Obesity tops tobacco as biggest health threat

[PainRack]

I would advocate a vigorous public debate prior to any decision about whether or not to impose a "fat" tax of any kind. I think that American society in general has begun to expect too much of government, at too low a cost. It is important, however, to separate my concerns about the role of government in advocating specific lifestyles, and those related to the problem of malnutrition. I think that the government can, and should, act now to ensure that all Americans have access to healthy foods.

1. What do you think this thread is? What is the forum title? A DEBATE forum. Next!
2. Expecting much of government is an ideological stance. You're not debating any specific ideologies other than taxation
3. The government acting to ensure all americans have access to healthful foods? Define this.
The real problems is health behaviours. The current health behaviours is maladaptive. It is entirely possible for governments to socially engineer society so more healthful behaviours can be introduced.

Is this or is this NOT acceptable to you? Stop sidestepping this question about ideology. Because if your answer is no, there is no need for us to continue the farce regarding economic/physical/whatever viability of bringing more fresh food to convience stores.

I'm not arguing that it is impossible. I am arguing that the proposed architectures found in this thread seem likely to fall flat.

Based on WHICH specifics? You been arguing entirely regarding generalities, all of which are easily disproved considering that other countries and other cities have been doing so successfully.

We are talking about small, "convenience"-style shops and delis -- the kind that stock a limited selection of items, most of which are chips, candies, cookies, cakes, and artificially sweetened drinks.

And? Small convenience style shops, hell, freaking tabletops with a counter has been selling fruits/vegetables in other countries for decades. Their failing popularity has more to do with supermarkets penetrating into their markets than the possibility of convenience shops NOT being able to store perishable goods.

Chicago supposedly have street vendors selling pumpkins and other perishable produce. Ditto to California.
Is your argument going to be based ENTIRELY around such generalities that has already been disproven? Do you live in the tropics? Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia are equatorial countries and they manage to sell such fruits/produce just fine. You know, despite the weather rapidly spoiling such foodstuffs RAPIDLY. Granted, convience stores selling such foodstuffs are more popular with migrant workers than locals because of the lack of variety but that has no bearing on the economic and physical viability WHATSOEVER.

That is because they sell fruits and vegetables; their business model is already based on that activity.

And? What is to prevent convience stores from selling such produce? Hell, if Broomstick is right, its not as if supermarkets are on every single street corner, right? That's a market niche right there.

Do you buy fruit from 7-11? How about sandwiches?

Actually, I do. Both of them. The local 7-11 sell bananas, oranges and frozen grapes. Salads and oranges however are usually found in more established areas that pretend to have a cafeteria next to them, but bananas and grapes are routinely sold.

Oh wait, I'm sory, apparently, I don't live in the United states of America where this is impossible because Axis Kast says so.

There probably IS specific barriers and problems affecting certain cities and regions, but your arguments are bollocks. I can easily imagine some of the potential problems are the lack of distribution networks, especially as agribusinesses has centralised the food networks.

[Ziggy Stardust]

There probably IS specific barriers and problems affecting certain cities and regions, but your arguments are bollocks. I can easily imagine some of the potential problems are the lack of distribution networks, especially as agribusinesses has centralised the food networks.

Honestly, in the US the only regions that have problems are ones where people are like Axis Kast and refuse to even entertain the notion based on idiotic general ideological terms. Hell, in California, fruit trucks are more common than ice cream trucks. The desert regions of the United States already have extensive distribution networks to supply existing supermarkets, and many cities out there manage to have regular weekly/monthly farmer's markets, so a marginal tax should realistically be able to expand this network to include more smaller stores with healthy food. I can't think of any part of the US where economic factors actually WOULD be worrisome in this regard.

[Broomstick]

On the other hand, Axis Kast lists his location as South Africa... which makes me think he's basing his opinion on limited information and/or caricatures of the US. Unlike him, however, I have actually been poor in major urban areas in the US and have some actual first hand experience with the issues involved.

Inner city neighborhoods do not need "better convenience stores", they need grocery stores. They used to have them. We need to figure out why they disappeared and then try to reverse those causes.

Yes, food desserts exist. However, convenience stores also exist that do manage to sell a few fresh foods. Hell, on the Chicago subway you have homeless people selling bags of fruit. While not every urban poor person is going to run out and gorge on vegetables, there IS a pent-up demand for actual produce in some areas.

Smoking has not been reduced solely with punitive taxes - society has used a multi-prong approach. Likewise, obesity won't be solved with a single fix, either. It will require multiple approaches and solutions. However, people can't get good food if it isn't available. Do all you want to promote healthful eating, it won't make a damn bit of difference if people simply can't obtain the healthy food to begin with. Nor does everything have to be optimally nutritious - incremental improvements are also worthy of pursuit.

[Axis Kast]

You want the government to "act now" but refuse to consider a tax to pay for that action?

I don't refuse anything of the sort. I spoke out in response to Mike's advocacy of the idea that the United States government should "wring" itself back to solvency by imposing a higher level of taxes on individual consumers.

You do this despite evidence that exists right now that some of these "architectures" can and even do work.

No, I do this in spite of your perception that you have presented evidence that some of these architectures and do work in a manner that validates their widespread application.

We're talking about food - some types of which require preservatives to remain wholesome.

Actually, to be even more precise, we're talking about consumers and purveyors of food. We are trying to curb certain behavior by some consumers by applying a tax which can support programs that enhance other groups' access to healthy foods. Such a program will have residual effects on certain kinds of business models. An assumption is being made that business models heavily dependent upon the sale of junk food items can be easily modified. I see no evidence that those assumptions are true. Instead, I see advocacy for anti-obesity measures (not yet validated) as a means to solve problems of access and distribution.

The idea, I suppose, is that fat people will finance subsidies that lower the cost of health foods for consumers. Troubling. If you intended that that help fat people, however, you should respond to the argument that obesity is already a form of lifestyle choice that entails enormous costs. If you intend that fat people simply finance other people's access to healthy meals, then please answer another question: if junk food is no longer competitive, what happens to those whose livelihoods depend upon it? I assume that it's expected that some of the little markets and Gas-n-Go's will begin to stock fruits and vegetables. That ignores the question of whether or not they will be able to afford: (1) new investments in refrigeration; (2) the "hidden" costs exclusive to the sale of produce; (3) the logistical and administrative costs of the collective bargaining that will be necessary to secure produce at competitive rates.

