
Exploring aisles 9-13 at my local supermarket - nedwin
https://medium.com/health-the-future/918b3d08f21f
======
zdean
If you read some of Michael Pollan's books, one of the key observations that
he makes about the food system is that people assume organic/natural/etc.
foods are expensive when in fact most of the stuff you buy at the grocery
store (and fast food joint) is made artificially cheaper. The #1 culprit of
this is the subsidizing of the corn industry. Corn is the source of the corn
syrup that ends up in all of those soft drinks, snacks, salad dressings etc.
On the protein side of it, it's used as the primary feed for cows and other
animals. So you have junk food that's cheaper than it ought to be at the
grocery store and fast food that's cheaper than it ought to be at your
favorite drive-through.

I'm not sure why we keep looking downstream at the problem when there is in
fact an underlying SINGLE cause upstream that can address a lot of the issues.
Remove the subsidies, allow food to cost a bit more, financially incentivize
people to eat 1) better food and 2) smaller quantities of food, and let the
downstream problems like obesity, diabetes, etc. take care of themselves.

~~~
craigyk
I might receive a lot of flak for this, but isn't HFCS sweeter than more
natural sugars? As in, you can achieve the same amount of sweetness with fewer
calories? Personally I think it gets a bad rap. The bigger problem is the lack
of physical activity and the massive input of calories... the 'quality' of
those calories just isn't, IMO, as big a deal as people make it out to be.

~~~
zdean
Sugar costs 40% more than corn syrup...so regardless of its 'sweetness
density', it's a much more prevalent sweetener:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/katetaylor/2012/07/30/how-the-
dr...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/katetaylor/2012/07/30/how-the-drought-
impacts-corn-crops-and-your-grocery-bill/)

But there are also medical opinions forming that indicate corn syrup is more
damaging than natural sugars...there was a post here on HN a few weeks back
that I can't find right now about this.

------
redact207
A bit off track, but the one thing I found that slit the throat of over
zealous marketing was to study marketing. It helped disconnect the sales
message from the product and it became painfully obvious how hard a lot of the
product marketers need to push.

A tub of chocolate spread is a healthy option because it has hazelnuts and
dairy? A bottle of soda is diet because it substitutes one of the dozen
chemicals?

Compare that with the produce aisle where there's no marketing and it becomes
clear the worst the product the harder it needs to be marketed.

------
chime
I realize this is an uncommon opinion but I'm ok with this. I am not
overweight, am fairly active, and rarely eat anything unhealthy. I am ok with
this simply because that is how the market works. If you think of the world as
some list of good vs. bad rules to follow, then certainly the supermarkets of
today are appalling. But if you think of them as a set of interdependent
actors within a closed system, each trying to maximize their personal utility
functions, it makes perfect sense.

A few years ago I was enraged walking through a Whole Foods store (for the
first time) and coming upon one Homeopathic remedy after another in an entire
aisle of medicines that weren't. It took me some time to realize that Whole
Foods is not in the business of keeping me healthy. They are in the business
of selling products. And so is everyone else.

It is in the supermarket's best interest (short-term at least) to not manually
stock everything but rather let vendors of different product lines setup their
special displays. That's how you get the entire Doritos-line product display.
It is in the best interest of the Doritos agent to maximize the sales at this
particular store to get the highest commission. Doritos has learnt that giving
a commission based on store-specific sales is the best way to maximize sales.
The same goes for the Weight Loss and Diabetes mags, and even the
pharmaceutical aisles.

Additionally, it is in the best interest (again, at least in the short term)
of the residents of the neighborhood to have one store they can go to in order
to buy everything. Think of everyone aligning their actions with the best of
their abilities to benefit themselves the most, like a crowd of hundred gather
around a street performance to give themselves the best vantage point, and you
end up with the world as is today.

