In 2006 we consumed 138 fewer calories at home each day compared to 1978. At the same time we consumed 469 more calories away from home in 2006 compared to 2008 — totaling 18% more calories per day than 30 years ago.
As society became wealthier, families (mostly wives) began to specialize in productive activities other than cooking. Also as society became wealthier, families could also increase their consumption of food.
Obesity is a disease of wealthy societies. Indeed, in wealthy societies obesity is a bigger problem for the poor than hunger. Adding to the confusion is that poor families probably consumer a larger proportion of their daily calories at home compared to the non-poor. Yet the poor tend to weigh more than the non-poor who eat out more.
The problem isn’t where the meals are made, it’s how they are made. Most processed and fast food is an engineered product of fat, sugar and salt designed to make you overeat. David Kessler was right.
Was consumption adequate in the 1970s? Congress didn’t think so.
Lawmakers were so worried about people not having enough to eat in the early 1970s that they expanded the food stamp program throughout the decade. And it worked! Zagorsky and Smith found that food stamp use is associated with weight gain. The longer people are on the program, the higher their chances are of being obese.
What about all of the subsidies for corn products? We’re making soda and candy cheaper for people to eat.
I also think we’ve got a weird affinity for going out to eat. You never hear of anyone going of a first date to the gym. It’s always out to dinner. And drinks after.
Devon:
I am curious what you mean when you consider our society as “wealthier?”
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, median household income is $50,303.
That has dropped since 1998.
Go to: http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf.
Page 7
Don Levit
Studies from development economics show that caloric intake tends to rise with societal income. U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1978 was $2.3 trillion, while GPD per capita was $10,229. In 2006, U.S. GPD was $13.2 trillion, while GPD per capita was $44,155. During this period inflation rose by 309 percent, while food increased in price 289 percent. Some foods rose more slowly. A pound bag of potato chips increased about double.
The trend in the United States of people increasing their caloric intake as GDP rises (and the portion of household income needed to purchase food falls) is fairly typical and is taking place elsewhere around the world.
Throughout most of human history, merely obtaining enough food to survive took a significant amount of effort. As societies shift from agrarian societies to industrial societies, food production is mechanized. You could argue that some moderate-wage workers’ household income has not kept up with inflation – yet their caloric intake has not fallen. Some believe low-income people eat food as a form of cheap entertainment. The food stamp program undoubtedly encourages low-income households to consume more food than they otherwise would.
Source: nationmaster.com, BLS.gov
A nation of gluttons.
Joe, isn’t gluttony one of the seven deadly sins?
You people are too gloomy. I’m going to go eat a cheeseburger and fries.
In 2006 we consumed 138 fewer calories at home each day compared to 1978. At the same time we consumed 469 more calories away from home in 2006 compared to 2008 — totaling 18% more calories per day than 30 years ago.
As society became wealthier, families (mostly wives) began to specialize in productive activities other than cooking. Also as society became wealthier, families could also increase their consumption of food.
Obesity is a disease of wealthy societies. Indeed, in wealthy societies obesity is a bigger problem for the poor than hunger. Adding to the confusion is that poor families probably consumer a larger proportion of their daily calories at home compared to the non-poor. Yet the poor tend to weigh more than the non-poor who eat out more.
Just an ordinary cheeseburger, Ken? Not a quarter pounder? Or a double quarter pounder? With extra large fries???
The problem isn’t where the meals are made, it’s how they are made. Most processed and fast food is an engineered product of fat, sugar and salt designed to make you overeat. David Kessler was right.
Was consumption adequate in the 1970s? Congress didn’t think so.
Lawmakers were so worried about people not having enough to eat in the early 1970s that they expanded the food stamp program throughout the decade. And it worked! Zagorsky and Smith found that food stamp use is associated with weight gain. The longer people are on the program, the higher their chances are of being obese.
What about all of the subsidies for corn products? We’re making soda and candy cheaper for people to eat.
I also think we’ve got a weird affinity for going out to eat. You never hear of anyone going of a first date to the gym. It’s always out to dinner. And drinks after.
Devon:
I am curious what you mean when you consider our society as “wealthier?”
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, median household income is $50,303.
That has dropped since 1998.
Go to:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf.
Page 7
Don Levit
Studies from development economics show that caloric intake tends to rise with societal income. U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1978 was $2.3 trillion, while GPD per capita was $10,229. In 2006, U.S. GPD was $13.2 trillion, while GPD per capita was $44,155. During this period inflation rose by 309 percent, while food increased in price 289 percent. Some foods rose more slowly. A pound bag of potato chips increased about double.
The trend in the United States of people increasing their caloric intake as GDP rises (and the portion of household income needed to purchase food falls) is fairly typical and is taking place elsewhere around the world.
Throughout most of human history, merely obtaining enough food to survive took a significant amount of effort. As societies shift from agrarian societies to industrial societies, food production is mechanized. You could argue that some moderate-wage workers’ household income has not kept up with inflation – yet their caloric intake has not fallen. Some believe low-income people eat food as a form of cheap entertainment. The food stamp program undoubtedly encourages low-income households to consume more food than they otherwise would.
Source: nationmaster.com, BLS.gov