The Attraction of Unhealthy Foods: Price, Choice, and What our Government is (Not) Doing About It

It has become common knowledge that many Memphians don't eat well. We top the charts for the hungriest city and the most obese city in the nation. This means that an unbelievable number of Memphians do not have enough to eat, and when they do eat they are doing so unhealthily.

Unfortunately, these problems are not restricted to Memphis alone; Americans in general eat poorly. In an attempt to gain more insight into why this is true, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service (ERS) recently conducted a survey of food prices across the nation. This report, which is entitled Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods, was released just this past June. It compares the regional prices of 100 grams of a number of individual healthy foods like whole grains and fruit with 100 grams of corresponding less healthy choices in 35 "market groups," which were defined by the ERS based on census divisions. Memphis, along with Nashville, Birmingham, and Louisville falls into the "Metro South 2" (MS2) market group.

The MS2 group ranked in the top half in 6 of the 9 food categories and the top third in 5. This is not quite as encouraging, however, when we consider the prices themselves and the state of poverty in Memphis and Shelby County. Let's take a closer look at the numbers in order to gain a fuller understanding of the situation.

• To begin with, whole grains were priced nationally between 23% to 60% higher than less healthy refined grains, although the price of whole grains decreased about 5% during the period of the survey (1998-2006). MS2 ranked 11th best (meaning that in 24 market groups the difference between the price of whole grains and refined grains was greater than in MS2). Even so, whole grains in MS2 were approximately 35% more expensive than refined grains.

• When comparing dark green vegetables (e.g., broccoli, kale, and spinach) with less healthy starchy vegetables (e.g., corn and potatoes) the ERS found that the former were roughly 23% to 85% more expensive throughout the country. MS2 came in at 5th best at approximately 27%.

• The comparison between healthy orange vegetables (e.g., carrots, sweet potatoes, and various kinds of squash) and starchy vegetables was a bit better. Nationally, orange vegetables ranged from 20% less than starchy vegetables to 22% more. In this category MS2 ranked 1st, with orange vegetables costing roughly 20% less!

• When ERS compared the price of whole fruit with the price of "commercially prepared packaged sweets" (e.g., candy, cookies, ice cream cones, marshmallows, chocolate, and refrigerated pudding) they found that whole fruit was nationally 30% to 40% cheaper. Unfortunately, MS2 was 24th in this category, at approximately 33% less expensive. This ranking is not too damning, however, when we consider that the difference between the best and the worst market group was only 10%.

• The price comparison between whole fruits and "commercially prepared savory packaged snacks" (e.g., pork rinds, potato chips, pretzels, crackers, trail mix, and granola bars) was similar. Nationally, the price of whole fruit was 55% to 68% cheaper. Again, MS2 ranked poorly at 26th, but this range was also quite small.
  

• In all but one of the market groups, the price of low fat milk (skim and 1%) was less than that of 2% and whole milk. MS2 ranked 12th best at roughly 18% below the price of 2% and whole milk.

• The price difference between low fat milk and soda was quite wide, ranging from low fat milk costing 30% less than soda to it costing 45% more. However, low fat milk was more expensive than soda in 29 of the market groups. In this category MS2's performance was dismal. We came in at 4th worst, with low fat milk costing 35% more than soda.

• Nationally, the price of bottled water ranged from 33% less than soda to roughly 15% more. In all but one of the market groups, however, bottled water was less expensive than soda. This was the case in MS2, in which bottled water was about 21% less. This put us right in the middle of the groups.
  

• When comparing the price of fruit juice with the price of less healthy fruit drinks, the ERS found that fruit juice nationally was 32% to 90% more expensive than fruit drinks. MS2 came in at 7th best, with fruit juice priced 50% higher than fruit drinks.
  

OK, that was quite a few numbers, but what can we take from this? The ERS rightly points out that price differences between healthy and less healthy foods "may have more of an effect on low-income households, whose share of income spent on food is higher than among households with greater income." When given the choice between cheap unhealthy food and more expensive healthy food, many Americans can afford to chose the latter. Poorer Americans, however, must often make such decisions based on price. In fact, some of the prices of healthy foods are simply prohibitive to low-income Americans. If you are living below the poverty line and struggling to feed a family, do you even have the luxury of choosing between whole grains and refined grains, or between fruit juice and fruit drinks?

Indeed, when considering how these price differences affect Memphis and Shelby County we must remember the state of poverty in our area. According to the US Census Bureau's "Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates" for 2009, Shelby County has a median household income of $41,880, which is compared to a national median household income of 49,777 (1). This puts Shelby County just barely into the top half of counties nationwide for median household income. Furthermore, Shelby County has an individual poverty rate of 20.9%, which is compared to a national rate of 14.3%. When compared with the poverty rates of all other counties, this places Shelby County in the worst fifth...