This does not mean it is the best the world can be. Certainly it is possible
to optimize for net good at the cost of specific losses to certain entities
but then we come back to the debate of who decides who should pay more taxes
or lose their license to engage in trade. So as it stands, I am ok with seeing
obviously unhealthy products aimed at the most vulnerable because unless the
market wants otherwise, doing anything to change that is going to shake up
more than a few foundations that build our economy and society.

~~~
aliston
I don't think that this is necessarily a debate that should be confined to
market terms... but even debating it within those confines, I would actually
argue that this is a perfect example of a market failure.

For one thing, food distribution in the US acts essentially like an oligopoly.
There are a surprisingly few number of food distributors with a huge influence
on which products are emphasized in the store. Companies like Frito-Lay and
Coca-Cola can use their size to push out smaller companies and local farmers
that produce healthier foods before the consumer even has a chance to find
those products on shelves. As a result, in economic terms, most consumers are
operating without anything close to perfect information and, consequently,
aren't really "maximizing their personal utility functions."

Second, a big reason people are buying a lot of these calorie-dense,
unhealthy, processed "foods" is that they are cheap compared to, say, fresh
fruits and vegetables. However, there are massive health care cost
externalities that aren't factored into the costs of those products. It's a
classic market failure, and if those costs were properly factored in,
consumers would probably consume a lot less of them.

~~~
chime
I agree, it really does sound like the perfect example of economic market
failure hitting the requirements of (1) monopoly/oligopoly and (2) causing
negative externalities (in health) but I find it hard to call it so because of
one reason - the demand curve intersects the supply curve at current market
prices. The people are getting what they want to pay for and the suppliers are
more than glad to provide them that.

This is more like an unplanned emergence of manufactured consent in the
agricultural/food/health industry. No single company, lobby, or agency planned
on turning our world upside down and replacing grocery stores and farmer's
markets with supermarkets and drive-thrus.

What happened was that over the past hundred years, innovative companies in
the food industry came out with delicious snacks, fast foods, and ready-to-eat
meals that created a market that never existed before. When these companies
grew and got stronger, their marketing message became embedded in the common
sense - eat cereal for breakfast, drink 8 glasses of water etc. It was in the
best interest of these companies to say "Tired at 2pm? Take some 5 hour
energy!" And the consumers voluntarily started stocking up on 48 packs of
Capri Sun and 128oz bags of Ruffles.

As the companies grew, they were acquired and optimized to sell only the most
profitable products. Over time organizations and agency sprouted up to protect
the interests of the industry's capital, labor, and assets. If that meant
ensuring corn was subsidized, so be it. If sugarcane sugar tariffs needed to
remain high, so be it.

It is easy to claim market failure looking at this solely from the supply side
but from the demand aspect, the current market is paradise. Regardless of how
good or bad the products are, people genuinely want them. Every now and then,
I myself want a can of Pringles. Fulfilling the demands at prices low enough
to satiate the consumers does not seem like a market failure to me.

------
Xcelerate
Ah, those kinder eggs at the checkout aisle! I wish we could get them in the
US.

Anyone know why they're not in America?

~~~
noonespecial
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise#Prohibition_on_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise#Prohibition_on_sale_or_import_into_the_United_States)

I used to love them when I lived in Germany. I found it hilarious when I
discovered the reason because its one case where "Won't someone please think
of the children" results in a mental seg-fault if you stop to think about it.

------
javert
I would much rather live in a country where we are free to choose what we eat
but most people are unhealthy, than the inverse.

The blog post attempts to use emotional manipuation to win people its side.

For instance, it ignores the fundamental tradeoff involved (freedom vs. public
health), it uses vulgarity in the title, and has a massive platitude at the
end. Moreover, it is highly focused around pictures, which is a giveaway for
an attempt at emotional manipulation.

In summary, this is highly juvenile and evasive writing and thinking.

Even if you agree with the author's ultimate point of view, you should feel
insulted that he would try to appeal to you you in a way that is not based in
reason and logic.

~~~
mjallday
I would agree if I was free to not pay for other's health care.

If I am responsible for helping you when you're sick then am responsible for
helping you not get sick in the first place.

~~~
throwww00
Actually, living long til old age is what drains the health care system. Once
you pass retirement and no longer working you are simply a drain to the
system. So your opinion goes completely out the window.

~~~
nbouscal
Wait, there being another factor in the high cost of health care means his
argument goes completely out the window? So you're saying there can't possibly
be _two_ reasons for the high cost of health care?!

------
erickhill
I had to look it up: pokies

"Slang term used in Australia to refer to gambling slot machines. Pokies can
be found in many hotels and pubs in Australia."

~~~
nicksessions
Thanks for translating. I couldn't remember what the US equivalent was.

------
Radle
I totally disagree with the author, I am in living an a generation that has
good chances to become more than one hundred years old, living is as healthy
as never.

Thought I need to agree food is not.

Anyways two or three cokes a week won't hurt.

Drinking Daily coffee won't hurt.

Eating at McDonalds or BurgerKing twice a week won't hurt.

If you do sports twice a week. (And eat some Vitamins, but that is usually no
problem I believe.)

