households. Even guava and papaya is beyond the means of most urban residents. But the streetside eateries supply a vast array of energy-dense food items, at a fraction of the cost. And these are often filling, full meals. Our desi versions of junk food are not that expensive.
Our Indian snacks sure aren't expensive - those particularly available at teh kerb. But they're considered by MOST low-income households as snacks ONLY and NOT meal by themselves UNLIKE the UPPER-INCOME groups that consider the junk food available at McDonald's or Pizza Hut as WHOLESOME meals (or full meals; however you'd term it) - helped along by the in-house advertisements too (like, McDonald's which talks about balanced diet consisting of carbs, proteins, fats n fibre and highlights these groups found in McBurgers!!)
And, no, MOST vegetables - at least during their seasons - are still very much reachable to lower-income categories of people including some of the fruits. However, the frequency of them being consumed is surely less than desired. A typical low-income household's diet in India consists of coarse carbohydrates (jowar, millets like ragi etc) that are richer in fibre and iron and also are fillers with low calories. Yes, snacks/junk food are desired by everyone everywhere but they still form a small part of a meal than a meal by themselves.
At Rs. 10-15 per kilo, papaya is still affordable along with guava (that costs around Rs.2 per fruit in many cities) unlike apples (at Rs. 50-100 per kilo) or even orange (at least Rs.25 during season in a metro).
Nice site, and useful information
Thank you
Yet another excuse to blame it on someone else. Maybe junk food is cheaper however exercise is free. I saw no mention of that in the article. It`s always someone else s fault. Take responsibility for your own actions
Post a Comment