The expensive price of fruit in UK.

VintageFeline

I have seen frozen berries, frozen mango and frozen pineapple. Iceland are even doing "smoothie blends", for those not in the UK, Iceland is a budget friendly frozen food shop.

I live in London, where everything is marked up 50% (I jest but it can be more expensive!) and I think fruit and veg is very reasonable. Every supermarket does specials weekly on fresh produce and i have a grocers where I can fill a bag full of stuff for less than £15.

I happen to not be a big fruit eater, there's no mandate that says you must eat fruit. I like berries but yes, they are more expensive so I don't have them a lot. I could eat my bodyweight merrily in cherries, thankfully they are one of the most expensive fruits so save me from myself!

I think the thread has been cleaned up a bit as I haven't seen some things about quick snacks for kids but things like Soreen loaf lunchbox packs are great (I have one most evenings with a cuppa), little sugar free jello pots with fruit in, bananas because they are a very cheap fruit (I don't know why but I am always always cheerfully surprised how cheap when I check out a bunch of bananas!). Carrots are cheap and a great snack too. I was a weird kid who liked celery to snack on as well. So many budget friendly options if you just broaden your horizons a bit!

kshama2001

jen_mccusker wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

jen_mccusker wrote: »

Aww mum I'm hungry oh ok just wait like 20 mins to deforst lol so funny

In the other thread you were talking about the importance of cooking whole meals compared to buying ready meals. Now you are saying that defrosting vegetables (which can be done in the microwave in no time, or cooked from frozen) takes too long?

I'm glad my comments are amusing and ridiculous to you, however, I am simply trying to offer the perspective that there are a variety of nutrient dense foods that can be quite economical if you find the fresh produce to be cost prohibitive.

Your not getting what I am saying. So please listen. You can not buy full apples or oranges bananas! Why should we not be able to go to the supermarket and by full fresh produce cheaper. People shouldn't have to settle for frozen. And in uk can only get frozen berrys which isn't all the goodness u need.

While I do prefer fresh strawberries from my garden, out-of-season frozen strawberries are a perfectly reasonable substitute, and often tastier than fresh out-of-season strawberries, as they are picked at peak ripeness and immediately frozen, without worrying about transportation and storage times.

kshama2001

lemurcat12 wrote: »

JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »

zyxst wrote: »

JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »

Believe it or not I read the title and post, nowhere does it states in either of those comments that "So fruit is the only healthy food? There are no other healthy foods available in the UK?"

Poor attempt at being funny? I'd say so, nothing to contribute why bother posting?

If you don't like the answer, ask a better question.

The implication that fruit is the only healthy food is there. I tend to read between the lines as well as the lines themselves. Fruit can't be the only "expensive" "healthy" food in the U.K., so why single it out?

I also read between the lines, In his first statement "expensive food price in the UK" is obviously the main reason he felt the need to start the thread, within that he comments "Something needs to be done to reduce price of healthy foods" which I assume he has used as the basis for a conversation. I fail to see the implication that fruit is the the ONLY expensive healthy food.

Each to their own I guess. Like I said before, nothing to contribute why post? That'll be your 3rd BS post with no real contribution to the discussion.

Okay, so the OP says: "something needs to be done to reduce the price of healthy food."

Obvious response: "why? Healthy food seems to me to be pretty cheap." (This is true, at least where I live in the US.)

OP's predicted response: "no, like I said, fruit is expensive where I live in the UK."

That's what zyxst was responding to, spelled out.

But if you don't think that's a fair reading, we are left with the question: why does something need to be done to reduce the price of healthy food and what is that something? I'd say it makes more sense to let the market drive the price of food and then subsidize those who need help to afford them.

But in the US it's not just the market driving the prices. Crops like corn and soy, the main ingredients in high calorie, low satiety foods, are heavily subsidized, as I'm sure you know from "The Omnivore's Dilemma."

http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/you-are-what-you-grow/

A few years ago, an obesity researcher at the University of Washington named Adam Drewnowski ventured into the supermarket to solve a mystery. He wanted to figure out why it is that the most reliable predictor of obesity in America today is a person’s wealth. For most of history, after all, the poor have typically suffered from a shortage of calories, not a surfeit. So how is it that today the people with the least amount of money to spend on food are the ones most likely to be overweight?

Drewnowski gave himself a hypothetical dollar to spend, using it to purchase as many calories as he possibly could. He discovered that he could buy the most calories per dollar in the middle aisles of the supermarket, among the towering canyons of processed food and soft drink. (In the typical American supermarket, the fresh foods–dairy, meat, fish and produce–line the perimeter walls, while the imperishable packaged goods dominate the center.) Drewnowski found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips, he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice.

As a rule, processed foods are more “energy dense” than fresh foods: they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace, which is why we call the foods that contain them “junk.” Drewnowski concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational economic strategy is to eat badly–and get fat.

