Below is a startling image of how Americans are eating. In a world with so much variety, you’d think people would expand and try new things. Not so. This is a great read which was found in the Journals of Nutrition.
The trend toward lower-cost diets
Americans are consuming more refined carbohydrates, more added sugars, and more added fats. Total daily energy intakes increased by 300 kcal between 1985 and 2000. Refined grains accounted for 46% of the increase, added fats for 24%, and added sugars for another 23% . Growing consumption of foods away from home may have contributed to this trend. Generally, foods prepared away from home are higher in fat, sugar, and salt than are home-prepared foods. The percentage of spending on foods away from home rose from 25% in 1970 to 40% in 1995 . During that time, the proportion of meals and snacks eaten at fast-food restaurants increased by 200%. Added sugars and added fats, now accounting for close to 40% of daily energy intakes, help to keep down the cost of the American diet.
In contrast, the consumption of more expensive fruit increased by only 0.3 servings since the 1970s. In 2000 the food supply provided a daily average of 1.4 servings of fruit and fruit juices per person per day, and 3.8 servings of fresh and processed vegetables. Not surprisingly, the lowest-cost items continue to be consumed the most. Half of total fruit servings in 2000 were accounted for by only 6 items: orange juice (17%), bananas (9%), apple juice (8%), fresh apples (7%), fresh grapes (5%), and watermelon (4%). Low-cost potatoes (fresh, frozen, and potato chips), canned tomatoes, and iceberg lettuce accounted for 48% of total vegetable servings. The consumption of more nutrient-rich (but also more costly) leafy green vegetables was only 0.17 servings per day, whereas deep yellow vegetables added another 0.2 servings.
The proportion of disposable income spent on food continues to drop. In 1997 Americans spent 9.4% of income on food consumed at home and 4.1% on foods consumed away from home. Mean total expenditure on foods and beverages (including alcohol) was estimated at under $8.00 per person per day. However, some consumers were more price conscious than others. USDA data indicate that low-income families were more likely to consume lower-cost, energy-dense diets. Such diets tend to provide cheap energy from fat, sugar, cereals, protein, and low-cost meat products, but contain relatively little whole grains, vegetables, and fruit.
Energy density and diet cost
There are few observational studies relating dietary energy density to energy costs. In a study of UK women, Cade et al. found that diet quality, as measured by an index of fruit and vegetable intakes, was associated with higher diet costs. A study of French adults showed that higher fruit and vegetables intakes were associated with higher diet costs, after adjusting for energy in regression models. A Danish study showed that low-fat diets for children tended to cost more. However, there is no consensus on this issue. Two intervention studies in the U.S. claimed that the newly-adopted diets were not more expensive than the initial lower-quality diets and some actually cost less. Likewise, an intervention study in children showed that low-fat diets did not lead to increased food costs.
Conclusion
A focus on the economics of food choice is greatly overdue. The obesity literature has addressed many aspects of overconsumption of sugars and fats, without mentioning their very low cost. Among the suggested strategies for reducing the consumption of low-cost foods are taxes, levies, and outright bans. Whether such regressive tactics will steer low-income groups toward healthier amd more costly diets is an unresolved issue. We need more studies on diet quality and food costs on which to base responsible nutrition interventions and fiscal food policy.
Y’know two words come to mind when I think about this: Meat and Rice. It was a staple in our household for years and years. For 3 reasons. 1: It was cheap. 2: It was easy. 3: Everyone liked it.
One of the hardest things about switching from high sugar/high fat (though I have less problems with fats as long as they’re “good” fat. but I digress.) for most low income families is that not only does “healthier” food cost more but what if your family doesn’t like it? Costs more AND you end up throwing it away? Double whammy on not trying something new that’s for sure.
Further, most TV shows and/or cookbooks using “health” foods focus on difficult recipes or use really unusual or costly ingredients. I’d love to see grocery stores and producers team up to have in-store product tastings/cooking demonstrations on how best to use these healthier ingredients. That way, families could taste test’em right in the store and decide if they like them AND have a recipe to use when they get home.
And “sodas” should be outlawed.