Liz in Norwood Park wrote:But how do you know that most people with high BMI are more fat than muscle? Is that factual or just opinion?

I based this conclusion on the fact that people with high BMI are at a heightened risk of a host of medical conditions associated with being fat (such as diabetes). If high BMI people were more likely to be athletic and muscular, we'd see a corresponding decrease in rates of diabetes as BMI went up. We don't see this. In fact, rates of diabetes have been going up along with the average BMI, which tells us that for all the imperfections with the BMI, it's clearly picking up something real also.

For me, I would be okay with the extra cost of food if I wasn't shelling out $70 to fill my gas tank every 2 weeks.

Darren72 wrote:In fact, rates of diabetes have been going up along with the average BMI, which tells us that for all the imperfections with the BMI, it's clearly picking up something real also.

This is a chicken-and-egg question that nobody knows the answer to. There's a huge amount of wild speculation as to the rising rates of diabetes, but since a great many people who have the disease are not fat by any standard, the constant linking of the two issues is misleading.

It's also impossible to make any accurate assessments about BMI over time, because BMI wasn't measured historically. Spotty evidence is just that -- spotty. Further, the standards of what constitutes "obesity" have been lowered. Looking at historic photos of what people looked like in past eras causes me to doubt some figures I have read very much. Sturm and drang on these issues as far back as the 1960s led to Kennedy's Council on Physical on Fitness, for all the good that did. Fat Americans are nothing new.

With all the talk of how dangerous it is to be fat and all of the awful health conditions supposedly related to fatness ("related to" because no one has ever proved direct cause and effect) Americans are living longer than ever. You could accurately say that, statistically, the rising BMI of the American population is related to its rising longevity.

To bring the topic back to what this thread is supposed to be about, I can't see there's any way that rising food prices can have any positive effect on national health.

Unlike the "food intellectuals" quoted in the article Kennyz linked to, I don't believe that rising prices are going to lead to more sustainable agriculture or a better American diet.

"Make a sacrifice on the cellphone or the third pair of Nike shoes," Alice Waters says? Sounds like "Let them eat cake." Who is she talking to? The well-heeled patrons of her restaurant?

The reality is that most people are, like Harvard, going to move away from expensive whole grains they can no longer afford, and like the welfare mother quoted in the food stamps story, turn toward cheap, starchy, filling foods. I see this as having a detrimental effect on the organics movement, as consumers put price first, and farmers are pressured to increase production.

I've tried to focus here on what's happening in the United States, as more relevant to most of us. If you look at what's happening internationally, you can see the immediate ill effects on people's health as they get caught up in rioting over the cost of food.

These are indeed depressing, scary subjects, but as SMT says, nonetheless real.

LAZ wrote:
It's also impossible to make any accurate assessments about BMI over time....
... You could accurately say that, statistically, the rising BMI of the American population is related to its rising longevity.

Sounds like it's impossible to make any accurate assessments about BMI, unless those assessments help you argue your point.

With all the talk of how dangerous it is to be fat and all of the awful health conditions supposedly related to fatness ("related to" because no one has ever proved direct cause and effect) Americans are living longer than ever.

This is exactly the kind of talk we heard for years in regard to smoking. There are so many variables involved in health that - you're right - we'll never have "proof" of cause and effect. If we waited around for real proof, we'll never believe any health-related claims. I suppose some people think that's a reasonable outlook. Not me.

Unlike the "food intellectuals" quoted in the article Kennyz linked to, I don't believe that rising prices are going to lead to more sustainable agriculture or a better American diet.
"Make a sacrifice on the cellphone or the third pair of Nike shoes," Alice Waters says? Sounds like "Let them eat cake." Who is she talking to? The well-heeled patrons of her restaurant?

You rightly point out that - as a whole - our country is living longer than ever. It's also true that - as a whole - we have more disposable income than ever. Rising disposable income is neither a cause of nor a correllary of improved eating habits. As income has risen, so has our reliance on fast food and processed food. Waters has it right - it is in large part the people who have more disposable income than ever who are choosing to spend it on cell phones and Nikes rather than sustainably-produced food.

The reality is that most people are, like Harvard, going to move away from expensive whole grains they can no longer afford, and like the welfare mother quoted in the food stamps story, turn toward cheap, starchy, filling foods

The dramatic rise in real income in our country has directly coincided with a dramatic reduction in our consumption of whole grains. Low income is not the reason people move away from whole grains.

