back
121 comments
One of the points that debates about healthy vs processed miss is that processed food is selling convenience.

A bag of spinach lasts about a week, fresh meat a few days. Meanwhile a retort pouch of chili or curry lasts forever and doesn't even need to be refridgerated. There are unprocessed foods that last almost forever like dried lentils, rice and oats but most people don't want to eat those things (or at least not for every meal).

What do poor people tend to eat? Fast food burgers and other high calorie, low cost meals that are readily available. No prep/cook time, minimal cost (at least on the surface) and hot and palatable to most.

As someone who cooks all my food from raw ingrediants, that's absolutely a luxury but it's not a money expensive one, it's a time/management/availability luxury.

I live in a poor-ish part of Maryland. The difference between my african american and ghana immigrant neighbors is striking.

The african american neighbors are extremely obese and _constantly_ eating McDonalds (I can tell from the litter I clean up in the parking lot...). My ghana immigrant neighbors on the other hand are skinny as rails and can be seen hauling 10 pound bags of rice/beans/etc. into their house.

It's often overlooked, but there's more than just money that passes between generations. Simple knowledge like "how to cook with unprocessed foods" is extremely valuable information to pass on to offspring. We need to somehow tackle that if we ever plan to help people entrenched in inter-generational poverty.

I think you are really getting at a very American thing that happened. Fast Food implies that it is food, but it’s certainly not nutritious food. We didn’t eat a lot of fast food growing up because we were poor, so it was a lot of casseroles or other items that had a lot of whatever we had around mixed together. High processed items are very easy to get a hold of and keep long, but what people don’t realize is that rice and beans and other dry items keep for a long time and are not expensive. So I guess what I’m getting at is that with the move to Fast Food in the US people stopped cooking. Maybe we think it’s hard, maybe we’re just lazy. I’ve really taken a look at my diet and it saves a lot of money to just cook at home (something I’ve really noticed during this social distancing) and it’s not hard. But it’s not like my parents really showed me how, I had to learn on my own. I hope fast food is a casualty of pandemic but we need to find work for those people.
There is a distinct difference between people lived in real poverty and wanted a better life for themselves and more importantly their children than people simply being born into the poor area of their country. Surrounded by near instant gratification at a very good cost.

Compare the two and you will see their spending on all needs and wants is different. It won't just be the food they eat. One will plan long term for their gratification and the other will simply take what they can afford right now, that later comes from always having that option.

Go look back a hundred years or more when the Irish; my ancestors; got here. Many came here in debt to others working bare subsistence levels and they would have similar habits to your Ghanians, as in tomorrow isn't a guarantee so plan for the worst. I expect that the second generation after the move the attitudes will change but that is heavily influenced by culture

During the 2009 recession, a woman called into one of those financial advice shows on cable TV. She began to talk about how she was cutting back on her budget, and she was 'forced to eat beans and tortillas'.

My step-father, who is a Mexican immigrant, started laughing. He said that's all they ate growing up. He said it wasn't until high school when his dad got a job in a General Motors factory that they had enough money to eat hamburger and cheese along with their beans and rice.

This. It may sound super strange but when I lived in the states my roommate of 30 something years asked me these two question: how did you cook the lovely tea yesterday? And: I loved your scrambled eggs, how did you make them? No kidding. She was very nice and we got along quite well, but that lack of basic food preparation knowledge was puzzling to me. I wonder what these people have been doing during the lockdown
The distinctions between African-Americans and African Migrants are interesting. The migrant groups have higher incomes, lower use of welfare, better academic performance. There are some Black STEM programs in the US that are entirely filled with the children of African migrants.

Personally I think the African American community could use less BLM and more of the values and ideals of these migrant groups.

> What do poor people tend to eat? Fast food burgers and other high calorie, low cost meals that are readily available. No prep/cook time, minimal cost (at least on the surface) and hot and palatable to most.

I think it is a uniquely western problem. I know for a fact that for most of Asia and Africa, and even South America, cheap food doesn't include processed food. In fact, foods like lentils and rice tend to be a major parts of the diet. This is usually supplemented with some form of local crop (veggies or otherwise) or easily accessible wildlife (or farmed animals and birds).

The popularity and purchase of fast food are growing at a very steady rate in countries like China.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5129322/

A more recent assessment would give a similar growth rate to the one cited in the paper (~13% annually), but for the last six months, COVID 19 has put a damper on things.

> This is usually supplemented with some form of local crop (veggies or otherwise) or easily accessible wildlife (or farmed animals and birds).

