checkmatechamp13 Posted May 31, 2012 Share #51 Posted May 31, 2012 Limiting food portions does help... We have caloric intake guides for a reason, which nearly 2/3rds of Americans don't follow... So about 66% of Americans are obese or overweight... As I've said before, many people qualify for foodstamps so the excuse of healthy food being too expensive is lame. I've seen plenty of people go to Whole Foods with food stamps, as Whole Foods and I believe Trader Joe's accepts food stamps, so there is no excuse. I would also like to add that preparing cooked meals can allow one to eat quite well at a reasonable cost. Now I'll admit that I spend a good $600.00 - $700.00 a month for food just for myself, but that's because I often times don't cook and get pre-made things from Whole Foods, though I do make my own spinach salads and such. That said, if one goes into Trader Joe's or even Whole Foods for the basics without the chips or cakes or anything, you can get plenty of food at a reasonable price. And it's not like you have to have a Whole Foods or Trader Joe's in your neighborhood to get healthy food. Any supermarket always has healthy options available. The problem is that some areas are "food deserts" that only have corner delis, but even then, you could pick up healthy foods like rice and beans instead of going to a fried chicken place or McDonald's. What I will say is that although combating obesity is a noble goal, this is not the way to do it. If anything, the soda tax was a better idea. I don't think so. I mean, in some cases, the cost of the tax would be more than the cost of the actual product. I mean, a 3-liter bottle of store-brand soda costs in the $1.25 range at most stores. The tax would be $1.01. I mean, it's just not right that the cost of taxes should be close to the cost of the product (especially if it's not something like cigarettes where it affects everybody else's health). And aside from that, they wouldn't make any sort of distinction between the sodas that are somewhat healthy and those that are completely made of articifial ingredients. There's a brand called Jarritos that isn't the greatest, but it's a lot healthier than Coca-Cola or Pepsi. And once again, a good portion of the cost would be the taxes (The tax would be $0.50 on something that costs only $1.50 for a 1.5 liter bottle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted May 31, 2012 Share #52 Posted May 31, 2012 And it's not like you have to have a Whole Foods or Trader Joe's in your neighborhood to get healthy food. Any supermarket always has healthy options available. The problem is that some areas are "food deserts" that only have corner delis, but even then, you could pick up healthy foods like rice and beans instead of going to a fried chicken place or McDonald's. Well there are plenty of folks like myself in Riverdale who go to the city to shop at Whole Foods, as I see the bags on the express buses coming home. Yeah maybe it is a schlepp for some but my health matters to me so I make the trip for quality food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted May 31, 2012 Share #53 Posted May 31, 2012 Well there are plenty of folks like myself in Riverdale who go to the city to shop at Whole Foods, as I see the bags on the express buses coming home. Yeah maybe it is a schlepp for some but my health matters to me so I make the trip for quality food. Would the poorer people who we are talking about do that for healthy food? Don't think so. "I don't think so. I mean, in some cases, the cost of the tax would be more than the cost of the actual product. I mean, a 3-liter bottle of store-brand soda costs in the $1.25 range at most stores. The tax would be $1.01. I mean, it's just not right that the cost of taxes should be close to the cost of the product (especially if it's not something like cigarettes where it affects everybody else's health). And aside from that, they wouldn't make any sort of distinction between the sodas that are somewhat healthy and those that are completely made of articifial ingredients. There's a brand called Jarritos that isn't the greatest, but it's a lot healthier than Coca-Cola or Pepsi. And once again, a good portion of the cost would be the taxes (The tax would be $0.50 on something that costs only $1.50 for a 1.5 liter bottle) " I never said that the soda tax would be perfect, but it's a start. If they wanted, they could only tax sodas with a certain amount of sugar per liter, for example. The tax doesn't have to be so high either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted May 31, 2012 Share #54 Posted May 31, 2012 Would the poorer people who we are talking about do that for healthy food? Don't think so. Well whose fault is that? I mean I have a supermarket down the street from me in Riverdale, but they don't carry everything I want so I go to Whole Foods instead. These folks don't care about their health and there is no one to blame but themselves for it. There are some that do make the trip, so it depends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted May 31, 2012 Share #55 Posted May 31, 2012 Well whose fault is that? I mean I have a supermarket down the street from me in Riverdale, but they don't carry everything I want so I go to Whole Foods instead. These folks don't care about their health and there is no one to blame but themselves for it. There are some that do make the trip, so it depends. Whose fault is it that these people can't afford to go to Manhattan on a regular basis to get healthy food? Or whose fault is it that the people won't bother to waste three hours just to get healthier food? The issue is that it's so difficult to find healthy food outside of Central Manhattan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted