Are We Really Force Fed?
The space provided for apples, oranges, bananas and tomatoes in a corner store is not tiny because the owner is cruelly keeping fruit and vegetables to a minimum in his establishment. It is tiny because he does not sell enough of those products to justify using up more productive shelf space. In other words, people like George Bogen have shown time and again that they prefer junk food and fast food over the "good" food Martin and her coterie of "experts" want them to eat. [Full Article]
Comments (16)
Every supermarket that I shop at leads shoppers directly into the produce section, followed by the meats and cheeses. Also around the perimeter of the store lies the bakery section. If ease of shopping is our metric, my area's supermarkets are pushing health food. The same goes for trips to most any restaurant, even my favorite, "Famous Dave's."
If I had to make a complaint, it would be that a lot of restaurants serve "beer food"; that is, food salted so excessively that you need to wash it down with a lot of beer. But that's mostly taste....
Published: July 30, 2004 10:34 AM
Great article - and once again, demonstrating how the "major" media is spewing bad science and fueling the victim mentality of our society.
It's so much *easier* to have somebody to blame, isn't it? Why feel bad about one's inability to skip the Twinkies and Doritos, or choose the salad over the super-sized Big Mac?
It's ironinc that *freedom* is such a hard product to "sell" to the average man (or woman). Freedom means you have to look in the mirror and take responsibility for your health, finances, and success (or lack thereof).
Oh well, I guess we'd better brace for the new flurry or regulations limiting our access to junk food.
The bright side is that there is a ton of money to be made in the cookie and soda black market that will spring up.
Invest in Twinkies folks - I hear they'll keep for years. Tuck a case or two away in your attic (where the food police won't find them) and make a tidy profit when your next-door neighbor excedes his twinkie ration and is dying for a sugar fix.
Published: July 30, 2004 11:58 AM
Let us not diregard the role that governments have played with regard to food and agriculture. The sugar industry, the dairy industry, wheat farmers and many other food industry groups have political influence in Washington. Unhealthy foods like hydrogenated oils and trans-fatty acids came about as a direct result of state intervention in the food industry. Directly or indirectly, the hand of government is connected to most of the ingredients of the unhealthiest foods available on the market.
Harry Valentine
Published: July 30, 2004 11:58 AM
Does the government propose to BANISH unhealthy fast foods altogether (like marijuana), or merely to make them accessible only to the wealthy few and to those who will make them at home? I suspect the latter. This way, these foods would be seen as a sort of reward for achievement.
Using unhealthy foods, such as desserts, as a reward is something childcare experts do NOT recommend, at all, and many see this setup as a setup for future obesity(!)
This brings to mind the fact that if YOU were in charge of an unmanageable teen-ager and thus placed him or her in your basement behind bars for stays of various periods as a consequence of major misbehavior, the government would judge YOU to be an unfit parent. If the government is in charge of the young person, however, it may do the same thing and probably in a far less humane way.
Another example: Every childcare manual that I have ever seen is dedicated to the idea that children are the products of their parents' proper treatment and protection of them. Yet, even though many children see more of ther government schoolteachers than of their parents, the TEACHER need not meet the rigorous standards applicable to parenthood. The TEACHER, for example should not intervene if one child is verbally--or even physically-- cruel to another, and if appealed to for help, should strike the attitude that this (the school environment) is just the way the world is and here he will have to shift for himself. Thus, parent protectiveness is vital, according to the government, while TEACHER protectiveness is inappropriate. We're not told why maladjustment at home is intolerable, while maladjustment at school may be normal and tolerable.
The government, in setting itself up as expert upon how to treat people, certainly ignores the conclusions of other experts.
Published: July 30, 2004 12:03 PM
I think the crux of the attack on the article was touched on and then moved on; the idea of causation and correlation. Did anyone at ABC/TIME consider that perhaps the same factors that lead someone to be poor are the same factors that lead them to make unsound food choices? Of course that would lead directly back to more traditional 'class' issues which have never been fully reconciled; that individuals are responsible for their lots in life (unless of course they have been coerced by the State).
Of course this is what alarms me most about such advances by the left and the media that supports it, the expansion of class arguments into fresh territory to further advance the socialist agenda into every nook and cranny of our lives.