I'm talking about health inspectors - which, at least in my area, can and do shut down stores due to health violations. Said violations are also posted in the local papers. Store owners absolutely want to avoid that publicity.

The extent of perturbation required before remedial action is taken varies by jurisdiction. In many cases, the laws allow for flexibility. This means that unsanitary conditions can and will pertain. An NBC investigation of major supermarket chains nationwide in 2006 revealed numerous [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10976595/ns/dateline_nbc/]shortcomings[/utl]. If this is the state of affairs at major supermarkets, which have staff to spare, I can only imagine what it must be at literal holes-in-the-wall.

Yes, and it's PROOF poor, urban people will buy such things if they are available.

It's proof that people will buy them, if available, not that convenience stores will be able to stock them. You are confusing business models.

Yes and yes. I don't know why you think it is such an inconceivable notion.

That is because I don't trust a 7-11 to maintain sanitary conditions. Their sandwiches are usually soggy, and their fruit often browned.

Could go either way, but because it might not happen you refuse to even try.

Hope isn't a substitute for hard fact. You're a poor steward of the public trust if you throw money at problems on the off-chance that something might work.

Oh, total bullshit - more small grocery stores is exactly what is need in the "food desert" regions, not expanded "convenience stores". And there are not "hundreds of thousands" of convenience stores, nor is their business likely to be "ruined" if an Aldi's moves in next door because, really, they can serve two different niches.

But grocery stories aren't found in food deserts despite their clear ability to out-price smaller markets with lower budgets, fewer staff, and less opportunity for bulk purchasing. If you wish to advocate a method to bring grocery stores into food deserts, I'm right there with you. A tax on junk food isn't necessarily a useful approach.

In inner cities, convenience stores naturally enjoy the business which would otherwise go to grocery stores if the setting were suburbia. A fax tax will either change nothing, because consumers will "eat" costs. Grocery stores are already competitive as matched against convenience stores in food deserts. Poor people pay more for their food; that's already a proven fact. The real problem is that grocery stores need to sell in bulk to recover costs -- and they can't achieve those kinds of sales in most purely urban settings.

If it takes months to sell that last bag then it's not worth the overhead. And maybe you never noticed, but potato chips have expiration dates, too.

Potato chips last longer than fruits and vegetables. They also sell more easily when one gets down to "the last bag." There is less intrinsic risk involved in selling chips.

Read the fucking labels, will you - the bags of frozen vegetables I buy have no preservatives whatsoever. And some foods actually should have preservatives in order to keep them wholesome, are you ignorant of that fact? A balanced frozen dinner with vegetables and an appropriate level of preservatives is not inherently unhealthy, and if it reduces caloric consumption compared to, say, fast food then it will help reduce obesity.

Most frozen food is less healthy than fresh food. Do you agree or disagree? One part of the push to bring cheaper, healthier options to people in inner cities should be, as Mike said, an encouragement of cultural change.

What do you think this thread is? What is the forum title? A DEBATE forum. Next!

Debate on this forum is not a substitute for national debate. Next!

Expecting much of government is an ideological stance. You're not debating any specific ideologies other than taxation.

I'm not debating taxation at all. I'm debating the merits of spending money on an initiative that does not have clear validation.

The government acting to ensure all americans have access to healthful foods? Define this.

The government should take action to ensure that all Americans have access to healthy foods at reasonable prices. The extent of that action can and should be debated. I am not inherently opposed to new or higher taxes.

The real problems is health behaviours. The current health behaviours is maladaptive. It is entirely possible for governments to socially engineer society so more healthful behaviours can be introduced.

It is possible, yes.

Based on WHICH specifics? You been arguing entirely regarding generalities, all of which are easily disproved considering that other countries and other cities have been doing so successfully.

The examples offered are not actually valid. I've provided detail in my replies to Broomstick above.

Small convenience style shops, hell, freaking tabletops with a counter has been selling fruits/vegetables in other countries for decades. Their failing popularity has more to do with supermarkets penetrating into their markets than the possibility of convenience shops NOT being able to store perishable goods.

One doesn't simply wake up one day and say, "Let's stock fresh fruits and vegetables in my store!" It's a business decision, motivated by a particular calculus.

Chicago supposedly have street vendors selling pumpkins and other perishable produce. Ditto to California.

Good for them. This doesn't in any way address any of my points. Street vendors operate on a business model with very low overhead. They usually sell fruits and vegetables exclusively, and only in certain types of weather.

And? What is to prevent convience stores from selling such produce? Hell, if Broomstick is right, its not as if supermarkets are on every single street corner, right? That's a market niche right there.

The existence of a market niche doesn't make it economical for somebody to fill it. There are investments needed.

Actually, I do. Both of them. The local 7-11 sell bananas, oranges and frozen grapes. Salads and oranges however are usually found in more established areas that pretend to have a cafeteria next to them, but bananas and grapes are routinely sold.

Bananas, oranges, and grapes. Sold in small bunches. To three or four customers each day.

Honestly, in the US the only regions that have problems are ones where people are like Axis Kast and refuse to even entertain the notion based on idiotic general ideological terms. Hell, in California, fruit trucks are more common than ice cream trucks. The desert regions of the United States already have extensive distribution networks to supply existing supermarkets, and many cities out there manage to have regular weekly/monthly farmer's markets, so a marginal tax should realistically be able to expand this network to include more smaller stores with healthy food. I can't think of any part of the US where economic factors actually WOULD be worrisome in this regard.

It isn't my fault your brain is broken.

I'm not refusing to entertain this program "on idiotic general ideological terms." I'm refusing to endorse this program because I don't see how it is likely to help the obese, the hungry, or those who don't get proper nourishment.

The distribution networks which supply supermarkets cost money. You are saying, "I see that some companies have distribution networks! Clearly, all companies can sustain them!" That isn't valid; it's an unsubstantiated assertion that compares apples to oranges.

On the other hand, Axis Kast lists his location as South Africa... which makes me think he's basing his opinion on limited information and/or caricatures of the US. Unlike him, however, I have actually been poor in major urban areas in the US and have some actual first hand experience with the issues involved.

I live in the United States. But, of course, that's actually immaterial as to whether or not I'm making good arguments.

Yes, food desserts exist. However, convenience stores also exist that do manage to sell a few fresh foods. Hell, on the Chicago subway you have homeless people selling bags of fruit. While not every urban poor person is going to run out and gorge on vegetables, there IS a pent-up demand for actual produce in some areas.