May 31, 2012 Share #56 Posted May 31, 2012 Whose fault is it that these people can't afford to go to Manhattan on a regular basis to get healthy food? Or whose fault is it that the people won't bother to waste three hours just to get healthier food? The issue is that it's so difficult to find healthy food outside of Central Manhattan. Oh please... That's a load of nonsense... There are plenty of health food stores on Staten Island and Brooklyn and even in the Bronx as well, so that's a lame excuse. I wonder how the folks that I see with foodstamps get to Whole Foods then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted June 1, 2012 Share #57 Posted June 1, 2012 They don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted June 1, 2012 Share #58 Posted June 1, 2012 Oh please... That's a load of nonsense... There are plenty of health food stores on Staten Island and Brooklyn and even in the Bronx as well, so that's a lame excuse. I wonder how the folks that I see with foodstamps get to Whole Foods then? There are plenty? How far away is the nearest one from where you live? You said your local supermarket doesn't have enough healthy food. And those people could work in Manhattan, for all you/I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 1, 2012 Share #59 Posted June 1, 2012 There are plenty? How far away is the nearest one from where you live? You said your local supermarket doesn't have enough healthy food. And those people could work in Manhattan, for all you/I know. No, what I said was that my supermarket doesn't offer some items that I want, not that they don't have enough healthy food. Two different things. The quality at Whole Foods is better IMO and also cheaper in some cases. They overcharge because they're the only market in Downtown Riverdale and they know that some folks will pay the prices because they have the money to burn. Me on the other hand I'm not going to ripped off just because I can afford it. And if they do work in Manhattan I don't see the point. I make trips to Whole Foods on the weekends when I'm off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted June 1, 2012 Share #60 Posted June 1, 2012 Well whose fault is that? I mean I have a supermarket down the street from me in Riverdale, but they don't carry everything I want so I go to Whole Foods instead. These folks don't care about their health and there is no one to blame but themselves for it. There are some that do make the trip, so it depends. Go into any poor neighborhood. Tell me if you see enough healthy choices. NO. Don't blame it on the poor; you have a tendency to do that. They're poor. they need to work to scrape together as much money as possible. That is just a misguided notion, I'm sure you've never had to really deal with true poverty. They do care about their health, they just can't afford to always make the best choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astoria Line Posted June 1, 2012 Share #61 Posted June 1, 2012 And it's not like you have to have a Whole Foods or Trader Joe's in your neighborhood to get healthy food. Any supermarket always has healthy options available. The problem is that some areas are "food deserts" that only have corner delis, but even then, you could pick up healthy foods like rice and beans instead of going to a fried chicken place or McDonald's. I don't think so. I mean, in some cases, the cost of the tax would be more than the cost of the actual product. I mean, a 3-liter bottle of store-brand soda costs in the $1.25 range at most stores. The tax would be $1.01. I mean, it's just not right that the cost of taxes should be close to the cost of the product (especially if it's not something like cigarettes where it affects everybody else's health). And aside from that, they wouldn't make any sort of distinction between the sodas that are somewhat healthy and those that are completely made of articifial ingredients. There's a brand called Jarritos that isn't the greatest, but it's a lot healthier than Coca-Cola or Pepsi. And once again, a good portion of the cost would be the taxes (The tax would be $0.50 on something that costs only $1.50 for a 1.5 liter bottle) Limiting food portions does help... We have caloric intake guides for a reason, which nearly 2/3rds of Americans don't follow... So about 66% of Americans are obese or overweight... As I've said before, many people qualify for foodstamps so the excuse of healthy food being too expensive is lame. I've seen plenty of people go to Whole Foods with food stamps, as Whole Foods and I believe Trader Joe's accepts food stamps, so there is no excuse. I would also like to add that preparing cooked meals can allow one to eat quite well at a reasonable cost. Now I'll admit that I spend a good $600.00 - $700.00 a month for food just for myself, but that's because I often times don't cook and get pre-made things from Whole Foods, though I do make my own spinach salads and such. That said, if one goes into Trader Joe's or even Whole Foods for the basics without the chips or cakes or anything, you can get plenty of food at a reasonable price. Some ppl may not have sources to healthy food or it may be out of their way.. I live in Springfield Gardens (which is considerably middle class), and there aren't many options here, primarily west indian food, with a bunch of chinese food places nd McDonald's and a few fried chicken places, but the closest supermarket is almost 1 mile away, it really depends on the neighborhood and circumstances in that type of a situation... Im fortunate enough that my family has a car and can easily go somewhere else in another neighborhood to get food, but others aren't so lucky... you have to take that into account... And you are considerably well off compared to others as well, not everyone is as lucky as you are... I say that more places that sell healthy foods should open in different neighborhoods that don't have options, if possible .