WASHINGTON 鈥� A cheeseburger, fries and large drink may only cost you a few bucks at the drive thru, but experts say the cost of that fast-food meal is far greater than its price tag.
Danielle Nierenberg, president of the nonprofit , says it all comes down to true cost accounting, 鈥渨hich is really just a fancy name for this economic model that takes into account everything that goes into food 鈥� the invisible or hidden costs, as well as some of the hidden benefits.鈥�
鈥淵ou鈥檙e talking about everything from the fertilizer that鈥檚 used to grow the grain that鈥檚 fed to the cows 鈥� and even water pollution from confined animal feeding practices.鈥�
Americans are spending less on food than ever before and spend less than any other country in the world. According to , the average household in the U.S. spends between 7 and 11 percent of its income on food. Thirty years ago, that number was closer to 20 percent.
Ever since the 1950s and 鈥�60s, the American food system has been focused on producing bigger yields. The government has also pumped more money into subsidizing corn and 鈥渁 lot of staple crops and not the things that will actually make people healthy,鈥� Nierenberg says.
Many of these products are used to make processed foods.
鈥淐onsumers need to be aware that they鈥檙e not paying full price right now. 鈥� We expect food to be very inexpensive,鈥� Nierenberg says. 鈥淲e鈥檝e sort of forgotten what we value, or what we should value.鈥�
The price tag on a bag of chips might be low, but Nierenberg says you鈥檙e going to pay for it somewhere down the line.
鈥淚f you just look at the obesity epidemic or diabetes and cardiovascular disease, you see a lot of these health costs,鈥� Nierenberg says.
Currently, more than one-third of American adults, or 78.6 million people, are obese. And the costs associated with obesity are not to be overlooked. The estimates that the medical costs for obesity in the U.S. added up to $147 billion in 2008.
鈥淭he consumer doesn鈥檛 always have to pay for [these costs], but someone pays for them down the line,鈥� Nierenberg says.
She argues that the environmental cost of a 鈥渃heap鈥� food system should also be considered more by policy makers and consumers. Agricultural runoff contributes to , and certain crops diminish biodiversity, both of which cost the U.S. . However, there are ways to correct this course.
鈥淲hen things are done in a more sustainable way, you can sequester carbon in soils or preserve biodiversity,鈥� Nierenberg says.
A change to the current system will likely cost consumers a few dollars more up front, but will provide more benefits in the long run.
鈥淲e鈥檙e not only talking about costs here, but if we realize how much the food system can do to combat climate change or promote better animal or social welfare 鈥� it will be a more palatable price for them to pay. They won鈥檛 think of it as such a huge burden or a huge cost.鈥�
Nierenberg says those who want to be more conscious of their consumption of 鈥渃heap food鈥� can start by reducing the amount of .
鈥淩eally being conscious of how much you buy and making sure that your eyes aren鈥檛 bigger than your stomach is one really concrete way that we can all take true cost accounting into our lives,鈥� she says.
鈥淔ood will likely continue to be inexpensive for consumers in the United States for a long time, but there鈥檚 no reason for the amount of food that we鈥檙e wasting.鈥�
Want to learn more about true cost accounting? Food Tank is hosting a panel on The Real Cost of Food on Nov. 12 from 10:30 a.m. to noon at the Founders Room at American University. Experts representing academia, industry and government organizations will be in attendance. For information on registration, visit .
