<p>Jack-
I realize it is difficult to follow the different points raised in a lengthy thread- I admit I certainly don’t go back and read previous pages before sticking my nose in, but I did bring up something which I think is quite relevant in #25- and that is that subsidises of wheat/soy and especially corn makes eating prepackaged and fast food, more affordable than shopping for fresh.</p>
<p>Saving time and stress on food preparation is tempting- given most people have little enough of the former and too much of the latter.
If I only had $15 for dinner for my family- what could that get me at the grocery- half gallon of milk- $3.40, loaf of bread $3.20, 1.5 lbs apples $2.21,26oz jar of peanut butter $5.70- thats fine for every once in a while- but most families aren’t going to be satisfied with a peanut butter sandwich for dinner</p>
<p>While my family of three- is fortunate to have great grocery stores within walking distance- We probably spend about $25 a day for food if we just eat one meal at home- more $ if we eat more & more than that- if you include the dogs food.
Too bad demand can’t stop subsidizes of corn and help reduce costs of non GMO foods</p>
<p>For $15, you could also serve your family a 16 oz. package of 100% whole wheat pasta ($3), with organic tomato sauce ($3), half a dozen hard-boiled eggs ($1.50), a 12 oz container of fresh strawberries ($4) and half a carton of all-natural vanilla ice cream ($2.50), none of which contains HFCS.</p>
<p>A pound of Alaskan wild-caught salmon ($8), with a generous serving of brown rice ($2), fresh spinach sauteed in garlic ($3), and half a peach ($2).</p>
<p>I just pulled the $15 figure out of my butt- but, $15 is probably all a low income family has to spend a day at the grocery store- including cleaning and health supplies.</p>
<p>What you smokin?
$8 is not the regular price for salmon and you know it
Half a peach? how far does that go?</p>
<p>Or you could go to Mcdonalds order off the dollar menu- get a side salad & some nuggets for $2
of course the nuggets are breaded and fried and the dressing on the salad is fatty but it fills you up & you don’t have to have your gas turned on to cook it</p>
<p>I did look at the HFCS, the only item my family is guilty of purchasing is the Robintussin, for kids when they have allergies. I did not study the list very carefully but I don’t think I would buy those stuff anyway, I did even know they are in the HFCS list.</p>
<p>emeraldkitty: I have no problem following points on a thread. If you read any of my earlier posts, you will see that I did state that making your own food is time-consuming, takes some effort, and may cost more money (than fast food). No doubt about it. I’m well aware of all that, and this is now the 3rd or 4th time I’ve made that point. Again, you have a choice, though. </p>
<p>That said, I also believe that eating at home, knowing where your food comes from (and what goes in it), and making meals from scratch is much healthier and ultimately will cost less money. The exception is eating fast food all the time (ie., McDonalds). While short-term that will be less expensive, your medical costs and damage to your health will end up costing you a lot more (and costing the rest of us more). </p>
<p>I am also not entirely convinced that pre-packaged foods are less expensive than buying fresh foods (most especially if you buy from your local farmers or farmers market). You’d also be helping the environment by not purchasing more paper and plastic along with that pre-packaged food. </p>
<p>Bay actually made some great suggestions here that are not far off with costs–at all. As far as salmon goes (as an example), I noticed that our grocery store has it for $10 a pound right now; sometimes it’s less. That would serve 2 people. Most other fish would cost less, of course. I notice that you’re in the Pacific Northwest; I’m guessing salmon might cost even less there? </p>
<p>TooRichForAid: I’m with you concerning that list. I looked at it, too, and I don’t use any of it. I’ve had ketchup in recent memory, and I had an Oringina (sp?) once last summer. Surprisingly, I did not develop a dependency on either one, nor did I become addicted. There are plenty of foods (and cereals) that one can buy that does not contain HFCS. Anybody remember oatmeal, for instance??</p>
<p>I just bought that salmon two hours ago from Trader Joe’s. Its actually $7.69 per pound (I gave conservative estimates.) It is frozen. Why would I make up false prices???</p>
<p>Well, it’s great to see that everyone here has figured out about HFCS and how sabotaging it is. i’m wondering how many people on this site knew that last week, and knew what to look for in labels to avoid it.</p>
