A Poached Chicken Breast in Every Pot
Branching off of the comments on Mo's last post, how much are taxpayers willing to pay to prevent kids from getting fat? According to a Cornell study, a LOT. New York taxpayers surveyed are willing to put their money where their mouth is, to the tune of $700 million or $50 per taxpayer, in order to reduce the incidences of childhood obesity by half.
The reasoning from the survey is that taxpayers are driven by the avoidance of potential cost of obesity-related health problems in the future. However, according to a report by economist Susan Lee on NPR's Marketplace, this is twice the amount of money actually spent by taxpayers on obesity-related health problems. From the commentary,
I would think it would be enough to understand that the status quo of fried chicken sandwiches and milkshakes in our school lunches is not acceptable and that we want our kids to be healthy by making sure they have low fat nutritious lunches, healthy snacks and lots of physical activities, but apparently not. Maybe the answer to why really comes down to Lee's closing statement, where she sneers "Why else would people be willing to pay extra to make sure that no kid looks like a tub of lard."
Tub of lard? Really? We're going there? Just...wow.
The reasoning from the survey is that taxpayers are driven by the avoidance of potential cost of obesity-related health problems in the future. However, according to a report by economist Susan Lee on NPR's Marketplace, this is twice the amount of money actually spent by taxpayers on obesity-related health problems. From the commentary,
One explanation is that people wildly overestimate the cost of eliminating childhood obesity. Or they grossly overestimate the amount of savings in lower health care costs. Or maybe, as the study argues, they are driven by the spirit of altruism.
I would think it would be enough to understand that the status quo of fried chicken sandwiches and milkshakes in our school lunches is not acceptable and that we want our kids to be healthy by making sure they have low fat nutritious lunches, healthy snacks and lots of physical activities, but apparently not. Maybe the answer to why really comes down to Lee's closing statement, where she sneers "Why else would people be willing to pay extra to make sure that no kid looks like a tub of lard."
Tub of lard? Really? We're going there? Just...wow.
posted by Weetabix at 10:08 AM
5 Comments:
I agree with the school lunches! I don't know if you watch The Biggest Loser or not, but this week's episode went into the schools and showed a lot about what they are serving kids... bad news. And the justification is "well, if we put healthy food out there, they don't buy it -- and we have to make money."
Niiiiiiiice.
So once again, we're back down to poverty being linked with childhood obesity. If the schools can't even afford to put healthy stuff in school lunches, how can a single mother working at Wal-mart afford to feed her healthy food when a pound of apples costs more than a pound of hotdogs and doesn't go as far?
From a personal anecdote, my lunch in middle school was a fried chicken sandwich, tater tots and a milkshake. I could have had an iceberg lettuce salad (with nothing on it but a single cucumber slice and an anemic tomato wedge) instead of the sandwich and potatoes, but the salad was so tiny that I'd be starving two hours later. So of course you opt for what's going to get you through the day. And sadly, the fried chicken sandwich was the next healthiest option on the menu after the salad. Honestly, though, one would think there would be a middle ground between the fried chicken and the Waters-supported organic lunches.
Veering off topic a bit, when I was very poor in college, I always had this wish that food would cost a penny per calorie rather than what seems to be the inverse. Then a trip to McDonalds would cost $40 while grilled chicken breasts and green salads would only be a couple of bucks.
"So once again, we're back down to poverty being linked with childhood obesity. If the schools can't even afford to put healthy stuff in school lunches, how can a single mother working at Wal-mart afford to feed her healthy food when a pound of apples costs more than a pound of hotdogs and doesn't go as far?"
DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDING
Ladies and gentlemen, once again we have a winner. Mo, show Weetablog what she's won.
"Veering off topic a bit, when I was very poor in college, I always had this wish that food would cost a penny per calorie rather than what seems to be the inverse. Then a trip to McDonalds would cost $40 while grilled chicken breasts and green salads would only be a couple of bucks."
This is BRILLIANT. I don't care that we'll be shot down by the agriculture lobbyists -- where's the petition?!?
While I agree with Jen--the budget's not there--and with those who point out what insanity that is, Richard's point that one can make relatively healthy food somewhat cheaply is somewhat accurate; it's just contingent on cooking it oneself. If you have the know-how and the time...yes, you can. Dried beans are quite cheap. Lentils are cheap. Fresh vegetables? Not so much on the lettuce-and-avocado end, but not too bad on the potatoes-and-carrots end, especially if your grocery store has a scratch-and-dent rack for wilty vegetables. I don't agree that five dollars a person is thrifty, but I do agree that it's amazing what money one can save when one does one's own cooking. For instance, hams locally went on sale for $1.39/pound. Not great, compared to HoHo's, but way cheaper than all but the cheapest of processed lunch meats (which kids will eat.) A ten-pound ham, while requiring an initial investment, offers not only three dinners and reams of sandwiches, but a bone which makes a great vat of dried-bean or split-pea soup. Ditto for turkey, in season (sixty-nine cents a pound at the height of the sale): if you've got a freezer, sale turkey makes not only dinners and sandwiches, but carcass stock (the base of many another cheap meal), turkey noodle soup, cheap rice soup, and even gravy to replace margarine or butter (okay, gravy on toast will not help the obesity crisis, but it is cheap and does taste good.)
Problems with actually doing it at home: a whole lot of people don't have the know-how, the time, or either one, which brings us back to, yes, poverty again. The single mom working overtime at Wal-Mart is going to have trouble exercising an ideal European-peasant-style thrift that uses every scrap, relies on creative use of the cheapest foodstuffs, and turns them all into food kids love to eat. She may not be able to find bulk lentils. It can be done, but it's not easy, especially if no one's ever educated her about how to do it (it does take some training and practice, both difficult to come by in that sixty-hour week.) And we're a culture which promotes the easy and convenient while simultaneously forcing our poorest members to work so long that the convenient becomes almost the only choice.
But the schools. Damn it, the federal funding COULD be allocated to buy bulk lentils and potatoes, as in seriously bulk, and could hire a chef to teach Lunch Lady Doris how to prepare them. Working mom at Wal-Mart may or may not be able to do what Richard's talking about, but the fact that a huge government institution that can buy whole grains at government prices is too cheap to do it...that's just bad prioritizing. Which is no surprise, and which brings us back to what Heather said. We'll fund endless wars to make the rich richer, but damn little to feed our kids.
--Cat
You know what? I'm a New York tax payer, and I say your kids are your problem.
Post a Comment
<< Home