digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at celsias.com

Why Eating a Big Mac is Cheaper than Eating a Salad

celsias.com — We ’ve all heard the figures. We know that meat production uses significantly more land and fossil fuel resources than a vegetarian diet. But, then, why on earth is it cheaper to eat meat than fresh fruit and vegetables?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • blapierre, on 02/23/2008, -84/+420Wow, another graph straight out of "How to Lie With Statistics". If you are going to use a 3D object for displaying information you have to tie the information to the volume, not just length or width or depth.

    Grain is 11 units while vegetables/fruits are 9 units. This is a ratio of about 1.2, the height of the grains section IS about 1.2x the height of the vegetables/grains section; however in the 3D object representing the data, the grain section is well over 2x the volume of the vegetables/fruits section. In reality the volume of the grains and vegetables/fruits sections should be close to the same size, however the impression given by this graph is the grains make up waaaaay more of the total then they actually do.

    The effect is even worse on the pyramid to the left since a pyramid shape is being used and it's volume per height decreases as you move up the pyramid.

    The only excuse for this kind of piss-poor graph making is complete ignorance or intentionally trying to mislead people.
    • homedaddy, on 02/23/2008, -16/+223That doesn't alter the underlying fact presented. We subsidize the crap out of meat production. If we had to pay the real cost of meat then people wouldn't eat pounds of it at each meal. I'm sure this doesn't include the health cost of our eating habits that these subsidies foster.
      • fuhlavaflave, on 02/23/2008, -29/+8I like the taste of meat, it comprises the majority portion of most of my meals, I have healthy blood pressure, and have a healthy weight for my height and gender. I'd rather not have to spend $20 a pound on ground beef.

        We have fat homeless people in America. Doesn't anyone else find that beautiful?
        • mrNesbitt, on 02/23/2008, -5/+28It's not just about your health. Meat & Dairy production puts a huge strain on the environment. If you're going to choose to have a harmful diet shouldn't you at least have to pay the actual cost of it? Why should my tax dollars be spent making your steak cheaper while I still have to pay 'full price' for my meals?
        • fuhlavaflave, on 02/23/2008, -23/+7"Why should my tax dollars be spent making your steak cheaper while I still have to pay 'full price' for my meals?"

          Because you're in the minority. Most people in this country would rather eat a big mac or a 20 oz. steak than a bowl full of lentils and legumes. People are willing to buy the meat to start. It's subsidized because more people want to be able to afford it.
          • VeganG, on 02/23/2008, -1/+19No, it's subsidized because of giant lobby groups like The Dairy Council, etc. Hell, there's COMMERCIALS on TV for pork, cheese, etc. Not a certain BRAND of these things, but the things in general. Doesn't that strike anyone as odd?
          • NullPolarity, on 02/24/2008, -2/+4Yeah, and no wonder we're a country of fatasses.

            Oh, I mean...
            ♪ I'M PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN~ ♪
          • kurtu5, on 02/25/2008, -1/+1*****, I love a good beef Wellington much as the next guy. But lentils are ***** tasty. I would rather eat a bowl of lentils for six days in a row then have a nice 20oz on the seventh day, than to eat 6 days worth of steaks and one day of lentils.

            ***** man the Roman soldiers used to revolt when their grain was taken away and they had to eat meat in their rations.
        • theseaman, on 02/23/2008, -4/+8That doesn't change the fact that we are hurting our environment and the people who choose to gourge themselves on meat every meal. If people were forced to eat more vegetables, people wouldn't be filling themselves with meat that rots in their stomachs and releases toxins that shorten their lifespan. If am in the minority, then I am getting the hell out of this country full of brainwashed idiots and moving to a place devoid of meat-craving half-wits.
          • senatorpjt, on 02/24/2008, -13/+1If beef cost $20/pound I'd still eat it because vegetables don't have any food value.
          • Fafnir43, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2Wait - you're in favour of imposing government-mandated /eating habits/? No. Just no. And as for "a place devoid of meat-craving half-wits", good ***** luck with that - /humanity/ is omnivorous, not just America.
          • Blandyman, on 02/24/2008, -2/+1seaman:

            Move to India where the majority are Hindi and thus against meat-eating. However, good luck surviving on the meager salaries.

            Doesn't it suck that your vegetarian Mecca barely has an economy?
          • theseaman, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1all:

            Okay. So, I only meant "forced" in that people will naturally buy the cheaper food items and that less subsidization of meat would cause a flux in our eating habits. I agree that I am in the minority(duh) and that my opinions will not affect the subsidies that make healthier food more expensive. What I am saying is that much of the world does not subsidize meat like we do. Much of the world does not consume even close to the amount of meat that we do (per person). I have spent a lot of time abroad and am not simply referring to countires like India. Everywhere I have been(France, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, etc.),vegetables are half the price they are here. Why? Because other countries have different attitudes about life, health, waste, politics, etc. So, I am simply admitting to the fact that I do not like what is happening in America and that I would like to live elsewhere.

            Also, We may be carnivorous by nature. Our bodies can handle meat. However, that does not mean it is always good for us, especially at the levels that we consume meat.
      • ccheath, on 02/23/2008, -0/+20POUNDS?
        • ArmandoM, on 02/23/2008, -2/+15I'm looking forward to my 5 lb. steak tonight.
        • rotundo, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Yeah, POUNDS:

          http://www.bigtexan.com/

          Though none of my friends have completed the entire 4.5 lbs, several have eaten more than 2 lbs.

          Of course, that's not normal.

          But also of course, he said "people ... pounds". Both are plural, so sure, a family of four regularly eats pounds of meat at each meal.
      • legoalert33, on 02/23/2008, -14/+3People said we would drive less and use less gas with rising costs of gasoline. but we haven't, everyone still drives. Do you really think the a higher cost for meat and dairy will really effect the peoples decision to become vegetarians? No, because meat just ***** tastes better. the real problem is that salads usually taste like ***** unless it has more toppings and dressings on it that it does salad, with most of those toppings being dairy or meat products such as ranch dressing, cheese, pepperoni, ham, bacon bits, etc.
        • senatorpjt, on 02/24/2008, -0/+4Everyone still drives, they have to. The way the US is at least, you have to drive to survive. However, people might be taking less road trips.
          • furcht, on 02/24/2008, -1/+4Not exactly. I live in the city (Denver) and drive my car (for loads of groceries and such) about 10 miles a week, bike where ever I can and even hike 25 floors of stairs to my job each day (excessive, I know... but I like it) . I eat meat but not much. Bottom line: I live pretty healthily. I'm shocked about how many of my border-line obese putrid neighbors will get in their vehicles to make a trip to our grocery store a mere four blocks away. I prattle on but my observation is this: Americans (to stereotype the people I live around.... but I think it's valid) are not willing to make concessions in either their diet or mode of transportation that might be slightly more better for them or the environment. It's really a joke.
          • kurtu5, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1Idiot, don't you know that you should drive to the gym like everyone else and take spinning classes on stationary bikes for exercise?
          • Solis, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1Hey kurtu5, not everyone lives in a major city that has decent public transportation and gyms, shops, and other things within walking distance.
        • NeilM, on 02/24/2008, -3/+1AFFECT, not EFFECT. Use your f*cking brain. Or better, a dictionary.
        • homedaddy, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2No, I'm not even saying we should all be vegetarians. I just think that perhaps it'd be nice if people had 6 oz. of meat with their meal instead of 24 oz. I do think that the price would change portion sizes a little.
      • ICSU, on 02/24/2008, -5/+3And meat production destroys the environment much more.
      • Leomarth, on 02/24/2008, -0/+8It's a fine example of why government shouldn't subsidize anything.
    • scuvball, on 02/23/2008, -26/+77What's the issue? The graph is completely explained. There is no misleading information unless you base all of your learning capacity on volumetric visualization. In which case, I apologize.
      • JavertHolmes, on 02/23/2008, -5/+37Volumetric visualization has a larger impact on a large set of people than words. When your visualization is wrong, it *will* mislead people. I agree with the original poster.
      • Jelfish, on 02/23/2008, -2/+14The picture is wrong and therefore a detriment to the presentation of the information (i.e. just a table would have been better).
      • keeganspeck, on 02/23/2008, -6/+3Actually, in my opinion, if that visualization were displayed correctly, it would mislead people. The brain thinks about things in a linear way better than a three dimensional way. It is easier to associate 75% with three-quarters of the height, than have to think about things and realize 75% of a pyramid's volume is actually probably about half its height. For the people who just want a representation, this way is much better, though inaccurate.
        • Creamedweasel, on 02/23/2008, -0/+11They could've used a 2-d triangle to present this much better. Then everyone would be happy.
    • Rohhob, on 02/23/2008, -16/+34Wow, if only you could use some of the effort you put into your comment into reading comprehension.
      • dsiv, on 02/23/2008, -0/+5He's simply pointing out that the figure is (unintentionally or intentionally) misleading. Figures clearly influence the ability of a reader to conceptualize numbers. Why would they be included if the did not serve to influence? Things like 3d shapes, graphs with non-standard scales, and overly stratified data all tend to make the truth less clear, and should be avoided.
    • bizkit00, on 02/23/2008, -16/+7Many people use shadows or add a side to represent 3d shapes to objects in presentations, and you have to go into it knowing that, unless it's a math presentation. It's not a big deal, and is in no way "[Lying] with statistics," the statistics are there represented accurately and displayed in a way to catch the eye.
    • brainboy77, on 02/23/2008, -6/+69i didn't know people could that pissed off at food pyramids...
      • sockpuppets, on 02/23/2008, -1/+74A food pyramid killed his family. Show some respect.
        • Trollmaster, on 02/23/2008, -12/+1AHHAHAHAHAAHHAA..... thx for that one
        • BossKey, on 02/23/2008, -6/+5There may actually be truth to that bit of humor, depending on the prevalence of heart disease in one's family...
    • Winston84, on 02/23/2008, -11/+33I think he's complaining about the fact that he has to read instead of just look at pretty pictures ..
    • FeartheKnighted, on 02/23/2008, -20/+3What do you expect, that whole site is sponsored by tree hugging hippies who all failed basic math classes.
    • JavertHolmes, on 02/23/2008, -1/+15I agree.. the pyramid *volumes* are misleading. A more interesting set of numbers would have been ratios of subsidy shares : # of servings per day shares

