Quote:I wrote a long post about price pressure on the poor and inability to cook etc, but the board ate it up and deleted it.


So basically I will summarize it: The poorer you are the more you tend to view food in terms of quantity, not quality. If your family (not individual) makes only 20k a year, you may feel that it is unacceptable to pay 15 bucks at subway vs. 7 dollars at McD (on the dollar menu). One is far healthier than the other, but the cost is apparent. And sure you could cook at home for fairly cheap, but most people under 35 really don't know how to cook anymore as home economics class was killed long ago, and their parents probably didn't cook either (also the generation above being relatively more wealthy also enabled them to eat out more).


So bad long term choices are made on immediate short term savings directly related to price pressure. The thinking goes:

I need to put food on the table

I don't really know how to make things from scratch (nor do I have time or energy to learn)

The cheapest things that I can do are premade or on the dollar menu (but invariably have the cheapest/worst ingredients)

I want to stretch my dollars so I avoid the 'outside' of the grocery store where single vegetable items can cost multiple dollars without yielding a complete dinner.


If you really want people to eat healthier, the easiest way is make more wealth. People will make better choices when they have opportunity (money). Also mandating cooking classes in highschool could help a bit too.


I see lots of comments that it is individual choice and that people could cut down their portions etc. This is correct, but it still ignores the underlying problem that food that is unhealthy is basically subsidized. Sure I can get my calories in line by cutting portions, and I can lower weight by exercising, but if the food you eat is junk you still end up unhealthy. And yeah the exercising definitely helps, but you can't just eat processed corn and potatoes and expect to be healthy (i.e. disease free long term).