And how much rent do homeless people pay per day? How many employees do they hire? How many other items do they need to stock?

[Terralthra]

We're talking about food - some types of which require preservatives to remain wholesome.

Actually, to be even more precise, we're talking about consumers and purveyors of food. We are trying to curb certain behavior by some consumers by applying a tax which can support programs that enhance other groups' access to healthy foods. Such a program will have residual effects on certain kinds of business models. An assumption is being made that business models heavily dependent upon the sale of junk food items can be easily modified. I see no evidence that those assumptions are true.

No, the assumption is being made that lining the pockets of junk food purveyors and cushioning their transition to a business which doesn't prey on the appetites of those with poor impulse control is less important than reducing the epidemic levels of obesity in this country. If you feel that ADM's and Doritos' profits are more important than the staggering levels of obesity and accompanying major health problems, please defend this point honestly.

Also, you never answered my earlier point.

Your statement -- "The government should wring its way back to solvency at the expense of the average consumer" -- was no less sweeping than my own. I am perfectly willing to go on record stating that there is a time and place for higher taxation. When citizens demand additional services, the tax burden should be increased accordingly. However, the discussion that produces answers to the question of, "How do we achieve financial solvency as a nation?" mustn't exclude other options.

I'm sorry, in what universe are "social service and spending cuts" exclusive with "at the expense of the average consumer"? Almost any service the US could conceivably cut at the federal level, in the current political climate, would end up hurting the average consumer.

[Axis Kast]

The assumption is being made that lining the pockets of junk food purveyors and cushioning their transition to a business which doesn't prey on the appetites of those with poor impulse control is less important than reducing the epidemic levels of obesity in this country.

Yes, and I can see that the assumption is also being made that I am going to let you get away with that terrific false analogy.

The assumption is being made that a tax on junk food will reduce consumption by persons who are obese. Yet, because fat people already pay enormous social and economic costs to sustain their lifestyle, and because they typically eat in abundance whether or not their meals are healthy, I require validation of your proposal before I will support it.

The assumption is also being made, by others, that the small markets likely to be most affected by the rise in prices will be able to make up their losses by selling fruits and vegetables. This, also, requires some validation. None has been provided. Instead, people have offered examples of unrelated business models. They do not prove that convenience stores can sell fruits and vegetables in meaningful quantities. Indeed, these models, although supposedly competitive, have not already solved the problem of food deserts, where unhealthy foods are already more expensive in the first place.

The assertion is being made, by you, that we can consider convenience stores synonymous with corporations, which themselves are simply fronts for destructive greed. Actually, convenience stores represent jobs. People. If you expect me to support social programs that put their livelihoods at risk, you'd better have convincing proof that your plan will benefit any of the people it is meant to help. I've also heard nothing specific about "cushioning" anybody's "transition" to anything.

Also, you never answered my earlier point.

Because it misses the point: not every expense is a sensible one. DHS this year paid out $1 million in grant money to provide security for dinner cruises on Lake Michigan. Just because the government can help doesn't mean that society is necessarily well served when it does. Notice that I am not referring to social services specifically; I am speaking of "services" in the general sense.

[Broomstick]

Such a program will have residual effects on certain kinds of business models. An assumption is being made that business models heavily dependent upon the sale of junk food items can be easily modified.

If better health habits result in junk food sellers going belly up boo-fucking-hoo. People are more important that pure profits. Society can survive industries going away, and there wasn't massive unemployment when the buggy-whip makers went under. Things change. Business owners either adapt or don't.

If you intend that fat people simply finance other people's access to healthy meals

What, do you think fat people will be forced to buy junk food at gunpoint? Bullshit. Fat people have the exact same opportunities to buy healthy food as their thin neighbors.

then please answer another question: if junk food is no longer competitive, what happens to those whose livelihoods depend upon it?

They find new jobs.

I assume that it's expected that some of the little markets and Gas-n-Go's will begin to stock fruits and vegetables.

Or they choose to sell something else instead. Have you even been in such a store? I've yet to see one that is just junk food. Maybe they'll stock more lottery tickets and do-rags. I remember a time before gas stations stocked any food. They can survive without it, too. Or they just continue to sell junk food and sugared drinks at a higher price because someone will continue to buy them, just as they continue to buy cigarettes.

Why do you assume the convenience stores will change at all under this? Or will you forbid any other business from competing with them?

I'm talking about health inspectors - which, at least in my area, can and do shut down stores due to health violations. Said violations are also posted in the local papers. Store owners absolutely want to avoid that publicity.

The extent of perturbation required before remedial action is taken varies by jurisdiction. In many cases, the laws allow for flexibility. This means that unsanitary conditions can and will pertain. An NBC investigation of major supermarket chains nationwide in 2006 revealed numerous [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10976595/ns/dateline_nbc/]shortcomings[/utl]. If this is the state of affairs at major supermarkets, which have staff to spare, I can only imagine what it must be at literal holes-in-the-wall.

Supermarkets have greater amounts of food - which attract vermin. ALL places that sell or store food battle constantly against rot, mold, vermin, etc. News such as in your link is also part of checking up on such places. Shock and horror that there are mouse traps deployed in food areas? I'd be MORE horrified if steps weren't be taken against rodents. Such exposes feature the worst case scenarios.

You're a fool if you think the situation is any different at all at restaurants, or even a typical kitchen.

Yes, and it's PROOF poor, urban people will buy such things if they are available.

It's proof that people will buy them, if available, not that convenience stores will be able to stock them. You are confusing business models.

No, you are confusing the idea that convenience stores exist with the idea that people should NEVER have a choice to buy elsewhere! If convenience stores do not fill a need but someone else does then fuck the convenience stores and more power to those better serving peoples' needs.

Yes and yes. I don't know why you think it is such an inconceivable notion.

That is because I don't trust a 7-11 to maintain sanitary conditions. Their sandwiches are usually soggy, and their fruit often browned.

If the sandwiches are soggy, don't buy them. Don't you even LOOK at fruit before you buy it? I do! It doesn't matter where I buy it. I've found moldy food at big chain supermarkets, does that somehow "prove" they're unreliable or a bad business model? Shitty convenience stores don't last. Good ones do.

Oh, total bullshit - more small grocery stores is exactly what is need in the "food desert" regions, not expanded "convenience stores". And there are not "hundreds of thousands" of convenience stores, nor is their business likely to be "ruined" if an Aldi's moves in next door because, really, they can serve two different niches.