      In that case you have:

      Meats/proteins at 3.17:1 subsidy share versus daily serving share
      Grains at 0.3:1
      Fruits/veggies at 0.01:1

      Which show hundreds and thousandfold ratios between meat and the other two.. I'd appreciate if someone could check my math, as I'm doing this posting half distracted.

      • kurtu5, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1Fruits/veggies at 0.01:1 - Which begs the question, where are all the Southern California and Floridian fruit grower lobbies?

        /Hiassen
    • Trollmaster, on 02/23/2008, -1/+16***** graph.... good article
      • JavertHolmes, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4I find it sad that four paragraphs is what passes for an article these days.
    • theAlice, on 02/23/2008, -4/+35"Note: Figures are correct, but visual representation is not to scale"
    • ryandaws, on 02/23/2008, -1/+3Assuming the height is 1.5x the base, the proper volume relationship would have the "proteins" section of the pyramid come up to about 0.52*h of the pyramid. Here it comes up .73*h of the pyramid, representing a 93% volume relationship. The only reason to have this kind of graph is to help visualize the numbers, therefore regardless of the disclaimer the only purpose it serves is to misrepresent the facts.
    • Tiak, on 02/23/2008, -0/+9It says, "Note: Figures are correct, but visual representation is not to scale" I would assume it is not originally their image... The actual numbers stll show things as screwed up... Even had it been rendered accurately, according to the food pyramid (which generally sucks), meat should only be 20% of one's diet, but is 73% of all subsidies.... It is still a significant difference.
    • sublimemm, on 02/23/2008, -5/+2comment buried for inaccurate or misleading... and moronic
    • bmunichman, on 02/23/2008, -10/+5The ***** is your problem? he's using 3-d graphs because he wants to link the statistics to the motif of the food pyramid. Plus 3-d always looks more exciting for graphs. If you tie the numbers to volume of a ***** pyramid, you get regions that look completely off of their numerical values. People looking at this graph want to look and think (well that looks about twice/half/3 times/whatever of that one, and the easiest way to do that is with ONE ***** dimension, just height. Who the ***** wants to do volume calculations in their head just to figure out how much more one element is than the other. The raw numbers would be far more useful in that case.
      • gmiley, on 02/23/2008, -0/+6While to me it isn't quite as big of a deal as it is to the OP, I would still have to agree that the graph is visually misleading. I would have also preferred it if the volumes would have matched up. If you aren't going to make a pyramid graph volumetrically correct then make it a 3D bar graph instead, but that's just my own opinion.
        • bmunichman, on 02/23/2008, -1/+1When I've stopped being an angry, bitter person, I actually do agree with you to some extent. Its not the optimal way to demonstrate this date, however i still would disagree about creating it volumetrically correct, i still believe trying to compare 3-D volumes to get the relative magnitudes of data is far too demanding for a simple graph. I would probably say drop the 3-D effect and just go with the area of a triangle, or a pie chart, or just a simple bar graph. While the OP is sensationalizing by saying the graph is trying to be deceptive, you are right in that it can be somewhat misleading depending on how you try to interpret the graph
          • gmiley, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3Now that you mention it, the pie chart would probably be the best way to represent that data. It just seems pointless to me to create a pyramid graph, really for just about anything in general. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would be best represented with a pyramid over any other types.

            Ugh, I can't believe I am debating the pros and cons of different graphing styles on a Saturday afternoon... I'm off to play some video games. =p
          • screensnot, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1gmiley- how about a graph that compares the heights of some of the pyramids in Egypt?
    • Railer, on 02/23/2008, -8/+2celsias.com are crooks they constantly fake information and use a swarm of dig bots to force their page to nearly the front page, there by needing only a few people to agree with the story to get it pushed to the front page. I would like to thank all those who digged this article that you once again proved gaming digg is the best way to go.
      • L0g1X, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1That is true. All of the comments defending the website were up 5-10 and now they're in the negatives. That is usually a sign of digg manipulation.
    • jullietcharlie, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2you are skirting the issue. Yes his way of representing the statistics visually is misleading and he states that as a footnote. But the 75 to 0.5% subsidization is a ratio of 150 and I think the graph does a decent job of representing that enormity at least.
    • dash1185, on 02/23/2008, -0/+8here you idiot, the correct version :
      http://i27.tinypic.com/2a0cfiu.jpg
      huge difference isn't it ?
    • pizzas, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1so the federal recommendations shouldnt be in a pyramid? great point. It must be a conspiracy.....
      nice dash1185, we could call it the food pillar instead?
      • unpolloloco, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1it should be in a triangle, not a pyramid
    • mrfunktastic, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1Good lord all, you are having a graphing/visualization/math argument about something that could not be more basic: huge fast food corporations make very unhealthy food quite cheap for people who need cheap food. It costs quite a bit more to afford healthy food in America.

      It's simple: snake oil profit hucksters at the top of fast food corporate food chains do not give a ***** about the health of the people who buy their food. The problem is the executives want easy money; it is identical to the Tobacco industry. Real people who actually care more about growing and sharing really good and healthy food don't care as much about profits and therefore are not as shark-like, and therefore have to charge a little more to make ends meet.

      Read Fast Food Nation. Anybody who has not read that book is forbidden from commenting. Period.
    • Spudster, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1I can't believe how many sweat and tears have been lost arguing about volumetrics...
    • byrdgang, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1How To Lie With Statistics...one of the best books I've ever read. Some people will try to downplay the value of honesty in statistics or the significance of what you've just explained, but they don't realize that someone can be so dishonest can easily be dishonest elsewhere.

