U.K food makers told to cut calories by 20%
Options
Replies
-
TavistockToad wrote: »To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...
Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.
Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.
You can get an online food delivery for £1 which is less than the bus fare to go to a supermarket, so location shouldn't be a problem. Doing one big shop a month you could stock up on frozen or tinned fruit and veg, food cupboard essentials like rice, pasta, beans etc A lot of people just don't want to put the effort into it.
what about people who don't get paid monthly?
How ever you get paid, you still budget for a month, week, fortnight whatever. It's not difficult and this was just an example.7 -
To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...
Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.
Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.
You can get an online food delivery for £1 which is less than the bus fare to go to a supermarket, so location shouldn't be a problem. Doing one big shop a month you could stock up on frozen or tinned fruit and veg, food cupboard essentials like rice, pasta, beans etc A lot of people just don't want to put the effort into it.
Where do you live that you can get food delivery for £1? When I looked into it a few years ago it was closer to £10.
And then when you do order you have to book a 4-hour window for delivery, and there's not often great selection, which makes it much harder for people with inconsistent work schedules.6 -
I'm sorry but poverty is not an excuse for being overweight or eating unhealthily if anything it should make them less likely. Fruit and veg are all cheaper than chocolates, biscuits, fast food etc. If you are that poor then you should be seeking out the cheaper options and staying away from expensive convenience options. Even the cost of cooking need not be restrictive as there are plenty of foods that can be eaten without the need of cooking.
Hundreds of thousands have to take whatever they’re given by food banks. When people are literally starving, they’ve a right not be too fussy about any food they can get their hands on.
13 -
To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...
Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.
Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.
You can get an online food delivery for £1 which is less than the bus fare to go to a supermarket, so location shouldn't be a problem. Doing one big shop a month you could stock up on frozen or tinned fruit and veg, food cupboard essentials like rice, pasta, beans etc A lot of people just don't want to put the effort into it.
Where do you live that you can get food delivery for £1? When I looked into it a few years ago it was closer to £10.
And then when you do order you have to book a 4-hour window for delivery, and there's not often great selection, which makes it much harder for people with inconsistent work schedules.
I get my shop at Asda for £1 on an evening and it's an hour delivery slot and £25 minimum spend. You can book a delivery slot weeks in advance too. You see there's always a way if people are willing to put in the effort, but a lot of people come up with silly excuses as to why they can't eat healthy, when in fact they just don't want to.8 -
To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...
Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.
Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.
You can get an online food delivery for £1 which is less than the bus fare to go to a supermarket, so location shouldn't be a problem. Doing one big shop a month you could stock up on frozen or tinned fruit and veg, food cupboard essentials like rice, pasta, beans etc A lot of people just don't want to put the effort into it.
Where do you live that you can get food delivery for £1? When I looked into it a few years ago it was closer to £10.
And then when you do order you have to book a 4-hour window for delivery, and there's not often great selection, which makes it much harder for people with inconsistent work schedules.
I basically pay £1 delivery with Sainsbury's (in the Uk) ..I have a delivery pass so can have groceries delivered any day any time. They pick the best choices with great use by dates. It's easy to keep an eye on overall spend too.4 -
I'm sorry but poverty is not an excuse for being overweight or eating unhealthily if anything it should make them less likely. Fruit and veg are all cheaper than chocolates, biscuits, fast food etc. If you are that poor then you should be seeking out the cheaper options and staying away from expensive convenience options. Even the cost of cooking need not be restrictive as there are plenty of foods that can be eaten without the need of cooking.
No poverty is not an excuse but it does contribute to being overly fat in many cases.
Unless you have been on welfare (I was, and in foster care as well) then your opinion is just that: an uninformed opinion.
My brother and I were both on federal aid for all of our childhoods.
But we were NOT overweight. Want to know why?
Because some days the only meal we had was school-provided lunch.
When you have next to nothing but food seems to be plentiful you will often eat and horde it as a matter of survival.
