# data[].attributes.body
Positive Analysis: Based on the information learned about fast food and home cooked meal costs for those who prioritize time over money fast food has been a valuable option. For those prioritizing their long term health and for those who have larger families cooking at home has been a good choice.

Normative Analysis: When making the choice between fast food and home cooked meals individuals should consider more than just the factor of money. They ought to consider the health side of things, waste side, and the long-term effects and costs of fast food.

# data[].attributes.body
Key economic principles such as opportunity cost, time value, gains from trade and externalities are very important to the discussion.

# data[].attributes.headline
Gains from Trade and The Opportunity Cost Principle

# data[].attributes.subject
Gains from Trade and The Opportunity Cost Principle

# data[].attributes.body
Both gains from trade and the opportunity cost principle are present in this situation. For example, even though cooking at home may seem cheaper in monetary terms, fast food does give someone the benefit of saving time, a valuable resource, especially for people with intense schedules. This shows the tradeoff between price and convenience. In this case by trading money the consumer receive benefits through the convenience and speed of fast food.

# data[].attributes.body
Externalities are present in the situation of fast food versus versus home cooked meals. Externalities that may occur from choosing fast food include health risks. While cheaper fast food is not the best for our health. Fast foods are often high in salt, saturated fats, and other non-nutritional calories which if chosen consistently could cause health issues. On the other hand there are positive externalities with home-cooked meals. Home cooked meals for the most part are better for health than fast foods. Additionally they are more customizable so those who struggle with food sensitivities may benefit more from choosing home cooked meals.

# data[].attributes.body
The article "Is Fast Food Cheaper Than Cooking at Home?" by Aja McClanahan, published on September 20, 2024, shows us the economic back and forth between eating fast food and cooking meals at home. It talks about the costs of both options, taking into account time, convenience, health, and financial expenses, making sure that we see that the choice may differ based on lifestyle factors.

# data[].attributes.body
Using the equilibrium model, we can analyze how consumer demand for fast food increases with convenience, despite higher long-term health costs. A supply-demand graphic can show the balance between price and quantity of fast food versus home-cooked meals, with an emphasis on convenience as a factor for demand. The long-term health externalities from fast food consumption, such as obesity, shift the demand curve.

# data[].attributes.body
This situation can be compared with the past policy of imposing taxes on sugary beverages to slow down and lower consumption and encourage healthier alternatives. Also, taxing fast food could reduce demand for unhealthy meals, though, as with sugary drinks, this might affect lower-income consumers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Analysis of Externalities and Unintended Consequences

# data[].attributes.subject
Analysis of Externalities and Unintended Consequences

# data[].attributes.body
Fast food presents market failures such as negative externalities which are long-term health costs that aren't reflected in immediate prices. These externalities challenge the standard equilibrium model, where fast food prices don’t take into consideration societal health costs, creating inefficiencies.

Another negative externality exists with environmental costs. Fast food involves an enormous amount of waste. While some of this waste may be recycled or composted much of it ends up in landfills or in the environment where it is not supposed to be. While fast food can be cheap the cost doesn't account for the cost to the environment.

These negative externalities are not fully accounted for in prices of food. This could result in overproduction of fast food and underproduction of food products needed to cook meals at home.

# data[].attributes.body
Fast food is efficient for people who need more time in their day and do not have enough time in their day to cook healthy meals, but also is really bad in terms of long-term health outcomes. Adding taxes on fast food might promote healthier eating habits, even though it could also unfairly impact lower-income families where that is all they can afford. A balanced policy approach would focus on both consumer education and incentivizing healthier food options.

# data[].attributes.headline
Additional Reading-Fast Food vs. Home Cooking

# data[].attributes.subject
Additional Reading-Fast Food vs. Home Cooking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fast food vs. Home Cooking – Sound Economics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fast food has become a staple for nearly every American’s diet. The relatively inexpensive and quick food option seems like a great alternative to cooking at home, but is it really better?