But grocery stories aren't found in food deserts despite their clear ability to out-price smaller markets with lower budgets, fewer staff, and less opportunity for bulk purchasing. If you wish to advocate a method to bring grocery stores into food deserts, I'm right there with you. A tax on junk food isn't necessarily a useful approach.

You have not proved that it is an invalid approach, either.

And, in fact, some grocery stores DO manage to hold on in poor urban environments, particularly in Hispanic and Asian neighborhoods. There are things that could be done to promote them - such as tax breaks, perhaps.

The real problem is that grocery stores need to sell in bulk to recover costs -- and they can't achieve those kinds of sales in most purely urban settings.

Why? Don't poor people eat?

Grocery stores used to survive just fine in those places - what happened to them? It wasn't because convenience stores were so superior in delivering food because they aren't - they're last resorts for people who have no alternative.

Read the fucking labels, will you - the bags of frozen vegetables I buy have no preservatives whatsoever. And some foods actually should have preservatives in order to keep them wholesome, are you ignorant of that fact? A balanced frozen dinner with vegetables and an appropriate level of preservatives is not inherently unhealthy, and if it reduces caloric consumption compared to, say, fast food then it will help reduce obesity.

Most frozen food is less healthy than fresh food. Do you agree or disagree?

Disagree, actually. I'm not talking about frozen pizzas - I'm talking about the entire scope of frozen foods available at the stores I shop at, and since freezing is a preservation method in itself fewer preservatives are required, if any. Frozen vegetables and fruit do not require and often do not have preservatives. As I said, read the labels. For some foods, such as out of season vegetables and fish flash-frozen just after catch, frozen varieties may be MORE healthful than fresh because freezing slows deterioration of nutrients and prevents bacterial growth. Freezing is a tool, it's neither bad or good.

Chicago supposedly have street vendors selling pumpkins and other perishable produce. Ditto to California.

Good for them. This doesn't in any way address any of my points. Street vendors operate on a business model with very low overhead. They usually sell fruits and vegetables exclusively, and only in certain types of weather.

Not in Chicago! They're out there rain or shine, summer and winter. Granted, they stock more produce in summer, but that's simply because they sell more in summer. In winter, some of them start offering things like hot chocolate. Probably a business decision.

And the homeless hawking bags of fruit in the subway are likewise present all year round.

And? What is to prevent convience stores from selling such produce? Hell, if Broomstick is right, its not as if supermarkets are on every single street corner, right? That's a market niche right there.

The existence of a market niche doesn't make it economical for somebody to fill it. There are investments needed.

If there's a niche there is also always someone trying to fill it, too.

Actually, I do. Both of them. The local 7-11 sell bananas, oranges and frozen grapes. Salads and oranges however are usually found in more established areas that pretend to have a cafeteria next to them, but bananas and grapes are routinely sold.

Bananas, oranges, and grapes. Sold in small bunches. To three or four customers each day.

What?

Back when I worked in Chicago such stores did a brisk business in both breakfast and lunch food - they sold what little fruit they had rapidly, and running out by 2 or 3 in the afternoon wasn't unusual. Which made sense from a business viewpoint, in those shops you WANT to sell out your perishable stock daily, or nearly so. They sold to dozens of people daily.

Another business were the "roach coaches" - trucks that sold food to passers-by. They typically show up at train stations and businesses at strategic times of day, in all weather and seasons. Think of them as portable convenience stores. They often have both refrigerator and heating capabilities. Food inspectors show up at them, too - I've seen it. Train stations also often have little food shops, with hot or cold foods available at breakfast and lunch times. Granted, those cater to people with jobs, but urban poor DO often have employment of some sort.

One convenience store near where I last worked in Chicago contracted with a food service company that would drop off refrigerated lunches in the morning, then collect any that were unsold by 2 pm. The store only required a single large cooler, they did not have to worry about maintaining stock or rotating it. Basically, the store was renting a small space to the company actually selling the food. The folks running these operations are keenly away of what sells and when.

In Chicago, provided such meals are sealed, there is the option of donating the unsold items to the Greater Chicago Food Depository and taking the value as a tax break - a valuable tool for businesses in tax-heavy Chicago and Cook County.

I'm not refusing to entertain this program "on idiotic general ideological terms." I'm refusing to endorse this program because I don't see how it is likely to help the obese, the hungry, or those who don't get proper nourishment.

The distribution networks which supply supermarkets cost money. You are saying, "I see that some companies have distribution networks! Clearly, all companies can sustain them!" That isn't valid; it's an unsubstantiated assertion that compares apples to oranges.

We have something called "IGA" - Independent Grocers of America. It's small grocers joining together to purchase things in bulk and to set up the very distribution networks you say are impossible.

I live in the United States. But, of course, that's actually immaterial as to whether or not I'm making good arguments.

Then you are dishonest shit for misleading people as to where you are located.

And how much rent do homeless people pay per day? How many employees do they hire? How many other items do they need to stock?

What, do you think homeless people don't have to pay for the items they're selling? Do you think they don't have to buy clothes, food for themselves? Do you think they're making so much money they don't have to calculate cost-effectiveness? Do you think what they do is any less a business?

[Broomstick]

The assumption is also being made, by others, that the small markets likely to be most affected by the rise in prices will be able to make up their losses by selling fruits and vegetables. This, also, requires some validation. None has been provided. Instead, people have offered examples of unrelated business models. They do not prove that convenience stores can sell fruits and vegetables in meaningful quantities. Indeed, these models, although supposedly competitive, have not already solved the problem of food deserts, where unhealthy foods are already more expensive in the first place.

Why the FUCK are you so focused on convenience stores? Seriously. Where did anyone say that convenience stores HAVE TO sell fruits and vegetables? If some other business model fulfills that purpose - be it local grocers, street vendors, whatever - what's the problem with that?

[Axis Kast]

If better health habits result in junk food sellers going belly up boo-fucking-hoo. People are more important that pure profits. Society can survive industries going away, and there wasn't massive unemployment when the buggy-whip makers went under. Things change. Business owners either adapt or don't.

People. Like those who work at stores that primarily stock the kinds of foods likely to be affected by the price hike you contemplate. For somebody who seems to be interested in standing up for the little guy, you have a remarkable capacity to demonize people whose livelihoods are at risk for dubious chance of gain.

