Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Another helping please
Have you noticed that grocery carts are getting larger? When you go to the food store, the carts are no longer the small chrome wire models that could hold about 3 stacked cases of soft drinks. Today’s grocery carts are mini versions of the sport utility vehicles that dominate the parking lot at the grocery store. Is that because we buy so much food, that large grocery carts are needed, and subsequently, large vehicles are needed to haul it home?One of the franchise fast food chains advertises their burgers as not being for little boys, so they don’t really need to give out little toys. We’ve supersized our packages, we’ve supersized our portions, and we’re supersizing our waistlines. Our appetites are growing and so are we.
Where did all of this food originate that we force ourselves to eat? The US food machine keeps pumping it out, and selling it at bargain basement prices. But US food exports used to be so large of a volume that they helped reduce the deficit in our overall trade balance. That is no longer the case, which means that imported foreign foods are pouring into our markets at volumes equal to the export rate.
Agricultural economists Hodan Farah and Jean Buzby at the US Department of Agriculture report food consumption is up 16% between 1970 and 2003. Baby Boomers were finishing high school and college, getting jobs, families, and appetites. And their children have watched their parents put on the pounds and they have joined the party.
The USDA report on food consumption reflects daily articles in the popular press about problems with obesity, which are at contagion levels. Farah and Buzby found, “The total amount of food available for each person to eat increased 16 percent from 1,675 pounds in 1970 to 1,950 pounds in 2003. This increase was not isolated to a few food groups. Fruits and vegetables also showed an increase.” Critics of the corn sweetener industry have tried to lay the entire blame there, but that is obviously not valid.
About the only consumption trend that agricultural producers ever tracked was the per capita consumption of various meats, which turned into a public relations battle involving the beef, pork, and chicken industries. As caloric consumption was being reported in the 1980’s, pork producers reinvented themselves as the “Other white meat,” and tried to convince waistline watchers that 3 ounces of pork compared favorably to a skinless chicken breast. We soon found out that 3 ounces of meat was not satisfying our hunger and we soon ramped up our meal to three pork chops or a couple large chicken breasts, replete with sauces and side dishes.
The bottom line, literally and figuratively, is drawn between two points on a graph. By plotting 2,234 and 2,757, then connecting the dots, you have shown the upward trend in daily caloric intake from 1970 to 2003. We are consuming more than 500 additional calories per day than we were 22 years ago, but are we burning it off? The answer to that question is obvious by the larger sizes of clothes we are purchasing, and the additional medical expense we have.
For an agricultural producer, there are implications in this diet diatribe. Is food too cheap that consumers are readily willing to overdo it? What would be the impact on commodity values, if US policymakers decide to reward or penalize different foods? Is there a growing demand for foods that can be marketed specifically to those who are more conscious of their diet? There are numerous good farm thinkers out there, and their input is needed.
Posted by Stu Ellis on 11/09 at 05:22 PM | Permalink