Cheap as chips or just plain junk?

Perception is not reality, and repetition of words doesn't make them true.

Dr Jim Taylor, an author, blogger and developer of Prime Performance System, has suggested people say "perception is reality" when they want to persuade others to their point of view.

He uses the analogy of being beaten with a cudgel and says the words are used to justify something "that may be objectively unjustifiable or just plain out of touch with reality".

Taylor also explains that, although perception is not reality, perception can become a person's reality (there is a difference) because it has a major influence on how we look at reality.

In this light, the statement "fruit and vegetables at the supermarket are so expensive now, processed and junk food actually works out cheaper" deserves examination.

The words came from a survey of 5+ a day by New Zealand-based company Research First. But fruit and vegetables are not the same types of food as "junk and processed foods".

Fruit and vegetables are valuable sources of energy, vitamins, minerals and fibre. There is also increasing evidence of extra benefits from the range of phytonutrients they contain.

In contrast, junk and processed foods tend to be high in fats, sugar and salt. This makes a cost comparison difficult because the basis of the comparison is unclear - choosing vitamins or fats would result in a different answer.

The problem of how to compare has been addressed over the years through research. Most reports come to the same conclusions as the US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.

For all metrics, except the price of food energy, healthy foods cost less than less-healthy foods (defined for the study as foods that are high in saturated fat, added sugar, and/or sodium, or that contribute little to meeting dietary recommendations).

The CSIRO (Australia's equivalent to NZ's Crown Research Institutes) has examined the typical Australian diet and come to similar conclusions about junk food - but on the environment rather than the wallet.

Researchers estimated discretionary foods (anything that isn't an essential or necessary part of a healthy dietary pattern) were responsible for almost 30 per cent of the greenhouse gases of an average Australian diet.

The average Australian consumes 6.2 servings of discretionary food a day, and a serving is defined as a 375ml can of fizzy drink, 400ml standard beer, 200ml wine, 25g chocolate, one tablespoon of jam or honey, or 12 hot chips. A snack pack of chippies would be two servings.

Of the core food groups, the two smallest contributors to total dietary greenhouse gases were fruit (3.5 per cent) and vegetables (6.5 per cent).

The researchers suggested reducing discretionary food intake would allow for small increases in emissions from core foods, particularly vegetables (from 2.5 to 5.5 servings a day), dairy (from 1.5 to 2.5 servings), and grains (from 4.6 to 6 servings). The nutritional benefit would be achieved at a 3.6 per cent rise in greenhouse gases, described as "small".

Another advantage of reducing discretionary food is a concurrent reduction in waste and rubbish. Too many roads on too many days show the remnants of somebody's picnic - the quantity of fast food jettisoned, along with packaging, is depressing.

The National Litter Audit, published in 2019 by Keep New Zealand Beautiful, reported 99 per cent of Kiwis believe it is crucial for our country to maintain its clean, green image, with 93 per cent believing it is very important not to litter. The 7 per cent who don't are creating an extraordinary mess, creating a cost to the taxpayer to clean up.

Statistics show New Zealand has developed a takeaway culture.

In 2020, StatsNZ calculated the average Kiwi spent 27 per cent of the food budget on restaurants and ready-to-eat meals, including "things like burgers and takeaway coffee", up from 22 per cent in 2000, while spending on fresh fruit and veges decreased from 15 per cent in 2017 to 13 per cent in 2020.

Although vegetables and fruit can be part of a takeaway meal, the reality remains that decreased fast food would be better for the environment as well as health.