Since you're talking about "easily accessible wildlife," please keep in mind that urbanization in Asia and Africa is a big thing.

The poor in western nations would still qualify as rich by world standards. However it is still the case that they are barely getting by, often with many objectively worse parts of life compared to the middle class elsewhere who live on less.
Why don't people want to eat lentils? I'm pretty lazy, and I make lentils with chorizo, potatoes, onion, carrot and a mix of vegetables and some condiments all the time. It's very easy to make, cheap and tastes fantastic with very little effort.

Same with rice. It takes a little bit more to master rice, but lentils man it's the lazy meal for me. I also buy frozen vegetables that lasts who knows how much, and it tastes as good as with fresh ones.

Most of spanish cuisine is cheap and more or less easy to make. I'm not really sure that processed food is cheaper. A pot of (again) lentils can last a bunch of days and costs nothing.

Anecdotally, it's an association problem.

I'm well off, and eat lentils and rice on the regular. So do all my equally comfortable friends, whether it's from a healthy "whole foods" kind of mentality or just an enjoyment of tasty food.

When I talk about food with my family who is lower income, they often dismiss those kinds of foods as being "poor people food" even to the extent of throwing a bit of shade when I send photos of lentil dishes I've prepared. They feel that because they can afford fast food and eating out, that they should almost like a weird wealth display. Their idea of treating someone to a good meal is a trip to a slightly nicer fast food restaurant.

Obviously, this is a small sample size and is tied to my family so this is likely not a comprehensive answer but it's at least my observation on the matter.

I would love to be able to eat more beans and lentils because they are cheap, store well, relatively nutritious, and a fairly good alternative to meat. However, they don't sit well with my GI tract. Maybe I have a bad gut biome but the bloat keeps me from using them much
Most of the cheaper spanish-food staples (corn, rice, quinoa, beans, plantains) are also very high in carbohydrates which can lead to spikes in blood-sugar. And most "healthy-eating" plans advise limiting carb intake.

I didn't realize how sensitive I was to the blood-sugar spikes until I went on keto which strictly limits your carb intake. I no longer get the "sugar crash" 2-3 hours after eating. My grocery bills have gone up, primarily due to no longer being able to add filers like bread, rice, and grains which TFA calls "cheapened" food.

Ordering spanish (or really any) food without these fillers reveals how little "real" food most restaurants actually serve.

Can you expand on "very little effort".

I think we may have very very different ideas of what that means.

> processed food is selling convenience

Yes. I've noticed a tendency for people to buy 'meals' rather than ingredients. I have relatives who look in my well-stocked larder and say "But there's nothing to eat!". They buy wholly prepared meals that just need reheating, and their idea of a complex meal is to put some diced chicken in a casserole with a jar of curry sauce bought in a supermarket.

I'm not sure I totally agree about time expense being greater.

Consider most fresh produce is Cheaper than processed food. And it can be eaten raw (or steamed easily in a microwave)

I think education is the major factor here. Commercials will tell you that fast food is cheap, despite it not being cheap. And most people aren't aware how fast you can cook potatoes in a microwave or that kale tastes fine with dressing.

Edit: Potatoes are high calorie. Top with oil.

Calorie density is also mentioned. You have to eat an prodigious amount of kale and celery to get the same number of calories.

When I worked lower paying manual labor jobs (dishwasher, landscaper etc.), fast food was much more alluring than the idea of a salad. I suspect it's largely because I was craving a huge influx of calories, not to mention the food is engineered to hijack our taste buds.

> that kale tastes fine with dressing.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you here. I've eaten kale raw, cooked, dressed, spiced, dehydrated, blended, and it still tastes foul. YMMV

A person needs about 2000 calories a day. It is extremely hard to get that much from fresh produce. You will need to cook something, and that takes may more tine than microwaving a hot pocket.
Fresh produce is only cheaper than processed food if you consistently use it before it goes bad, which requires a pretty high level of meal planning ability. I consider myself a good cook and still regularly end up having to throw away spoiled food.
Exactly.

My current housemates are vegetarian, they make great food from scratch. But the only reason they can do that is because they shop every other day for fresh produce. And they have a shit tonne of experience in the kitchen. I do OK in the kitchen, but I have no idea what to put with artichoke or how to make soup from scratch without a receipie. Unless you have been taught both skills and how tk mix ingredients, it's just easier to pick up a packet of something and microwave it.

