zlacker

[return to "Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy"]
1. carlmr+B5[view] [source] 2026-01-12 13:03:44
>>giulio+(OP)
>The share of U.S. households reporting at least one user rose from about 11% in late 2023 to more than 16% by mid-2024.

I was wondering how you could get such a high impact overall. But it seems one in 6 households are on GLP-1 drugs in the US.

In my friend circle in Germany I don't even know one single person on this stuff.

It's insane to me that so many people need these to get off the processed foods killing them in the US.

◧◩
2. u_sama+h6[view] [source] 2026-01-12 13:07:18
>>carlmr+B5
For artificial problems, artificial solutions. I think the state of food in the US is really bad, and one cannot compare such products to the superior EU food quality standards and eating habits (and city designs) which render the incentives really perverse
◧◩◪
3. mistah+q8[view] [source] 2026-01-12 13:17:40
>>u_sama+h6
I lived in Germany and Indonesia. It’s easier for me now back in the US than ever to eat healthy.

I can buy pre-chopped Cole slaw, diced peppers / onions, etc. Whole Foods is best in class (Alnatura doesn’t come close)

While to me, the layman, it seems health regulation in general in Europe is more conservative about what can be put on the body / be consumed, I think it’s mostly Americans don’t want to eat healthy. And the portion sizes here are insane (just look at the evolution dinner plate. 1960s plates at an antique sale only pass for salad plates)

◧◩◪◨
4. juujia+lb[view] [source] 2026-01-12 13:32:32
>>mistah+q8
Yes, whole foods is great, but if you look are they locations, name Americans don't have access to one and or cannot afford it.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. stinkb+Jj[view] [source] 2026-01-12 14:12:23
>>juujia+lb
Cause and effect is backward. The locations indicate where people are buying it. And cheap doesn't really add up either because if somebody wants the cheapest possible calories they would be buying rice, flour/pasta, potato...

I don't know why the problem is shied away from. It is because people are addicted to fast food and to their sedentary lifestyles. It's not the price or availability of good food, not the first order effect anyway.

You'll never be able to force "whole foods" sellers into unprofitable places and if you did by some miracle, you'll never be able to force people to buy it no matter how much money you gave them. Vegetables and grains and basics could be free and many obese food addicts will go buy a burger from a drive thru.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. bluGil+Nn[view] [source] 2026-01-12 14:30:53
>>stinkb+Jj
Cooking good food takes time. I can slap some pre-made burgers in a pan, throw some buns in a toaster and have a "meal" in 10 minutes. I can stop by fast food on the way and have the same meal (at only slightly more cost) in 5 minutes.

I typically spend more than an hour in the kitchen cooking every day, and then there is half an hour clean up after my family is done eating. I eat much better and healthier food, but it takes time. (If I'm having noodles I'm making them from scratch myself - I could save some time buy less of things like that and the cost wouldn't be much different if any - but even then the whole meal takes time).

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. tonyed+Ct[view] [source] 2026-01-12 14:57:19
>>bluGil+Nn
The average American spends five hours a day watching television. They could find the time if they wanted.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. s1arti+OJ[view] [source] 2026-01-12 16:10:19
>>tonyed+Ct
Not poor people, they are too busy to watch TV.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. phil21+oW[view] [source] 2026-01-12 16:59:45
>>s1arti+OJ
I grew up in a poor neighborhood. Busy doing what, exactly?

This comment is so out of touch it must be a joke right? At least I hope so.

Far more time was spent in front of the TV than any other activity by far by my peers and their families. Moving to a more middle class area opened my eyes in how many other options people had to do with their time, and how much time and effort was spent maintaining their lifestyles.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. array_+1k1[view] [source] 2026-01-12 18:55:19
>>phil21+oW
Well, uh, working. The less you make per hour of work means the more hours you need to maintain a normal standard of living. Obviously there's variance in standards of living, but wealthier people don't typically work two or three jobs. Poor people do, I've met people who do. The reality is that at 12 dollars an hour, 40 hours is just not gonna cut it.

And it's a little more complicated than even just that. Another reality is that, at 12 bucks an hour, nobody is going to be giving you a steady 40 hours. You need extra shifts for buffers, and your shifts will be shorter.

Sure, working 50 hours a week across 7 days isn't technically more than 50 across 5 days. But it does certainly drain your will to live a lot more, from what I've seen.

[go to top]