      Dugg for referencing How To Lie With Statistics.
    • ozziedog, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1Whoa Mr. Purist. How do you think this graph was made? It was made by a graphic artist likely trying to digest as best as he/she can the info provided to them by someone who was a few levels away from the scientist who wrote the report. So take it easy. I am sure their knowledge of lithography compared to yours would make you look foolish.
  • vault, on 02/23/2008, -32/+11There's a dollar menu salad, so a Big Mac is not cheaper than a salad. People try to say this though as an excuse to get the better-tasting Big Mac, or to complain about capitalism, but ironically the truth is you can get 3 dollar menu salads for the cost of one Big Mac.
    • KibibyteBrain, on 02/23/2008, -3/+21Well, you can live off a Big Mac a day probably, but you'd need a few dollar menu salads. The real reason burgers are so cheap is that you can freeze beef and keep it forever. Try to do that with a salad. The costs of running a restaurant are mainly in waste, not the actual cost of materials, unless you are like a steakhouse or the like.
      • vsujohn2, on 02/23/2008, -3/+5Well think about it this way, yeh you can keep beef for a long time, but if it was priced higher because of less subsidies and fruits/vegetables were given the treatment they needed you wouldnt have to worry about that frozen beef. Why have expensive frozen beef when you can have fresh fruits and veggies every day for cheap?
        • netant, on 02/23/2008, -2/+2The point is that the beef is stored and not decomposing. No matter what magical food storage you cad devise, processed lettuce cannot keep for more than a day. (And don't bring up stupid arguments about chopping up the lettuce on site to stretch preservation times.)

          That means at a cost to store the beef (freezer), you only have to deal with ordering every few days. Loss=zero. You cannot store lettuce the same way, so you need to use just-in-time procurement procedures in order to sell the product. Loss=everytime you overestimate the amount of salad you can move on day X.

          While Kibi may be nuts to think loss costs is more responsible for the higher prices than taxpayer susidized beef, loss costs on produce are SIGNIFICANT.
      • JavertHolmes, on 02/23/2008, -2/+1Exactly. I just checked, and a side salad without dressing is 20 calories according to mcdonald's nutritional calculator. If you add a calorie-laden dressing to that, you're now adding a lot of high % fat calories into the mix, which isn't very healthy either. As far as I know, there's no high-calorie dressing that's low in fat proportionally out there. The real way to make the salad healthy and/or filling is to throw some nuts or berries in, or some lean meat in, none of which will keep the cost at $1per salad. Hell, a few servings of salads worth of dried cranberries will run you $5 alone.
    • DrVoltron, on 02/23/2008, -3/+4you have to take into account calories. One dollar menu salad won't have anywhere near the food-energy value of a big mac.
    • BossKey, on 02/23/2008, -1/+11"... or to complain about capitalism..."

      No, this can't be a complaint about capitalism. If strict capitalism was in use, there would be no food subsidies (government handouts), and without so much tax money supporting meat, we might be motivated by price to eat more nutritiously.
  • quakerorts, on 02/23/2008, -8/+138Grains (corn, soy, wheat) and sugar are cheaper than real food (apples, asparagus, squash) because the government is in bed with large corporate farms and gives them billions in corporate welfare every year. That's why Americans are fat and unhealthy. Our government's priorities are backwards and the Western Diet is suffering for it.
    • CraigMac, on 02/23/2008, -2/+33Everything you've said is correct, unfortunately. But the U.S. and it's citizens are not the only ones to suffer either. Due to large subsidies, farmers are encouraged to grow more than the nation actually needs, which has in turn led to 'dumping', where US grown grains are dumped into the markets of developing nations, undercutting local growers and putting them out of business.

      The tide is shifting on this though, with biofuels. Overflow grains are now diverted into ethanol, with it's own issues of snatching food out of the hands of the poor who have come to rely on it.

      In the end, it's all based on monocrop farming, which won't go the distance in the long term, as it's based on constantly taking from the soil and not giving back. Its days are numbered:

      http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/26/the-rise-and-pre ...
      • TwistedRonin, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1"The tide is shifting on this though, with biofuels. Overflow grains are now diverted into ethanol, with it's own issues of snatching food out of the hands of the poor who have come to rely on it."
        That isn't the only problem, because the biofuels use the grains, they drive the costs of said grains up.
    • CaptMonkey, on 02/23/2008, -16/+7Enough with this corporate farm nonsense, I'm tired of hearing it. Corporate farms make up 1.7% of the farms in the US (and 13.7% of farm production). The other 98.3% are family-owned farms. This idea of a faceless "corporate farm" getting money from the government is just completely wrong. Sure, the government subsidies should probably be rearranged to support growing healthier foods, but this idea of corporations getting the government to give them all this money to grow specific things is just *****. Get off it.

      source to read for yourself: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB12/EIB12c. ...
      • CraigMac, on 02/23/2008, -3/+19Hi CaptMonkey, I don't disagree re actual ownership, but I think that's a bit of an overly simplistic way of looking at it. The report you've referenced, for example, states that:

        "Large-scale family farms and nonfamily farms account for 73 percent of production".

        The report also gives a couple of nice pie charts that give the breakdown on this.

        Essentially, your report strengthens the picture that most farms in the U.S. today are large monocrop systems. Your report also shows that small scale livestock farming is a complete minority. Actual ownership isn't the issue as much as how they're run, and who are getting the subsidies. Additionally, the whole supply, marketing, transport and retail chain for these large farms are corporate owned.
        • CaptMonkey, on 02/23/2008, -3/+1Right, large scale *family* farms. ie non-corporate. They're saying that small-scale farmers (those whose sales, not profit, are less than $250,000 a year) only account for 27%. Believe what you want, you've seen the facts.
      • JavertHolmes, on 02/23/2008, -5/+4I love how a person who's actually able to come up with real data is being buried into oblivion. The poster above me, who said "most farms in the U.S. today are large monocrop systems" ignored the fact that page 10 of that PDF (physical page 15) says "Farms become more diversified as size increases. Many *small farms* specialize in a single commodity or produce nothing at all. Medium sales farms and large-scale farms are more likely to produce multiple commodities..."
    • sup4141, on 02/23/2008, -10/+12Buried, americans are not fat because of the government. Americans are fat because society has become lazy. Get off your ass and exercise.
      • bieber, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2Not just because they're lazy, but because they have no self-control. I saw a sign at Wal-Mart the other day for Nabisco cookies that, I figure, sums up everything that's wrong with America today: it read "Cater to your cravings." I was lucky enough to escape that mentality before my body started to get really bad, but there are, sadly, millions more who won't...
      • offspring06, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Fast Food plays a large part in obesity. It is easy to eat a meal at McDonalds that has over 1000 calories in it.
        • evangelion01, on 02/23/2008, -7/+1I eat 3 double cheeseburgers a day, 1 chipotle burrito and alot of rice and beans oh... and 2 500calorie protein shakes... and im not fat at all 185pounds 6'2" .....So no, it's not fat food is lazy ass people.

          DEY KNOW I GIVE A ***** ABOUT THEM HATERZ , YOUNG JIZZLE BEEN GETTING PAPERS!!!~! YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
      • stoanhart, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3That is partially true, 4141. However, with the gap between rich and poor growing larger due to the government's mismanagement of the economy and the currency, a lot of people can only afford to eat what's cheap. Subsidizing the "wrong" food means that poor people have to eat ***** diets.
        • bgovern, on 02/23/2008, -2/+1I won't even go into the 'government's managing the economy' nonsense, but is a falsehood to make a blanket statement that things that are bad for you are the only cheap foods. If you shop carefully, and are willing to put the elbow grease in to prepare it, a very healthy meal is not much money.
          • lunasunshine, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2But, this "elbow grease" requires other things as well. For instance, pots, pans, a stove/oven/microwave, and other such things. So back to square one, extremely poor people (and homeless people) eat what is cheap available, and ready to eat. An apple sounds like it'd be perfect, if it were cheaper....
          • furcht, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Whole Foods FTW!
        • whorunbartertwn, on 02/23/2008, -1/+0It's probably true that with money one can more conveniently eat a healthy meal, but if one is willing to make the effort eating healthy and cheap is quite possible, as is a nice brisk 30 minute walk every day.
        • VeganG, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2How many of those "poor" people are also browsing the electronics section while they're at Wal-Mart? I spend most of my money on rent, and almost just as much money on food, and then a couple of hours a day cooking things from scratch. There's not much money left after that, but whatever.
    • stackered, on 02/23/2008, -3/+3The real reason is because McDonald's new value menu can't be beat! Now open 24 hrs!
    • atticus8, on 02/23/2008, -2/+11) Grains (corn, soy, wheat) are not real food? Must tell that to the multiple cultures subsisting on them for centuries...
      2) I have to agree with you, however, on Americans being fat and unhealthy because of the government. Agent Peterson, the federal diet enforcer who lives in my guest bedroom and is assigned to point a gun at me until I finish my daily quota of twelve deep-fried buttermilk-battered Bon-Bons stuffed in Twinkies, is a real *****. I wish he'd leave so I could finally buy a salad from the supermarket - hopefully a salad without corn, and other fake foods.
      • mrfunktastic, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2A person who makes $10 dollars an hour, has to pay rent, has to feed their child, etc, etc will yes, be quite largely tempted by the very real AGENT PETERSON hanging over their head who makes it easy to afford a very unhealthy big mac instead of a nice organic steak, soup and salad. That Big Mac and fries is so full of garbage, it's amazing the insurance industry doesn't get in a major war with them.