The numbers for Memphis, of course, are even bleaker. Our city has a median household income of $36,535 and an individual poverty rate of 24.2%, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's "American Fact Finder" (2). Thus, when our market group, MS2, ranks in the top fifth for the price of fruit juice vs. fruit drinks or even the top seventh for the price of dark green vegetables vs. starchy vegetables, we must remember that a fifth of Shelby County's population (and a quarter of Memphis') is living in poverty and likely still must choose the less healthy option.

True, the ERS report found that whole fruit is less expensive than packaged sweets and savory snacks across the board, and yet Americans still eat too little fruit and too much sugar and fat. This led the ERS to note in the report that "factors other than the relative cost of healthy foods may be more important in determining geographic differences in diet and related health outcomes than just the choice between fruit and other less healthy snack options."

Well, how about food deserts? One does not have a choice between fresh fruit and savory snacks if one does not have a grocery store or market at which to buy fruit. In neighborhoods where the only "grocery" options consist of overpriced milk, canned fruit swimming in syrup, and cheap soda and chips at the corner store, whole fruit is more expensive, because it requires a significant investment of resources, time and energy simply to reach a store where it is sold.

Of course, this is not to say that Americans are wholly blameless for poor personal health. We all make some poor dietary choices for reasons other than affordability and location, and some of us do so chronically. The ERS is likely correct when it writes that "looking at relative prices between two food groups cannot, in itself, be used to draw any firm conclusion about the link between healthy food prices and consumption trends."

Nevertheless, the price of food certainly influences what Americans buy, particularly what low-income Americans buy. It is one factor among many, including availability of food, knowledge and resources for food preparation, and knowledge of proper nutrition - but it is a critically important one. Indeed, when we stop to think, isn't it absurd that our government invests in health programs like the First Lady's "Let's Move" campaign or the initiative to replace the food pyramid with the new "MyPlate" diagram, but ignores the prohibitive cost of many healthy foods?

In fact, worse than doing nothing, the federal government spends billions of dollars subsidizing corn and other commodity crops, while only negligible amounts go to fruits and vegetables. According to the EPA, only 12% of corn grown in the U.S. ends up in foods that are consumed directly. The remaining 88% goes into feeding animals or into feeding cars (i.e. ethanol). Now, this does not mean that 12% of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten off of the cob. No, much of that 12% is consumed in products like tortilla chips or is converted into high fructose corn syrup, which, of course, sweetens so many unhealthy foods (3). Thus, by subsidizing corn, our government is effectively subsidizing the production of candy and soda!

So, while Michelle Obama tells us, "Let's Move!" her husband and his party continue to subsidize unhealthy foods and to ignore the healthy ones. The irony would be laughable if it weren't so harmful...


__________

1) http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/data/statecounty/data/2009.html

2) http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=16000US4748000&_geoContext=01000US|04000US47|16000US4748000&_street=&_county=memphis&_cityTown=memphis&_state=04000US47&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=160&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=

3) http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/cropmajor.html

Exciting News on GM Labeling

You've probably never heard of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, but yesterday this oddly named organization agreed on new groundbreaking standards for the regulation of GM foods.

Although its name conjures images of a clandestine medieval cult straight out of a Dan Brown novel, the Codex Alimentarius Commission has the far more mundane distinction of being a committee for the world's food safety regulatory agencies. For the past two decades, the CAC has been struggling to reach a consensus concerning the regulation of foods containing genetically modified organisms. It has been unable to do so, in large part, because the United States' delegation has opposed the labeling of GM foods. On Tuesday, however, the US delegation reversed its position and allowed the proposed GM regulatory document to pass.

This document makes it legal for nations to label GM foods. Until the passage of this document, national governments which adopted GM food labeling could be accused by the World Trade Organization of creating a barrier to trade.

Does this mean that GM food on the shelves of American grocery stores will soon be labeled? Almost certainly not. The lobby of agribusiness and GM corporations such as Monsanto, Bayer, and Du Pont is even more influential at home than it is internationally. The numerous ties between Monsanto, for instance, and our government have ensured that GM foods remain unlabeled in the US.

To point out just one of these ties, consider that Michael Taylor, the current deputy commissioner for foods at the FDA, was an attorney for Monsanto and its former vice president for public policy (1). According to the FDA's website, Taylor's duties as deputy commissioner for foods include "plan[ing] for new food safety legislation," and "ensur[ing] that food labels contain clear and accurate information on nutrition" (2). What a joke!

Monsanto is rightly concerned that labeling GM foods would cause consumers to be skeptical of these products, the safety of which has not been proven through exhaustive independent research. Regardless of Monsanto's corporate interests, however, Americans have the right to know what their food consists of and where it comes from.

Although the new CAC agreement does not mandate the labeling of GM foods, it is still momentous and deserves to be celebrated. Hopefully, as more nations around the world adopt GM labeling, our government will no longer be able to deny the right to such simple, and yet vital, information to the American people.


__________
1) http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OC/OfficeofFoods/ucm196721.htm

2) Ibid.