These are indeed depressing, scary subjects, but as SMT says, nonetheless real.

It's only scary if the cost of food causes people to change their eating habits for the worse. And that's only scary if poor eating habits cause health problems. And since we can't prove any of that...

Kennyz wrote:If we waited around for real proof, we'll never believe any health-related claims.

We should treat them all with skepticism. Consider the results of the rush to replace "poisonous" animal fats with "healthy" trans-fats.

Kennyz wrote:Waters has it right - it is in large part the people who have more disposable income than ever who are choosing to spend it on cell phones and Nikes rather than sustainably-produced food.

I really disagree here. The organic movement has largely been fueled by people with money to spare.

Kennyz wrote:Low income is not the reason people move away from whole grains.

It's the main reason that people who would otherwise prefer whole-grain foods do so.

Yes, many people like the taste of processed foods better than whole grains. Since white rice and white bread have been preferred over brown rice and whole-grain bread for centuries, that's not surprising.

But today, whole-grain foods tend to carry a premium price, whereas once they were the less-expensive option.

Kennyz wrote:It's only scary if the cost of food causes people to change their eating habits for the worse. And that's only scary if poor eating habits cause health problems. And since we can't prove any of that...

Those of us who are having to decide whether to buy gas or groceries this week aren't considering this as an intellectual exercise about hypothetical people and their hypothetical eating habits.

I have a Dominick's Fresh Values card and when I am really on my money saving game I make sure that any time I'm heading to the store, I go to their web site, check what's on special and mark it on my list. Sometimes I'll see things on the web site that I could definitely use in a meal or stock up on that I may not have noticed in the store. I've saved quite a bit of money that way.

I used to clip a lot of coupons, but we are eating less and less processed food and that seems to be what the majority of coupons in the Sunday paper are for.

LAZ wrote:With all the talk of how dangerous it is to be fat and all of the awful health conditions supposedly related to fatness ("related to" because no one has ever proved direct cause and effect) Americans are living longer than ever. You could accurately say that, statistically, the rising BMI of the American population is related to its rising longevity.

LAZ, is your conclusion about Higher BMI=Longer Life supposed to be tongue in cheek? I just want to make sure I'm clearly understanding you because more than likely higher BMI (due to fat, not muscle) + Modern Medications= Longer Life.

Also, while the direct cause and effect of weight might still be out on some disease states/ health conditions, the other side of the coin has been proven. No one might be able to prove that being fat caused someone's Type 2 Diabetes, but many studies have shown that reducing your weight can reduce the disease progression and activity if you have Type 2. Likewise, no one can prove that being overweight will lead to a bad back, but once you have a bad back, studies have shown that reducing your weight will reduce the strain on said back.

LAZ wrote:To bring the topic back to what this thread is supposed to be about, I can't see there's any way that rising food prices can have any positive effect on national health.

I'm in complete agreement here. I think the "big" processed food manufacturers will be best positioned to ride out the pricing storm and therefore people will turn to them for food. Since I've been keeping track of grocery specials at our local market for the last two months, it seems to me that a lot of the whole grain products I enjoy haven't been put on sale for a long time, nor have I seen coupons for them. Yet, every three weeks I could get Hamburger Helper cheaply. As *if* I wanted Hamburger Helper....

Kim

Kim3 wrote:LAZ, is your conclusion about Higher BMI=Longer Life supposed to be tongue in cheek? I just want to make sure I'm clearly understanding you because more than likely higher BMI (due to fat, not muscle) + Modern Medications= Longer Life.

I'm just trying to say that one conclusion based on statistics, is as true as another:

Americans' BMI is higher.
Americans have more incidence of diabetes.
Americans have increased longevity.

Assuming all these things are true, why is one factor any more significant than the others? Maybe it's modern medications that are making people fat and diabetic. (Actually, only longevity is definitely proven. As I've said, you can't compare BMI because there's no history to compare it to, and higher incidence of diabetes is, in fact, at least partly due to modern medicine -- that is to say, better diagnosis.)

Kim3 wrote:Also, while the direct cause and effect of weight might still be out on some disease states/ health conditions, the other side of the coin has been proven.

