The Luxury of Fast Food

Jeannie presented the issue of how a poor person can eat out if they are on a limited budget.

That brings me to back to my original beef, with food manufacturers throwing the slop to the poor and expecting people who want to make healthy choices pay more.

Most all restaurants these days have "value" menus.  These menus are on par with what you'll spend at a store for just about any meal and could easily and conveniently eat out as opposed to cook in.  Sometimes, it's cheaper.  Big Mac Value Meals are for the rich, we po folk depend on 99 cent stuff.  I can feed my whole family for what I would spend on one of their "healthy" salads - which, btw, aren't all that healthy.  I'll get into that later.  If you go by Taco Bell's new "I'm FULL!" ad campaign, you can finally afford to eat at Taco Bell again.  Back in the day when I was homeless after first moving to LA, Taco Bell was an event.  Their 33 cent tacos were a little piece o' heaven.  Now those tacos cost 89 cents.  Anyway on the Taco Bell value menu you can get a double decker taco, fiesta potatoes, a beef and potato burrito and a caramel apple empanada - it's cheap - but full of fat, sugar and sodium.

So it really is affordable to eat out when you're smack dab in this country's growing poverty level (last I heard that was an annual income of $12,000), but you find the same exact problem you find in the grocery stores.  Again it comes back to serving the crap to the poor just to get their money and forcing people who CAN afford it and choose to eat healthy more money.

I found these articles that support my initial claim:

The Cost of Low Carb May Be Too Expensive For Those Who Need it The Most

Eating healthy, losing weight can be expensive propositions - thetimesherald.c

From one of these articles I realized that my family spends only half of what most 4 person families pay - over $200 a week on groceries.  This doesn't mean I can't afford fresh fruit and veggies - I bought those even when I was buying processed stuff to make up the difference.  It's all the other stuff that make up our food intake where I feel the pinch.  I can have what I want, what I like to eat, without being deprived - as long as I pay through the nose for it.  And that's what makes me hopping mad.

Now back to "healthy" salads.  A lot of people believe just because they get the "healthy" salad they're making better food choices than the hamburger meals.  Let's break it down and look at it.  If you eat a Big Mac, you spend 600 calories, take in 33 grams of fat (11 of which is saturated) and 1050 grams of sodium.  Their Bacon Ranch Chicken Salad is 250 calories and 10 grams of fat with 930 grams of sodium.  Sounds like a better deal doesn't it?  But what about the people who add salad dressing to their salads - which is the majority?  This is where you leave the realm of healthy and enter into comparable eating with the Big Mac.  Newman's Own Ranch Style dressing adds 170 more calories, 15 more grams of fat and 530 more grams of sodium - this is 25 grams of fat (only 8 shy of the Big Mac) and a whopping 1460 grams of sodium.

The sodium on the salad is crazy, but it comes from the chicken - which is what hurts all their grilled chicken salad and sandwich options.  A chicken Whopper at Burger King minus mayo is a very healthy choice calorie wise and fat wise - it's the sodium that will get ya.  It's just as much as if you bought a Lean Cuisine packaged meal, which is a lot cheaper and just as convenient as any fast food. 

So it all comes back to choices - and the choices that are forced on those who cannot afford the $4 Spinach Chicken Salad at Wendys but CAN afford the 99 cent value menu.  Thankfully, Wendys does offer its low fat alternatives (chili, potato, salad) on it's 99 cent value menu. 

So again, it's all about choices - and today's culture does allow for poor people to enjoy the "luxury" of eating out.  Most anyone can "afford" to eat out if you're willing to sacrifice healthy choices.

Considering the state of our economy and the growing number of the lower class in our country, it's a good thing - or else those restaurants would go out of business anyway.

But that's another rant entirely. 

For those who still disagree with my claim, I'm more than willing to be shown differently.  Anyone who wants to accept the challenge and prove me wrong, I'd be open to hear how you do it.  Take $100 to feed a family of four with these dietary considerations - nothing can have refined sugar or enriched bleached flour, no potatoes, no white bread, no white rice.  Also consider Steven doesn't eat fruit or most vegetables.  My kids only eat the following vegetables: broccoli, cauliflour, brussel sprouts, green beans, corn, carrots, peas.  They don't eat salads.  Jeremiah doesn't eat chicken on the bone and I don't eat any tough textured meat.  I don't eat oranges or green apples, but otherwise I'm open to fruit and I require dairy servings like cheese and I only have the time to cook one meal a day.

So knock yourselves out and prove me wrong. 

I'd love to see it.