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 1, 2012 Share #62 Posted June 1, 2012 Go into any poor neighborhood. Tell me if you see enough healthy choices. NO. Don't blame it on the poor; you have a tendency to do that. They're poor. they need to work to scrape together as much money as possible. That is just a misguided notion, I'm sure you've never had to really deal with true poverty. They do care about their health, they just can't afford to always make the best choices. Hey listen I've studied this issue a lot and some of them do care, but some of them don't and are just lazy. Just the way it is. Like I said, they have choices. When I was living in Italy for example, I had to pay for everything in dollars and the exchange rate for the Euro was a 1.42 at the time, so I was paying almost double for my food items. Guess what? I made it work. I didn't eat out all of the time and cooked at home sometimes. Maybe if these folks did that they could afford healthy food. Some ppl may not have sources to healthy food or it may be out of their way.. I live in Springfield Gardens (which is considerably middle class), and there aren't many options here, primarily west indian food, with a bunch of chinese food places nd McDonald's and a few fried chicken places, but the closest supermarket is almost 1 mile away, it really depends on the neighborhood and circumstances in that type of a situation... Im fortunate enough that my family has a car and can easily go somewhere else in another neighborhood to get food, but others aren't so lucky... you have to take that into account... And you are considerably well off compared to others as well, not everyone is as lucky as you are... I say that more places that sell healthy foods should open in different neighborhoods that don't have options, if possible .. Yes, but my point is that even folks who live in wealthy neighborhoods often travel far distances for healthy food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astoria Line Posted June 1, 2012 Share #63 Posted June 1, 2012 Hey listen I've studied this issue a lot and some of them do care, but some of them don't and are just lazy. Just the way it is. Like I said, they have choices. When I was living in Italy for example, I had to pay for everything in dollars and the exchange rate for the Euro was a 1.42 at the time, so I was paying almost double for my food items. Guess what? I made it work. I didn't eat out all of the time and cooked at home sometimes. Maybe if these folks did that they could afford healthy food. Yes, but my point is that even folks who live in wealthy neighborhoods often travel far distances for healthy food. I understand your point and it is true but MY point is that those in poorer neighborhoods don't have the opportunities or resources to get healthy food.. Many can't travel like you guys can... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted June 1, 2012 Share #64 Posted June 1, 2012 If anything, they should raise the price, taking the idea from what VG8 said above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 1, 2012 Share #65 Posted June 1, 2012 I understand your point and it is true but MY point is that those in poorer neighborhoods don't have the opportunities or resources to get healthy food.. Many can't travel like you guys can... Well that's interesting because some certainly make the trip to Whole Foods... If you go to the market once a week for groceries and can't afford $4.50 cents then something is wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted June 1, 2012 Share #66 Posted June 1, 2012 I never said that the soda tax would be perfect, but it's a start. If they wanted, they could only tax sodas with a certain amount of sugar per liter, for example. The tax doesn't have to be so high either. I'd just prefer a flat tax rate (maybe adjusted based on how healthy the soda is). So a 10% tax on a $1.25 bottle of soda would be $0.13, which is much more reasonable than $1.01. Some ppl may not have sources to healthy food or it may be out of their way.. I live in Springfield Gardens (which is considerably middle class), and there aren't many options here, primarily west indian food, with a bunch of chinese food places nd McDonald's and a few fried chicken places, but the closest supermarket is almost 1 mile away, it really depends on the neighborhood and circumstances in that type of a situation... Im fortunate enough that my family has a car and can easily go somewhere else in another neighborhood to get food, but others aren't so lucky... you have to take that into account... And you are considerably well off compared to others as well, not everyone is as lucky as you are... I say that more places that sell healthy foods should open in different neighborhoods that don't have options, if possible .. I don't see why you're bringing me into the conversation. In any case, my neighborhood isn't that well-served by supermarkets. I live about 1/2 mile from a supermarket, and there are plenty of people who live further, so a mile isn't out of the question. I understand your point and it is true but MY point is that those in poorer neighborhoods don't have the opportunities or resources to get healthy food.. Many can't travel like you guys can... Again, why are you bringing me into the conversation? All I'm saying is that every neighborhood has some kind of bodega or corner store or something where you could get some reasonably healthy food. Even if there aren't fresh fruits or vegetables, most stores carry canned beans or something to that effect that provide nutrition. Well