Don’t let sticker prices dictate the true cost of food
The old adage goes, “you get what you pay for,” and that definitely holds true for food, especially the way things have gone the last 30 years. While nominal food prices dropped over 38 percent during that time period, the most dramatic drop has been with soft drinks, sweets, and fatty snacks. Also, the number of households owning a microwave increased by 87 percent, making convenient, calorie-dense foods within reach of practically everyone.
However, the sticker price of junk food misrepresents their costs on a healthy body. Milk may cost more than soda, but it’s also more valuable to the body, and that’s just one example that underscores the fact that you can’t compare healthy and unhealthy foods based on sticker price. You have to consider the costs on the body, and recent studies contend that those costs easily translate back to monetary costs.
One 2008 study reported that obesity is associated with a 36 percent increase in spending on healthcare services, more than smoking or problem drinking, and that obesity costs the private sector $45 billion a year in medical expenses and lost productivity.
In another report that examined national numbers from multiple organizations, overweight and obesity costs were estimated to cost the U.S a whopping $117 billion (Direct cost, $61 billion. Indirect cost, $56 billion). Some of the biggest ticket items were: Type II diabetes, at $98 billion; osteoarthritis related to obesity, at $21.2 billion, and lost productivity, at $3.9 billion.
The study also estimated that the direct costs of physical inactivity alone were more than $24 billion. Plus, Americans spend $35 billion each year on weight loss products, but we have been gaining weight steadily for decades.
It all makes you wonder if American society as a whole is completely incompatible with a healthy lifestyle. The good thing is we all have access to information on how to do better. All we need is the will.