Society can survive quite a bit of disruption, but you have yet to prove that an obesity tax would help either the obese or the urban poor. Repeating again and again that you've seen people sell fruit in urban areas does not prove that a tax on junk food will curb overeating or price healthy foods into consideration for the urban poor is not evidence. Here's a hint: the disruption must be worth the cost.

What, do you think fat people will be forced to buy junk food at gunpoint? Bullshit. Fat people have the exact same opportunities to buy healthy food as their thin neighbors.

I was suggesting that a "fat tax" might still generate some social good even if it didn't help fat people, so long as the money earned was actually put toward a meritorious end. I don't see that happening in this situation, however.

They find new jobs.

As easily as you have found a new job?

r they choose to sell something else instead. Have you even been in such a store? I've yet to see one that is just junk food. Maybe they'll stock more lottery tickets and do-rags. I remember a time before gas stations stocked any food. They can survive without it, too. Or they just continue to sell junk food and sugared drinks at a higher price because someone will continue to buy them, just as they continue to buy cigarettes.

Most sell primarily junk foods: chips, candy, cookies, sodas, ice creams, and frozen meals. As a rule, they are already uncompetitive, and survive because they are just what their name suggests, convenient. A hike in the cost of junk food may wipe them out. And to what purpose? The obese can get the same foods at supermarkets. And unless you can prove that convenience stores will begin stocking fruits and vegetables when the cost of junk food rises, you haven't helped the urban poor, either. All you've done is to assist supermarkets and meanwhile put a great many people out of business.

Why do you assume the convenience stores will change at all under this? Or will you forbid any other business from competing with them?

When the cost of junk food rises, they will sell less of it, and fewer other things besides, for junk food is sometimes their very draw.

Supermarkets have greater amounts of food - which attract vermin. ALL places that sell or store food battle constantly against rot, mold, vermin, etc. News such as in your link is also part of checking up on such places. Shock and horror that there are mouse traps deployed in food areas? I'd be MORE horrified if steps weren't be taken against rodents. Such exposes feature the worst case scenarios.

You're a fool if you think the situation is any different at all at restaurants, or even a typical kitchen.

I am arguing that convenience stores are going to be less sanitary than either restaurants or supermarkets, and that an inspectorate is not going to be an effective solution. Please address my arguments. You are the one who initially insisted that an inspectorate would ensure cleanliness. Obviously, they cannot.

No, you are confusing the idea that convenience stores exist with the idea that people should NEVER have a choice to buy elsewhere! If convenience stores do not fill a need but someone else does then fuck the convenience stores and more power to those better serving peoples' needs.

Pricing a convenience store out of business, or raising the overall cost of junk food, does not assure that supermarkets will reenter so-called food deserts. Supermarkets are already more competitive than convenience stores. One doesn't see them much in urban areas because of the difficulty of purchasing in bulk without cars.

If the sandwiches are soggy, don't buy them. Don't you even LOOK at fruit before you buy it? I do! It doesn't matter where I buy it. I've found moldy food at big chain supermarkets, does that somehow "prove" they're unreliable or a bad business model? Shitty convenience stores don't last. Good ones do.

I'm arguing that convenience stores have a hard time selling fruits and vegetables. They aren't equipped to do so efficiently or on a large scale.

You have not proved that it is an invalid approach, either.

You are making a positive statement about a program you think we ought to have. One that will cost people their livelihoods. It is up to you to prove its worth.

And, in fact, some grocery stores DO manage to hold on in poor urban environments, particularly in Hispanic and Asian neighborhoods. There are things that could be done to promote them - such as tax breaks, perhaps.

A tax break would be an appropriate solution. I would support it.

Grocery stores used to survive just fine in those places - what happened to them? It wasn't because convenience stores were so superior in delivering food because they aren't - they're last resorts for people who have no alternative.

The car became popular everywhere else.

Disagree, actually. I'm not talking about frozen pizzas - I'm talking about the entire scope of frozen foods available at the stores I shop at, and since freezing is a preservation method in itself fewer preservatives are required, if any. Frozen vegetables and fruit do not require and often do not have preservatives. As I said, read the labels. For some foods, such as out of season vegetables and fish flash-frozen just after catch, frozen varieties may be MORE healthful than fresh because freezing slows deterioration of nutrients and prevents bacterial growth. Freezing is a tool, it's neither bad or good.

Okay, then. I concede the point. You still have to prove to me the value of the tax hikes.

Not in Chicago! They're out there rain or shine, summer and winter. Granted, they stock more produce in summer, but that's simply because they sell more in summer. In winter, some of them start offering things like hot chocolate. Probably a business decision.

And the homeless hawking bags of fruit in the subway are likewise present all year round.

And the issue of overhead, which is the major problem?

If there's a niche there is also always someone trying to fill it, too.

Trying is not succeeding.

What?

Back when I worked in Chicago such stores did a brisk business in both breakfast and lunch food - they sold what little fruit they had rapidly, and running out by 2 or 3 in the afternoon wasn't unusual. Which made sense from a business viewpoint, in those shops you WANT to sell out your perishable stock daily, or nearly so. They sold to dozens of people daily.

Another business were the "roach coaches" - trucks that sold food to passers-by. They typically show up at train stations and businesses at strategic times of day, in all weather and seasons. Think of them as portable convenience stores. They often have both refrigerator and heating capabilities. Food inspectors show up at them, too - I've seen it. Train stations also often have little food shops, with hot or cold foods available at breakfast and lunch times. Granted, those cater to people with jobs, but urban poor DO often have employment of some sort.

One convenience store near where I last worked in Chicago contracted with a food service company that would drop off refrigerated lunches in the morning, then collect any that were unsold by 2 pm. The store only required a single large cooler, they did not have to worry about maintaining stock or rotating it. Basically, the store was renting a small space to the company actually selling the food. The folks running these operations are keenly away of what sells and when.

In Chicago, provided such meals are sealed, there is the option of donating the unsold items to the Greater Chicago Food Depository and taking the value as a tax break - a valuable tool for businesses in tax-heavy Chicago and Cook County.

Roach coaches thrive on selling bad-for-you food. Business models that deliver a variable number of boxed lunches are sound, but that's one meal, not several, and probably more costly than comparable ingredients at a supermarket. Isn't your objective to save people money?

We have something called "IGA" - Independent Grocers of America. It's small grocers joining together to purchase things in bulk and to set up the very distribution networks you say are impossible.

I didn't say that it was impossible to develop such networks -- just that they are expensive.

Then you are dishonest shit for misleading people as to where you are located.

