Absolute must-read article here, but as revealing as it is about the formulation and marketing of sugar- and salt-laden junk foods that trigger pleasurable reactions in the brain and cause people to crave more junk, seems to me it's still missing a key part of the equation. Specifically, this:
Yes, the food industry has devised all sorts of clever marketing schemes to get its products onto store shelves in poor neighborhoods and into school cafeterias; it's perfected the "science" of junk-food production to tickle our brains' "bliss centers" so that we crave more of it; and changing consumer lifestyles (longer working hours, less time to prepare meals at home) have helped to incentivize junk-food/snack-food production and consumption. And, of course, federal farm policy, which subsidizes corn/cattle feed and which protects sugar prices with import quotas, plays a big role in making the cost of junk-food less expensive than it normally would be minus supports and subsidies. But even so, seems to me that one of the biggest drivers of cheap-food consumption in America is that fact that, simply put, we have a lot more poor people in this country now who might like to consume organic vegetables, fresh-squeezed juices and grass-fed meats but who simply can't afford them.
How to fix? Well there's been a lot of talk about changing consumer behavior by imposing sugar taxes, salt taxes and the like, but that's only going to make all kinds of food more expensive for poor people and will probably only drive consumers to seeks cheaper and even less nutritious "snack" alternatives. What if, on the other hand, governments offered tax credits/deductions for so-called "healthy food" purchases? In other words, you buy X number of groceries at a place like Whole Foods or a local co-op every year instead of snacks from 7/11, and you can take a credit or deduction for a generous percentage of your food expenses. Naturally there'd have to be a cap or limit so rich people didn't abuse the credit, but it seems to me as though policymakers might want to consider using the tax code to encourage consumers for engaging in certain market behaviors (just like offering tax credits for purchasing electric cars) instead of threatening to punish people for consuming the only food products they can realistically afford.
Other fixes? Local/regional farmer's markets have proliferated like rabbits across the country over the last ten years. They should all be required to accept food stamps. If the various accounting/processing costs are too burdensome for them, government should offer subsidies or supports to offset. Retail food chains that stock a high percentage of organics should be encouraged to open new stores in so-called "food deserts" via tax credits and government incentives and set-asides. (Hey, I'd rather see government float bonds for infrastructure improvements to lure grocery stores instead of football stadiums to town.) Teach kids about food, how it's raised and prepared and its health benefits, by making Home Economics a mandatory course in the public K-12 curriculum. Motivate the kids to excel by organizing student cook-offs and other culinary competitions. (Jamie Oliver's been promoting a pilot program along similar lines here in L.A. for some time, and it should be adopted nationwide.) Let older kids (middle/high-schoolers) earn credit by working in the school cafeteria and learning the businesses of food preparation/restaurant management (makes as much sense as offering old-school wood shop and metal shop classes). And of course, raising the minimum wage to $10/hour (or more) will give poorer people greater purchasing power, and more choice, at the local grocery store or farmer's market.
Finally, labor organizers and progressive activists should be lobbying businesses and local governments to institute a 35-hour work week. There are plenty of studies out there that suggest that a shorter work week can actually increase productivity and reduce unemployment, and the extra few hours of aded leisure time is time that families can spend shopping for, preparing, and enjoying healthy and affordable meals at home rather than dashing through the drive-thru at Karl's Jr. because they simply don't have the time for anything else.
Put all together, of course, these initiatives are going to cost billions over many years, but if the investment results in improved health-care outcomes (reduced levels of obesity, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes), the future cost savings could dwarf the initial revenue outlays. An ounce of prevention and a pound of cure, and all that.
Granted, none of these things---or even all of them---are a perfect panacea, that many Americans will continue to consume a certain amount of cookies and potato chips because, well, they're tasty! But bottom line, you want more people to consume healthier foods, make healthier foods more affordable to them.
---Baron V
Comments