I don't believe in health policies based on studies of limited populations that show an effect of taking one specific action.

For example, all kinds of studies show that if somebody has high blood pressure, reducing sodium in their diet will reduce blood pressure. But there are few studies showing how this affects their mortality. Meanwhile, a large-scale study showed that low sodium diets led to a higher incidence of mortality -- even though the results were corrected to account for the fact that people with high blood pressure, heart disease and other ailments were most likely to be put on low sodium diets.

Too much information about public health is contradictory or based on limited studies that get blown out of proportion and inflated into "fact." Everybody "knows" being fat is unhealthy, just like everybody used to "know" that eating chocolate gave you pimples, spicy food gave you ulcers and margarine was better for you than butter or lard.

Personally, I think that weight alone is not the issue. It is the sedentary lifestyle. I know dozens of Amish men who are 200-225# in their 70s ... but they also do 25+ hours of very strenuous physical labor per week (and 20+ hours of moderate labor).

I had the misfortune of stacking three cords of wood several years ago with two brothers who were 80+. I was spent for the week ... and they were enjoying every minute of it.

Slightly better news, but it remains to be seen how this will translate to grocery stores.

New York Times: Prices for Staple Foods Dip, but Volatile Markets Persist wrote:HONG KONG — After months of startling increases, the prices of rice, wheat, soybeans and several other foods have come down recently, a development that could ease some of the panic in global food markets.

Prices remain volatile and remarkably high by historical standards, and few agricultural experts expect the days of inexpensive food to return soon. There is no sign of a drop steep enough to make food affordable again for the hundreds of millions of people in poor countries who are struggling to maintain adequate diets.

Still, any price decline is welcome news for many countries, particularly those heavily dependent on imported rice.

The spot price of rice from Thailand has dropped by close to 20 percent in the last two weeks after nearly tripling in the first four months of this year. Rice prices on American markets have been rising this week, including a sharp increase on Thursday, but are still down 10 percent from their high on April 23.

Similarly, despite jumps in the last few days, contracts for future delivery of American wheat and soybeans are down markedly from their highs in March — by 34 percent in the case of wheat. The prices of canola oil and palm oil, two alternatives to soybean oil for cooking and food processing, are also down.

“The floodwaters have stopped rising, but the problem isn’t over yet, and prices could stay at this level a few years,” said Nicholas W. Minot, a senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington.

Agricultural markets remain deeply unsettled. For several years, farmers have been unable to catch up with rapidly rising demand for food and animal feed, and the world’s grain stocks have been falling. The situation peaked in recent months as prices spiraled out of control, setting off hoarding in many countries and food riots in at least 19 of them.

United States corn prices hit yet another record on Thursday, just above $6.30 a bushel, amid fears that rainy weather in the Midwest would suppress yields this summer....

Taken in a three year period (food prices have indeed increased the past 12 months), food costs as a % of income have never been lower. We are paying significantly less for food -- even today -- than our parents paid.

Organic is significantly more expensive than conventional food, though its cost has come down some. To suggest that organic is more sustainable than other types of agriculture can't readily be backed up with science based studies. The Guardian (U.K. paper) recently had a major piece on the fallacy of organic (think FedX'ing string beans from Kenya) and sustainability.

Many factors have caused this slight disruption in food supply and prices. If the next 20 years looks like the last 20 then farmers will sort out production and put the yield curve in line with its historic trend.

One curiosity for me is whether or not the retailers are taking advantage of this hyperbole to raise prices and unduly increase profits for the short-term. The rice rationing suggests yes. Who buys more than one gigantic bag of rice at one time from Walmart, for example. If it's far less than 1% of purchases, why ration?

auxen1 wrote:Who buys more than one gigantic bag of rice at one time from Walmart, for example. If it's far less than 1% of purchases, why ration?

I think that people don't normally, but given how fast prices are rising, people were beginning to hoard - especially small businesses. Or maybe people were sending it to relatives in other countries?

auxen1,

Did you read this?

Regards,

auxen1 wrote:We are paying significantly less for food -- even today -- than our parents paid.

Since I did a lot of the shopping for my household as a teenager, I can tell you that this is not at all true for me, even with adjustments for inflation, etc. In fact, it was not true even before the recent rapid rise in grocery prices.