Boo fucking hoo. I cry three tears just for you. One member of this community tried to find out where I lived not long after I joined. I got the message loud and clear.

What, do you think homeless people don't have to pay for the items they're selling? Do you think they don't have to buy clothes, food for themselves? Do you think they're making so much money they don't have to calculate cost-effectiveness? Do you think what they do is any less a business?

Homeless people don't pay mortgages, insurance, or employees. I'm not questioning whether they have a business. Attend: I am questioning whether their business model is portable to convenience stores.

Why the FUCK are you so focused on convenience stores? Seriously. Where did anyone say that convenience stores HAVE TO sell fruits and vegetables? If some other business model fulfills that purpose - be it local grocers, street vendors, whatever - what's the problem with that

Because that is the community most likely to be affected by the proposals found here.

[Terralthra]

The assumption is being made that lining the pockets of junk food purveyors and cushioning their transition to a business which doesn't prey on the appetites of those with poor impulse control is less important than reducing the epidemic levels of obesity in this country.

Yes, and I can see that the assumption is also being made that I am going to let you get away with that terrific false analogy.

There can be no false analogy where there is no analogy. Nice try, though.

The assumption is being made that a tax on junk food will reduce consumption by persons who are obese. Yet, because fat people already pay enormous social and economic costs to sustain their lifestyle, and because they typically eat in abundance whether or not their meals are healthy, I require validation of your proposal before I will support it.

Cigarette smokers also pay enormous social and economic costs due to their lifestyle, yet a direct excise tax on cigarettes did produce a measurable and significant drop-off in smoking and cigarette sales. Direct cost increases are more obvious and can have a proportionally larger effect on behavior than indirect or hidden cost increases. This is basic economics. Are you innumerate?

The assumption is also being made, by others, that the small markets likely to be most affected by the rise in prices will be able to make up their losses by selling fruits and vegetables. This, also, requires some validation. None has been provided. Instead, people have offered examples of unrelated business models. They do not prove that convenience stores can sell fruits and vegetables in meaningful quantities. Indeed, these models, although supposedly competitive, have not already solved the problem of food deserts, where unhealthy foods are already more expensive in the first place.

You treat the business models' longterm viability as a goal. If a convenience store sells food which, by and large, is easily abused and overeaten, to the detriment of the consumers, why should the state have a stake in preserving it? "They may serve other needs" is irrelevant. You yourself mention later that having convenient access to junk food is the draw.

The assertion is being made, by you, that we can consider convenience stores synonymous with corporations, which themselves are simply fronts for destructive greed. Actually, convenience stores represent jobs. People. If you expect me to support social programs that put their livelihoods at risk, you'd better have convincing proof that your plan will benefit any of the people it is meant to help. I've also heard nothing specific about "cushioning" anybody's "transition" to anything.

I fail to see why the state should preserve jobs at the cost of failing to preserve life (and by extension, a disease-free life). Your argument presupposes that (currently heavily subsidized) junk-food-selling convenience stores provide more jobs than (potentially heavily subsidized) fresh, healthy food-selling convenience stores. Please provide any shred of evidence for it. Don't bullshit about it being my duty to provide evidence that the fresh food-selling ones provide as many or more; job losses or gains are ancillary drawbacks or benefits compared to the general benefit of reducing obesity; to provide a serious objection, you must present evidence that your future visions are in any way reflective of actual potentials.

Also, you never answered my earlier point.

Because it misses the point: not every expense is a sensible one. DHS this year paid out $1 million in grant money to provide security for dinner cruises on Lake Michigan. Just because the government can help doesn't mean that society is necessarily well served when it does. Notice that I am not referring to social services specifically; I am speaking of "services" in the general sense.

Interesting. When the state provides extra security in places where cross-border infiltration is possible, it's "not sensible." When someone slips through borders carrying an underwear bomb, it's because Obama hasn't spent enough time/energy on border security. Do you take classes in cognitive dissonance?

[Axis Kast]

Cigarette smokers also pay enormous social and economic costs due to their lifestyle, yet a direct excise tax on cigarettes did produce a measurable and significant drop-off in smoking and cigarette sales. Direct cost increases are more obvious and can have a proportionally larger effect on behavior than indirect or hidden cost increases. This is basic economics. Are you innumerate?

It depends on the size of the tax. A small tax on soda does not significantly reduce weight; people readily ignore it.

I concede that a large tax on soda and other junk foods might have better outcomes. Certainly, I would expect it to reduce some obesity. I am curious just how much it would eliminate, although even a small gain might indeed be worthwhile, assuming there are not mitigating factors such as great economic dislocation.

While perfection should not be the benchmark for successful policy, it is also important to recognize that obese persons not only eat the wrong food, but great quantities, and lead lifestyles that involve little or no exercise. It may that taxing junk food, because it would not drastically alter lifestyles, would not have the same effect as taxing cigarettes. It is far easier to obtain large quantities of food than it is to obtain nicotine.

You treat the business models' longterm viability as a goal. If a convenience store sells food which, by and large, is easily abused and overeaten, to the detriment of the consumers, why should the state have a stake in preserving it? "They may serve other needs" is irrelevant. You yourself mention later that having convenient access to junk food is the draw.

The state has a stake in preserving it because it represents people's livelihoods. Those put out of work become at least a temporary burden on society.

All food can be abused and overeaten. Obesity is as much about lifestyle as it is food choice. Convenient access to junk food isn't necessarily a great evil.

I fail to see why the state should preserve jobs at the cost of failing to preserve life (and by extension, a disease-free life).

False dilemma. The state could take a number of actions to address obesity without raising the cost of items sold by convenience stores.

Your argument presupposes that (currently heavily subsidized) junk-food-selling convenience stores provide more jobs than (potentially heavily subsidized) fresh, healthy food-selling convenience stores.

I ask validation of the argument that the loss in jobs brought about by a steep tax on junk food will be balanced by saved lives and greater access to healthy foods.

If junk-food-selling convenience stores, many of which are not competitive with supermarkets, are currently heavily subsidized, the cost of supporting their transition to sell more expensive, labor-intensive fresh food would be a considerable burden on society. I'm not going to support any such transitions without first seeing pilot studies.

Don't bullshit about it being my duty to provide evidence that the fresh food-selling ones provide as many or more; job losses or gains are ancillary drawbacks or benefits compared to the general benefit of reducing obesity; to provide a serious objection, you must present evidence that your future visions are in any way reflective of actual potentials.