that's interesting because some certainly make the trip to Whole Foods... If you go to the market once a week for groceries and can't afford $4.50 cents then something is wrong... Yes, something is wrong, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. Yes, there are people who can't afford the $4.50 a week to go to the supermarket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astoria Line Posted June 1, 2012 Share #67 Posted June 1, 2012 I'd just prefer a flat tax rate (maybe adjusted based on how healthy the soda is). So a 10% tax on a $1.25 bottle of soda would be $0.13, which is much more reasonable than $1.01. I don't see why you're bringing me into the conversation. In any case, my neighborhood isn't that well-served by supermarkets. I live about 1/2 mile from a supermarket, and there are plenty of people who live further, so a mile isn't out of the question. Again, why are you bringing me into the conversation? All I'm saying is that every neighborhood has some kind of bodega or corner store or something where you could get some reasonably healthy food. Even if there aren't fresh fruits or vegetables, most stores carry canned beans or something to that effect that provide nutrition. Yes, something is wrong, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. Yes, there are people who can't afford the $4.50 a week to go to the supermarket. I quoted the post you made by accident. Sorry. I only meant to quote VG8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilbluefoxie Posted June 1, 2012 Share #68 Posted June 1, 2012 bloomberg needs to stop with the nanny state mentality, if people wanna drink soda, its their choice. There's other ways to keep health care costs down that don't involve interfering with people's personal lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTARegional Bus Posted June 1, 2012 Share #69 Posted June 1, 2012 Go into any poor neighborhood. Tell me if you see enough healthy choices. NO. Don't blame it on the poor; you have a tendency to do that. They're poor. they need to work to scrape together as much money as possible. That is just a misguided notion, I'm sure you've never had to really deal with true poverty. They do care about their health, they just can't afford to always make the best choices. I live in Foxhurst and we have 2 supermarket all have healthy fruit and vegetables, is it fresh? nope but it good for you. sadly you don't see many people how are on food stamps which a lot of people around here have don't buy fruit and vegetables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted June 1, 2012 Share #70 Posted June 1, 2012 Hey listen I've studied this issue a lot and some of them do care, but some of them don't and are just lazy. Just the way it is. Like I said, they have choices. When I was living in Italy for example, I had to pay for everything in dollars and the exchange rate for the Euro was a 1.42 at the time, so I was paying almost double for my food items. Guess what? I made it work. I didn't eat out all of the time and cooked at home sometimes. Maybe if these folks did that they could afford healthy food. First of all, your math is way off, the exchange rate may be awful but something that costs $1.50 is not selling for €1.50, so while you're losing money it's nothing near double for all of your food. But the main point here is how out of touch you are. Your "studying" the poor is like something Mitt Romney would do, like buying a low-income "specimen" to examine. Regardless of how much you look at the issue, you are and will continue to be out of touch simply 'cause you're not living that way. I'm making ends meet for myself right now, some would say I'm blessed and some would say I'm impoverished, and that means that I'm out of touch with people who are doing better than me and those doing worse than me. So I don't pretend to be an expert on either of them. Also, there are no poor people at Whole Foods, I'm sorry, that's a fallacy. Stop trying to brand it as a beacon of socioeconomic diversity, cause it's far from it. You can't get more overpriced yuppie than Whole Foods...I've gone in there a few times and although the foods are good, the prices are ridiculous, and it's also far from the health food haven you make it out to be. Nobody goes there as a budget option. Regardless, the fact of the matter is this: you have to have money to be able to worry about whether what you're eating is healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted June 1, 2012 Share #71 Posted June 1, 2012 Whole Foods is almost as bad as Genuardi's out here in Philly. The problem is, in my neighborhood, there is no alternative to Genuardi's. So I'm forced to pay higher prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JubaionBx12+SBS Posted June 1, 2012 Share #72 Posted June 1, 2012 I don't want to read the whole thread to figure out how we went from the topic at hand to a discussion of poor people and Whole Foods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted June 1, 2012 Share #73 Posted June 1, 2012 And that's supposed to scare me? Chemistry is one of man's greatest achievements. No, but this will. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml_k005tsU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted June 1, 2012 Share #74 Posted June 1, 2012 First of all, your math is way off, the exchange rate may be awful but something that costs $1.50 is not selling for €1.50, so while you're losing money it's nothing near double for all of your food. But the main point here is how out of touch you are. Your "studying" the poor is like something Mitt Romney would do, like buying a low-income "specimen" to examine. Regardless of how much you look at the issue, you are and will continue to be out of touch simply 'cause you're not living that way. I'm making ends meet for myself right now, some would say I'm blessed and some would say I'm impoverished, and that means that I'm out of touch with people who are doing better than me and those doing worse than me. So I don't pretend to be an expert on either of them. Also, there are no poor people at Whole Foods, I'm sorry, that's a fallacy. Stop trying to brand it as a beacon of socioeconomic diversity, cause it's far from it. You can't get more overpriced yuppie than Whole Foods...I've gone in there a few times and although the foods are good, the prices are ridiculous, and it's also far from the health food haven you make it out to be. Nobody goes there as a budget option. Regardless, the fact of the matter is this: you have to have money to be able to worry about whether what you're eating is healthy. Uh let's see... If for every Euro, it takes about $1.42 US to get a Euro, plus the fees charged to me for the exchange (transaction fees), then yes, I am paying about double for everything, so my math is just fine, thank you. As for Whole Foods being healthy, it most certainly is healthy. Just because it is Whole Foods doesn't mean that they don't have desserts and things that are fattening. It just means that if I want that on occasion I can have it, but the majority of folks that shop there are educated enough to know that not every item sold there is completely healthy just because it is a natural or an organic product. In fact I read the ingredients list even harder to see what is in the products that I am buying because I want to know what I am eating and that's what many folks that shop there do. The difference there is that you can often times eat products that would thought to be "unhealthy" that can serve as a nutritious snack because of the healthy ingredients used. In other words, ingredients that are traditionally used in the typical processed cake or chips, will be changed with more healthier ingredients. Now when I go there I usually get a veggie burger with a salad, a few bottles of Perrier, yogurt and perhaps some organic fruit (blueberries and such). On occasion I'll treat myself to a bag of the "Food That Should Taste Good" chips or a slice of cake or something, but only once in a while. It's all about portion control and that's the main idea being pushed by Bloomberg with the soda initiative. As for poor people at Whole Foods, I'm not saying that there are hoards of poor people walking around with food stamps because that isn't the case. The food stamps types I see only on occasion. My point was that some poor people do shop there with their food stamps and most importantly that poor people DO have options and CAN eat healthy, so this idea of poor folks having to order these oversized drinks is a fallacy because it is not necessary. They are filling up on empty calories that is providing no nutritional value for them at all. Bloomberg spoke yesterday and said that the city is paying 4 billion dollars in healthcare costs annually and those costs continue to increase unnecessarily and those oversized drinks are exacerbating the problem. As for Whole Foods being overpriced that is simply not true. Some items are overpriced but that's with any store. The thing is Whole Foods is not the average supermarket and that's what people don't get. It is a specialty store which caters to those who want the very best products around. If I want organic yogurt from Iceland, Whole Foods has it. Organic orange juice from Italy.... Rare beers from Belgium... Whole Foods carries it. These aren't items that you're going to find everywhere, and that explains the higher costs... Imports cost more and organic products cost more because more human labor is involved. Organic products are usually sold in smaller quantities too, hence the higher price. The processed stuff meanwhile is cheap because a lot of it is machine made and sold in large quantities and the preservatives in them allow them to last for a long time, thus allowing the price to be lower, so if you really knew anything about food and cared about the quality of food you would understand what Whole Foods offers is the best quality for many products that it sells, many of which are well priced considering the quality you are getting. Finally, I will admit that when shopping at Whole Foods, I'm not necessarily worrying about how much the items will cost when they're rung up, but that doesn't mean that one cannot shop there on a budget. I have spent as little as $8.00 for a nice lunch (big vegetable salad), bottle of Perrier and another small side dish, so if a person is on food stamps or is poor, filling up on oversized sodas is an OPTION, not something that they have to do. The more I think about this proposal the more I support it. Not only are Americans becoming more obese, but New Yorkers are coming obese as well, which is scary because it is said that New Yorkers walk a lot and have the opportunity to get more exercise since many use public transit. Now those who say that the government is overstepping their boundaries, it's apparent that atleast half of the adults here in NYC are incapable of making proper decisions when it comes to eating properly and so on and those adults in turn are costing others to pay for their lack of judgement which is unacceptable. If they want to eat poorly, then they should pay for their own mistakes. Simple as that. The taxpayers and the city should not be on the hook, but unfortunately we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted June 1, 2012 Share #75 Posted June 1, 2012 $8.00 for lunch is a luxury for a lot of people. BTW, if Bloomberg banned your precious Perrier, what would you say then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.