As for a three-year period, so what? It's no consolation that prices are lower according to some statistical average if you can't afford to buy groceries this week.

Is anybody noticing a significant price increase in independant grocery stores? While some things are a little higher, I haven't noticed my overall bill going up a lot, and I don't think my behavior has changed that much...while I get that gas directly affects groceries, I do wonder how much of this is price gouging on the part of the national chain stores (though an alternate theory is that independants can't afford to change their prices noticeably, and are just eating the loss)

Interesting article from yesterday's NYT juxtaposing rising food prices with the amount of food waste globally.

Best,
Michael

Very, very interesting how that waste is divided up - one would expect that fresh vegetables would go to waste, and dairy, but sweeteners and grain? (though I suppose some of that is bread, which gets moldy if you don't freeze it)

It's also interesting that Americans still staunchly refuse to supply aseptically packaged milk in reasonable containers, with reasonable pricing (Yes, you can get the Horizon Farms singles, and sometimes Parmalat in pints if you know where to shop) In Argentina (and most other countries, from what I've heard) milk is packaged in plastic bags that fit inside a pitcher. The bags have a shelf-life similar to bread, and don't need to be refrigerated unless opened.

eatchicago wrote:Interesting article from yesterday's NYT juxtaposing rising food prices with the amount of food waste globally.

When I was in college, I used to go shopping with a monk every week or two. We never stepped into a grocery store. We headed to a variety of wholesalers who would sell us the thinks that they could not send to their customers - bruised fruit, overripe food, and the like. We would buy 5-10# cubes of cheese with slight amounts of mold on it. Most of what we bought was at a fraction of the cost. On a 10# block of cheese, we would get a 9-9.5# of good cheese.

Every stop in the distribution process has some shrinkage. The farmer only harvests a portion of what he grows. Try gleaning a field of potatoes after it has been harvested. In two hours, you'll be able to pick a years worth of potatoes.

Every distributor loses about 5% of whatever they bring in. And groceries even lose a lot more.

The real question is how to eliminate the waste or distribute it. I know that the local agencies in my area are so overwhelmed with bakery goods from all the groceries and bakery chains that they give EVERYONE a couple of loaves a bread when you enter the building.

Personally, I would like to see retailers produce less. However, they would argue that they should have the same selection at 7PM as they had at 7AM. In the old days, such places would have "day old" shelves. However, most retailers would rather get rid of the old stuff as it is competition for the new product.

I agree, a good bit of it is over-processing - it's much easier to store grain than it is to store bread (and if you're storing it as grain and making less bread, perhaps the bread could have fewer preservatives!) However, if I'm reading the article correctly, this waste happens AFTER food is purchased. I have to admit, I'm a fairly wasteful cook - at least more wasteful than my tiny amount of Scottish ancestry allows me to feel comfortable about. It's too easy to purchase stuff you can't use in time.

I love having a garden for this reason - usually, produce isn't near as time-sensitive in the ground as it is in the 'fridge (well, maybe except for cilantro)

Mhays wrote:I agree, a good bit of it is over-processing - it's much easier to store grain than it is to store bread (and if you're storing it as grain and making less bread, perhaps the bread could have fewer preservatives!) However, if I'm reading the article correctly, this waste happens AFTER food is purchased. I have to admit, I'm a fairly wasteful cook - at least more wasteful than my tiny amount of Scottish ancestry allows me to feel comfortable about. It's too easy to purchase stuff you can't use in time.

I love having a garden for this reason - usually, produce isn't near as time-sensitive in the ground as it is in the 'fridge (well, maybe except for cilantro)

I dunno. Stored grain has to contend with aflotoxins and other such problems and probably takes up more space before processing. Garden produce doesn't rot as soon as refrigerated produce but it's still subject to waste -- overlarge, mealy zucchini and peas; overripe tomatoes and fruit; insect and animal damage; etc. I'd guess it evens out, though it's easier not to think of the berries that the birds get or the fermenting windfall apples as "wasted" when compared to something molding in the fridge.

Back in the '80s, until it fell into fragments, I had a newspaper cartoon stuck on my refrigerator (my memory is Zippy the Pinhead, though Bill Griffith couldn't recall it when I asked a couple years ago) titled "The Tyranny of Fresh Food." In the strip, a woman hands Zippy piles of food, saying, "Quick! Eat this before it rots."