> What do poor people tend to eat? Fast food burgers and other high calorie, low cost meals that are readily available. No prep/cook time, minimal cost (at least on the surface) and hot and palatable to most.

Poor people in urban America eat vegetables, pasta, meat sauce, rice, beans, chicken. That's why grocery stores targeting poor people (ethnic markets) make whole foods selection of actual food look like a store in the USSR.

Junk food is what people who are not poor enough to cook and not rich enough to buy everything in wholefoods eat.

So, it's a fine article, with lots of interesting details about Victorian food supply....but you could write more or less the exact same article replacing "cheap food" with "cheap clothes" or "cheap mobile phones" or "cheap any consumer good" and the stories about Victorian costermongers with Vietnamese sweatshop workers, or Chinese electronics factory workers, or Honduran coffee pickers, etc., and the end of the article seems to be arguing for just paying more for food?

I don't think talking about poverty in modern societies in terms of economic sectors instead of trying to address it at a societal level is particularly useful. The point of the article should not be "let's all pay more for food" it should be "give everyone a UBI and if that means food costs more because you have to pay people more to work as cooks or strawberry pickers, that's a _good thing_.

My takeaway is that is exactly what this article is about - food is one category along with clothing, phones, material culture - and he is not arguing about what we pay. Rather, he is describing a facet of the structure of Western Civilization that requires a de-humanized constantly replenished underclass to provide us with the cheap good food we want. The fact is we cannot have this infinite growth within a finite biosphere and his article explores the relationship between the West and the so-called developing world and how, though we seem opposite we are the same now, because the neocropolitics we practice is now burgeoning within the West and the shape of starvation just has a different mask depending upon context. The book and the article use a genealogical methodology, which is what is the norm now is this work. (I am a Critical Theorist).
Agree, the point is not "let's all pay more for food" frankly because that doesn't work. Even if you wanted to get more money to cooks and strawberry pickers (or to the animals which suffer as more humane conditions), it is just impossible to achieve because any money spend by the end customer is just siphoned off by value chain. Spend double on organic meat to get maybe 1% to 5% more money spend on the actual product and the employees. The rest is profit.
> Eggs were no longer a luxury and as the price of imported fruit fell, many in the cities started eating oranges and bananas for the first time. They could only afford to buy these foods because the costers who sold them kept the prices too low to allow themselves a decent life. By the same token, big shopkeepers kept food prices down by forcing employees to work long hours for low pay.

This seems to turn cause and effect completely upside down. What shopkeeper would not have preferred higher prices? What "coster" was putting forth any effort individually to "keep prices too low"?

Both of those parties were undoubtedly striving to sell for the maximum possible profit. And cheap labor in the large had nothing to do with the actions or power of any individual shopkeeper. There were just a lot of hungry people willing to work for next to nothing because next to nothing to eat is slightly better than nothing to eat.

This wasn't the clearest argument I've heard but I agree with the conclusion: "In the end, cheap food is a symptom of a bigger problem: an economic system in which some lives are treated as less valuable than others."

Now what I'd really like to see are more serious discussions of solutions.

I disagree with the conclusion. Fast food is not actually cheap. If you go to a supermarket and get a bag of rice / lentils, it will be an order of magnitude cheaper, if not more. The problem is 1) culture and 2) taste. Burgers do taste better than lentils.
Yes - the technical term for this is Necropolitics. It really describes the system of power we are in.
Big agriculture could learn something from lowly modern homesteads.

I'm constantly surprised at the modern science (and old, forgotten science!) being deployed by regular homesteaders. In particular, employing the beneficial symbiosis of animals and plants. The pigs till and root up the soil and manure the land, the root crops go in next year, then grazing and rest.

Digest plants as animal manure are healthier for the soil than simply composting them, according to many people. Sounds crazy but we have remember that animals and plants evolved together in the same space.

The whole system becomes a closed loop where the inputs and outputs of the farm are closely monitored. Pest and disease are kept at by with careful rotation. Nothing is wasted, and the fertility of the soil and health of the animals (and humans) improve over time from this relationship.

If you're interested in watching this first hand, I recommend "100 days of growing food" playlist by youtube homesteader Justin Rhodes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpDm5OA-TZE

Small farms have a lot to learn from big ag. No till and cover crops increase soil organic matter. Modern Chemicals and genetics kill weeds without needed massive amounts of CO2 (fuel or human labor, either way the energy goes to CO2) emissions.
Related reading, on the social cost of cheap goods today: "The True Cost of Dollar Stores", in the current New Yorker [0].