<p>Then, I’m wondering how much they think the average American knows this, and how they are going to get that info. How about we all commit to seeing this get publicized a little more, and while we’re going about this, how about we watch the debate on the latest Farm Bill, which is historically written by reps from the corn states which send huge Subsidies, to, you guessed it–corn “farms” (factories is more like it). Maybe for a start, we could refuse to continue subsidizing corporate farms which then make huge profits by selling cheaply that which makes us unhealthy. Wouldn’t it be nice to see more of the profits (and our taxes) going to vegetables, fruits, and whole grains grown by farmers committed to health and a more natural diet?</p>
<p>Should be something we can all get behind. Again–societal answers to societal problems will have far more reaching results than “try harder.”</p>
<p>Above is a website that does a challenge for making a healthier diet using the amt of money given per week for 2 people getting food stamps. They prepare a lot of food themselves. It is meat-heavy, but very interesting to see what they do in terms of produce and breads. I wonder how someone in a city could modify this, or make it less meat oriented.</p>
<p>Quotes from it:</p>
<p>"Total spent on food for week: $60.43
Food stamp allowance, 2 people 1 week $61.87
amount under budget $1.44
Food cost average amount per day $8.63
amount bought from farmers $44.18
amount from supermarket $16.80
percent of local foods 73%
percent of supermarket foods 28% </p>
<p>Well, maybe some do and maybe some don’t. This project - which begins with the Better Times Almanac of Useful Information, now in its 5th edition - grew out of my own personal experience with poverty. For the 20 year period, 1977-1997, there were only 3 years when my income was higher than $10,000. I learned to bake bread because that was the cheapest way I could get bread. And when I lived in places where my kitchen consisted of a hot plate, a crockpot, and an electric skillet, I learned how to bake biscuits in an electric skillet. The recipes and menus I used were often based on recipes and menus I used during that long period of poverty, and it is still the way our household generally eats today. They are basically peasant foods, typical fare of rural Oklahoma. The main difference with the food challenge week is that I kept track of everything down to the teaspoon ingredient level, and that was tedious but necessary in order to establish the point."</p>
<p>For the 20 year period, 1977-1997, there were only 3 years when my income was higher than $10,000.</p>
<p>Thats really impressive- how did you manage to keep your income so low?
even working for $5. an hour- is more than $10,000 provided you worked at least one full time job.
I do know artists and such who keep their income artifically low, because of bartering- they don’t get food stamps- because you pretty much can’t have a car that doesn’t need to be held together with duct tape- even if it was given to you and get food stamps- but by trading a stained glass window for some plumbing work or installing a pond for a good as new fridge from some friends who were redoing their kitchen.</p>
<p>The IRS doesn’t like it- but I don’t think there is a lot of ways to track bartering.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t argue that it can’t be done to eat fairly healthily while on minimal income- but when you are looking at families in poverty overall- you are looking at some of the most stressed people in our society.
They don’t have a lot of instruction in nutrition ( heck- many drs don’t), and when you are surrounded by those with similar backgrounds and experience, it can be really hard to stick out.
Heck even when I was working at one job I really enjoyed- it was very difficult to eat with coworkers at lunch time. Not that I didn’t like their company, but a few of them- that I worked most closely with, were obese- and while they were very sensitive about it- they seemed to take my eating half a sandwich and a cup of tea as my making a statement about their choice of potato salad, fried chicken & pie.
THey also had to comment if I took the stairs instead of riding the elevator & even though I was hardly skin and bones- seemed to make it their mission to fatten me up.
If I was working there now- I probably would have confronted them about their masked hostility, but I was relieved when I changed jobs.</p>
<p>I would think that overweight is multicausal.