The "quality" of the food does not matter. Many people in those circumstances are conditioned to eat everything in sight because they do not know when the next meal might be.
Yes, they might be eating "junk" foods but most restrictions on the SNAP program etc means they cannot buy most of that with federal aid.
Besides, it is not just poor kids that are fat.
Higher income kids are also fat, but by your logic they should all be in fighting shape, fit enough to enlist.
Those families could easily afford healthier food choices more often.
Bag of potato chips: $0.99
1 lb of chicken breasts: $3.00
Guess what seems like a better deal when you are nearly starving?
Guess which one is "ready to eat" when you need to run to your second part-time job so the electricity or phone isn't turned off?
Yes, carrots are also about $1 per pound, but carrots are not even close to chips when it comes to calorie density.
The desire to take in high density calories is about as instinctive as hording food.
Again, it is a function of survival. Until people think differently about food then the problems will continue.
Dozens of adults on these forums are overly fat.
Even though they have been on MFP for months or years, with access to all of the information, advice and experience provided free of charge, they still are not making significant progress.
Why is that? Simply because people make choices, both good and bad.
They commonly lack the discipline and resolve to make the better choice because the "bad" choice is easier for any number of reasons.
Kids don't usually have that much going for them yet.
No, this initiative in the UK will not fix the problem.
I wish it were that simple.20 -
Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants.
This is often over-stated. If you look at how food deserts are defined and where they are, I don't think this is a big factor in obesity. I've specifically looked at the food desert areas of my own city, as I have some knowledge about them (and particularly transportation). Public transportation is not inherently difficult, also.Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.
I think this is more of a factor. Other factors: possible inadequate kitchen/appliances, being mentally exhausted and overwhelmed and so finding convenience food a huge plus over fresh cooked (someone who works long hours but is better off may have an easier time seeing cooking as relaxation), perhaps having a job that is physically exhausting (standing all day), quite likely a long and exhausting commute that would be made more difficult by stopping for groceries (the most long and exhausting commutes for someone more middle class would be more likely to be by car, not bus).
Even more compelling points I've seen made are that when you are poor, self-indulgent food is something that feels like a treat you can afford, and especially when it comes to giving kids something that will make them happy, and that both lower income and higher income people score similarly on what they think they should be eating, but lower income people have less tolerance (understandably) for buying food that their kids won't initially eat (and that in many cases they themselves have not developed a taste for) -- meaning largely vegetables.
I think it's a mistake to make it all about "they do not have access to healthy foods" because that's usually not really true, and also healthy foods includes cheap stables like rice and beans that are generally available. It's more complicated, although I think understandable.
Also, it's hardly like the obesity problem is limited to those of lower income.14 -
LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...
Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.
Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.
You can get an online food delivery for £1 which is less than the bus fare to go to a supermarket, so location shouldn't be a problem. Doing one big shop a month you could stock up on frozen or tinned fruit and veg, food cupboard essentials like rice, pasta, beans etc A lot of people just don't want to put the effort into it.
Where do you live that you can get food delivery for £1? When I looked into it a few years ago it was closer to £10.
And then when you do order you have to book a 4-hour window for delivery, and there's not often great selection, which makes it much harder for people with inconsistent work schedules.
I basically pay £1 delivery with Sainsbury's (in the Uk) ..I have a delivery pass so can have groceries delivered any day any time. They pick the best choices with great use by dates. It's easy to keep an eye on overall spend too.
Does the pass cost money?
Here the option I am most familiar with is $5.99 for 2 hour delivery (that's the cheapest) or free delivery for orders over $35 IF (and only if) you have a membership, which costs, AND it's not in all locations.5 -
I'm sorry but poverty is not an excuse for being overweight or eating unhealthily if anything it should make them less likely. Fruit and veg are all cheaper than chocolates, biscuits, fast food etc. If you are that poor then you should be seeking out the cheaper options and staying away from expensive convenience options. Even the cost of cooking need not be restrictive as there are plenty of foods that can be eaten without the need of cooking.
