Is this one. And that’s an achievement. Rather than rant, here’s just a few of the goodies:
Recent estimates show 49 million Americans make food decisions based on cost, she added.
Right, so the other 261 million Americans have food handed to them. And there is no reason to believe that these 49 million are the same ones that have trouble eating nutritiously. The point of a market system is to have cost be a part of every decision we make, because without doing it, there won’t be much stuff to consider in the first place. I know the survey instrument, so defenders would probably say something like, “the survey asked what is the MOST important driver of your food choices” and then these folks selected it. But to indicate the sentence in this manner seems to indict costs (and prices and markets) as being evil allocative mechanisms. Finally, is 49 million out of 310 million Americans make choices based on cost a lot? A little? How does it compare to our housing choices? I’d bet that over half of Americans make those decisions based on cost, and wished they lived in safer, healthier, more comfortable houses. What about cars? I’d bet an even larger share makes those decisions based on cost? But when it comes to food, apparently all bets are off. Hogwash. And by the way, we’ve done the simple calculations, eating extremely health is within reach of every single American today – to suggest otherwise is to suggest fairies exist.
Just a couple more:
He said diets get more and more expensive depending on how many rules a person applies to himself, such as eating organic or seeking local sources for food or eating vegetables out of season.
Can you stand it? The author leads us to believe that organic food and local food are somehow healthier and have more nutrients than non-organic and non-local food. There’s just one little problem: that’s not true. But why should something like the facts get in the way of good “reporting?” I know it’s a quote from someone else, but I guarantee if I were quoted as saying that mass-farmed food is as nutritious and safe as anything else my quote would be prefaced with some caveat like, “wack-job liberal economists like Wintercow say …”
And don’t forget the requisite state-worship:
The government should provide help for meeting the nutritional guidelines in an affordable way.
Well, at least the very last line in the piece mentions subsidies. It says not a thing about ethanol of course – and hey econ-people, even though ethanol is made from corn, how might that have an impact on potatoes?