The data presented in that link aren't conclusive. The CPI adjusted prices show a sharp rise in vegetable prices compared to snack foods, but the authors qualify with arguments about quality. After reading the paper, I'm left with a sense of ambiguity more so than the abstract would have one believe. But anyway, it doesn't matter. We're talking incentives, not absolute prices. Friedman was the one who stated that government's role in the economy should be to use taxes to incentiveize or disincentivize behaviors considered positive or negative, respectively. I'm not arguing that we should pay people to eat better. However, whether or not we should do that has little to do with the current market price of snacks vs. vegetables. Clearly, at current levels, our nutritional-social system is failing. I don't think you will find many health experts who think our trajectory is positive. There may be more to this trend than food, but food is an undeniable and significant major contributor. I think as the epidemiological evidence mounts, we will see public policy catch up to the reality that sugar is poisonous when consumed at the levels at which we consume it (made all the easier by massive subsidies to the corn producers). What our policy response will be is anyone's guess, but unless we want cardiovascular disease to consume an unreasonable percentage of GDP, some trends will have to be shifted.Yeah. Or maybe we could allow the market to continue to make all kinds of food, including fruits and vegetables, ever more convenient and affordable:
I suspect you refer to Figure 1. This graph shows the Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation-adjusted indexes for fruits and vegetables versus snack foods. The paper explains that this index is misleading because it compares 1980 apples to 2006 washed, peeled, sliced, packaged, organic apples. The BLS index does not track a standardized shopping list; it is proportional to the food that shoppers actually buy each month. The paper describes many changes in the typical shopping cart, all of them good news for fruit and veggie lovers: • Reduced seasonality (foods like strawberries were formerly unavailable much of the year — more accurately, they were prohibitively expensive to carry — now they are available much of the year) • Increased variety ("From 1987-97, produce departments nearly doubled the number of items sold") • More convenience (spinach, broccoli, and carrots are mostly sold already prepared; 69% of carrots sold are cut and peeled) These changes represent real increased value in the produce we take home. Oreos have not had an innovation since Double Stuf appeared in 1974. The obvious way to correct for these trends is to compare prices for whole, unprepared fruits and vegetables. USDA selected 11 fruits and vegetables "that were largely the same product in 1980 and 2006." These histories mostly look like this one for celery: This is from the same data set, but simply compares Red Delicious apples to Red Delicious apples over time rather than an evolving typical shopping cart. The only clear increased price was that of broccoli, and it turns out that BLS has a broader definition for this category, including "head broccoli (with stems), crowns, and bags of washed florets," so this index reflects the increased popularity of prepared food. Healthy food is not the only thing that is getting more abundant and affordable. Ice cream is too, and I don't see that as a terrible thing, though like anything else there are good and bad consequences. Information about nutrition is more available than ever before, and if it comes to that medical treatment for diabetes and heart disease is better and more widely distributed than it has ever been. You directly associate the nation's biggest food and health problem to federal policy. Why not advocate the No Policy option, and just let people buy groceries as they choose?The data presented in that link aren't conclusive. The CPI adjusted prices show a sharp rise in vegetable prices compared to snack foods, but the authors qualify with arguments about quality.
I'm not advocating anything, to be clear. I'm just advancing the idea that the status quo is unsustainable, and that there are problems with any alternative I can think of.You directly associate the nation's biggest food and health problem to federal policy. Why not advocate the No Policy option, and just let people buy groceries as they choose?
Okay, simply pointing out challenges without offering solutions is fine. It's just that when I read "The markets can't be trusted to be rational" I expect "Something must be done" to come next and I just want to keep doing nothing on the table.