Today's Wall Street Journal reports that consumer spending on food registered the steepest drop we've seen since the government started collecting statistics 62 years ago. That's not just restaurant spending, although that did fall sharply, but a series of shifts towards eating at home, preparing cheaper foods, and buying cheaper brands of the same foods. Cheap staples like milk and eggs rose slightly, while meat, sweets, and alcohol all fell.
The move towards "affordable luxury" foodstuffs has been one of the great trends of the last twenty years. Grocery stores everywhere have gotten unbelievably better than they used to be, with produce and freezer sections exploding, and canned goods retreating in importance. I'm always shocked, reading old cookbooks, to see ingredients now regarded as downmarket, like canned shrimp, appearing in recipes designed for formal dinner parties served by hired staff. And one of my favorite cookbooks, the 1950 Betty Crocker Picture Cookbook, frequently makes references to recipes being "economical" in ways that don't make sense without hard thought. When was the last time you saw a middle-class woman--the target market for the book--worry about the cost of the eggs or milk in an 8" layer cake?
In comparison to my grandparents, who rarely ate out and never bought a brand name if something else was cheaper, the normal life of a not-particularly-well-off urban thirtysomething seemed positively sybaritic. Three restaurant meals in one week? Drinks out every other evening? Gourmet tea? And what about all the prepared meals--the takeout, the rotisserie chickens, the $5 containers of Wegmans soup? But without a wife at home, who has time to make meals from scratch?
Lots of people, it turns out. They also have time to make sandwiches for work instead of buy them, and comparison shop for better deals on what they do bring home. And looking at the list of what America is cutting back on, I wonder if we'll see a reversal of another trend: America's growing waistline. There is a school of thought which says that the reason Americans are getting fatter is not so much the absolute price of food as the kind of food we consume--what Seth Roberts calls "ditto foods". These are commercially prepared foods which have high calorie density and are what some scientists call "hyperpalatable"--i.e. extremely flavorful. They're also carefully prepared to ensure that they taste virtually the same every time. The easy availability of these foods causes our bodies to kick up our "set point"--what our bodies naturally want us to weigh. Our appetite regulation mechanisms do the rest
Home prepared meals are much less standardized, and not so fined tuned to hit the salty/sweet/fatty buttons over and over. Also, much of the shopping is done for them when you aren't actually hungry, and so you're likely to pick healthier foods with lower caloric density--committing your future self to behave more virtuously than it probaby would decide to on the spur of the moment. A leaner wallet may mean a leaner you.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
A leaner wallet may mean a leaner you.
Yes, we're tightening our belts.
A leaner wallet may mean a leaner you.
And the workhouses will take care of the rest. (It's on Page 34 of the Cato Liberty and Freedom Recovery Plan).
Megan,
The prices at my favorite restaurant are down 20%. Items that used to be 23 are now 18.
I also have a friend in the restaurant biz who says wholesale prices are down considerably. Just look at the price of milk:
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/DA/W
Down from 21 to 11.
There isn't much evidence to suggest that less money will lead tor educed obesity. In fact, the general trend is the opposite - malnourishment and obesity tend to go hand in hand.
Part of the reason for that is that a lot of fattening foods tend to be the cheaper ones (e.g. pasta). It costs more to buy produce, meat, fresh dairy, etc. han a lot of the processed and calorie dense crap that passes for food these days.
I'd tend to agree w/ Michael. Look at McDonald's value menu and their 4Q profits. As mony gets tight, will those affected be more likely to bulk shop for food or eat dollar meals?
While we're at it, shouldn't we short-sell publishers who foist diet books on an unsuspecting public?
Yeah, I think we'd really have to head into serious depression territory for obesity rates to start falling. Thankfully, congress is doing its part.
Old trip to Costco: "wow, let's buy lots of ribs and steak to cook on the grill this weekend!"
New trip to Coscto: "wow, look at the 25 pound bag of dried pinto beans! I'm making vegetarian chili this month!"
Two years ago, I moved to a different LA suburb. I started shopping at a Mexican supermarket because it was cheap and because it was close. In the intervening period, it has been very interesting to watch the demographics of my fellow shoppers change. It was once almost exclusively Latino; now it remains predominantly latino, but there is a significant mix of white, black, and asian there.