What is the underlying system? In my interpretation, these low price vendors have succeeded in a market that is foremost cost-sensitive, both in terms of price and time. Eventually competition was priced out and now "dollar deserts" exist in poor neighborhoods. These vendors ignore "externality" accountabilities, in the Dollar cases in particular spending for customer and employee safety, in keeping with minimizing cost. The resulting situation, as illustrated in the article, I'll say is one of immoral public jeopardy. In these locales consumers and employees have no alternatives. It gets worse, because the vendors extract wealth from the communities without reinvestment. The margins, from a community perspective, are exploitative.

What are the characteristics of this system? A subsistence market cannot price safety and dignity into the cost of its goods. Margin-maximizing vendors can ignore it. Regulation and policy processes act slowly and undervalue safety, not to mention dignity. And returns for new entrant competitors are too low to make these markets a priority. I think this illustrates an systems cycle with a very few "winners" and many, many more losers.

The New Yorker article is an argument that the very least, Family Dollar and Dollar General, as businesses, should be ashamed of their conduct. That's a starting point. When you move onto interventions and incentives, to say specifically "what should the new policies be?", I don't know.

[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/07/06/the-true-cost-...

> At least the new cheap foods of Victorian times – such as fish and chips and imported oranges – added more protein and nourishment to the working-class diet. The cheap foods of today add mostly an excess of refined starches, oils and sugars.

Anyone who visits the grocery store knows that the cheapest item is a can of corn.

I just visited my grocery store yesterday. A 101 Oz. can of corn was on sale for $5. 101 Oz. of peas was $5. Etc. etc. The cheapest foods are canned vegetables, by far. 16 Oz cans are 60 cents (store brand) to $1 (brand-name)

People eat refined starches, oils, and sugars, because its tasty. But if you actually were buying the cheapest thing in the supermarket, you'd be buying corn, peas, potatoes, green beans, kidney beans, tomato paste.

By weight, corn and peas are cheaper than bread ($2 per pound of bread, $1 per pound of corn / peas / carrots). You can create a very sustainable, and healthy, diet off of $2 or cheaper food items.

People like to say the poor eat fast food because it's all they can afford, but the truly poor don't eat McDonald's, You're still spending $3-4 a meal at the least, if not $7-8.

They have to do $0.50/meal, so they eat potatoes, rice, beans, etc.

I was thinking this was going to be about mass produced fruits and vegetables and how they actually have less nutrients (vitamins, minerals) than generations past.
We get cheap food thanks to tractors, combine harvesters, selective breeding, insecticides, herbicides and fertiliser.

Low wages are a problem but they aren't really related to how cheap our food is. The cheapest supermarket near me is Aldi but their pay is quite generous compared to their competitors.

You forgot govt subsidies.
I wonder if there is a resource that classifies most foodstuffs (raw and processed) by nutrient content, cost, degree of processing, growing condition etc. Something that is essentially the wiki of food but arranged in a way that makes SQL like queries possible across a range of variables.
The usda has one, though I'm not sure what format it is in. Several projects source it.
It's really a spirit, way of life, most people are consumerists sadly, if they own money, they 'need' to spend it

On my side, I rarely think about money, I just buy what I need, that's not much (about 100€/month in total for everything)

If you want to see an example of the opposite approach, look at Norway. It is infamous for how expensive its food is, but that has meant, among other things, small farms are profitable.
Tl;dr: Food consumers care about price. That’s been true since at least Victorian times. Selling items in a competitive market can be tough for vendors but good for consumers.

Price matters.

Quality matters as well, but not for everybody so yes, price prevails for the majority. I choose to get better produce from an Amish market. The price is a bit higher but so is the quality. I don't find it more expensive in reference to the quality. One gets what they pay for excluding other factors such as an expensive neighborhood that adds to the price of everything.
The final point is a little more subtle: low prices for commodities are especially bad for producers in developing countries - farmers in those countries have a hard time making a profit competing with mechanized agriculture in developed countries. So it's good for consumers only if the overall development level is high.
What do you say to people who respond to stories about exploited labor with, "But they have a better life now than they did before!"?
Well do they or not? If their life is better rejoice for them. Help their kids take the next step better.

Someone who grows up in a mud hut with no education and no idea where the next meal comes from cannot be made into an engineer easily. But if you can get them enough to eat they can take their kids out of the child labor market and send them to school to learn. It might be a few generations, but that is normal. Me and my sister are the first to finish college in my family on either side, more cousins have since followed. We started on farms generations back, but have moved on as technology advanced.