        AGENT PETERSON is actually just a ton of rich people who have figured out yet another way to ***** over poor people by showing them they can afford a little something that actually ***** them over in the end.

        So shut it and grow a little knowledge, you spoiled *****.
        • atticus8, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1"Your Honor, I accuse a whole ton of rich people of tricking all the poor people of the world into eating this cheap food." Good luck with that.
          And if you think you can't eat healthy and cheap at the same time, it's you that's the spoiled *****. I can hear you now: "Who could even survive on large bag of rice or beans when I could buy a SINGLE four-layer burger blaster! I demand big flavor food, and I want someone else to prepare it for me, AND I want to pay the labor costs of that preparation - thus higher consumer price - even though I'm supposed to be saving money."
          Your argument is ridiculous.
    • thtroyer, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Does anyone realize that grains are _much_ easier to produce? One farmer can manage hundreds of acres of grain, perhaps a thousand+ acres.

      The cost of producing the other foods is much higher (apples, asparagus, squash), so it only makes sense that the grains are cheaper. Not only are they guaranteed to need more manpower, but typically more care and time (it takes an apple tree years to begin producing). The fruit of all of those also requires more care than any grain.
    • senatorpjt, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Apples, asparagus, and squash aren't "real food". (most) fruits and vegetables are basically worthless in terms of food energy for humans, it's basically like eating dirt.
      • mrfunktastic, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Have fun being the only person in 2008 to die of Scurvy.
        • senatorpjt, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1I'm not saying I don't eat fruits/vegetables, I'm saying they can't be the basis of a diet because they don't have enough calories. It's like with plants. Fruits/Vegetables are like fertilizer, and high-calorie food like meat/grain is like light. You need both.
  • meshman, on 02/23/2008, -5/+75Unfair comparison. A salad is food.
    • molochi, on 02/23/2008, -12/+30"Unfair comparison. A salad is what food eats."

      There, I fixed that for ya.
    • Rileyper, on 02/23/2008, -4/+10a salad is whats on my big mac
    • senatorpjt, on 02/24/2008, -6/+3A salad isn't food. People eat because they're hungry, they're hungry because they need caloric intake. Salad (without dressing) has almost no calories, and therefore has no value as food. You're basically eating dressing, and the salad is just the fork.

      So, if you want to save money, you can just eat dressing packets and skip the roughage. I've done it when I was broke.
      • thetalkingbrain, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1actually we eat to replace calories, minerals and vitamins. not to mention fatty acids, enzymes, proteins, carbs and that ever important water that our body is 60+% composed of. a burger will get you carbs, protein and fat and probably alot of excess chemicals depending on where the burger is from. i'm a meat eater, but balance is the key, balance as in a variety of daily fresh veggies and fruit far outweighing burgers, steaks and processed store bought dead food.
    • TheUngod, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1Only if it has dressing
  • anogenic, on 02/23/2008, -2/+25What's new? We all know they just want us to get fat and die young...
    • carpespasm, on 02/23/2008, -3/+4it's the greatest thing you can do to help get the medicare and social security systems to not collapse before anyone under 40 ever sees a dime of the quarter of their income that they'll never see again. Get grandma to eat the cheeseburger.
      • atgmac, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2I've now read that 3 times and I still don't understand it any better.
        • lunasunshine, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2Translation:
          Making people get fat helps people die quicker. This leads to less social security being paid out. You pay almost a quarter of your income on SSI. Get gradma to eat the cheeseburger.

          /the proceeding statements are not necessarily those of the author. This is just a translation of carpespasm's thoughts.
        • mrfunktastic, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Skip the middleman and eat the Grandma.
    • atticus8, on 02/23/2008, -1/+1"They" want us to die young?!? OH NOEZ! "They" strike again. Maybe one day "they" will leave so it will just be "us": a paradise on earth. But that's dangerous thinking - I've got to get back to my accounting...
    • 55PercentCrew, on 02/25/2008, -0/+0Nah, they want us to live longer so we can continue paying taxes.
  • smacksaw, on 02/23/2008, -6/+55If there's an area where we need the free market, this is it. We need to end subsidies NOW.
    • Nighthawk4900, on 02/23/2008, -12/+2not really, modern economic theory shows the importance of government influence in the economy... taxes and subsidies go hand in hand to keep a stable economy
      • domokunt, on 02/23/2008, -5/+1Let me guess that theory came from the universities no?
        • StandupShowcase, on 02/23/2008, -1/+6you mean people who actually study history and factual evidence instead of propaganda from partisan hacks on AM radio? f'ing right wing morons trying to insult intellectualism makes me laugh.
          • domokunt, on 02/23/2008, -3/+2The fact that universities are government funded hardly makes them impartial
          • Spudster, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Domokunt you can't be serious...
      • ceraphin, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4Government influence is important in the economy, but it takes it way too far since most of it's influence is influenced by good ol lobbyists
        • StandupShowcase, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2that is because the good old right wing gop and libertarians push forward the lie that lobbyist money is free speech and should be protected. wake up.
      • thecoolestguy, on 02/24/2008, -1/+3That's absolute *****. Modern economic theory holds that free markets create the most prosperity and the highest standard of living. The US is NOT a free market economy.
        • Spudster, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2No your branch of economic theory holds free market thinking... There are many branches of economics that disagree with each other you know.
          • StandupShowcase, on 02/24/2008, -2/+1shhh. don't tell the internet free market fan boys that outside of their bubble they aren't taken seriously. oh well they can always go to work for the cato institute.
          • thecoolestguy, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1It's not just the free market branch that holds this view, experimental economics has produced data supporting the case that free markets are economically superior. Kenneth Arrow and Gerard Debreu have shown that mathematically that free markets produce Pareto efficient outcomes.

            History also testifies that libertarianism produces the most prosperty (e.g. the US in the 19th century when it was the free-est nation in the world and became the world's industrial super power).

            ---don't tell the internet free market fan boys that outside of their bubble they aren't taken seriously. ---

            Ok StandupShowcase, you mainstream 'economists' sure know what you're doing:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGpY2hw7ao8

            The only people who shouldn't be taken seriously are those who support big government.

      • bthug7, on 02/24/2008, -1/+2where'd you learn about economics, University of Stalin?
      • piouspeter, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2says who? the democratic party?

        do you even know what economics is?
    • StandupShowcase, on 02/23/2008, -0/+7no, what we need is to get lobbyist money out of washington so the meat/dairy industries can't buy politicians off in return for subsidies.
      • unpolloloco, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2wouldn't that create a freer market?
  • tundra721, on 02/23/2008, -13/+1Sweet. Another reason for Americans to get even fatter.
    If you're going to conduct a study and make random things up, at least make up some results that entail a healthy outcome.
    • vibrokatana, on 02/23/2008, -2/+6Why? Should we pretend everything is fine and dandy while there are serious issues that need to be addressed? I guess you think the government is out to take care of you with socialized medicare and the welfare check coming in every month.
      • calibration, on 02/23/2008, -4/+1What's wrong with socialized medicine?
      • tundra721, on 02/23/2008, -2/+1What the hell are you talking about?
  • Enderplayer1, on 02/23/2008, -12/+4Wow I totally first read the title as "Why Eating a Big Mac is Cheaper than Eating a Sand" I need to get my brain fixed...
  • 3tcp, on 02/23/2008, -1/+18It isn't just the subsidies for certain goods and industries, it's also the regulations that mandate use of certain products (i.e. ethanol), quota's to restrict foreign competition (i.e. high fructose corn syrup vs sugar cane) and the crowding out effect where the subsidies for feed corn mean less land will be devoted to growing vegetables.
    • DangerCollie, on 02/23/2008, -1/+4That's exactly right. We can't import sugar to make ethanol because the sugar lobby is one of the most relentless and vicious cartels out there. So we have to use corn, which drives up the prices on almost every other food product. All because the sugar lobby has been successful at buying influence in Washington.
      • 3tcp, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Companies have responded to the high price of sugar by substituting it with high fructose corn syrup. This increases prices for corn and the corn lobby will fight the quota's repeal tooth and nail. The sugar industry in the US is small and really doesn't have any need for a lobby since big corn will protect them.
  • acrodev, on 02/23/2008, -5/+17The reason is because the fast-food "meat" is mass-produced in factories that inject all kinds of crap into the "meat" to make it bigger and less nutritious. Add in the health costs and you're way better eating the salad. Add in the environmental impact and eventually we're all wallowing in pig feces.
  • nycmac247, on 02/23/2008, -2/+13To Quote Black Sabbath -- "Killing Yourself to Live"
  • elbergel, on 02/23/2008, -10/+6Wow George Bush really loves the meat!
    • nycmac247, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2Are you refering to the "escort" scandal that hit the White House a while back and then went away fast?
      Google Jeff Gannon and "white house access"...