Jenny Craig on shortnin' bread? Not an obvious slimming outcome.
A leaner wallet may mean a leaner you.
Maybe. Although if you're trying to eat healthy, and you don't have tons of time to prepare meals, your grocery bill adds up quickly. I find myself often doing the calculation that a double cheeseburger from McDonald's ($1.25 or so with tax here in Boston) costs only half of what a good quality can of tuna (tonno in olive oil) goes for. And I'm not talking Whole Foods prices, either.
But without a wife at home, who has time to make meals from scratch?
With the sudden diagnosis of a probable food allergy in my child and a requirement to put him on a strictly controlled diet to try to identify the allergen, I have been forced into doing that for nearly every meal (have you ever tried to find processed foods, or meals out, that are barren of corn, dairy, soy, or eggs?).
Tonight we are having fish filets wrapped in bacon and stuffed with sauteed onions, cracker meal, and herbs. You could definitely get fat on it because it's going to be that good.
Staying thin is easy: dump mainly fruits, vegetables, and whole grains down your gullet and put in time on the treadmill.
Dead simple.
Has nothing to do with the current economic condition.
A leaner wallet may mean a leaner you.
I'm going to guess the opposite will be true. Food decisions are based on a tradeoffs between taste, price, convenience, and healthiness. If price becomes more significant a factor, then people will trade lower price for a reduction in some other aspect of the food's quality; unless the reductions all come from convenience and taste, some people are going to be eating less healthy food, thus more weight gain.
"When was the last time you saw a middle-class woman--the target market for the book--worry about the cost of the eggs or milk in an 8" layer cake?"
I am old enough to remember the 1970's when the price and affordibility of beef was one of the metrics that people used to determine the state of the economy and quality of life. I had forgotten until I went to the Reagan Presidential Library several years ago and saw their exhibit portraying the state of the country when Reagan was elected. It used to be considered a luxury to buy beef (steak, a roast, etc.). Over the last 25 years I never heard anyone even mention it. Our standard of living really did go up despite the alleged stagnation of wages because the real cost of things like steak went down. There is a great discussion of this in "Myths of Rich and Poor" by Cox and Alm. I sincerely hope that we are not moving toward a time in which people need to be concerned about the cost of food. I would rather have an abundance of affordable food and take my chances with exercise.
I find myself often doing the calculation that a double cheeseburger from McDonald's costs only half of what a good quality can of tuna (tonno in olive oil) goes for.
Don't forget sardines. They're cheaper and healthier than tuna with no overfishing concerns. I kind of have a craving now. Though I will say, McD's double cheeseburgers are pretty tasty.
We're still making ice-cream from last summer's strawberries and eating last autumn's apples. Our bottled cherries aren't finished yet and we have a few stored squashes uneaten. We still have leeks and Jerusalem artichokes to crop. The new season's rhubarb will soon be ready. Our garden is located on the Moral High Ground.
This happened to me last year when I lost my job. We went on a strict budget and cooked nearly every meal for 10 months. Result? I lost about 25 pounds and we ate very very well. I don't miss the takeout and restaurant food at all, not when I have loads of fresh vegetables and fresh baked bread. I never knew that beans could be so tasty, or that homemade soups and tomato sauces beat the pants off store-bought stuff.
I could stand to be leaner, so it would be great if this worked for us. But we already eat most of our meals at home. Due to husband's food allergies/pickiness, it's easier and more preferable for him to eat at home. I like to cook, so that works out well.
We did find out that downsizing our portions makes a difference in our waistlines. We started to focus on what a portion should look like, ate that, and found we spent way less on food.
Don't forget sardines. They're cheaper and healthier than tuna with no overfishing concerns.
Funny you should mention sardines. A friend was telling me just the other night how she buys sardines all the time, and how much she loves them.
I am old enough to remember the 1970's when the price and affordibility of beef was one of the metrics that people used to determine the state of the economy and quality of life.
Hamburger helper, when you need a helping hand.
I've cut way back on beef myself. It's not so much that it's utterly unaffordable, it's that cuts worth eating are.
