| Yesterday I posted clips of an article by Abigail Haddad and I made an off-the-cuff remark about the fact that we've decreased the amount we spend on food as a percent of disposable income from about 25% in the 1930's to closer to 10% now and my thoughts on that. (One study found that Americans spend 9.7% of total expenditures on food.) Well, to my surprise, I received a very nice email from Abigail Haddad herself this morning, gently disagreeing with my and pointing out some data to support her points. I certainly appreciate the debate, and I must concede a few points where I was mistaken.
Here's my specific remark that she took issue with:
To her, this [the decline in spending on food as a percent of disposable income] is proof that Americans want their food to be cheap and convenient. I would cite it as evidence of how we are being squeezed by the society we live in, in which productivity has risen but wages remained stagnant; in which many parents have no option to stay home to raise their children and many people work more than one job to make ends meet. Americans are doing what they must do to survive, but that doesn't mean they prefer it (nor is it healthy for them, as evidenced by our epidemic rise in diet-related chronic illness).
In the first few decades after World War II, our middle class was growing and many families did live on one income with the other parent staying home to raise children. Yet, even then, Abigail notes that Americans were already spending less and less on food. She's right. According to a 1999 article in Monthly Labor Review, consumer spending on food was more than 1/3 of all spending in 1935-36, under 25% of all spending in 1960-61, a little over 20% in 1972-73, and 16% in 1996-97.
At what point did the obesity epidemic start? The CDC's data begins in the 1980's, and they don't gather data from every state for the first few years. But if you look at their data for 1990, you see that no state has over 15% obesity and some are under 10%. By 2007, only Colorado had under 20% obesity, and some are over 35%.
A point where I think Abigail and I agree is that obesity doesn't necessarily equal poor health. You can be overweight and healthy, and you can be skinny and unhealthy. What we really need to look at is longitudinal data on the rates of diabetes, heart disease, high cholesterol, hypertension, stroke, and certain cancers that are linked to diet. That's not data I have handy but that a more accurate way to evaluate our diets, rather tha simply looking at obesity.
Another area where I think Abigail and I agree is that there are trade-offs between cheap, convenient food and whatever we're trading it for (environmental degradation, poor health, inferior taste, etc). My hunch is that she thinks people have a more active role in making those choices than I do. |