~~~
cocoflunchy
> (And eat some Vitamins, but that is usually no problem I believe.)

As a european living in the US, I am appalled at the sheer quantity of
vitamins/pseudo health products that my roommates consume. Do you really need
this? I don't know a single person in France who takes vitamins on regular
basis.

~~~
Radle
I am talking about some fruits, especially for us Pc "nerds".

If you sit on your pc in your office or at home, and have bowl of fruits next
to you, you'll eat one or 2 per day and then you got ALL vitamins you need.

~~~
thekiwi99
The exception being vitamin D, which you need to get either through ~15
minutes of direct sunlight, or a vitamin.

------
nevernpguy
Some numbers - half of US will be Obese by 2030.

[http://statspotting.com/obesity-stats-half-of-the-u-s-
popula...](http://statspotting.com/obesity-stats-half-of-the-u-s-population-
will-be-obese-by-2030/)

------
prawn
Looking through a lot of those photos of promotional stands (soft drink,
chips, magazines, energy drinks, etc) I'm reminded of a broad rule that
distracts me whenever I see TV advertising especially: If it's being
advertised, you probably don't need it.

(The other broad rule that distracts me in these cases: If a female subject in
an advertisement is a brunette, it's usually targeting women. If blonde, it's
more likely to be targeting men.)

------
aimhb
I'm not sure a magazine about diabetes is something to be appalled about. Lots
of people have type 1 diabetes, which is more or less congenital and whether
you contract it or not is out of your control.

Reading materials for those with gluten-free diets aren't so tabboo, why is it
so for food recommendations that help keep a healthy A1c level?

~~~
spullara
"Type 1 diabetes accounts for about 5 to 10 percent of diagnosed diabetes in
the United States."

[http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/overview/](http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/overview/)

------
thomasfoster96
Ah, the wonders of Australia. Luckily we all have Medicare for when the
obesity epidemic takes it's toll.

More seriously though, Australia is only marginally better than the US with
this whole problem. We need to push the whole health thing a whole lot more.

I like my weekly chocolate and sarsaparilla ration, but I know it's not
something I should do every day. Stopping junk food from becoming a daily
thing for people is a great first step.

I also play sport at least twice a week, but again, we've become a lot more
loose in that department over the past 10 years. All year round sport is meant
to be compulsory for virtually all schools, but too many people sit out
nowadays. If we get people playing sport at school, hopefully we can get more
than 75% playing it well past the end of Uni.

But otherwise, I don't think this sort of advertising is bad or should be
banned, rather we need to tighten up our education about nutrition and regular
sport.

------
benaiah
I agree that obesity and lack of exercise are terrible things - the latter is
something I struggle with. I agree that it's quite ironic that diabetes
magazines are sold next to junk food. I agree that many people have screwed-up
priorities and self-control and that they would be better off without this
stuff.

That said, I strongly disagree, to the point of revulsion, with the implicit
desire of the author, which I see echoed in various forms and about various
subjects, that the government take action to ban any of this. ("Imagine if 65%
of the population had a gambling problem and _we let_ the banks put pokies
inside ATMs." \- emphasis mine).

It appalls me that HN is so adamantly desirous of the freedom of the press,
the freedom of anonymity, the freedom of assembly, etc., but sees no problem
with calling for the mass restrictions of freedoms in work, housing,
healthcare, and the like. Even, apparently, the freedom to choose what you
_eat_. It's revolting to us that someone might decide what you should be able
to say, but we are happy to make moral pronouncements from our padded office
chairs on others' behalf, as long as it's something that won't affect us.

Let me be clear - I am not absolving these companies of all wrong. They commit
fraud when they lie about ingredients, they are implicit in assault or even
murder when they sell actively toxic (as opposed to simply unhealthy) food and
advertise that it is safe, and they regularly abuse our screwed-up political
system to gain unfair and immoral advantages over competitors. These things
are all wrong.

Selling unhealthy food, with an honest description of what's in it, isn't.

He even mentions it in the post - consumers are voting with their feet. We can
disdain the stereotypical "people of Walmart" all we want, but we have no
business forcing them to live the way we think is best. We're no better than
the NSA if we start going down that road. No one is coercing them to buy
there. There are plenty of cheap and healthy alternatives. We just have to
come to terms with the fact that they are making a poor choice, and we have no
right to force them to stop.

We absolutely should encourage them not to. It's perfectly fine if you choose
to boycott these places. It's fine if you don't let your children eat that
food, and it's fine if you make it your life's work to making that food
obsolete. But you have to draw the line there. Once you start forcing people,
at the threat (ultimately) of death, to eat certain things, you are no better
than the NSA forcing people at the threat of death to say or not say certain
things. That's not our place.

</lengthy rant>

All that said, he's right. The world _is_ , as he bluntly puts it, "fucking
insane", and this is one of the ways that shows.

EDIT:

Holy cow, this article got flagged to death. Probably rightly so. It's on the
third page right now, despite having 65 points in 2 hours.