I have to agree with those who do NOT think leaner wallets lead to leaner people. Cheap food is fattening. Beans, pasta, ramen, cheap bread, cheap soups and casseroles to stretch meat are all bad for you, often spiking insulin levels and usually full of empty calories, but they are usually tasty and filling. Fresh meat and vegetables, good fats, TRUE whole grains and fresh fruit are all a lot more expensive than their cheaper carby cousins. All in all, that's a good thing - I would rather live in a society where cheap food leads to obesity than one where real hunger and starvation are the only exception to good whole food. But I don't think it's accurate at all to think that spending less on food will result in healthier choices. When I graduated from college I was pretty broke and lived on ramen, beans and mac and cheese. My grocery bill was tiny, but I gained almost 20 pounds.
Fresh meat and vegetables, good fats, TRUE whole grains and fresh fruit are all a lot more expensive than their cheaper carby cousins.
You don't need to eat fresh anything for it to be healthy. Frozen fruits and veggies generally provide more nutrients than the fresh produce at most supermarkets that's picked unripe a week prior. Canned fruit is good if you're not buying it in heavy syrup. Many kinds of fresh produce are extremely cheap as well, lettuce, onions, bell pepper to name a few. Beans, brown rice and lentils happen to be very good for you and very cheap. There are plenty of ways to prepare cheap cuts of meat that end up pretty good, and they aren't so fattening you can't eat them.
I will admit that many of the very good foods that are cheap happen to be very fattening. However, I've found that the expensive foods I think are really tasty happen to be fattening as well.
I'm going to third the folks above who disagree that leaner wallets lead to leaner people. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a higher incidence of obesity among the poor than among other economic classes, since high-calorie foods are so plentiful and cheap in America. Think of how many calories you can take in with $5 at McDonald's.
Where I live, it doesn't seem like the higher-end restaurants are struggling. My guess is that the really expensive, luxury specialty product stores are getting hammered though -- the store with the French name that sells tiny tubes of $10 hand cream, the gourmet tea store that sells tea for $3 per ounce, etc.
Yes, when you're facing foreclosure, it's amazing where you will look to save money. If a family can't afford medical care for their own children, you can bet they've streamlined their food spending a long time ago. I also wonder, if/when the economy "recovers" to some extent, if previous spending habits will come back. I've been without any TV reception for a few months now. At first, I couldn't believe I was willing to stop my TV reception. Now, even if my economic situation improves, I will be in no hurry to restore my TV reception; my news and entertainment needs are satisfied quite well on the Internet. Might Starbucks also be a phenomenon of the past?
I think it's time to short Megan McArdle stock. The grapevine has it that she's getting passed over for token conservative slot on the editorial pages of the New York Slimes ( not that she's really conservative, but neither was Bill Kristol).
Too bad she's not smart enough to realize that that's actually a GOOD thing. I know first hand that it's hard to live with the regret of youthful errors in thinking, especially when published for the whole world to see. When those errors cause real damage to real people, the regret multiplies.
Walter Williams went to The U. of Chicago just as Megan did, but he didn't stop learning about economics when he graduated. Now he's not only wiser, he's nationally syndicated. Megan could have a worse role model.
"But without a wife at home, who has time to make meals from scratch?"
God, college educated women are the most sexist people around. How about "spouse" instead of "wife". Why would you assume the wife would do the cooking. I was an at home Dad when our kids were young, so we rarely ate out. We still don't eat out much, since I prefer to cook, even after getting home from work. Many soups, stir fry's and pasta dishes don't take long to make from scratch. Generally less time than it takes to go to a restaurant and wait for your food.
Americans are getting fatter is not so much the absolute price of food as the kind of food we consume--what Seth Roberts calls "ditto foods". These are commercially prepared foods which have high calorie density and are what some scientists call "hyperpalatable"--i.e. extremely flavorful. They're also carefully prepared to ensure that they taste virtually the same every time. --MM
'prepared' may be the wrong word choice, 'Manufactured', I'd think, is more apt.
the "Scientists" should well, and truly know--Whole Corporate R&D Labs, and Decades of Time, have been devoted to the artificial enhancement of Processed Foods..