While I agree that different metabolisms make losing/gaining weight problematic, Ive also read several studies that indicate that stress, impairs ability to lose weight, particularly the most dangerous kind of fat- that around the midsection.
I know one woman for example, who is quite affluent and educated, and while she doesn’t eat like a bird, she eats a reasonable amount of food.
But she also is obese, and I wonder if it is a result of stress. She not only has a very stressful job, but actually has two jobs ( she works full time as a city planner & is on the city school board) From her reports, she sleeps little- as she is so consumed with doing a good job in both her careers.</p>
<p>“For the 20 year period, 1977-1997, there were only 3 years when my income was higher than $10,000.”</p>
<p>This wasn’t me, it was part of the quote from the website! </p>
<p>I found that about lunches, too, which amazed me. I would eat something relatively small, quickly and 45 minutes later, other people would still be getting through their food, which was higher in calories, as well. I think that some people have more of a social time over food than others. Now I see some thin, younger coworkers eat quickly as well but they will eat only a bag of chips and a Coke! </p>
<p>I think that it takes very conscientious people on food stamps to have a healthier diet, and I think that some in the younger generation have very little exposure or interest in cooking, so the cheaper fast foods “work” for them!</p>
<p>The site collegialmom links to is interesting, and our family has personally been through the “make our own bread” etc. strategies plenty of times. Got lots of great tips from the “Tightwad Gazette” books. But the food stamp benefit figures given for the family of two are higher than the average. As collegialmom’s link notes, the amount goes down for those with any income: “The weekly amount of food stamps for 2 persons is based on household’s without any income at all. If the household has some outside income, the amount of food stamps available to them radically drops. For example, we take food each month to a grandmother raising three grandkids. She lives on about $650/month social security income, and she only receives $68/month in food stamps! Such is life in these United States.” The USDA (<a href=“http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/faqs.htm[/url]”>www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/faqs.htm</a>) estimates the average monthly food stamp benefit to be $86 per person monthly. The sample budget collegialmom refers to would seem quite luxurious to many food stamp recipients. That being said, I do not disagree that it is even more important for people feeding their kids on $86 or less per month (around 50% of food stamp recipients are children) than for the rest of us to spend food dollars wisely. One approach that has been suggested, again on the USDA site, but at a section called “Amber Waves”, is an incentive system, where vouchers or extra benefits are available for purchase of food and vegetables. Also, more states are offering nutrition outreach and education programs for food stamp recipients. Even if some additional cost is involved, I would think that those (including myself) who see elimination of obesity as important for our population might want to invest in these approaches, if proven effective. Again, since it is mainly young children we are talking about, obesity prevention through the food stamp program would be more effective than later attempts to get those children to lose weight and change eating patterns once they are adults. It may also be that these approaches would be more effective than banning certain food purchases, since those types of rules are difficult at best to enforce. I think it would be worthwhile for policymakers to study how these contrasting methods compare on a long-term basis.</p>
<p>Historic foods for the poor, which feature prominently in our diet, are still cheap and nutritious. Beans, cabbage, potatos, eggs. Nutritionally, I think one of the tragedies of the last few decades is the bad rap put on eggs. High in cholesterol perhaps, but healthier than trans fats, low in all around fat, high in protein and essential vitamins. We’ve substituted expensive processed cereals for this easy wholesome food. Most sources of protein tend to be expensive, but not eggs.</p>
<p>I think the problem with the Slow Foods for Poor challenge is that it is very dependent on you living somewhere with farmers and a garden. I’m really not sure how it would work in a city.</p>
<p>They spend about 3/4 of their money with various farmers.