Hundreds of thousands have to take whatever they’re given by food banks. When people are literally starving, they’ve a right not be too fussy about any food they can get their hands on.
If in poverty then the scarcity of food should make eating to excess less likely...........At end of the day it's not what you eat that makes you overweight it's how much of it you eat. Eating rubbish food will obviously have an impact on health but that is another matter.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...
Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.
Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.
You can get an online food delivery for £1 which is less than the bus fare to go to a supermarket, so location shouldn't be a problem. Doing one big shop a month you could stock up on frozen or tinned fruit and veg, food cupboard essentials like rice, pasta, beans etc A lot of people just don't want to put the effort into it.
Where do you live that you can get food delivery for £1? When I looked into it a few years ago it was closer to £10.
And then when you do order you have to book a 4-hour window for delivery, and there's not often great selection, which makes it much harder for people with inconsistent work schedules.
I basically pay £1 delivery with Sainsbury's (in the Uk) ..I have a delivery pass so can have groceries delivered any day any time. They pick the best choices with great use by dates. It's easy to keep an eye on overall spend too.
Does the pass cost money?
Here the option I am most familiar with is $5.99 for 2 hour delivery (that's the cheapest) or free delivery for orders over $35 IF (and only if) you have a membership, which costs, AND it's not in all locations.
Asda do a £1 delivery on an evening or £2 through day. Minimum cost £25 so you could get a weekly, fortnightly or monthly shop then top up if needed.
This is just an example though for a comment saying not everyone can get out to a big supermarket so go to a takeaway instead.1 -
I'm sorry but poverty is not an excuse for being overweight or eating unhealthily if anything it should make them less likely. Fruit and veg are all cheaper than chocolates, biscuits, fast food etc. If you are that poor then you should be seeking out the cheaper options and staying away from expensive convenience options. Even the cost of cooking need not be restrictive as there are plenty of foods that can be eaten without the need of cooking.
No poverty is not an excuse but it does contribute to being overly fat in many cases.
Unless you have been on welfare (I was, and in foster care as well) then your opinion is just that: an uninformed opinion.
My brother and I were both on federal aid for all of our childhoods.
But we were NOT overweight. Want to know why?
Because some days the only meal we had was school-provided lunch.
When you have next to nothing but food seems to be plentiful you will often eat and horde it as a matter of survival.
The "quality" of the food does not matter. Many people in those circumstances are conditioned to eat everything in sight because they do not know when the next meal might be.
Yes, they might be eating "junk" foods but most restrictions on the SNAP program etc means they cannot buy most of that with federal aid.
Besides, it is not just poor kids that are fat.
Higher income kids are also fat, but by your logic they should all be in fighting shape, fit enough to enlist.
Those families could easily afford healthier food choices more often.
Bag of potato chips: $0.99
1 lb of chicken breasts: $3.00
Guess what seems like a better deal when you are nearly starving?
Guess which one is "ready to eat" when you need to run to your second part-time job so the electricity or phone isn't turned off?
Yes, carrots are also about $1 per pound, but carrots are not even close to chips when it comes to calorie density.
The desire to take in high density calories is about as instinctive as hording food.
Again, it is a function of survival. Until people think differently about food then the problems will continue.
Dozens of adults on these forums are overly fat.
Even though they have been on MFP for months or years, with access to all of the information, advice and experience provided free of charge, they still are not making significant progress.
Why is that? Simply because people make choices, both good and bad.
They commonly lack the discipline and resolve to make the better choice because the "bad" choice is easier for any number of reasons.
Kids don't usually have that much going for them yet.
No, this initiative in the UK will not fix the problem.
I wish it were that simple.
Half of what you put there goes towards substantiating the point I was making. The examples you give of food options are not great in terms of cost either.In UK a bag of Crisps has less calories than a bag of carrots but is more expensive same with a bunch of bananas. At end of the day it is amount you eat not what you eat that makes you overweight and the excuse that healthy food is more expensive is not valid. The term poverty is probably a bit provocative as as you say those in true poverty will not know where their next meal will come from as opposed to those who are less well off than others.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...
Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.
Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.
You can get an online food delivery for £1 which is less than the bus fare to go to a supermarket, so location shouldn't be a problem. Doing one big shop a month you could stock up on frozen or tinned fruit and veg, food cupboard essentials like rice, pasta, beans etc A lot of people just don't want to put the effort into it.
Where do you live that you can get food delivery for £1? When I looked into it a few years ago it was closer to £10.
And then when you do order you have to book a 4-hour window for delivery, and there's not often great selection, which makes it much harder for people with inconsistent work schedules.
I basically pay £1 delivery with Sainsbury's (in the Uk) ..I have a delivery pass so can have groceries delivered any day any time. They pick the best choices with great use by dates. It's easy to keep an eye on overall spend too.
Does the pass cost money?
Here the option I am most familiar with is $5.99 for 2 hour delivery (that's the cheapest) or free delivery for orders over $35 IF (and only if) you have a membership, which costs, AND it's not in all locations.
Asda do a £1 delivery on an evening or £2 through day. Minimum cost £25 so you could get a weekly, fortnightly or monthly shop then top up if needed.
This is just an example though for a comment saying not everyone can get out to a big supermarket so go to a takeaway instead.
How widely is that available in the UK? I'm pretty sure nothing that inexpensive is available for me here (in the US), and certainly not in the crummier neighborhoods or less urban areas.
I do agree with the point that the options are not going to a big supermarket or takeaway.0 -
I'm sorry but poverty is not an excuse for being overweight or eating unhealthily if anything it should make them less likely. Fruit and veg are all cheaper than chocolates, biscuits, fast food etc. If you are that poor then you should be seeking out the cheaper options and staying away from expensive convenience options. Even the cost of cooking need not be restrictive as there are plenty of foods that can be eaten without the need of cooking.
No poverty is not an excuse but it does contribute to being overly fat in many cases.
Unless you have been on welfare (I was, and in foster care as well) then your opinion is just that: an uninformed opinion.
My brother and I were both on federal aid for all of our childhoods.
But we were NOT overweight. Want to know why?
Because some days the only meal we had was school-provided lunch.
When you have next to nothing but food seems to be plentiful you will often eat and horde it as a matter of survival.
The "quality" of the food does not matter. Many people in those circumstances are conditioned to eat everything in sight because they do not know when the next meal might be.
Yes, they might be eating "junk" foods but most restrictions on the SNAP program etc means they cannot buy most of that with federal aid.
Besides, it is not just poor kids that are fat.
Higher income kids are also fat, but by your logic they should all be in fighting shape, fit enough to enlist.
Those families could easily afford healthier food choices more often.
Bag of potato chips: $0.99
1 lb of chicken breasts: $3.00
Guess what seems like a better deal when you are nearly starving?
Guess which one is "ready to eat" when you need to run to your second part-time job so the electricity or phone isn't turned off?
Yes, carrots are also about $1 per pound, but carrots are not even close to chips when it comes to calorie density.
The desire to take in high density calories is about as instinctive as hording food.
Again, it is a function of survival. Until people think differently about food then the problems will continue.
Dozens of adults on these forums are overly fat.
Even though they have been on MFP for months or years, with access to all of the information, advice and experience provided free of charge, they still are not making significant progress.
Why is that? Simply because people make choices, both good and bad.
They commonly lack the discipline and resolve to make the better choice because the "bad" choice is easier for any number of reasons.
Kids don't usually have that much going for them yet.
No, this initiative in the UK will not fix the problem.
I wish it were that simple.
My Dad raised me and my brother on his own, on benefits with no other help. He cooked and baked most meals from scratch, made his own bread and anything else he could. We had well balanced, healthy meals because even though we hardly had any money he wanted to make sure we got the right nutrition and a well balanced diet. If we wanted sweets, or "junk food" we could use our pocket money, and we soon realised we would rather spend our money on something else that wouldn't be gone in a matter of seconds. We went without other things instead. I'm not saying everyone should do this, but a lot of people put other things first rather than a healthy diet, like having the latest mobile phone, a big screen TV, Sky TV instead of Freeview, smoking, alcohol etc. things like this. I was never overweight as a child. I was as an adult when I had more money.5 -
LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...
Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.
Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.
You can get an online food delivery for £1 which is less than the bus fare to go to a supermarket, so location shouldn't be a problem. Doing one big shop a month you could stock up on frozen or tinned fruit and veg, food cupboard essentials like rice, pasta, beans etc A lot of people just don't want to put the effort into it.
Where do you live that you can get food delivery for £1? When I looked into it a few years ago it was closer to £10.
And then when you do order you have to book a 4-hour window for delivery, and there's not often great selection, which makes it much harder for people with inconsistent work schedules.
I basically pay £1 delivery with Sainsbury's (in the Uk) ..I have a delivery pass so can have groceries delivered any day any time. They pick the best choices with great use by dates. It's easy to keep an eye on overall spend too.
Herm, I think Sainsbury's was one that I looked into but discounted because the minimum spend was more than I spend in a week, and I usually go grocery shopping 1-2 times a week in order to have plenty of fresh fruit and veg. The fridge-freezer in my flat was tiny, so I couldn't stock up on frozen veg, unfortunately (if I had a pound for every time someone told me that the best way to eat healthy on a budget was to make extra and freeze it ... well, I wouldn't have had to eat on a budget, then).
How did this thread become about poverty and judging what poor people eat, anyway? I know a LOT of educated middle-class people who rely on ready meals and packaged food. They can afford to eat healthy, they have the time/transportation to go to a grocery store, the resources to learn how to cook, and yet they still buy ready meals and bags of crisps and have fizzy drinks with their meals (seriously, people, Irn Bru is not a food group
). Oh, and a lot of them hate vegetables because their experiences with school dinners led them to believe that vegetables have to be boiled to *kittens* until all sense of flavour or texture is lost. When I was a programmer, a typical lunch amongst my colleagues was something like cheese and ham sandwich on white bread, a bag of crisps, and a bottle of fizzy - and perhaps an apple or banana on the side if they were trying to be healthy. I ate far, far better than that when I was unemployed and spending 30 quid a week on food. It's not fair to judge poor people for not eating healthily when the behaviours we're judging them for are rampant amongst well-off, educated people.
11 -
My Dad raised me and my brother on his own, on benefits with no other help. He cooked and baked most meals from scratch, made his own bread and anything else he could. We had well balanced, healthy meals because even though we hardly had any money he wanted to make sure we got the right nutrition and a well balanced diet. If we wanted sweets, or "junk food" we could use our pocket money, and we soon realised we would rather spend our money on something else that wouldn't be gone in a matter of seconds. We went without other things instead. I'm not saying everyone should do this, but a lot of people put other things first rather than a healthy diet, like having the latest mobile phone, a big screen TV, Sky TV instead of Freeview, smoking, alcohol etc. things like this. I was never overweight as a child. I was as an adult when I had more money.
Just as a side note: You see that "The POOR spend all their money on flat screen TV's and IPHONES" that's propaganda fed through the media to justify tearing down the welfare state and social security nets, it's not real.
Even if it was real, poor people also deserve nice things sometimes. This is a really ugly attitude and not even what the thread is about.17 -
While I completely agree regarding education, I also think there is an issue where manufacturers often choose to put in ingredients that are calorie dense because they think we want it as it makes things 'taste nicer', mainly sugars and fats. Adapting some ingredients would allow for calorie reductions without the need to change portion sizes. Unfortunately, that strategy is likely to be less profitable.0
-
I'm sorry, how did this become about food deserts or the behavior of poor people???
Obesity is a problem in 1st world countries across the board - wealthy, poor, male, female, young, old etc. But why deal with the problem when we can pick sides either complaining about how it's not people's fault they are obese the big food companies tricked them, or it is all because poor people are lazy I guess?
