> But in a way , cheaper is always better. Nutritious food is also cheap, relatively, unless the "nutritiousness" of it is also a price differentiator.
Well, to get things into perspective, one needs to consider a few things.
We start from the fact that there is a disproportionate amount of people living on food stamps, which will be effectively forced to buy junk food.
Then we factor in that junk food is harmful (not just unhealthy or less nutritious).
Finally, we correlate with a huge amount of people having disease which are linked to unhealthy lifestyles, primarily food-related (60% obese people is the very general guideline given).
I see a very strong thread here.
Food is not just calories, it's a complex mix of things - the way the industry is working, in a way, it's giving cheaper food by stripping that mix of things; this doesn't match the idea of "making food cheaper" in a generic way.
(Note that I'm strongly identifying junk food with processed food in the logic).
Well, to get things into perspective, one needs to consider a few things.
We start from the fact that there is a disproportionate amount of people living on food stamps, which will be effectively forced to buy junk food.
Then we factor in that junk food is harmful (not just unhealthy or less nutritious).
Finally, we correlate with a huge amount of people having disease which are linked to unhealthy lifestyles, primarily food-related (60% obese people is the very general guideline given).
I see a very strong thread here.
Food is not just calories, it's a complex mix of things - the way the industry is working, in a way, it's giving cheaper food by stripping that mix of things; this doesn't match the idea of "making food cheaper" in a generic way.
(Note that I'm strongly identifying junk food with processed food in the logic).