    • flip2trip, on 02/23/2008, -2/+5good god man the next thing you're gonna blame Bush for WWII--geezers!!
  • satman33, on 02/23/2008, -2/+22There are lies, damn lies then statistics. Dollar menu salads FTW. Just watch out for the dressing, that ***** will kill you.
    • goldfenix, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4While I'm onboard with the article's statistics, this man speaks the truth. Wendy's Side Salad is remarkably good for just a buck. Just use the dressing sparingly, because... damn.
    • katrayun, on 02/23/2008, -0/+7That's great! Now try avoiding the fast food places, going to your supermarket and buying your own salad ingredients - or any other produce. Even non-organic produce is pricey these days. The best prices tend to be local produce.
      • faskippy, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1I buy large bags of romaine lettuce at a wholesale club, usually. 3 bucks for a lot of green. Works fine. Also, even someone who lives in an apartment, can grow container tomatoes on their balcony. Seeds are cheap.
    • faskippy, on 02/23/2008, -0/+121. Empty dressing into small cup.
      2. Dip fork into dressing.
      3. Stab salad with aforementioned fork.

      First thing you taste is the dressing, but you actually get much less of it this way. At the end, you will barely notice a dent in the dressing, and you tasted it just fine.
    • byrdgang, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Oh please...the dressing is better than the salad..why limit yourself?!
    • zirconx, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Dollar menu salad with no dressing, thats about 130 calories. Yea that will fill me up...
  • H0tKarl, on 02/23/2008, -5/+6Supply and demand?
  • blkhwk86, on 02/23/2008, -5/+40You're skewing it. It is not cheaper to eat a salad over a Big Mac. I'm a college student and if you buy the individual ingredients for a salad such as lettuce, spinach, some salad dressing and various toppings it came out to a little under $15 a week for me. I felt better and lost about 50 pounds. It's all about convenience when it comes to a burger and over-value their time and think a burger is cheaper when it is worse in the long run. Federal subsidies are in to make a certain food more affordable to grow and therefore keep prices in general low. I'm sure some of that money that went to beef trickled down to the grains and out groups because how the hell are you going to raise cattle without feeding them something.
    • exomni, on 02/23/2008, -0/+12If you buy the individual ingredients for a hamburger such as crappy meat, a crappy bun, a single leaf of lettuce blended up into goo, and a bulk sized jar of mayonnaise and ketchup, each hamburger costs about 15 cents to make. That comes to a grand total of $3.15 a week if you eat three hamburgers a day every day.
      • whorunbartertwn, on 02/23/2008, -0/+0How much crappy meat is in a hamburger? I see hamburger meat sold in large chubs (heh I said chub) for a couple dollars a pound, that puts the meat component at 50 cents right there not including the fixins and condiments.

        The primary ingredient in a salad is a head of lettuce, which for $1 will make what 4 salads?
        • darkane, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1$2/lb meat is higher quality than what McDonalds uses. You can by that kind of industrial sludge for about $0.60/lb or less, and seeing as how most fast food burgers are really only about 1/10th of a pound of meat, that would make a lot of burgers for not a lot of money.
    • atgmac, on 02/23/2008, -1/+6You're right, because if you eat salad every day instead of a big mac every day, you're going to live twice as long which means higher food costs.
    • TheRebel88, on 02/23/2008, -8/+2yeah right you lost 50 pounds. keep eating those Bic Macs, fatty McFatty.
      • senatorpjt, on 02/24/2008, -3/+1I believe he lost 50 pounds, I don't believe he felt better though. Lettuce has about as much nutritional value as eating notebook paper.
      • MillionsLivio, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Both of you are idiots.
    • zirconx, on 02/24/2008, -1/+3You're comparing prepared food with groceries. Not a valid comparison.
  • michaelfitz, on 02/23/2008, -3/+14The answer: SUBSIDIES.
  • Spektr4, on 02/23/2008, -1/+4Nobody pays any attention to the "Farm Bill" despite its impact on the very food we eat. It should be renamed the "Food Bill" and covered by the media. But politicians from farm states like it just how it is.
    • VeganG, on 02/23/2008, -0/+5The farm industry is really ***** up. Everyone owes it to themselves to read The Omnivore's Dilemma. It shows first-hand how crazy it is.

      Meat isn't the only thing that's subsidized. Farmers are forced by the government to grow things like corn, which technically sell at the supermarket for less than it costs to grow the damn thing, and the government pitches in the difference. If the farmer chooses to grow something else, his career is over, despite his choice to start growing something that's technically profitable. Something needs to change.
      • nakani, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2Of course, we're still paying full price since gov't subsidies come from taxes. It's just a hidden cost. Same thing for oil: you're paying a lot more than the pump prices.
      • Akronos, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Not only are we getting screwed, but so are farmers in third world nations who are being outmuscled in their own domestic markets by our large corporate farming companies that we subsidize. Companies like Agra flood foreign markets with extremely cheap food and the foreign farmers are driven into poverty. The only people that benefit from this are the politicians and, more importantly, the big food corporations.
  • Xela21, on 02/23/2008, -1/+1no wonder...
  • Typhoon2009, on 02/23/2008, -0/+11That's because Big Macs are crap. I'd wager that it'd be cheaper for me to get a salad (pre-made or just the ingredients) than it would be to get proper ground beef.
    • Pixelpaws, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2I can buy ground beef in a family sized package (4-5 pounds) for $1.35/pound. Ground chuck is $1.85/lb. That means each quarter-pound burger costs me under fifty cents if I make it myself. I couldn't possibly make a salad for that.
  • drake77, on 02/23/2008, -1/+54The day we stop subsidizing the production of corn syrup will be a good day.
    • flip2trip, on 02/23/2008, -0/+18we need to stop producing all products laced with so much sugar that our kids are coming out of the womb with tooth decay and diabetes...
      • exomni, on 02/23/2008, -0/+8Amen to that!

        It's despicable that people are digging you down for such a rational comment.
    • MajorCrazy, on 02/23/2008, -0/+6It really is becoming too difficult to find something without "high fructose corn syrup" in it. That stuff will cause you to not feel full when you've eaten enough food. Plus it requires more amounts to equal the same sweetness of sugar, but it's cheaper so everybody uses it. Personally I think all our food could get by with 10% less sugar, and it be un-noticed, even more for things that don't need sugar Oatmeal, Granola bars, soups, there is no reason for these to have sugar in them at all. If people want a chocolate-filled "granola" bar, just get a freaking Hershey bar and leave decent food to have decent health quality.
      • VeganG, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3Even bread has corn syrup in it these days. Bread!
    • MoralCuntPiss, on 02/23/2008, -3/+0Corn syrup isn't subsidized. Corn is.
  • johnpaul191, on 02/23/2008, -0/+29They make a point with subsidized foods, but it's also very skewed when you compare things on a McDonald's menu, for example. The burger is mixed with fillers, and been frozen and possibly came from a cow killed two years ago. That recent tainted meat thing recalled beef back to Feb 2006, and local schools found some meat that was "produced" in early 2006. 2 year old meat?!?! yikes!
    Anyway, while they can warehouse meat for 2+ years in burger format to level out supply and demand, you can not really do that with fresh lettuce or spinach in a salad. Burgers could ride out a year long trucker's strike, while all veggies would rot in a matter of weeks. It's kind of crazy.
    While a meat burrito at Taco Bell is cheap as dirt, it won't be anything like 99¢ at one of those chain places that doesn't use frozen meat.
    Also consider that McDonalds is charging you over $1.00 for a cup with ice and sugar water. The profit margin on a cup of soda (or coffee) is astronomical. I'm sure they do all the math on what the average order. While the profits on some items are less, they make it up somewhere else.