The injection of overly-emotional moral judgements into government issues is one of the reasons most of our governing bodies accomplish practically nothing at this point, but I should probably get off my soapbox. I still don't think changing the number of calories per serving will accomplish anything. If governments want to do something about the obesity epidemic, I have to think education is the way to go. But the real change has to happen inside people's homes and their heads.
Edited because I'm bad at spelling when I'm pissed
8 -
While I completely agree regarding education, I also think there is an issue where manufacturers often choose to put in ingredients that are calorie dense because they think we want it as it makes things 'taste nicer', mainly sugars and fats. Adapting some ingredients would allow for calorie reductions without the need to change portion sizes. Unfortunately, that strategy is likely to be less profitable.
The article suggests that this is a continuation of prior efforts to convince manufacturers to lower sodium and sugar in products. So that means it specifically is not about sugar:
"The new strategy outlines 13 food categories, including savoury biscuits, cooking sauces, sandwiches, ready meals and potato products such as crisps and chips. However, foods in the agency’s separate plan to cut the sugar content of products such as chocolate, cakes and breakfast cereals by 20% are not included."
Also:
"Tedstone said food producers have a number of options for meeting the target, including reformulating products, promoting healthy options and reducing portion sizes."
It seems like reducing size (which might address portion distortion) is the most likely option, but I dunno.
It also seems unclear how it's being enforced, the current effort seems to be public pressure/encouragement with threat of something more:
"'She said PHE would produce guidance for specific categories of products by 2019 for the whole food industry to follow, and report regularly on what steps are being taken by major companies.
'PHE will advise government if progress isn’t being made,' said Tedstone, noting that the government might invoke “other levers” in that case. Selbie added: 'There will be complete transparency and published progress or not, by category, by company, by products.'"
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »LivingtheLeanDream wrote: »To the Gwyneth Paltrow’s of the group...
Low-income individuals often do not access to fresh foods. Grocery stores may not be in the area, so they eat what is available in the convenience stores or cheap restaurants. They may not have a car, or public transportation makes getting around difficult. Then you have those that work long hours, spend even more time getting too and from work that quick food is really the only option.
Poverty is much more complicated than being lazy.
You can get an online food delivery for £1 which is less than the bus fare to go to a supermarket, so location shouldn't be a problem. Doing one big shop a month you could stock up on frozen or tinned fruit and veg, food cupboard essentials like rice, pasta, beans etc A lot of people just don't want to put the effort into it.
Where do you live that you can get food delivery for £1? When I looked into it a few years ago it was closer to £10.
And then when you do order you have to book a 4-hour window for delivery, and there's not often great selection, which makes it much harder for people with inconsistent work schedules.
I basically pay £1 delivery with Sainsbury's (in the Uk) ..I have a delivery pass so can have groceries delivered any day any time. They pick the best choices with great use by dates. It's easy to keep an eye on overall spend too.
Does the pass cost money?
Here the option I am most familiar with is $5.99 for 2 hour delivery (that's the cheapest) or free delivery for orders over $35 IF (and only if) you have a membership, which costs, AND it's not in all locations.
Yes I pay £20-£30 for 6 months which averages £1 a week. i live in a quite rural location so I'm lucky they deliver.2 -
Please tell me you’re not reasoning that people are poor because they lack the self discipline to save money.Cherimoose wrote: »In the US, most low-income people can eat reasonably healthy if they truly desire it. Lots of websites explain how. But poor people often opt for "junk" food because it's tastier and easier. It requires self-discipline to choose foods that are less tasty and take longer to prepare. It also requires discipline to exercise. Incidentally, increasing one's income and saving money require discipline.
I'm saying that earning more and spending less requires self discipline, just like reducing one's weight & exercising does, so it's not surprising that obesity is correlated with both poverty and sedentariness in the US (source).
Of course, there are exceptions to the trend.. but they don't disprove that the trend exists.
4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions