
New study confirms that eating healthy does indeed cost more - sakuntala
http://blog.editeon.com/new-study-confirms-that-eating-healthy-does-indeed-cost-more/
======
yummyfajitas
Also note that the study is comparing the price per 200 cals. As a result,
this means it only provides evidence that it costs more to eat healthier _at a
fixed bodyweight_.

As the study itself says:

 _Healthier diets deﬁned based on ﬁbre or fat content will, by deﬁnition, have
fewer calories, so they will naturally cost more per calorie. Yet, such diets
will not necessarily cost more per serving or per meal. In the setting of a
global obesity pandemic, assessing price differences per calorie may make
little sense when a healthier diet also leads to reductions in total calorie
consumption._

[http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/12/e004277.full.pdf#page=1&...](http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/12/e004277.full.pdf#page=1&view=FitH)

------
Evgeny
_For example, producing skinless chicken and leaner meats requires more work
at the processing plant._

I don't think meat stripped of fat is any healthier compared to eating meat as
it is in the animal, and also organs, and maybe even some bone marrow on top.
Liver, for example, is quite packed with certain vitamins, especially A, also
iron, and is often cheap as it's considered some "lesser" kind of meat.

Or fish - some types of it are dirt cheap (may depend on your location, of
course). Yes, salmon may be tastier, but are blander types of fish any less
healthy?

I guess the study may have compared "healthy" in the mainstream, advertised
sort of way - skinless fatless chicken, lean meat, tuna fillets, fat free
everything etc.

~~~
xionon
Fat has more calories per pound than lean protein, that's all. In this
context, "fewer calories per ounce = healthier."

~~~
Evgeny
Well, since we are trying to eat healthily, it just means that we'll have to
eat less fat (by mass), compared to lean meat, to consume the same amount of
calories. Which also means that we will need to buy less meat, which will save
money, which was our initial goal. Win-win!

------
FellowTraveler
Corn is subsidized.

It's not that "eating healthy" is "more expensive" necessarily in real terms.

A big factor is the fact that our government uses the threat of violence to
extract money from people, and then uses it to pay people to make less healthy
food cheaper.

~~~
kahirsch
Can you show a calculation which shows what the effect is on the pricing of
healthy v. unhealthy food?

------
Choronzon
Considering that in the US health insurance costs are potentially 12 dollars
an hour!!Healthy eating looks like an excellent long term investment.
[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/05/do-...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/05/do-
low-wages-for-unskilled-workers-weaken-the-case-for-more-
immigration.html#comments)

------
dpweb
Healthy eating is not as much of an economic issue as articles like this would
suggest. Don't get me wrong if they taxed bad foods it wouldn't be a terrible
idea, and not inappropriate now that we collectively pay for peoples' bad
choices with healthcare.

Considering the avg diet, many people will be able to consume less. I did this
personally in an attempt to live on a minimal budget. If healthy eating costs
.47 more per 200 cals, and $1.50 more, just cut 600 cals out of your diet. The
avg cal consumption is 2600-3000 in that range. Unless your an athlete or
serious physical activity, its more than most people need.

I know this can be done. I went on 1700-1800 cals a day for four months (some
days less, and still around that range) and feel great. Cut my food budget
about in half. Changed grocery stores, you can actually live on very little
money when you cut out the crap you don't need.

~~~
joshuapants
Maintenance for a physically active adult male is 2500+ kcal. Not for
athletes, not for people doing hard training, for an average adult who does
some basic exercise to stay healthy.

~~~
dpweb
I realize 1700 may be somewhat low, and I was slowly losing weight. It may be
low however, many people are consuming too much the obesity rates prove that.
They don't prove that people can't afford to eat healthy. They prove people
are consuming more than burning.

I'm for taxing the bad instead of subsidizing the good however.. But we can't
ignore the personal responsibility aspect and these studies while useful also
give ammunition to the excuse makers and excuse making is a tremendous
impediment to solving important social problems.

------
firegrind
"For example, producing skinless chicken and leaner meats requires more work
at the processing plant."

So buying healthier pre-prepared food is more expensive than buying less
healthy pre-prepared food. I wonder if they compare with food prepared
healthily at home, or produced healthily at home.

Reminds me, it's time to plant a handful of beans.

~~~
Karunamon
The problem you run into there is lack of prep time. The obesity epidemic
largely impacts poorer people. The poorer you are, the less time you have to
yourself, moreso if you have a family. It starts making sense from a time
standpoint to just hit the nearest drive through instead of buying ingredients
and actually cooking.

~~~
rwallace
One aspect of the problem is this idea that seems to have crept in, that it's
necessary to eat elaborately cooked meals all the time. Making a couple of
cheese sandwiches actually takes a lot less time than hitting the nearest
drive-through, as well as being both healthier and cheaper.

~~~
Karunamon
I'm not so sure about that.. I'd think that a dollar burger and a dollar
chicken sandwich is more nutritionally balanced than a cheese sandwich,
preservatives and fat be damned.

There's also the staples, rice and beans and whatnot, but that's boring as
heck. Fast food also wins on tastiness.. and since we're not robots, that's
vitally important.

~~~
rwallace
Your second paragraph is the answer to the first. The issue isn't nutritional
balance - a good multivitamin pill costs ten cents per day if that's what
you're worried about. The issue is that fast food is designed to exploit
security flaws in your motivation system. That's one of the reasons Americans
in particular are suffering so badly from the obesity epidemic despite food
being available in effectively unlimited quantity in every developed country.
Doubtless given another few thousand years, evolution would patch some of the
security flaws, but that doesn't do you any good right now. All you can do as
an individual to protect yourself is stay away from fast food.

------
vishaldpatel
Cheapest I could come up with:

1/4 onion +

1 can of kidney beans +

3 cups of cooked rice +

1/2 tomato

1/2 lime

Salt, Pepper, Paprica for taste.

1/2 pint of non-fat yoghurt (18oz / 450g)

1 fist full of mixed nuts.

1 apple

1 orange

1 banana

That should cover protein, calcium, vitamin and carb needs for a fairly good
diet.

~~~
hayksaakian
I thought this was a recipe until I got to the yoghurt, but I suppose it could
work somehow...

~~~
vishaldpatel
Sorry I forgot to add enough pluses:

1/4 onion +

1 can of kidney beans +

1/2 tomato +

1/2 lime +

Salt, Pepper, Paprica for taste +

3 cups of cooked rice on the side or mixed in.

Thats one recipe.

The rest of the items can be their own recipe, or eaten separately =)

------
midas007
Define eating healthy.

Carrots, lettuce, spinach and water are ridiculously cheap.

If it's over-priced, branded, luxury convenience product in tiny quantities,
then it's obviously going to cost more.

The other cheap way to eat: freegan.

~~~
smartician
Try getting your daily 2000 kcals from carrots, lettuce, spinach and water.
Compare that cost to getting a few items from McDonald's dollar menu.

I'll do the math for you: One pound of carrots has roughly 190 calories. So
you'd need to eat at least 10 pounds of carrots to get average your daily
energy requirement. How much is a pound of carrots? $0.99? A McDonald's Bacon
Cheddar McChicken has 480 calories for $1. So you'd only have to buy four of
them.

~~~
judk
[http://www.livingshalom.com/2012/11/cheapest-carrots-for-
jui...](http://www.livingshalom.com/2012/11/cheapest-carrots-for-juicing/)

65c. Not so different.

And carrots+beans+rice are less vomit-inducing than McDonalds burgers in bulk.

------
cmarschner
Never in human history was food this dirt cheap, at least in Western
countries. We spend maybe 5-15% of our salaries on food - on average. So,
there is leeway. Buy an iphone kess, spend less on computer games and other
useless crap, grow a bit yourselves, and everyone can eat as healthy as tey
want. It is a shame that any peasant in Western Siberia eats more healthy food
than the average American.

------
anjc
I don't know why this is still disputable, and seems to be such a contentious
issue.

It seems like everybody who does dispute healthy food costing more is

a) basing this on their own experience as a single mid 20's male b) not taking
into account the cost of time c) fancies themselves as a cook

Considering that most families in Europe and America are two income ones,
considering that retailers such as Tesco openly subsidise unhealthy food and
make up the loss on fresh food, and considering that you can buy 1000 calories
of pizza for less than €1, it just seems obvious to me that fresh food is far
more expensive. Bad food may cost you more in the long term, but if you go to
a chain retailer right now, you'll get far more calories into you if you buy
shit food.

------
aaron695
Restrictions on X means it will cost more. Thanks for the heads up.

But in reality, not much more.

Or more importantly, long term less.

~~~
ronaldx
Exactly: basing a purchasing decision on any point, other than cost, is more
expensive.

------
marknutter
Actually, eating healthy is a lot less expensive than eating unhealthy because
eating healthy involves _eating less food_ in general.

~~~
ScottWhigham
As someone who "eats healthy" and maintains a healthy body weight (through a
combo of eating the right amounts + exercise), I couldn't disagree more. I eat
less of my salmon, yes, but I'm still paying $4 per meal when I eat wild
caught salmon versus $0.50 for that pre-cooked-chicken-from-a-bag.

------
usablebytes
May be the study completely missed the 'after effects' aspect from the
calculations

------
Sundog
Poor people: "...duh?"

------
jacknews
eat, or eating, health _IL_ y

or,

healthy eating

------
alimoeeny
of course, but more than what?

