| > Healthy food, grown naturally, not sprayed with chemicals, harvested in the last week, is just not a cost-effective plan for them. It's not just "not cost-effective", it's not technically feasible. Do you want to grow enough food to feed maybe a couple of dozen people and spend every waking minute doing it, or do you want to scale out to feed everyone including the vast majority of the population who do no useful work? |
| |
| ▲ | charlieyu1 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Overtaxation, less disposable income. | |
| ▲ | pil0u 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In 50 years, the proportion of the budget allocated to food, halved. I'm not saying everyone can have the choice to eat healthy, but probably a small majority has. I live in an area where small, local, sometimes organic producers are gathered to sell their product to the community in a way it is accessible to every budget. | | |
| ▲ | tonyedgecombe 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >I'm not saying everyone can have the choice to eat healthy, but probably a small majority has. I bet the least healthy options in people's shopping trolleys are some of the most expensive items. Cakes, biscuits, chocolate, ice creams, alcohol, pre-prepared meals, etc. | |
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There are very few areas where it's physically possible to live like that. And even in those areas many staples will be industrially farmed and imported from other countries, or at least shipped from far away within the same country. | |
| ▲ | onion2k 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In 50 years, the proportion of the budget allocated to food, halved. Did people choose to do that, or why they forced to by increased costs in other areas? | |
| ▲ | vkou 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > In 50 years, the proportion of the budget allocated to food, halved. Sure. But 50 years ago, healthcare and education didn't cost an arm and both legs. In those 5 decades, every single rent-seeker that you need to engage with to live has dipped his hand deeper into our pockets. > I live in an area where small, local, sometimes organic producers are gathered to sell their product to the community in a way it is accessible to every budget.... You forgot the "For the brief period of time their produce is in season." Only selling what you have, when you have it removes a lot of costs from food supply chains. If, like the local grocery, those small, local, organic producers had to keep you fed 24/7/365, their prices would go up - by a lot. I am also pretty confident that those small, local, organic producers aren't the source of most of their customers' caloric demands. | | |
| ▲ | pil0u 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I live in a part of the world where the healthcare system is also spread across the society in a more equalitarian way than what you describe. I don't understand your second point. One of my close friends is a farmer, they mostly grow organic apples. They work (insanely hard) across the whole year to prepare the crop and take care of the trees. They are not rich, but it starts to be sustainable.
Locally, it's having a community of farmers that grow different things that make you fed across the year, as long as you accept eating exotic food only very occasionally. Regarding calories, I honestly don't know. What I know for sure is that apples in the 50s had at least an order of magnitude more calories than apples today. Different times, different agricultural practices, different population also, fair. Obesity has skyrocketed across the whole world. People already eat too much, too much hyper transformed, too much sugar, too many calories. | | |
| ▲ | catlifeonmars an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > Obesity has skyrocketed across the whole world. People already eat too much, too much hyper transformed, too much sugar, too many calories. Carbohydrates are way cheaper, but the distribution of nutrients you can get for any price has not gotten cheaper proportionally. Then you factor in choices, like paying rent vs eating healthier, etc etc. | |
| ▲ | tonyedgecombe 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Apples are an exception to the rule as they can be stored for a long time (up to a year for some varieties) under the correct conditions. | |
| ▲ | formerly_proven 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > What I know for sure is that apples in the 50s had at least an order of magnitude more calories than apples today. Different times, different agricultural practices, different population also, fair. And you know this "for sure" exactly how? | |
| ▲ | vkou 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I don't understand your second point. When I go to the grocery, food is available to me at any time of year. Your friend's apples are only available for ~2 months/of the year. The supply chains that feed the world have to work year-round, and all the people that work them expect to get paid. Availability adds to the cost. > What I know for sure is that apples in the 50s had at least an order of magnitude more calories than apples today I have a very hard time believing that the average apple from the 50s had 94 * 10 = 940 calories. | | |
| ▲ | pil0u 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's the whole point: don't eat apples from January to December. | | |
| ▲ | vkou 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Which is the whole problem. Your friend's apple orchard is not a replacement for the modern grocery. It's a seasonal supplement that replaces the cheapest and easiest part of a diet - in-season produce. And he has to work insanely hard all-year-long to do it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
