Encouraging supermarkets to sell healthy food at cheaper prices to encourage people to buy it

[natural.thought]

@dburgel

It’s expensive to stay healthy.

Assuming you’re right, @dburgel, I choose to be happy and healthy than be unhappy and unhealthy - even if it costs a little bit more. That is a no-brainer for me, but I am in the position to make that choice and am very thankful for it. That being said, I’m quite hesitant to believe your statement. I wonder if people who support this statement have thought through the lifetime expenses of this lifestyle choice. @pluto hit the nail on the head in the topic ‘Technology disposal’, so I will not recreate the wheel. Head over to that topic for the full context of pluto’s reply, but here is the relevant quote:

@pluto

True ERP would turn this on its head and build the “total cost of ownership” of a product over its lifetime, and require consumers to pay upfront for the real cost of that product. This can be applied to a whole range of products, and not just to environmental impact. Consider the gross long-term negative impact of junk food on our dwindling taxpayers who are expected to fund the health system. Consumers (including those who are not, and many who will never be, taxpayers) are happy to pay for cheap food, and leave the real “cost” of that food for 2-3 decades later. And chances are they won’t be the ones paying for it, despite making the “choice” of what to eat, if they are unable to work etc due to health issues.

So the real difference is that consumers would have a price signal (which I think is an economic term?) about what the real cost to them and others will be from that product/service at the point of consumption.

When comparing two options such as public vs private transport, quality vs cheap products, and healthy vs unhealthy food; people often ignore the externalised costs that aren’t paid upfront. I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that eating unhealthy is cheaper than eating healthy.