Many of those 'enhancements'--HFCS, MSG as, but, two examples, have well documented effects on the Human Body and one's 'appetite' for those pHoods adulterated by them..
This is an interesting topic, though the professed take is oblique..
we should remember "Home Economics", and at the minimum, recollect that it is a stated redundancy..
Mark, home ec got streamlined out of scbools a couple of decades ago. Sad really, because I think our families could use improvement in a lot of skills that used to be taught. It would be better for everyone.
kentuckyliz,
sorry if my stated point too droll in fashion..
your observation was my, unsaid, point, along with:
The term economics comes from the Ancient Greek οἰκονομία (oikonomia, "management of a household, administration") from οἶκος (oikos, "house") + νόμος (nomos, "custom" or "law"), hence "rules of the house(hold)".[2]
Bearded Spock writes: "I think it's time to short Megan McArdle stock. The grapevine has it that she's getting passed over for token conservative slot on the editorial pages of the New York Slimes ( not that she's really conservative, but neither was Bill Kristol)."
My guess is that it will be Frum. He has the credentials on both the right (Bush speechwriter) and left (Palin-hater), and he'd be mostly inoffensive to the Times readership; when it comes to throwing paleos under the bus, he beat Megan to the punch by about, what, 5 years or so?
He also happens to be a very eloquent and lucid writer who is generally worth the read even if you (as I do) dislike his actual opinions.
Discussing who's going to get onto the NYT editorial page is only slightly more relevant than discussing who's going to replace Alice on the Lawrence Welk Show.
Anyway, to one of the FOOD points:
"I'm always shocked, reading old cookbooks, to see ingredients now regarded as downmarket, like canned shrimp, appearing in recipes designed for formal dinner parties served by hired staff."
On the other hand, I cooked an elaborate meal* out of a 1950s Belgian cookbook a couple of years ago (American book about Belgian food, that is) and what struck me was how much more of certain meats was available to June Cleaver then, because she had real butchers, not supermarket meat departments. She was assumed to be able to get lamb brains, eels (skinned for her), rabbit ("use an older hare, they have more flavor"), all kinds of stuff you'd be lucky to find at an Asian market now.
Incidentally, anyone interested in that era of cooking should read the new bio of Clementine Paddleford, who was a prominent writer about regional cooking from the 40s to the 60s. Really interesting as a picture of how a career gal made it in an era when the women's magazine, at least initially, were dominated by mostly male "experts," not women who actually knew what women wanted.
* If you really want to see it all, google "Belgian dinner experiment"
Mike G writes: "Discussing who's going to get onto the NYT editorial page is only slightly more relevant than discussing who's going to replace Alice on the Lawrence Welk Show."
True, but it's a lot more interesting than Megan's topic or the one you mentioned.
Despite uncharacteristic weekend postings last Sunday, my guess is that Megan's going to take it easy until Monday (hopefully despondently ruminating on her obvious hypocrisy vis a vis Kling and Ron Paul). After all, if she's really out of running for a new gig, what's the point in actually making an effort at her current job?
To me that says that this is an unofficial weekend open thread, so go suck a lemon cooking boy.
Jim, I was comparing our curent era to the 1950s--when almost everyone had a wife at home, not a husband.
"hopefully despondently ruminating on her obvious hypocrisy vis a vis Kling and Ron Paul"
Oh well...
A family that eats together also statistically does better. There are lots of good benefits from making dinner at home.
Kentuckyliz & Mark E. Hoffer -- you're both right, home economics should be taught in school. I might add courses in basic budgeting and accounting, and a return of industrial arts, and more art and music.
I'd probably replace some of the classes focused on reading classic literature and writing essays with a journalism class focused on stories under 600 words and one longer, investigative piece.
Finally, I'd give a get-out-of-school free card to juniors and seniors who'd passed a competency test and had a job or school to move on to.
It's not too late to short most everything. No, on second thought don't. Hope is a strategy!
Too bad she's not smart enough to realize that that's actually a GOOD thing. I know first hand that it's hard to live with the regret of youthful errors in thinking, especially when published for the whole world to see. When those errors cause real damage to real people, the regret multiplies.