    • DeadElephant, on 02/23/2008, -1/+14It costs 8 cents for BK to make a king sized soda, cup, straw, soda and cover. They charge upwards of $2.00, something like that. Do the math.
      • VeganG, on 02/23/2008, -0/+6Nobody in the world needs a king sized soda in the first place. The most ridiculous are those GIANT thermos cups you get at 7-11, Circle K etc. I swear those things hold 4 liters.
        • senatorpjt, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3You might not think that until you try to save money by going to a fast food joint and skipping the soda. By the time you finish your meal, your mouth tastes like you just ate a salt shaker.
          • VeganG, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3So get a small, or a kids size, or some water. Go to McDonald's in ANY other country, and their large is the size of our small.

            I enjoy a good soda every now and then. I'm only human. But we're not supposed to be drinking candy with every meal.
    • flip2trip, on 02/23/2008, -3/+3that is how the hell they can sell a burger for a dollar, wake up people--drink water screw the burger chains!!1
    • robharper, on 02/23/2008, -1/+3You make a good point about shelf life -- frozen meat can last years while fresh produce must be consumed almost immediately. There are many more factors at play here than just evil subsidies.

      Also, I agree that the dairy industry is too reliant on government funding, but everybody ignores the fact that wheat and rice receive even more. Is that also immoral? I don't think the answers are so simple.
  • superyounan1, on 02/23/2008, -1/+13its much cheaper in the U.S to be fat than it is to be skinny: the government takes our money and subsidizes the foods that make us fat and sick, then uses very little on health care. Its as if the government wants us to live shorter sicker lives.

    whats wrong with supply and demand? promising to end subsidies to special interests doesn't exactly put you on the fast track to office. I think its safe to say that a vast majority of politicians, just by the mere fact that they were elected, are willing to compromise their principles at the sight of a dollar
    • Eunonia, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3You are correct. Think about the benefits that government gains from companies that pay them each year and not just from taxes. Also, with entire nation being overweight and sick and on hundreds of drugs in their lifetime, and not very smart, government sure got your vote on things that they really need to do and as a democracy we all agree, and furthermore, being sick gives insurance companies rights to give you or not to give you money if say you develop cancer. They key here is not to take any medication even Tylenol, or aspirin or bayer which also contains aspirin and other drugs mixed into one tablet. And, avoid white sugar like a plague and you won't get sick. On the economical perspective, the sicker you are, the more you will buy medication, other things, so it's good for business. All those discoveries about anatomy are great but are not used in the right direction. Drugs are not helping us, but killing us very slowly. There are many alternatives. For example, u see a commercials on bayer for pain. Honestly you don't need it. Find out the cause of the pain and then find how you can fix it, remove that pain naturally.
    • JrGhoull, on 02/23/2008, -2/+2also dude, certain groups just cant be fought...they're too powerful. usa has some of the highest number of gun related deaths in the world. you try and do anything about it though that hurts the gun industry, and they'll tear you a new *****. same thing with the food industry. this is one of the many reasons i want to move to someplace like france. people there actually stand up and fight for things that are important to them, and the government hasnt been comprimised by, in a sense, a corporate takeover as we have in america.
      • ThugThrasher, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1I must point out, in regards to the guns, it's not just the gun lobby. There are QUITE a few people in this country who want very little in the way of gun control that have NOTHING to do with the gun industry, other than as a customer. Ask people in the South if you don't believe me.
        • VeganG, on 02/23/2008, -1/+1Why was ThugThrasher dugg down? It's true. It's not just the gun lobby that keeps guns legal in America. The citizens themselves sincerely think that they're safer in a country where anyone you look at could potentially have a gun.
    • flip2trip, on 02/23/2008, -2/+1people buy what they want to buy, period stop making it out to be some big government conspiracy
      • superyounan1, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1its not a conspiracy, its just something that happens. When you're poor, you're bound by the amount of dollars you have, you can either buy 3 days of unhealthy food or 1 day of healthy food, theres nothing secret or hidden about it. Things might be different if the market determined the prices of produce and meat.

        people buy what they want, but only when their wallets allow them
    • whorunbartertwn, on 02/23/2008, -0/+0Head of lettuce = one dollar. Start with that head of lettuce and find what else is on sale in the fruit/veggie isle to make a nice healthy salad.
  • Hitchhiker90, on 02/23/2008, -4/+25You ever had a Big Kahuna burger? Want a bite? They're real tastey. Well if you like burgers give them a try sometime. Me, I can't usually get them because my girlfriend's a vegetarian, which pretty much makes me a vegetarian. I do love the taste of a good burger.
    • StandupShowcase, on 02/23/2008, -0/+15MMMM THIS IS A TASTY BURGER....Do you mind if I wash it down with your delicious beverage?
    • DharmaTurtle, on 02/24/2008, -4/+6Jeez... it seems as though only girls are vegetarians. Are there any guy vegetarians out there?
      (Cause I'm one, and am feeling lonely.)
      • Dioxide1982, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3I am a male vegetarian, in Australia there are plently of us. I know at least a dozen vegetarians mostly male
      • skyshock1, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2 joke
        --------------
        your head
      • shahadar, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1veg for 25 years and healthy!
      • Spudster, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1No, because real men eat meat!

        /sarcasm
        • DharmaTurtle, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Now I want to meet a fake man...
  • ConanTL, on 02/23/2008, -0/+7I think it's just cheaper in the short term, in the long term you'll be paying with you health as well as the medical bills that come with it.
    • flip2trip, on 02/23/2008, -1/+0Didn't see the guy that came on Jay Leno did ya? All he ate were Big Macs everyday--skinniest dude you ever saw---its not really what you eat it's how much of it you eat--moderation is the key.
      • maexus, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Moderation like a Big Mac every single day?
      • MajorCrazy, on 02/23/2008, -0/+0He didn't eat the fries. Potato fries are not bad if home-made at all, if baked in the oven. However, deep-frying them and adding salt is what makes fast-food fries so poor quality in health.
  • nostalgiphile, on 02/23/2008, -8/+2Tofu is the cheapest, and most economically and agriculturally viable form of protein. We can feed the world if everyone will just switch to eating tofu godammit!!
    • Fabozz, on 02/23/2008, -0/+5Then you'll be happy to know that the federal government gives more to soybean farmers ($610 million) than it gives to cattle ranchers ($zero million--there are no cattle subsidies).
    • flip2trip, on 02/23/2008, -1/+4you eat tofu, ill stick to meat!!
    • Typhoon2009, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Tofu's pretty good, but it has to have... something with it. Or else it's just a squishy piece of protein. Tofu with fish, and a nice sauce over both is great.
      • VeganG, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Not even Asians eat tofu raw and by itself. I don't know how it got that reputation in America. Everywhere else in the world, it's just another ingredient, another food, that no one thinks twice about.
    • fuzzybeard, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Tofu causes me to break wind like Katrina in NOLA. Plus, it doesn't taste like anything.
      /OMNOMNOMNOMivore
  • JrGhoull, on 02/23/2008, -1/+13i find it ironic to be talking about the curruption of government, and then using a nutriants chart from the 50s. do you know why they say to eat so much bread? because it was basically the bread corporations who designed the original chart.
    • maexus, on 02/23/2008, -0/+6I would have dugg you up if reading your comment didn't make my eyes hurt.
    • LostAngeles, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4Those damn bread corporations!
  • charlie55, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4at my store, a head of lettuce and a couple tomatoes are cheaper than a big mac.
    • charlie55, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4and oatmeal, which is insanely healthy, is like a dollar a truckload.
    • JavertHolmes, on 02/23/2008, -2/+6A head of iceberg lettuce (assuming it yields 6 cups worth) has 40 calories. Two medium tomatoes have 44 calories. Assuming a 2,000 calorie/day diet and ignoring nutrition differences, you've just bought yourself under 1/20th of a day worth of food calorie-wise versus 1/4 of a day's worth in a Big Mac.
      • exomni, on 02/23/2008, -2/+2It's always a good idea to ignore nutrition differences. That really bolsters your argument.
        • JavertHolmes, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2I eat a few salads a week and have nothing against them. If you read between the lines of me saying "ignoring nutritional differences," by saying that, it's me *acknowledging* there's a clear difference in nutrition between a salad and a Big Mac. We're comparing costs to calories here. Not folate or vitamin or fibre supplements in a head of iceberg versus a big mac.

