a recent study shows that people who shop at discount supermarkets are more likely to be overweight than those who shop at higher-priced stores.

The researchers are thinking that if the discount stores could be convinced to carry healthier versions of popular items, then the obesity rate could be controlled as it would put "affordable" health food within reach of the average consumer.

Anyone wanting to bet that some politician's just gonna use this as an excuse to ban discount supermarkets?

Someone is drawing the wrong conclusion from data .  Discount markets  sell the same products as high priced  Markets, Food 4 less, Ralphs and  Kroger are owned by the  same company . WALMART and Neighborhood Markets are both WALMARTS . Food processing, canning and packaging companies often distribute several brands that are processed on the same machine and lines with the same produce. The only difference is labeling. I once worked in a commercial bakery and  we produced between 12 and 20 brand. We used the same flour and other baking products  in all  breads; had one recipe for each bread.  We mixed, prepared  and baked in the same  equipment and ovens; at packaging we would change the wrapping /bagging/labels according to orders.  Some were prepared at prices varying as much as a dollar or more according to brand and distributor.  Advertised brands were more expensive as well as deli brands.   

I think this is case of “research” to support ones view, not for real info.

When I worked for WALMART on more than one occasion we received goods that were  preprice labeled and supposed to go to another Company. One shipment of clothing was marked for Sears and we had to re-label   to WALMARTS lower prices. We got two shipments for K-Mart  and  remark the  toys but also marked down our current stock to meet the lower Kmart prices

 

Jun 21, 2012 -- 11:50AM, Ironhold wrote:

Anyone wanting to bet that some politician's just gonna use this as an excuse to ban discount supermarkets?

Only in New York...

Thank you for the clarification, REteach!   It's exactly those cities with large populations of underprivileged stuck in the inner cities that need better access to supermarkets or grocery stores that sell affordable, healthy food, as this study shows.   I imagine it'll be labelled "junk science" and be dismissed out of hand.

Jun 21, 2012 -- 1:39PM, REteach wrote:

Here is the actual abstract from the study.  I'm not sure it is implying the same thing the article says:

 

Availability, affordability, and accessibility of a healthful diet in a low-income community, Central Falls, Rhode Island, 2007-2008.

Sheldon M, Gans KM, Tai R, George T, Lawson E, Pearlman DN.

Source

Marissa Sheldon, University of North Carolina, School of Public Health, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Many Americans have diets that do not meet the dietary guidelines set by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Additionally, low-income people have the highest rates of obesity and have difficulty accessing the necessary foods for maintaining a healthful diet.

CONTEXT:

In December 2007 and January 2008, 21 retail food stores in Central Falls, Rhode Island, where residents were predominantly low-income Hispanics, were evaluated for the availability and costs of foods that fulfill the USDA's Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) guidelines.

METHODS:

Each surveyed store was evaluated for variety and weekly cost of 3 different types of market baskets (2 families and an elder). Each store's proximity to public transportation was estimated by using geographic information systems mapping.

OUTCOME:

Only 2 stores in Central Falls and the discount supermarket in an adjacent city, Pawtucket, carried enough variety of foods to fill the TFP basket. At the 2 stores, costs were up to 40% higher, and at the discount store, costs were up to 18% cheaper, than the national average. Each of the stores was accessible by public transportation.

INTERPRETATION:

Meeting the USDA TFP guidelines is difficult in this low-income, predominantly Hispanic city. Although the components of the TFP are available, high prices may make a nutritious diet unaffordable.

 

In fact, the article RECOMMENDED the discount store as a good way to get healthy food.

"The data indicate that the average resident of Central Falls would only be able to afford all necessary food items in the TFP by shopping at store C [the discount store] in Pawtucket. If residents are unable to walk or use public transportation to travel to store C, all foods necessary for a healthy diet on the basis of the TFP could also be purchased at stores A and B, but at a much higher cost.

I really don't believe that access to supermarkets, whether discount or otherwise, has a lot to do with the growing obesity problems we in the industrialised West are facing. 

What I have always felt is that obesity, like other problems related to diet, has everything to do with cultural mores.  And I found an article to support this contention:

elonpendulum.com/2012/04/obesity-problem...

As the article points out, we all live in a culture of over-indulgence.  I'm not sure why this has come to pass, but I'm old enough to know that it was not always so.  My parents' and grandparents' generations were thinner.  When I was in school, in the 1950s, and at varsity in the 1960s, people were definitely thinner.

Perhaps this was because people were more physically active, watched less TV, drove less, or ate more meals prepared at home.  I think all of these factor in.  But, somewhere along the lin - and I don't understand why - over-indulgence in food became the norm.

But, the point now is whether people are willing to reduce their body size to reduce the risk of obesity-linked illnesses, or if they would rather continue to eat the foods they perceive as important because of cultural pressures, even if it means they will be overweight and possibly ill?