What about the error of not applying that acquired wisdom in one's later years, instead haunting a comment forum to do it all over again?
"Haunting"? I guess that's a fair comment considering the ghost-writing, and the Ghost of Christmas Past style warning. It doesn't make me wrong though.
"My guess is that it will be Frum. He has the credentials on both the right (Bush speechwriter) and left (Palin-hater), and he'd be mostly inoffensive to the Times readership; when it comes to throwing paleos under the bus, he beat Megan to the punch by about, what, 5 years or so?"
Good point. Personally, I'd think they'd be smarter to get P.J. O'Rourke(but if they were smart, they wouldn't be the NYT). Like our favorite younger and more feminine mick, he has solid neocon credentials (former Maoist, draft-dodging war booster) and cosmotard connections (CATO). And--this is important-- he's funnier than the little frummer boy, too. I don't think it will happen because they have to keep pretending that they want serious analysis.
How to cut your food bill in half courtesy of Mother Earth News.
Here's a thought: Ben Stein. His economic and financial advice had been every bit as disastrous as Kristol's foreign policy advice and he's a Christ-killer (kidding! Everyone knows it was the wops that killed Jesus).
If you have a Safeway card, you can get a Banquet spaghetti and meatballs dinner for $1.00.
You can't take a deep whiff in the deli aisle for that at Whole Foods.
aMouseforallSeasons, you talking about Granny wisdom?
Works for me.
But I prefer my gray-beard guidance with a gender bias lately. Not quite sure why. . .'cept for whose been driving the cart. And that awful display by Congressional Republicans other then my two Senators and the Senator from Pennsylvania.
Damn, I forgot about Stein's Intelligent Design heresy. That's a bigger deal-breaker than Megans's rumored lesbian affair with Kerry Howley (kidding! It was her necrophilia with the corpse of Milton Friedman that did her in).
On a high food budget, you can eat healthily (fresh fruit out of season, pricey organic restaurant, lots of lean meat and fish) or poorly/high calorie (pricey sports bar food, lots of store-bought bakery, high end ice cream.
On a small food budget, you can also eat healthily (slow-cooking cuts of meat, potatoes, vegetables/fruits either frozen or fresh like carrots, cabbage, apples; no restaurant food; non-meat sandwiches) or poorly/high calorie: McDonald's, sugary cereal, chips and dip, pop).
The difficulty is that cheap, nutritious food isn't as tasty as either expensive food or cheap
fattening/low-food value food. It takes a little practice to plan it and cook it. And I say this as someone who ADORES chips and dip.
PS -- the solution to the complaint that "cheap food makes me fat" is to EAT LESS OF IT.
Where did everyone else hear that Megan is up for a NYT gig? I've only heard it in the comments section. What do you people know that I don't?
She WAS up for the gig. Now the same sources who told us she was in consideration tell us she's out of it. We don't know why, which is what we're guessing about.
Going the other direction --
I made a deliberate and, this time, successful effort to eat less last year, starting in May. The point was to lose weight, not to save money, and indeed I did lose weight, 48 lbs, taking me from a BMI of obese 30.1 to healthy 22.
Our grocery bill went down, too. I'm embarrassed to say that, although I have a husband and three kids, I now buy, prepare, and serve about a third less food than I did before deciding to stop eating so much. (I already had a balanced diet and pretty much cut back everywhere -- I didn't specifically give up sweets or go low carb or low fat, just less of everything. Smaller dinner plates were key.)
I'm not sure that the causality will go the other way -- that having less money to spend on food means people who eat too many calories (empty or otherwise) will make changes that will cause them to cut back on calories (empty first). But it does seem to recommend another good reason for people to try to quit the overeating habit.
A sudden loss of wealth (like say, I don't know...home equity or a job) is likely to trigger the survival instincts, one of which is eating like there's no tomorrow (because there might not be).
Weight loss will not occur for the vast majority of us because of diminished financial circumstances, at least not until they are severely diminished. Haiti, for example, don't have much of an obesity problem but many homeless people in the USA do.
