When I walk through the grocery store and look at the
choices and prices, I am puzzled about the widely held belief that it costs
more to eat healthy. This has been the
accepted explanation as to why poor people tend to eat a less healthy
diet. True, it’s more expensive to buy
the foods that promote themselves as extra healthy, and often aren’t worth the
price difference: organics, vitamin- and mineral-enriched foods and bottled water (often drawn from someone else's public water supply); but
good old fruits, vegetables and sugar-free cereals always seem reasonably
priced. Not only that, but they are
healthier than convenience foods that are easier to prepare, but often contain added sodium for flavor.
Now I have found the explanation of why foods that are good
for you are perceived to be more expensive.
This new information published by the USDA tells a different story. It really is not more expensive. Previous studies compared the relative cost
to get the same number of calories, not on the basis of weight or serving
size. In a society where we are warned
about the level of obesity and its rate of increase, does it make sense to try to duplicate the same number of calories? Still, those who published the original
findings are sticking to their claims.
Is a cup of coffee and a donut really cheaper for breakfast than a bowl
of raisin bran with non-fat milk? From a
per-calorie standpoint, it may be, but then you have to spend more on an artificial
fiber additive later in the day and pop a vitamin supplement to make up the
difference.
According to the USDA there is no reason other than a hurried
lifestyle and poor choices to explain why most people don’t eat healthier. Add another reason, that people have
developed a taste for the less healthy food.
In most cases though, changes can be made without a financial impact. When I pick up lunch at Subway, a sandwich on
whole wheat bread costs exactly the same as any of the others.
Bottom line, it sounds like the poor dietary choices
throughout our society are much more a matter of behavior than a matter of
economics – just as I would have guessed.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Click again on the title to add a comment