This perverse state of affairs is not, as you might think, the inevitable result of the free market. Compared with a bunch of carrots, a package of Twinkies, to take one iconic processed foodlike substance as an example, is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture, involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots?

For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill.

Read more: http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/you-are-what-you-grow/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/farm-bill-why-dont-taxpayers-subsidize-the-foods-that-are-better-for-us/2014/02/14/d7642a3c-9434-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html

Read the farm bill, and a big problem jumps right out at you: Taxpayers heavily subsidize corn and soy, two crops that facilitate the meat and [ultra] processed food we’re supposed to eat less of, and do almost nothing for the fruits and vegetables we’re supposed to eat more of. If there’s any obligation to spend the public’s money in a way that’s consistent with that same public’s health, shouldn’t it be the other way around?

...What’s important about how we subsidize farms isn’t necessarily the overall dollar amount — it comes to 5 percent to 10 percent of the market price of most of the subsidized crops — it’s that it takes some of the risk out of farming grains and oil seeds, but not fruits and vegetables.

ouryve

You can be sure that when the price of a cucumber has dropped from 90p to 45p in the past year, the producers aren't getting rich out of it. In fact, I wonder if they're even breaking even.

But, carrots, cabbage, leeks and onions are always cheap, apples are about to come into season and there will be inexpensive value lines of those and a load of other veg. Market stalls often have some good deals.

Frozen veg is perfectly healthy, if you don't mind it. Frozen spinach is great in curries and pasta sauces. Tinned tomatoes and pulses are as cheap as you like.

Eating fruit and veg doesn't have to be expensive, so long as you don't expect bowls of blueberries every day, all year round.

lemurcat12

kshama2001 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »

zyxst wrote: »

JoshuaMcAllister wrote: »

Believe it or not I read the title and post, nowhere does it states in either of those comments that "So fruit is the only healthy food? There are no other healthy foods available in the UK?"

Poor attempt at being funny? I'd say so, nothing to contribute why bother posting?

If you don't like the answer, ask a better question.

The implication that fruit is the only healthy food is there. I tend to read between the lines as well as the lines themselves. Fruit can't be the only "expensive" "healthy" food in the U.K., so why single it out?

I also read between the lines, In his first statement "expensive food price in the UK" is obviously the main reason he felt the need to start the thread, within that he comments "Something needs to be done to reduce price of healthy foods" which I assume he has used as the basis for a conversation. I fail to see the implication that fruit is the the ONLY expensive healthy food.

Each to their own I guess. Like I said before, nothing to contribute why post? That'll be your 3rd BS post with no real contribution to the discussion.

Okay, so the OP says: "something needs to be done to reduce the price of healthy food."

Obvious response: "why? Healthy food seems to me to be pretty cheap." (This is true, at least where I live in the US.)

OP's predicted response: "no, like I said, fruit is expensive where I live in the UK."

That's what zyxst was responding to, spelled out.

But if you don't think that's a fair reading, we are left with the question: why does something need to be done to reduce the price of healthy food and what is that something? I'd say it makes more sense to let the market drive the price of food and then subsidize those who need help to afford them.

But in the US it's not just the market driving the prices. Crops like corn and soy, the main ingredients in high calorie, low satiety foods, are heavily subsidized, as I'm sure you know from "The Omnivore's Dilemma."

Not only do I know that (from many sources), but I've mentioned it many, many times in threads in this section. I am generally against the subsidies, but I think we need to be realistic too, and acknowledge that getting rid of them would have various unintended consequences, such as increasing the price of meat (and I appreciate that you--or Pollan--noted this, as many DON'T see increasing the price of meat as a positive).

As to the current discussion, though, I don't believe that subsidizing corn et al. INCREASES the price of fruits and veg, which was the topic under discussion. (Well, actually we are talking about the price of fruit -- largely imported fruit -- in the UK, which has little to do with US ag policies.) Back to the US subsidies, they might even decrease them if we thought it through. That is because it might stabilize the market for farmers who grow a variety of crops.

tomteboda

kshama2001 wrote: »

Read the farm bill, and a big problem jumps right out at you: Taxpayers heavily subsidize corn and soy, two crops that facilitate the meat and [ultra] processed food we’re supposed to eat less of, and do almost nothing for the fruits and vegetables we’re supposed to eat more of. If there’s any obligation to spend the public’s money in a way that’s consistent with that same public’s health, shouldn’t it be the other way around?

...What’s important about how we subsidize farms isn’t necessarily the overall dollar amount — it comes to 5 percent to 10 percent of the market price of most of the subsidized crops — it’s that it takes some of the risk out of farming grains and oil seeds, but not fruits and vegetables.

I love people who clearly have NOT read the Agricultural Act of 2014, the law as enacted (Public Law 113-94) or any of its predecessors, commonly known as "the Farm Bill", telling people about the amazing insights gleaned from "reading the Farm Bill".

Je t'adore

If you HAD, you would know that the direct payments program was entirely eliminated.