"doesn't have." Bearded Spock regrets the embarrassing grammatical error.
"Where did everyone else hear that Megan is up for a NYT gig? I've only heard it in the comments section. What do you people know that I don't?"
Unlike Bearded Spock, I don't claim to have any inside sources, but Michael Calderone of Politico wrote the following earlier this year:
"The Times has drawn criticism ever since installing Kristol on the op-ed page, and lately there's been speculation about whether he'd continue once his one-year contract was up. Both Kristol and editorial page editor Andy Rosenthal wouldn't talk in recent weeks about the columnist's future at the paper.
It remains to be seen if Rosenthal fills the spot with a conservative or libertarian voice. But some of the writers he's spoken favorably of include the National Review's Byron York and The Atlantic's Megan McArdle."
Interestingly enough, York has left NRO to become the political reporter for the DC examiner. He's not known for his editorializing, and he's more akin to a Robert Novak or the right's version of a Marc Ambinder.
Despite my chronic kvetching about her, I would like to see Megan get Kristol's gig. After all, she's a New York girl and... well... how can I put this... someone not inclined to write a whole lot about Israel. Still, I'm not a regular times reader, and nobody really gives a shit what I think.
I have reason to believe that my information is accurate, but if it turns out not to be, I will reveal my source so that you can see that I wasn't just spreading wild rumors.
Nobody gives a shit what I think, either, but I honestly don't think our girl is ready for that high of a profile gig just yet. I hope when she is ready though, that she'll get one at a better outlet than the Times. Carlos Slim is stinking up the place even worse than it was.
First, I found myself getting more and more generic brands. Then, I found myself shopping more and more at Aldi, which is much cheaper than Wal-Mart or Target. Then, I started using a chain near Philly called Produce Junction in combination with Aldi. Really, really cheap produce.
I find I buy more groceries with Aldi and Produce Junction but my dollar goes much further. We are eating out much less and saving a lot of money.
It is amazing how much money you can save when you commit to being really cheap.
Do you see any difference between Aldi and Wal Mart or Target? Do you notice any difference between the generic and the branded food? I'm never understood why more people don't already shop as you say you now shop.
Re: Do you see any difference between Aldi and Wal Mart or Target?
Aldi is not a very large store (at least the one near me is not). They only carry basics. There are all sorts of things you cannot find in an Aldi.
I second jt007 - I remember feeling richer-than-the-cashflow in my 70s childhood because WE ate steaks every Saturday night; my grandfather still kept beef cattle and we got half a steer a year. That meant we also ate a lot of pot roasts, hamburgers, meatloaves (which looks really funny when you type it, but it's correct), etc.
My father paid for the butchering/wrapping and "transportation," which was a late Fall trip to visit my grandfather and bring back the meat.
"But without a wife at home, who has time to make meals from scratch? "
I know right!
Just kidding.
(not really)
Well, there are differences between Aldi and Wal Mart. About 90+ percent of what Aldi carries is their own generic brands. But the quality of what they have is pretty good.
They have a limited selection and don't accept credit cards. That produces a lot of savings for them.
I'm never understood why more people don't already shop as you say you now shop.
For me, it was certainly more convenient to just go to the supermarket where they have everything. Once my wife and I started paying attention to the grocery bill, we noticed that the smaller stores are much cheaper. There's a great market for fresh produce, that's half the price as a supermarket. However, most of the non-product items are a lot more expensive. What I ended up noticing is how much the supermarket marks up things like milk and eggs. Trader Joe's always has milk and eggs available for the "once every two months" price at the supermarket. Quite a few of their other items cost far less than the supermarket as well.
Even so, the supermarket is full of great bargains. I find it's best for things you can stock up on when it's on sale, store brand items and frozen goods. All of these markets are within a mile of each other, so all it takes is a little extra time and planning.
Re: They have a limited selection and don't accept credit cards.
The one near me does take plastic.
