Your Waistline in Charts
The New York Times' David Leonhardt has a nice column today laying out the case for a soda tax. But some of the strongest evidence comes alongside the column, in this graph showing the change in different food prices over time.
That's not a huge surprise. An orange has the rude quality of being partially organic. Technological advances can make growing it faster and transporting it cheaper, but you still have to wait for plants to photosynthesize light. Not so when making a can of Coke. Better machines can revolutionize pretty much the whole process. The result is that it's cheaper to consume calories that are produced rather that calories that are grown. It's also quicker. And chemically manipulated to taste good to you.
It's hard to stand against quicker, cheaper, and tastier. Researchers at the University of Washington Center for Public Health and Nutrition recently examined (pdf) a November 2008 release from the US Department of Agriculture that argued the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program provided low-income families with plenty of money to eat a delicious, healthful diet. Here's what the USDA proposed:
The dinner weighed a solid pound. But it only provided 335 calories. It was light on both protein and fat. And it didn't suit the needs of a time-stressed family. "Produce needed to be washed, drained, trimmed, cored, sliced and boiled. The noodles required boiling" Preparation time hit 40 minutes -- and that was with people who knew their way around a kitchen. And presenting your kids with that meal -- for all the work and expense -- would not leave them rapturous.
Which is all to say that Grist blogger Tom Laskawy is probably right. Taxing unhealthful foods has its appeal. So, too, does pulling subsidies from corn and grains. But at some point, it may begin making sense to subsidize health foods, too. This is not a new strategy. We subsidize home ownership because we want people to own homes. We subsidize health insurance because we want people to have health insurance. We subsidize education because we want people to go to school. Last I checked, we also wanted the populace to be healthy, and for our health care costs to go down. And with prices the way they are, the deck is really stacked against that absent some sort of government intervention, at least when it comes to low-income families.
Posted by: rt42 | May 20, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: brucew07 | May 20, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: telliott99 | May 20, 2009 8:42 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: witty_al | May 21, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.