It is your personal value judgment that reducing obesity ought to take a higher priority than retaining jobs, just as it is my position that retaining jobs ought to take a higher priority. Ideally, we could craft policy that reduces obesity without placing any jobs in peril. The fresh food issue can be abstracted from the obesity issue, if one pleases. The tax, and what one does with the money, are actually distinct concepts, although in some instances, lack of access to green stuff is reportedly contributing to obesity.

If one asserts that an obesity tax provides an ideal way to also address food deserts, one must prove that there will be sufficient money generated to subsidize the introduction of grocery stores in areas where they are currently absent not because their list prices are uncompetitive, but because they cannot actually sell items in sufficient bulk.

Interesting. When the state provides extra security in places where cross-border infiltration is possible, it's "not sensible." When someone slips through borders carrying an underwear bomb, it's because Obama hasn't spent enough time/energy on border security. Do you take classes in cognitive dissonance?

Don't kid yourself: a dinner cruise that leaves from, and returns to, the Port of Chicago has nothing to do with cross-border infiltration. That company was no more deserving of a grant than any other. Why a dinner cruise? Why does such a small-scale endeavor deserve additional attention when federal properties and courthouses are still insecure?

When someone slips through airports carrying an underwear bomb, or some other explosive in their clothing, it is a signal that security procedures are not sufficient comprehensive or invasive.

[Terralthra]

While perfection should not be the benchmark for successful policy, it is also important to recognize that obese persons not only eat the wrong food, but great quantities, and lead lifestyles that involve little or no exercise. It may that taxing junk food, because it would not drastically alter lifestyles, would not have the same effect as taxing cigarettes. It is far easier to obtain large quantities of food than it is to obtain nicotine.

It's only possible to obtain lots of calories cheaply because we subsidize junk food. Reversing the state's financial stake in junk food is designed explicitly to reverse that.

You treat the business models' longterm viability as a goal. If a convenience store sells food which, by and large, is easily abused and overeaten, to the detriment of the consumers, why should the state have a stake in preserving it? "They may serve other needs" is irrelevant. You yourself mention later that having convenient access to junk food is the draw.

The state has a stake in preserving it because it represents people's livelihoods. Those put out of work become at least a temporary burden on society.

All food can be abused and overeaten. Obesity is as much about lifestyle as it is food choice. Convenient access to junk food isn't necessarily a great evil.

What the fuck? Food choice is an essential part of lifestyle when it comes to bodily health. Easy access to fat/sugar-calorie dense, poor nutritional complement food is a huge contributor to malnutrition and obesity. And you have yet to show that people's livelihoods will be affected in any great number. You're asking for proof it won't be, when we bear no burden, as you have yet to show that it will, only to suggest it.

I fail to see why the state should preserve jobs at the cost of failing to preserve life (and by extension, a disease-free life).

False dilemma. The state could take a number of actions to address obesity without raising the cost of items sold by convenience stores.

1) The state would be raising the cost of particular items, not all items sold in a convenience store. If, for example, a double gulp (64 oz.) of diet coke cost $1.19 and a double gulp cost $2.38, it would be easy to see a marked decline in empty sugar calories consumed without hurting the store's bottom line at all.
2) Lay out your alternate proposals and show how they would work better.

Your argument presupposes that (currently heavily subsidized) junk-food-selling convenience stores provide more jobs than (potentially heavily subsidized) fresh, healthy food-selling convenience stores.

I ask validation of the argument that the loss in jobs brought about by a steep tax on junk food will be balanced by saved lives and greater access to healthy foods.

If junk-food-selling convenience stores, many of which are not competitive with supermarkets, are currently heavily subsidized, the cost of supporting their transition to sell more expensive, labor-intensive fresh food would be a considerable burden on society. I'm not going to support any such transitions without first seeing pilot studies.

Don't bullshit about it being my duty to provide evidence that the fresh food-selling ones provide as many or more; job losses or gains are ancillary drawbacks or benefits compared to the general benefit of reducing obesity; to provide a serious objection, you must present evidence that your future visions are in any way reflective of actual potentials.

It is your personal value judgment that reducing obesity ought to take a higher priority than retaining jobs, just as it is my position that retaining jobs ought to take a higher priority. Ideally, we could craft policy that reduces obesity without placing any jobs in peril. The fresh food issue can be abstracted from the obesity issue, if one pleases. The tax, and what one does with the money, are actually distinct concepts, although in some instances, lack of access to green stuff is reportedly contributing to obesity.

If one asserts that an obesity tax provides an ideal way to also address food deserts, one must prove that there will be sufficient money generated to subsidize the introduction of grocery stores in areas where they are currently absent not because their list prices are uncompetitive, but because they cannot actually sell items in sufficient bulk.

Incredible. I ask you to show that these proposals would actually result in job losses, and you simply restate it as a premise and reason from there. Stop begging the question, bullshitter. Show evidence that these proposals would necessarily result in net job losses.

Interesting. When the state provides extra security in places where cross-border infiltration is possible, it's "not sensible." When someone slips through borders carrying an underwear bomb, it's because Obama hasn't spent enough time/energy on border security. Do you take classes in cognitive dissonance?

Don't kid yourself: a dinner cruise that leaves from, and returns to, the Port of Chicago has nothing to do with cross-border infiltration. That company was no more deserving of a grant than any other. Why a dinner cruise? Why does such a small-scale endeavor deserve additional attention when federal properties and courthouses are still insecure?

When someone slips through airports carrying an underwear bomb, or some other explosive in their clothing, it is a signal that security procedures are not sufficient comprehensive or invasive.

Yeah, it's certainly not like anyone ever snuck aboard a ship on the open waters.

[PainRack]

[quote="Axis Kast]But grocery stories aren't found in food deserts despite their clear ability to out-price smaller markets with lower budgets, fewer staff, and less opportunity for bulk purchasing. If you wish to advocate a method to bring grocery stores into food deserts, I'm right there with you. A tax on junk food isn't necessarily a useful approach.[/quote]
Excuse me, since when was grocery stores businesses and junk food tax EVER linked? The Junk food tax is a social tool to manipulate purchasing behaviour away from junk food.
You attempted to argue oh, convienence stores can't store fresh fruit and produce, people won't buy and grocery stores won't go into inner cities. Its a GENERAL FACT.

That's bollocks. We seen all of the counter examples in the past, in the present in other countries and cities. There probably ARE specific reasons that has caused the current situation as it is, but that's should be viewed as a challenge for change. NOT a "it has always been that way, it will always be that way".

