The other 33 percent*

Last month, the New York Times article that looked at the cost of junk food as compared with healthy food - pointed out the difference between the two dining options was more often time and convenience than money. The conclusion was dangerous close to "poor fat people are fat because they are lazy."
As Ezra Klein pointed out yesterday, there is a very recent study that amends this slightly. The new study concludes "fat people are lazy because they have poor impulse control and are worse at delaying gratification." It essentially found that the heavyset set has gotten heavier but many of the 67% of Americans that are not obese have stayed trim. This is because the obese crowd relies on foods that can be eaten quickly rather than making meals from scratch.
What struck me about these findings was how a culture so laden with cooking shows was not producing even more at-home cooking. Perhaps we should abandon the "Ace of Cakes" or Paula Dean for a 21st century Julia Child who's focus is more on frugality and DIY meals rather then peddling pre-made foods or indulging in the rich foods for everyday occasions.
Still, as a social worker friend of mine pointed out, often extreme eating problems are related to emotional eating. I think rather then pointing to low self-esteem, our culture's current food problems point to a culture of entitlement. The belief that we each deserve everything we want and we deserve to get it in the quickest, easiest way possible is rampant. It's effected our waistlines, our personal debt and deeply impacted achievement in our school (see: give every child a blue ribbon, since mine deserves to feel like a winner rather than competing for an actual rank).

*According to the CDC in 2011 33.8 % of adult Americans are obese.

Finding the Good in Walmart

Here's the abstract from a provocative new paper by Charles Courtemanche and Art Carden (HT Marginal Revolution):

We estimate the impacts of Wal-Mart and warehouse club retailers on height-adjusted body weight and overweight and obesity status, finding robust evidence that non-grocery selling Wal-Marts reduce weight while grocery-selling Wal-Marts and warehouse clubs either reduce weight or have no effect. The effects appear strongest for women, minorities, urban residents, and the poor. We then examine the effects of these retailers on exercise, food and alcohol consumption, smoking, and eating out at restaurants in order to explain the results for weight. Most notably, the evidence suggests that all three types of stores increase consumption of fruits and vegetables while reducing consumption of foods high in fat. This is consistent with the thesis that Wal-Mart increases real incomes through its policy of "Every Day Low Prices," making healthy food more affordable, as opposed to the thesis that cheap food prices make us eat more.

The paper is gated, so I haven't read it yet. While we can't talk about the empirical design of the paper, we can look at the basic model. Normally we assume that as the price of something goes down, people buy more of it; as a result, Walmart's low prices on groceries should induce people to buy more, increasing obesity among customers. However in the US, virtually everyone can afford more food than they need. The real issue is food quality. The cheapest foods are highly processed, calorie dense and nutrient poor. Anyone who has been in a Whole Foods recently knows that organic food is a luxury of the affluent.

Where Walmart comes in is in lowering the prices of produce and other nutrient-rich, healthy foods. The benefit to low-income consumers is the ability to eat like a someone on Manhattan's Upper West Side. Since the obesity epidemic is heavily concentrated among low-income individuals, providing healthy foods at low-cost is crucial.

Yes Walmart's labor practices are deplorable, but it is not universally evil.