          There are people who can do some things (eat a salad) and sometimes argue against them (dollars:calories, iceberg/tomatoes are not cheaper than a Big Mac). That's what being open-minded is all about. It's not about sides.
          • charlie55, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1comparing costs to calories is stupid. everyone in developed countries has enough money to be fat. the issue is the nutritional value of the food.

            and stop saying i meant iceberg lettuce, the least healthy lettuce.
      • charlie55, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2what is your point? we are eating way too many calories. the whole point is that we are eating calorie rich foods that are not very good for you. eat these same foods less, and substitute some other cheaper, lower calorie foods, and you are healthier and richer.
      • VeganG, on 02/24/2008, -0/+2Iceberg lettuce is, on paper, a worthless food. Go with something leafier.
    • faskippy, on 02/23/2008, -0/+5Yep. A bowl of oatmeal, a couple of good salads, a couple dried apricots, a small piece of meat or fish, a little milk, and lot's of water will keep you lean and mean. That's a whole day's food. Throw in some nuts or other fruit for snacks, and I'd be full. It's not that hard, or expensive.
      • evangelion01, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2or scary skinny. with 1cm arms.
        • VeganG, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2Try exercise. Sure, you could "artificially" bulk yourself up by eating excessive amounts of red meat, but no one said that a healthier diet has to make you scary-skinny. There are vegans who have won Olympic medals, for crying out loud.
  • Fabozz, on 02/23/2008, -1/+20Buried as inaccurate.

    The article says "almost 75% of U.S. government subsidies go into meat and dairy production," and offers as proof a link to a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy# ... That article, however, does *not* back up the claims. Instead, it states that 3.7% of subsidies go to dairy production (as if there were any "dairy" in the cheese Big Macs use) and *no*--nil, zip, zero, nada, zilch--go to beef production. Maybe they're calling the 35.4% of subsidies that go to "feed grains" (primarily corn) as a subsidy of beef production. However, as you can read at http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html, in fact the most significant corn subsidies are for the production of ethanol fuel, which actually raises feed costs for the livestock industry by about a billion dollars a year. Regardless, 39.1% is nowhere near "almost 75%."
    • manova, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2Thank you, I was just reading the same link. People need to check their facts.
  • LeeSoong, on 02/23/2008, -1/+7It's cheaper to eat nutritious fungus grown in human waste,
    - but it might not be the most flavorable option...
    • WaterDragon, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1If you prefer, you can eat a kind of fish called tilapia...which is also grown on human waste, and sewage in general. Look it up! That is why it is so cheap and popular in restaurants. When they just call it 'fish', ASK what kind of fish it is. Usually, it's Tilapia...only one step up from feces on the food chain!
      • fuzzybeard, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1So it wouldn't be *TOO* much of a stretch to say that it tastes like *****? *evil grin*
  • EvilSibe, on 02/23/2008, -6/+3Buried for mis-representative 3d graph
  • Norbrookc, on 02/23/2008, -3/+4The idea that a vegetarian diet is necessarily cheaper or more environmentally friendly doesn't hold up to careful scrutiny. The "subsidies" are often aimed at what are called "feed" grains, which also happen to be useful for production of other products, and are not strictly limited to feeding cattle. This article also ignores the costs and environmental impacts of growing those same vegetables - and salad veggies are among the worst. If you live in NY, that lettuce didn't come from NY, it came from California or Florida. The fresh apple in California might have come from NY. The other thing that gets ignored is that livestock turns what would otherwise be "waste" into usable food. A cow can turn cellulose (stems/stalks/grass) into something you can eat.
    • VeganG, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Do you think that ground beef came from New York, either? Travel distance of our food IS a big issue, but it applies to everything. Here in L.A. the supermarkets have begun a trend of marking the things that are local; I don't know if that's happening elsewhere. I'd also like to visit the Farmer's Markets more often, but they always seem to be on weekdays in the mornings.
    • RationalCenter, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3Most cattle are fed grain. It takes ten pounds of grain to make one pound of meat. By any measure - acreage, energy, water, pesticides, etc. - meat is the most environmentally taxing form of food. No matter how you look at it, the environmental benefits of a vegetarian diet hold up to "scrutiny."
    • WaterDragon, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3Do you have any idea about the amount of fresh water it takes to produce one pound of beef?
      It is an enormous amount. if beef wasn't subsidized, it would be around $40/pound. It is so destructive on the environment, AND on people who constantly eat it. (besides the fact that it is full of added hormones and antibiotics)
  • AntBing, on 02/23/2008, -2/+3Salads don't lead to heart disease, and I'm not sure what the cost of a heart transplant is but I'm sure it isn't cheap.
    • Typhoon2009, on 02/23/2008, -1/+1To be fair, a Big Mac itself probably won't cause heart issues. I know plenty of "ripped" people who eat stuff like McDonalds, Chipotle etc a few times a week. It's all about caloric expenditure.
    • secrity, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2It depends upon the salad.
  • Zihuatanejo, on 02/23/2008, -9/+11For every big mac you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.
    • exomni, on 02/23/2008, -0/+13I haven't eaten over 1x10^1000 burgers.

      Get chomping, *****.
    • StandupShowcase, on 02/23/2008, -2/+3wow that is so awesome bro
    • VeganG, on 02/23/2008, -4/+2Do you think anyone cares how many Big Macs you eat? It's your own funeral. It's not some contest, so I don't know why you assume it will upset people that you say you'll eat what someone else decides not to, as if you're "undoing" some triumph of theirs.

      All you really achieve is that you come off as an ***** to your fellow humans. You even went out of your way to register an account to leave the same comment on that other article. Do you feel big?
    • daft89, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Man, what a reference...

      http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sp ...
  • aratika, on 02/23/2008, -10/+1All you friggin Digg Hippies complaining about marketing subsidies. But none of you mind leeching off of Digg. The day that Kevin starts charging for access to this site the sooner the you'll all have to get jobs to pay for it. THAT will be a really good day...
    • faskippy, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2LOL! Shut up. Do you actually think that poor little ole digg doesn't make money? BTW, just how much do YOU pay to use digg, you mental giant, you? Hippies....Bwaaahhaahhaa!
    • Rileyper, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2words of kevin, hippies are non violent, but they will throw rocks at you
    • bieber, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2Last time I checked, Kevin Rose wasn't a government entity, and Digg was generating plenty of ad revenue. It's almost impossible to believe someone could construct an analogy as flawed as yours...
    • JavertHolmes, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2This is a quality troll. I rate it an A-. Good job, sir.
    • VeganG, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2Wow, you get the Tangent Award for this page.
  • indigit4l, on 02/23/2008, -1/+1the internet's are facts. SO!
  • sundownjoe, on 02/23/2008, -0/+8Keep in mind that there are no subsidies for the beef industry. The subsidies go to grain producers which reduces feed prices. I come from a ranching family and support the end of subsidies to grain producers. Of course, our ranch produces 95% of our own feed so we wouldn't be significantly impacted.

    Also, it isn't as easy as some think to just turn a cattle ranch into a vegetable/grain producer. My family's land can not produce many crops except feed grain and a few acres of potatoes and corn. Certain land is just better suited for raising livestock and using it for other foods is not sustainable.
    • coustoe, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1en lighting, too bad environmentalist are dumb.
    • RationalCenter, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1I think it's great that your ranch can work without subsidy, and I applaud you for seeking an end to grain subsidies. Sadly, however, that's not true everywhere. For example, almost half the agricultural water in California goes to beef production, and that's a direct form of subsidy. The government leases land for grazing at below market value, which is another form of subsidy, particularly when taxpayer dollars are invested to mitigate the environmental impacts.
  • GrendelT, on 02/23/2008, -1/+6To understand why the "oil, sugar, alochol" part of the pyramid is so large, one need look no further than Big Sugar.
    Check out this documentary:
    http://bestdocumentaries.blogspot.com/2007/08/big- ...
    • faskippy, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3Honey works great as a sweetener. And supports your local, uh, honey guy.
  • Zlorp, on 02/23/2008, -1/+7theres a mcdonalds in tyler texas that constantly has a spotlight thats on, that they shine around at night. we call it the "fat signal"
  • faskippy, on 02/23/2008, -3/+5Oh, God. Does anyone still eat Big Mac's? Crap.
  • chrisfoxinc, on 02/23/2008, -0/+4Not to mention all the money that the government spends (in the UK) anyway, dealing with disease outbreaks which result from overfarming of animals.
  • magamiako, on 02/23/2008, -5/+3So, government subsidies to make hamburgers and meat cheaper to eat versus some company that wants to profiteer off of you for "organic" brand names, riiiight..