~~~
indlebe
>It appalls me that HN is so adamantly desirous of the freedom of the press,
the freedom of anonymity, the freedom of assembly, etc., but sees no problem
with calling for the mass restrictions of freedoms in work, housing,
healthcare, and the like. Even, apparently, the freedom to choose what you
eat.

I upvoted this article, but not because I see no problem with calling for mass
restrictions. It's causing good debate and perhaps provoking thought. I do see
your point, that we're not upvoting fox-news-worthy neocon propaganda for the
sake of discussion. But perhaps there is a difference in the outcome of
following the respective propagandas. Which one would be more "forward-
thinking"? Stopping all immigration or banning pepsi from schools?

EDIT:

>Stopping all immigration or banning pepsi from schools.

I look back on this statement as a false dichotomy, as a result of the
replies. My perception was challenged as a result of this article being posted
in the first place and the banter that followed. I still stand by my original
upvote of this article, as it lead to my own personal growth, selfish or no.

~~~
ericdykstra
_Which one would be more "forward-thinking"? Stopping all immigration or
banning pepsi from schools?_

False Dichotomy. Which one would be more forward-thinking: destroying the farm
subsidies that let unhealthy foods become cheaper than healthy foods and skew
the market, or having governments, like the one that brought you the 'food
pyramid' and pushed it on schools, decide what you can and cannot consume?

~~~
indlebe
understood, thank you and touche.

------
charlysisto
A simple question to those afraid of regulation : why does a country agree
that some substances should not belong to the market (drugs) but that not
letting junk food be sold in the most cynical and manipulative way to a
population dying of diabetes would harm the sacro saint wisdom/freedom of
market ?

Sidenote : regulation doesn't mean banning, just tax the junk food heavily so
the most vulnerable don't buy it and have clear markers it kills your brain
cells just like on cigarettes & alcohol.

------
scrrr
I am not in America, but perhaps a little education about nutrition at school
would help to make people think twice about their food and drink choices?

~~~
acjohnson55
Many of us get educated plenty about nutrition in school. (I say many of us
because standards are extremely variable within and between states, and
recalcitrant people are fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way.) But the
handful of millions of dollars devoted to nutrition education campaigns and
interventions absolutely pales in comparison to the billions of dollars spent
on ad and marketing campaigns by the glorified drug dealers that are our food
companies, not to mention the money they spend lobbying to contain education
campaigns and develop yet more addictive food items.

------
locusm
Amazed any Australian company is still using imagery of Capper and Fenech -
Jesus wept!

This is a good video on HFCS from Robert Lustig and why you should avoid it.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM)

------
eclipxe
There's a huge opportunity for startups in the health and fitness space. Lots
of room for disruption and a literally "growing" customer base.

------
marban
The peculiar excess found in US supermarkets is not something I would
translate to the world cross-the-board though.

~~~
alwaysinshade
It's an Australian supermarket - South Australia I'm guessing based on the "SA
Lotteries" sign in one of the photos. The supermarket in question is a
Foodland but could easily be any other supermarket in Australia. I thought it
was my local Woolworths store based on the product layout in the photos and
I'm in Sydney, NSW.

~~~
nicksessions
Nice sleuthing! Foodland in SA is correct.

------
mikekij
Free. Market.

------
alexeisadeski3
Buzzkill.

------
Radle
Just before reading, thumbs up for awesome title.

~~~
nedwin
"they" changed the title.

------
MaysonL
And you didn't even mention global warming or the Republican party.

