How America buys groceries 1982 vs 2012.

sidwood · 1 year

Stop subsidizing corn, meat, and dairy so heavily so foods full of fat and sugar are more expensive (like they used to be). Place a tax on high-sodium, high-sugar, high-fat processed foods to force the industry to come up with a way to make processed food healthier. Begin subsidizing healthy foods and institute a program to provide incentives for the private sector to build grocery stores in "food deserts." Increase funding for WIC and similar programs so the most vulnerable can afford to eat real food. Increase the focus on nutrition and exercise in schools.

Problem solved.

NotKiddingJK · 1 year

End corn subsidies. Subsidies healthy food to make it more affordable. Educate the public. Label unhealthy food.

schnuffs · 1 year

It's simple economics. It's cheap to eat at fast-food places and expensive to eat healthy. Evidence seems to suggest that there's a strong correlation between obesity and income/social services. Add to that an increasing wage gap and a decrease in social services, and you'll find the rates of obesity going up.

Solving the obesity problem needs an economic solution. In other words, we shouldn't focus on obesity itself in a health capacity because the causes of the obesity epidemic aren't about being "unhealthy" by choice.

Loki_SW · 1 year

This graphic shows that Americans are choosing to eat more unhealthy items. How can the government combat this?

It's not the government's job to force you to buy spinach over Doritos. They already tax alcohol, tobacco and other unhealthy items to try to economically coerce you into healthy living. Not to mention various public service ads.

At the end of the day it's up to the individual to take responsibility for what they're eating and to make the right decisions.

AuGuy · 1 year

How can the government combat this?

Tell the govt to shove it! It's not their damn business!

Learned-Hand · 1 year

Personal health choices are a cultural issue, and we can't legislate it away. Think of the temperance movement leading to prohibition. Programs like Move First are the proper role of government because they educate people and persuade them to make healthier choices. Laws like the NYC ban sodas over 18 oz. are counterproductive and an overreach of government authority.

swiheezy · 1 year

The government cant do anything against a problem it has caused. It has subsidized high fructose corn syrup into oblivion which makes it a cheap thing to make most fast foods and quick foods with. In this high speed world the fastest foods are eaten the most and instead of being somewhat healthy they are barely healthy if at all.

The government can fix it by getting out of the way.

[deleted] · 1 year

The only thing that the government can do that I would be okay with is to limit what foods can be purchased with food stamps.

FazzyOzzy · 1 year

I wrote a paper in business ethics class about the topic of obesity related to consumption of obesogenic foods. Simply stated adult obesity is a problem but child obesity is an even bigger problem which withing the next 20 years will being to take its toll on health care.

The solution I proposed was to give power to the FCC, FTC, and the FDA to regulate marketing and advertising of obesogenic foods and beverages to minors. Europe has already begun to do this, we should follow.

In my personal opinion, this will be the battle of our generation. Similar to the way smoking was such a huge dilemma for the previous generation. The government came down hard on big tobacco, it will have to do the same to big food or the consequences will be just as bad.

killien · 1 year

Another huge problem with government controlled healthcare. Your personal habits are now subject to the government since they pay for it. What is wrong with a society where my neighbors are not forced to pay for my lung cancer when I smoke my whole life?

What can the government do to help fix this problem?

Start by rolling back 90% of the laws since 1960. Get rid of the tax loop holes for health insurance, so you buy it like life or home insurance and not through your job. Replace medicaid with universal catastrophic insurance + $5k to every person who is below poverty line (this would be cheaper than current system). Replace medicare with a tax free savings account to you can save up for end of life health expenses. Insurance is completely inefficient when the probability is 100% (everyone gets old and dies, usually running up medical bills)

Finally, make the FDA focus on safety, not effectiveness. 75% of drug costs are incurred after phase I (human safety study). Let doctors and consumers figure out if it works and is a good deal, like every other product we buy.

mrhymer · 1 year

Here is the solution to this particular problem. Stop all collective health care spending. If you eat wrong and you have to pay for your own care then you are not anyone's problem but your own.

[deleted] · 1 year

The government can combat this by having rigorous planning efforts at the local level to make walking, cycling and public transit legitimate options for people. In areas that are already built out with sprawl, they can allow land to be re-zoned, allowing for increased density and mixed use development.

Our school lunch programs can be much better then they are. A lot of the current standards are driven by efficiency rather then nutrition. Frankly, if kids want to eat junk food at school, they should have to bring it in their lunch box. There would be a lot of protesting at first, but just changing people's environment to make being healthy easy is a great way to shape people's habits.

Neither of these are a panacea of the problem, but they are two areas where the government already has a role that needs improvement. I'm all for individuals being responsible for their choices, but our environment shapes our decisions...and our government has a role in shaping our environment. There's a role for government in this issue...even if people disagree with what specific actions need to be taken.

mclenins · 1 year

Simply saying that it is not the government's business is not only overly simplistic, but is not progressing debate at all. I'm am curious as to what the full Libertarian rationale against government intervention in nutrition ought to be when considering all of society, not just those individuals who can afford to actually make decisions about what they eat.

Obviously the problem has many facets. On the public policy side, the government should absolutely stop subsidizing corn, or at least to the extent that it currently does. This provides an economic incentive to mass produce corn. The corn needs to go somewhere, so it is used to create high fructose corn syrup which appears in nearly all processed food products. Now, hfcs has not been shown to be any more harmful than sugar but then again, fructose isn't good for you at all. Furthermore, I think that it is acceptable for the government to ban unhealthy foods in public schools because schools often defer to the cheap option of selling processed foods as opposed to nutritional ones which establishes unhealthy eating habits among the country's youth. Since this money is coming from the government, it ought to be able to decide where that money is going.

The government can also work to subsidize healthy foods. This is not the same as simply taxing unhealthy foods. Taxing unhealthy foods does not make it any easier for Americans to buy healthy foods. Rather, the prices of healthy foods should be made to be more equitable to unhealthy ones so that it becomes an issue of choice when buying processed foods as opposed to an economic necessity. This can be done by taxing unhealthy foods and then using that money to subsidize vegetables etc.

Next, the government should either create supermarkets in food deserts or provide incentives for private businesses to open supermarkets in low income areas. I volunteer in some of the worst neighborhoods in the US and one common theme is that people regularly have no option but to shop at their local convenience store. This is because that's all they have access to due to a lack of stores and adequate public transportation options. If I am a private business, why would I ever choose to open a business in a low income neighborhood over a wealthy one? I doubt that anybody can live a healthy lifestyle on goods purchased at 7/11. A Libertarian friend of mine said the solution to this was that those people should move. I don't think I need to explain why that response is ludicrous.

A final thought would be to mandate that people of a certain weight be forced to see a nutritionist. Some people legitimately have no clue as to how to eat healthy and their obesity and subsequent health issues, as OP stated, ends up costing the taxpayer. There are more reasons, but those are just my immediate thoughts.

tl;dr Liberty is wonderful but it only exists for those who can afford it. To solve the problem of processed foods, the government should decrease corn subsidies, ban unhealthy foods in public schools, make healthy foods comparably priced, increase access to supermarkets, and require the obese to see nutritionists.

[deleted] · 1 year

The cost of meat has dropped significantly; adjusted for inflation, pork chops cost 37 percent less than they did 30 years ago. That probably has a lot to do with why we’re spending less on meat: We can get a lot more of it for each of our grocery dollars.

Uh, no. When the price of something goes down, people buy more of it, not less.

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

privacy philosophy

login