Published: July 30, 2004 12:09 PM
What the author failed to point out is that fast food is terribly expensive. If you are lucky for $6 you get a small hamburger, a soft drink and some french fries. Therefore, *perhaps* it could be possible that the addiction to fast food that these obese people have is contributing greatly to their poverty.
Published: July 30, 2004 12:42 PM
Excellent point, Brad. Exactly what I was thinking. :)
Not all people are be-all-you-can-be go-getters. For the average person, a high school education is good enough; a low or medium-skill job is good enough; a lower middle-class lifestyle is good enough; primetime sitcoms are a good enough use of spare time; and McDonald's or twinkies are good enough when one gets the munchies.
People who work hard to put themselves through higher education, pursue high skill jobs, and consider jogging or raquetball a better use of free time are also likely to be dissatisfied with fast food on a daily basis. These sorts of people will watch their weight and pursue a healthier diet. I'm not saying one lifestyle is "right" and one is "wrong", but I'm not surprised there's a correlation between education, income level, and health. Remember: correlation does not imply causality. I think lifestyle choice is largely the cause of obesity, not income or education.
Published: July 30, 2004 12:49 PM
Mary Dolan,
You many find answers to the questions you impy with your words - "We're not told why maladjustment at home is intolerable, while maladjustment at school may be normal and tolerable." - by thoughtfully reading THE UNDERGROUND HISTORY OF AMERICAN EDUCATION by John Taylor Gatto.
The entire text is available on the internet.
Compulsory education, as it has devolved in this country, is the key to why free markets are not allowed to properly function.
Published: July 30, 2004 1:48 PM
Please mentally change "You many" to "You may" in my previous posting.
Published: July 30, 2004 1:51 PM
I spent a semester studying in London, England, where there is a lot of talk regarding so-called "fat-taxes" and their implementation. It is possible that cheese, beef, creams, etc. will all be considered "fatty foods" and therefore subject to taxes that will (in their minds) ensure that the citizens of the country will eat less of them.
In an ironic development, low-carb diets have become very popular there as well as here in the States, and those on these diets now potentially face taxes on what they consider to be diet food. In theory, carbs (which even includes apples and some other fruits, I believe), are the "fat food" in the Atkins diet.
After all, if we suppose that the Atkins (or other low-carb diets) prove to be quite effective over time, it may turn out that "fatty" foods are not intrinsically fat-causing.
It's putting an interesting twist to the debate in Britain, and is something that probably wouldn't have been a part of the discussion 5 or 10 years ago.
Published: July 30, 2004 5:48 PM
Daniel,
I wonder if the USDA's carb-heavy food pyramid reflects the extent of the Department's subsidization of various crops.
The USDA illustrates the intransigence of government to changed circumstances. The USDA is a creature of a democracy where 1 in 4 Americans (iirc) worked on a farm. It has not retreated one inch since then, and indeed, has expanded.
Published: July 30, 2004 8:14 PM
I think Gard Goldsmith wrote a classic.
I wondered from the peculiarly constructed introduction by Koppel whether Limbaugh's(?) comment was one Koppel wanted to make himself but he too much self-identified with the leftest hegemony to say it as himself. Or maybe Koppel is so selflessly humble (unlike Limbaugh) as to believe that there must some esoteric expertise, beyond his understanding, justifying the food-trap theory, which, as presented, was like an other-worldly Twilight Zone episode.
I can sympathise with the feeling of the 400+ lb. guy, without agreeing. I found I like nacho cheese corn chips not long ago. So I bought five bags when they were on sale, figuring I would eat them on occasion over the next 2-3 months. Then I ate the lot in a week. Once I started a bag, no rational thought would curtail me from eating until I was absolute stuffed, and I felt almost sick. No other food does this for (to?) me. So diligent food scientists, reacting to consumer demands, can design the perfect food to plug into some neurological receptor. So I only buy 1 bag, and since I am so cheap, that is only when they go on sale. Problem solved!
How does a "poor" 400+ lb. person afford to keep his weight up by gorging himself in multiple fast food joints? IAC good/healthy food from supermarkets is not necessarily expensive. Even though I somewhat like fast foods, I can eat comparatively like a king for the same price with self semi-prepared food, mostly in a microwave (microwave = $70), which is what I do.