This is why for the last time, I am challenging you one more time. Is or is not social engineering to encourage better health behaviours a desirable goal? YES OR NO?
Stop evading my central question.

The government should take action to ensure that all Americans have access to healthy foods at reasonable prices. The extent of that action can and should be debated. I am not inherently opposed to new or higher taxes.

Access at reasonable prices. That's appears to be an entirely different topic from what Wong, Broomstick and I are discussing.
The merits of our discussion is a inflationary tax to reduce consumption of junk food, at the same time, we can use the tax monies to increase consumption of healthful foods. The mechanics for the second has not been fleshed out in the course of our debate on this forum.

Most frozen food is less healthy than fresh food. Do you agree or disagree? One part of the push to bring cheaper, healthier options to people in inner cities should be, as Mike said, an encouragement of cultural change.

Define less healthful. They ARE less healthy, but that does not mean they are less healthful.
They are less healthy because frozen peas and other veggies tend to break down and become soggy due to the storage process. Some breakage and spillage is routine.
They are not LESS healthful provided that they have been stored properly and cooked properly. The risks of spoilage.... hmmm, not too sure about that.

The examples offered are not actually valid. I've provided detail in my replies to Broomstick above.

In WHAT sense? you have been offering "oh, its impossible because stores don't do it now and its not profitable." This even though other countries, other cities, the past, the present in terms of farmers market and co-op have ALL been successful.

Your last reply? You just shifted the bar higher. Now, convience stores need to be convinced to SELL produce? And more importantly, make this an important part of their economic model？

Since when was this part of our plan? Our plan has always been to DISCOURAGE consumption of junk food via prices. Excessive calories is a plan Broomstick raised.

Money raised could then be spent on encouraging increased consumption of healthful food. This entire sidetopic? Was raised when I highlighted that there were economic issues that prevented the poor from actually increasing consumption of vegetables and produce.
Solving those issues aren't too difficult. We already SEEN those glimmerings occur. Co-op farms and distributive networks, farmer markets and etc.

Good for them. This doesn't in any way address any of my points. Street vendors operate on a business model with very low overhead. They usually sell fruits and vegetables exclusively, and only in certain types of weather.

Bananas, oranges, and grapes. Sold in small bunches. To three or four customers each day.

Any actual data?

And of course, none of this actually address your contention. You insist that such a business model will be unprofitable and ineconomical. YET,we have shown instances of businesses successfully accomplishing this. If the contention is more specific, as in the current economic climate will hinder the adoption of such a inventory change or etc, then ARGUE along those lines. You're not. You're insisting that this can't be done.

[PainRack]

The assumption is being made that a tax on junk food will reduce consumption by persons who are obese. Yet, because fat people already pay enormous social and economic costs to sustain their lifestyle, and because they typically eat in abundance whether or not their meals are healthy, I require validation of your proposal before I will support it.

A reasonable qualification. However, the bulk of your argument has entirely ignored this.

The assumption is also being made, by others, that the small markets likely to be most affected by the rise in prices will be able to make up their losses by selling fruits and vegetables. This, also, requires some validation. None has been provided. Instead, people have offered examples of unrelated business models. They do not prove that convenience stores can sell fruits and vegetables in meaningful quantities. Indeed, these models, although supposedly competitive, have not already solved the problem of food deserts, where unhealthy foods are already more expensive in the first place.

The assumption being made by me is that the food distributers in neighbourhoods can sell fresh fruit and produce, so encouraging consumption of healthful foods.

It doesn't matter to me whether tis convience stores, 7-11 or what. Just that somebody CAN do it.

The assertion is being made, by you, that we can consider convenience stores synonymous with corporations, which themselves are simply fronts for destructive greed. Actually, convenience stores represent jobs. People. If you expect me to support social programs that put their livelihoods at risk, you'd better have convincing proof that your plan will benefit any of the people it is meant to help. I've also heard nothing specific about "cushioning" anybody's "transition" to anything.

This is interesting... Decreased consumption will threaten their livelihood? Ok. CHANGE your economic model.

Of course, the point is valid..... but tihs is the FIRST time you actually raised this issue vis a vis a cost/benefits analysis.

[PainRack]

I'm arguing that convenience stores have a hard time selling fruits and vegetables. They aren't equipped to do so efficiently or on a large scale.

You keep insisting that convenience stores have a hard time selling fruits and vegetables.

Below my very block is a mom and pop store selling VEGETABLES.

Will you stop with the bloody red herring?

Indeed, the only problem with mom and pop stores in Singapore is because of the government social planning regarding dense shopping centres and the increased infiltration of supermarkets to the neighbourhood, which draws grocery shoppers away from mom and pop stores. In the so called food deserts, this isn't a problem.

SO?

[Ziggy Stardust]

It isn't my fault your brain is broken.

Yes, it is fun to throw out insults when you can't answer the arguments, right?

I'm not refusing to entertain this program "on idiotic general ideological terms." I'm refusing to endorse this program because I don't see how it is likely to help the obese, the hungry, or those who don't get proper nourishment.

And yet you continue to refuse to demonstrate WHY it isn't likely, instead waving your hand and mumbling vaguely that the economic models won't support it. Even though they do, in many parts of the country.

The distribution networks which supply supermarkets cost money.

You realize these networks are ALSO the ones used to distribute junk food? It's not like healthy food is the ONLY thing that takes money to store and distribute.

You are saying, "I see that some companies have distribution networks! Clearly, all companies can sustain them!"

Where the hell did you get that from? I said that the distribution networks for distributing food already exist, and it is cheaper to expand these networks than create new ones. Why don't you try addressing the points people are ACTUALLY making?

[aieeegrunt]

I'm arguing that convenience stores have a hard time selling fruits and vegetables. They aren't equipped to do so efficiently or on a large scale.

You keep insisting that convenience stores have a hard time selling fruits and vegetables.

Below my very block is a mom and pop store selling VEGETABLES.

Will you stop with the bloody red herring?

Indeed, the only problem with mom and pop stores in Singapore is because of the government social planning regarding dense shopping centres and the increased infiltration of supermarkets to the neighbourhood, which draws grocery shoppers away from mom and pop stores. In the so called food deserts, this isn't a problem.

SO?

There are several convencience stores in the town closest to where I live that regularly stock fruits and veggies. And I'm pretty sure Owen Sound is on the opposite end of the demographic spectrum from Singapore!