With only two of us at home, wildly erratic work schedules and frequent, sudden, unavoidable changes of plan that necessitate going out or grabbing a quick bite instead of scheduled cooking, this is a huge problem in our house. Some people manage by making small shopping trips frequently -- picking up ingredients for dinner on the way home from work, for example -- but that's not really an option for us. So my choices are to do without perishable foods (not a good option, but one I sometimes resort to) or accept that a certain amount of waste is inevitable.

I do try to store things the best possible ways, and I've learned that foods not actually rotted, such as shriveled or sprouting potatoes, can often be resurrected surprisingly well.

Earlier in this thread there are some links to tips on avoiding waste.

MarketWatch wrote:Top chef challenge: thrift
Diners will see more-creative menus as costs squeeze eateries

By Jennifer Waters, MarketWatch
Last update: 6:31 p.m. EDT May 20, 2008

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- Chew on this: Consumers may not recognize their favorite restaurant's menus as the eateries take creative steps to cope with rising commodity and energy prices without compromising the appetizing nature of their offerings.

On the bill of fare are dishes that swap beef and chicken for pork, offer beef medallions rather than steaks and squeeze in surcharges for bread and butter.

"Restaurants are trying all sorts of things instead of raising prices on the menus," said Jody Hicks, a vice president at steak-and-seafood distributor Halpern's....

Video on some Chicago "freegans" who go dumpster diving for otherwise wasted foods. Assuming the contents of the dumpster weren't staged, it's really pretty shocking to see what they're able to glean from grocery store trash, and it makes you wonder why this food isn't donated to food pantries or soup kitchens.

More on freegans

I haven't been to the grocery stores much in the past month due to our conscious efforts to clean out the refrigerator and the pantries.

However, I was tired yesterday and decided to pick something at Aldi's so that I would not have to cook.

What was shocking was the prices. Milk was $1.99/gal and eggs were $1.29/doz which is considerably less than the local groceries.

jlawrence01 wrote:What was shocking was the prices. Milk was $1.99/gal and eggs were $1.29/doz which is considerably less than the local groceries.

Right - this was what I mean - it's similar in the Mom-n-Pop places, too. It would be interesting, as I said earlier, to find out if it was price gouging on the chain store's part, or if it's that the smaller places (or stores geared more towards the economically disadvantaged) are eating the loss.

I have had little faith that the big chains are on the up-and-up as far as pricing goes.

My favorite podcast of the moment is The Bugle from the Times Online. I just listened to episode 26 from April, "Food! Nonexistent Food!" which touches on the rising cost of food.

Andy Zaltzman and John Oliver get peckish at the thought of spiralling staple prices and the fact that there are riots in third world countries while we get slightly peezed over the increase in the price of pizza.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, an interesting sampling of foods are cheaper today than ten years ago after adjusting for inflation.

See graphic here

Best,
Michael

That chart adjusts for inflation in currency. It doesn't adjust for deflation in food quality.

I can well believe strawberries, tomatoes and chickens are cheaper than they were a decade ago. They mostly taste cheaper too.

That chart adjusts for inflation in currency. It doesn't adjust for deflation in food quality.

It also doesn't indicate whether or not our food has gotten safer. And it has. Food as a % of income has never been cheaper and when measured by food-caused illness, has never been safer.

Organic foods are an exception. They are significantly more expensive (though getting cheaper as they become industrialized) and have introduced higher risk (reduction of disease abatement from less stringent composting, higher mycotoxin levels from insect damage, etc.).

But, at the Farmer's Market, organics provide flavor and variety to the 5% that can afford it just not offered by the industrial complex.

[quote="auxen1"]Organic foods are an exception. They are significantly more expensive (though getting cheaper as they become industrialized) and have introduced higher risk (reduction of disease abatement from less stringent composting, higher mycotoxin levels from insect damage, etc.).[\quote]

I'm having trouble following the double negatives in this statement. Are you saying organic foods are more expensive and more dangerous?

There ain't no double negatives in the statement.

Hope it's not news that organic foods are more expensive.

And, yes, I do believe that organic production methods do increase the risk of contamination and disease versus conventional production methods. That includes animal protein, dairy, fruits and vegetables, and grains.

And, to be clear, we buy both.