    Let me put it this way: One of the major reasons the cost of "healthy" and "organic" food is so high isn't because of the method it's grown. If there wasn't a good profit margin off of it, they wouldn't sell it to you in the first place. That reason is greed and nothing else. They know by slapping an "ORGANIC" sticker on the food they can jack the price up by another few bucks because people want to "feel good" about "eating healthy".

    You can be perfectly healthy off of a non-organic, non-whole foods, non-trader joe's diet if you exercise properly. This stuff certainly might not hurt you but it's not worth buying into this "organic" food ***** that they're feeding you.
    • magamiako, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2I'd like to add that the only reason the "organic" growers are whining is because they're not receiving a chunk of this money.....greed ftw?
      • VeganG, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2If you think ANY farmer is making a decent living, I laugh.
    • VeganG, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2I don't know where you get your science, but I don't think mere exercise is going to get ingested chemical pesticides out of your system. Or how about fruits and vegetables that are genetically coerced into secreting their own pesticide? That sounds yummy!

      Take off your tinfoil hat. Organic food isn't some racket. There's even a government certification process involved. It costs to buy because it costs more to grow, and with lower yields. Simple as that.

      I don't know why some people treat its existence as some kind of personal affront, anyway. Just accept the fact that there are people out there who would rather eat a more natural, untampered food. You can do whatever you want, but I'd like to stop hearing people cry to me about how I'm being take advantage of. What do you care about me, anyway?

      Next your going to yell at me for paying $10/lbs for heirloom tomatoes and heirloom carrots. They taste better. Sue me. Mind your business.
  • Ericson578, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2The real question should be why is our government subsidizing anything at all? The decisions that we all make on what to eat should be what causes the price of meat to be higher than vegetables, not because some control freak in washington decides for us what we should be eating.
    • magamiako, on 02/23/2008, -2/+2If the government didn't subsidize, the costs would be passed directly onto consumers at the time of purchase. Which ultimately means higher initial prices for the products we have. And nobody is going to stand for that.

      You can pay for it out of your taxes over time to help lessen the cost of such things, or you can pay for it all at once at time of sale in the form of many more dollars extra. Take your pick.

      If you want the 2nd option, you may want to evaluate your financial situation as doing so would strain even what we consider "upper middle class" in today's society if all subsidies on everything in the US was removed.

      You wouldn't support this idea then, believe me.
      • VeganG, on 02/23/2008, -0/+2I don't see what's so wrong with the idea of paying the proper price for food. At least then, you'll only be paying for the food that you personally buy. As it stands, my tax dollars pay to lower the cost of meat that you buy, and every vegetable that I don't buy, and for that matter the unsubsidized vegetables that I do buy.
  • govsucks, on 02/23/2008, -3/+5Socialism screwing up the market yet again. You people gave the OK for these reps in government to give our money away to do things like "save jobs" and other such nonsense in those industries. Something the Government has no business doing, this kind of crap is the result of society (the mob) ***** with freedom. How about this for a idea, Government maintains the defense of our nation and our court systems and doesn't give ANYONE money for ANYTHING. I know, I know, that would be freedom and would also mean individual responsibility and those things scare the crap out of the pussies that call themselves Americans these days. Why is it bad to give money to a business that employs people and actually produces something but not bad to give it to some ***** laying on the street pissing in peoples doorways who produces nothing and won't even make a effort to care for themselves let alone anyone else?
    Leftist definition of Compassion: Making life harder on good responsible citizens by seizing what they have worked for while making life easier on those who are irresponsible and provide nothing to society. Leftists definition of Fair: Demanding that a minority be responsible for a majority of problems while allowing the majority to be free of responsibility for even a minority of the problems. From each according to their ability right.....so you have a mule thats stronger than the other mules and the leftists idea is to put all the weight on the one strong mule while letting the others breeze along without anything on them because they are "less fortunate" ? So soon you have no good mules left and a whole bunch of lazy mules that don't want to do anything...good luck with that.
    • VeganG, on 02/23/2008, -1/+2You were off to a good start until you started off on a Leftist rant. What does one have to do with the other? If anything, all the vegetarian liberals in Berkeley are more likely to be AGAINST subsidization. You're confused.
    • WaterDragon, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3You are entirely correct. I recognize a fellow Ron Paul supporter when i see one!
      Too bad people get so brainwashed that they are afraid to stand up with the truth, and take responsibility for themselves!

      • govsucks, on 02/24/2008, -0/+1Yeah, OK , you busted me. Although at this point I'm about half cocked to go vote for Obama. Why you ask? Simple, the people seem to think socialism is great and seem to have fogotten its past failures....so lets elect Obama, and he'll ram a shovel full of socialism down their throats. By the time this guy is done redistributing people income, we'll be socialist free for maybe another 100 years. America is suffering at this point because of all the socialist policies on BOTH sides of the isle, perhaps once we get to the point that we are like Venezuala people will start to understand the "tragedy of the commons" first ***** hand.
    • JohnFlux, on 02/24/2008, -0/+0It doesn't sound like a great idea for a country to allow all of its food to be imported. It means that you are giving control of your food to the other countries. A civilized society is just one square meal away from an anarchy.
  • Ghoztt, on 02/23/2008, -2/+5Wake up and smell the socialism!
  • mal1964, on 02/23/2008, -2/+4That ***** just ain't ballin' 'nough. ...
  • allowners, on 02/23/2008, -4/+4Meat is cheap because torturing animals is cheap - Animal Terrorism.
  • dubbleenerd, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3"why on earth?" more like, why in the United States. In south east asian countries at least, fresh organic vegetables and fruit are cheaper than meat (or at least comparable in price). However, one good way to start fixing this obesity crisis in the US would be to cut portion sizes in half.
    • lohwengk, on 02/24/2008, -0/+0In the 3rd World South East Asian countries, maybe. Definitely not in Singapore. And probably not in any country which exports food.
  • coffee200am, on 02/23/2008, -5/+9You eat salads....I eat meat...You die at the age of 80...I die at the age of 75....Big frigging deal.
    • xxTazxx, on 02/23/2008, -3/+6Wow someone hates the healthy.
      • Mothrog, on 02/23/2008, -2/+3More like someone enjoys living life instead of eating flax seed ***** to gain a handful of extra years in Depends.
        • VeganG, on 02/23/2008, -0/+3Flax seed meal has a pretty good flavor, actually. Good in baked goods.

          I really think there IS a contingent of people that despise upstanding, perfectly innocent foods, just because they're good for you. Nothing wrong with flax seeds, my friend.
          • Mothrog, on 02/24/2008, -1/+3Can't say I know much about flax seed meal, but I've had the oil and thought it was rather gross. I don't dislike healthy food, but I'm not going to worry too much about the occasional cigar or snort of good bourbon, like some crazy health nazis would.
          • VeganG, on 02/24/2008, -0/+3How much does olive oil taste like an olive?
    • WaterDragon, on 02/24/2008, -1/+1Yeah, and you're a fat f**king slob who can't even think freely because you're so clogged up through and through.
      You live to suck energy from everyone else, while the one who eats salads is naturally more respectful toward the planet, from the inevitable psychological effects of being sustained by vital, varied, tasty, colorful, direct products of living organisms full of vitality...While you subsist on dead, rotting carcasses of animals who were forcibly held down and slaughtered, and then dismembered..

      And you have to go around with a body that smells like rotting meat and death!

  • xtraa, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1I want to believe. But then ...duh. Obviously lobbyism.
  • liuite, on 02/23/2008, -1/+63 words "Fast Food Nation"
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.