Their onions, garlic, herbs, tomatoes, greens, green beans, apples, and jam all come from their garden. Take out those, and the only fruit and vegetables people would be getting on some days are potatoes, shredded carrots, and some celery. Not exactly healthy.</p>
<p>The WIC program is a voucher program for children. It starts with formula (they try to encourage breast feeding without that much success), then move on to baby cereal vouchers, juice (for what it’s worth), and other baby foods. At some point it merges into food stamps.</p>
<p>Do keep in mind that many of the households are quite big, especially with teenaged mothers who are eligible for food stamps for themselves + WIC and food stamps for their children. There also can be unreported income, and there are still the fathers in the works, who can contribute monetarily and not be counted as long as they are not married or visible in the household.</p>
<p>I have worked very extensively with this population and definitely have not seen starvation, again, for many, it’s more obesity due to school meals and food choices. I think with more cooking and less of the fast foods, that this could be a healthier population. The grandmothers do tend to cook the most, but alot of times it is fried foods or baked goods with massive numbers of calories.</p>
<p>When I worked with a poor rural population, they received a good coupon ($40/ week) for fresh fruits from a local Farmer’s Market, plus the rest of their benefits, and transportation was provided to many to get to the market.</p>
<p>There are some very dedicated people working in the nutrition programs for infants and children, who constantly fight for better benefits.</p>
<p>This is an interesting article from the NYTimes about calories and fats in restaurant foods. A quote:</p>
<p>"The chicken Caesar salad at Chili’s is one of those items that might appear to be a healthier choice, but brace yourself: it contains 1,010 calories and 76 grams of fat, while the sirloin has 540 calories and 42 grams of fat (not counting side dishes).</p>
<p>Nor is a tuna sandwich the low-calorie choice at Subway: it has 530 calories, significantly more than the roast beef sandwich, which has 290. And a chai latte almost always has 100 more calories than a cappuccino of the same size prepared with the same kind of milk.</p>
<p>While many eateries publish caloric information on their Web sites, or even on food packaging, advocates of labeling say diners need to be able to see the information while deciding what to order.</p>
<p>Some entrees and appetizers provide a staggering amount of calories in a single dish, sometimes more than the 2,000 recommended daily for the average adult. Notorious among nutritionists is the Bloomin’ Onion at Outback Steakhouse, a battered, deep-fried onion resembling a flower that is served with a dipping sauce. The damage, nutritionists say, is about 2,200 calories and more than 100 grams of fat, most of it trans fat.</p>
<p>And it’s not just average diners who have a hard time estimating the calorie content of food in restaurants. Even trained dietitians have failed miserably at the task, according to Dr. Wootan."</p>
<p>“I think the problem with the Slow Foods for Poor challenge is that it is very dependent on you living somewhere with farmers and a garden. I’m really not sure how it would work in a city.
They spend about 3/4 of their money with various farmers.
Their onions, garlic, herbs, tomatoes, greens, green beans, apples, and jam all come from their garden. Take out those, and the only fruit and vegetables people would be getting on some days are potatoes, shredded carrots, and some celery. Not exactly healthy.”</p>
<p>There are a lot of rural poor. They have an incredibly difficult time surviving, and get a lot less attention than urban poor. Many don’t even have running water or electricity (and therefore no stoves or refrigerators.) Some of the worst poverty I ever saw was in the Northeast states, and the South. The job opportunities are nonexistent in some places, and the educational opportunities are difficult because so much relies on transportation, which again does not exist.</p>
<p>Garland, you completely ignored my arguments that:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The products where HFCS is “hidden” (like bread) generally contain very small amounts, and there is no evidence whatsoever that there is a negative health effect when the 3g of sugar in a serving of Wonder bread comes from HFCS instead of from sucrose. There’s a ton of evidence, on the other hand, that the lack of protein and fiber in Wonder Bread and other empty-calorie foods plays a significant role in overeating and snacking.</p></li>
<li><p>HFCS has the same metabolic effects as apple juice and honey, but where’s the outcry about that? They are unquestionably recognizable as food, and plenty of HFCS-free products at Whole Foods are sweetened with honey and fruit juice concentrate instead. If eating fructose is the root of all evil – if it is a uniquely obesity-inducing ingredient – how come we don’t see its horrors reproduced in the Whole Foods crowd? And where’s your crusade against apple juice?</p></li>
</ol>