I think that instead of getting "leaner," the opposite might actually happen as some pointed out. Cheap food tends to be highly processed. Even something like canned fruit is generally processed in high fruitose corn syrup and isn't very good for you. As more people at the bottom end of the income scale find themselves experiencing economic distress, I think that you'll find America's waistlines expanding even more. I think that wealth in this country should really be measured by how fit you are. Wealthier people in the country have time to work out on a daily basis and can afford health club memberships and personal trainers. They can also shop at places like Whole Foods, which generally have healthier selections. I don't think that anyone in Obama's Hyde Park neighborhood has even tasted canned fruit.
Illinidiva ,
"Wealthier people in the country have time to work out on a daily basis" - do you have any data to back that up? Every study I've read indicates that hours worked and income is highly correlated, even on a per hour basis.
Not any actual evidence, but I do have quite a bit of anecdotal evidence from living in a fairly upscale area of the suburbs near the city. There are four or so gyms in a few blocks of each other. I very much doubt that this is case in a small town in Missouri. It seems that most wealthy professional people pride staying fit and having good bodies and are willing to put that ahead of other things (like say their own kids).
There are four or so gyms in a few blocks of each other.
That just means that a lot of wealthier people have plenty of money to spend on a monthly gym membership they don't use.
"(like say their own kids)."
Yeh, they are fat and out of shape because they love their kids so much - yeh sure...
More like they are too in love with their tv and sofa.
the "Scientists" should well, and truly know--Whole Corporate R&D Labs, and Decades of Time, have been devoted to the artificial enhancement of Processed Foods..
Also known as cooking.
Many of those 'enhancements'--HFCS, MSG as, but, two examples, have well documented effects on the Human Body and one's 'appetite' for those pHoods adulterated by them..
Every food has effects on the human body and your appetite. Stop eating food and you'll see what I mean.
"That just means that a lot of wealthier people have plenty of money to spend on a monthly gym membership they don't use."
They also use the gym quite often... That place is always bustling around 6 to 7 at night.
""(like say their own kids)."
Yeh, they are fat and out of shape because they love their kids so much - yeh sure...
More like they are too in love with their tv and sofa."
There is a segment of the American professional class that uses kids as props and values other things ahead of them. I'm sorry that this offends you, but it is pretty true. Like that moron on Wife Swap a few weeks ago, Stephen Fowler or something, and his vapid wife.
"That just means that a lot of wealthier people have plenty of money to spend on a monthly gym membership they don't use."
They also use the gym quite often... That place is always bustling around 6 to 7 at night.
""(like say their own kids)."
Yeh, they are fat and out of shape because they love their kids so much - yeh sure...
More like they are too in love with their tv and sofa."
There is a segment of the American professional class that uses kids as props and values other things ahead of them. I'm sorry that this offends you, but it is pretty true. Like that moron on Wife Swap a few weeks ago, Stephen Fowler or something, and his vapid wife.
Posted by Tracy W | February 17, 2009 5:18 AM
Tracy,
right you are, I remember, well, stoking the fires 'neath my Grandma's Oil Hydrogenation vats, and running the treads, providing the pressure, for her HFCS distillation columns--thanks for the jog..
your rejoinder is too cute..to compare Industrial Processed Foods, the growing majority of which are from genetically-modified seedstock, laced with the 'Chem Lab''s finest new-fangled molecules, to the thousands of years of our Cooking history is, rather, too far a stretch..
Pray tell, do disclose that you/yours are duly Employed by the Food Adulterating/Health Destroying Complex..
and, to continue:
For the first time, researchers say they have detected traces of the silvery metal in samples of high-fructose corn syrup, a widely used sweetener that has replaced sugar in many processed foods. The study was published Monday in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health.
Eating high-mercury fish is the chief source of exposure for most people. The new study raises concerns about a previously unknown dietary source of mercury, which has been linked to learning disabilities in children and heart disease in adults.
The source of the metal appears to be caustic soda and hydrochloric acid, which manufacturers of corn syrup use to help convert corn kernels into the food additive.
A handful of plants across the nation still make the soda and acid by mixing a briny solution in electrified vats of mercury. Some of the toxic metal ends up in the final product, according to industry documents cited in the study.
http://www.physorg.com/news152264729.html
http://www.icerocket.com/search?tab=web&fr=h&q=corn+syrup+mercury
reality deniers harm many more than, solely, themselves..