I don't think poverty is the problem here, although that's what gives it resonance to self-styled liberals (I guess?) The man LIKES and ENJOYS what he is doing. He has plenty of money to do what he is doing. That's not poverty. If he had less money, he couldn't do what he is doing. So poverty would be a solution. Wealth is his problem. What are you going to do: Construct an anti-liberty world where no one can enjoy himself no matter how wealthy?
Published: July 30, 2004 10:04 PM
What the author failed to point out is that fast food is terribly expensive. If you are lucky for $6 you get a small hamburger, a soft drink and some french fries.
actually, a mcdonalds extra value meal, with big mac / chicken sandwich / double cheeseburger / etc., large fries and large drink is 2.99 everyday where i live.
that's why the poor are more obese. fatty food is cheaper.
Published: July 30, 2004 10:09 PM
It should be pointed out that government does already regulate/mandate food content in many ways, which are not often brought out, and to which probably no one objects. This is beyond truthful labeling, cleanliness, toxicity, and pathogens. You will notice that all food that contains refined wheat, also has several vitamins added (like niacin, riboflavin, etc.) which I believe is by law. Unrefined wheat would contain these naturally. Vitamin D is added, by law, to milk, and it can't be too high either. Milk doesn't naturally contain vitamin D (I believe), but it is required to absorb calcium properly. So the door for regulating the nutrition of food has long ago been opened.
They "soft" regulated nutrition by requiring an analysis label quite some time ago. Considering what they did to cigarettes, there can be no doubt where they mean to go and what the next stage will be, as luny as it may seem. We see the "Road to Serfdom" progression occur over and over. Uncle Joe Stalin in his wildest megalomania could never have imagined exercising control to this degree of minutia.
Uncle Joe, you died so very long ago, but your spirit will never die. Unfortunately.
Published: July 30, 2004 11:10 PM
Excellent article. There is, however, one issue not covered: The effect of advertising. Just as with tobacco, if advertising has no effect on people's behavior, do the stockholders know this, and if so, why are they not considering lynching those responsible for this huge waste of the stockholders' money.
Charles Cassil
Published: August 2, 2004 10:39 AM
I will write in BIG, fat, bold print to tweak our fat-phobic puppet masters in DC and at ABC... Thanks for the insightful comments posted here. I was pleased that the thoughts had resonance. It is clear to me that those who visit mises.org are driven by their principles, and I hereby open the invite for you all to relocate in New Hampshire! We need more like you!
By the way, there have been many comments here which can inspire long discussions. The insights about government subsidies of corn and other products are excellent observations, and were topics I had thought about including in the piece, but space prevented me from adding the lines. I did want to comment here on the argument that "bad" food is cheaper and therefore prompts poorer people to buy it rather than healthy food. It is true that in some cases cheap food is also bad food, and bad food is also cheap food. But the dynamic proposed assumes that the food becomes cheap because food manufacturers select it to produce in high quantity, that it is in the economic best interest of corporations to work on ways to mass produce cheap "bad" food, without any regard to cheap "good" food. This misses the point that businesses will work hardest to mass produce those items which sell the best. Production orients itself based on consumer demand. If one looks at the cost/weight ratio of fruit versus processed foods with high sugar content, one finds that fruit is actually a better deal. Watermelon costs less than 60 cents a pound in some markets, but one doesnt see watermelon filling the shelves of convenience stores in low-income neighborhoods. Instead, one sees twinkies, ring dings, sodas, chips, pretzels, and sundry other items that not only require processing, but also require packaging, market research, cooking, etc. If corporate marketers begin to tilt more towards these items in their work, it is because the consumers responded most favorably to these kinds of foods.
When I was a kid, I used to work at a farm stand. Most of the employees enjoyed fruit as much as the next guy, but at lunch time, they would walk over to the nearby convenience store to get sodas and chips, instead of having the cheaper apples and melons we offered at the stand. The behavior is typical, and ought not be "rectified" through government manipulation.
Just something to chew on, in case people are interested. (grin)
Thank you again for the great communication! It makes the research even more worthwhile!!!
-- Gard
Published: August 3, 2004 11:19 AM