# data[].attributes.headline
Youtube Video: Would a fast food tax improve public health?

# data[].attributes.subject
Youtube Video: Would a fast food tax improve public health?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Would a fast food tax improve public health?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new public health study suggests populations who suffer disproportionately from obesity, diabetes and heart disease could gain health benefits from policies that put fast food prices beyond their reach. http://www.umassmed.edu/news/2014/research/would-fast-food-tax-improve-public-health.aspx "As prices of fast food go up, everybody eats a little bit less fast food, but people with fewer economic resources are influenced much more by the price than people who have more resources," said Catarina Kiefe, MD, PhD.

# data[].attributes.body
-Individuals running short on time may benefit more from fast food

-Those who frequently consume fast food eat more large amounts of fat, sodium, and sugar compared to those who cook meals at home

-Cooking at home can still be an economical solution

-There are good ways to save money at home and on fast food

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.question
After learning more about fast food versus home cooked food which option are you more inclined to choose the majority of the time?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I wrote a couple weeks ago about chronic disease, and compared it to deadly plagues of our past. Chronic disease today isn't so different from ancient plagues; not as acute, but just as deadly. Seven out of ten Americans die from a chronic disease such as cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. These aren't "inevitable" diseases from old age. Today's rates of chronic disease are unprecedented in human history. They're the diseases of modernity, progress, and industry.

Chronic diseases are the negative externalities of rapid change and optimizing for profits. In this context, a " negative externality" refers to the effect of a production or consumption process on society, with no compensation paid to those affected.

Negative externalities from production [credit tutor2u]

Pollution emitted by a factory that affects the health of nearby residents and contributes to climate change is an example of a negative externality.
The consumption of industrially processed foods also result in negative externalities, namely chronic disease that affect our nation's productivity, healthcare costs, longevity, and wellbeing.

Negative externalities from consumption [credit tutor2u]

I don't think there's anything wrong with industrialization or the pursuit of progress and profits, but the only way it works in our free market economy is when the negative externalities are accounted for. Currently, negative externalities are not on any company's P&L. Hershey's doesn't have a line item for "diabetes treatment" and Crisco doesn't account for "treating heart disease" on its financial statements. So whose responsibility is it?

In some senses, it's the individual's responsibility since it's the individual who chose to eat the food, buy the product, etc. But most negative externalities are caused by a system, not by individuals. If the CEO of Hershey's decides it's best to admit that sugar consumption results in major health issues, and that the company should start funneling a large % of profits to healthcare, that CEO will be removed by the board.
Really, most negative externalities are just inevitabilities of societal progress.
Progress is inevitable. Evolution is progress. So how can we setup a form of government that accounts for the negative externalities associated with progress, without slowing it down? One argument is that we just let it happen. We let the negative externalities happen, knowing that future progress will solve them.

In New York in the late 1800s, the transportation technology of the day was horse and carriage. In fact, there were so many horses that the resulting manure was piled high as buildings all over the city. It became such a problem that city planners at one point believed urban civilization was doomed, as streets and neighborhoods would by buried in over 10 feet of manure. Just as the city seemed destined to bury itself alive in manure for the sake of convenient, quick transportation, the Model-T was invented by Henry Ford, cars replaced horses, and the horse manure problem quickly went away.

The invention of the car solved one problem, and introduced another: carbon emissions from transportation. Although cars are not the only reason we're pulling fossil fuels from underground and combusting them, they are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. In the case of cars, the technology of progress is the automobile; the negative externality is the pollution and its effect on our planet. Do we make cars illegal and stunt any progress that requires fossil fuels? Or do we put resources toward making it a moot point, like with the piles of horse manure in New York?

In 2001, Portugal became the first country in the world to decriminalize all illicit substances. Before doing so, the price of drugs didn't reflect the negative externalities their consumption were causing: violence, poor health, lost productivity, etc. After being decriminalized, those externalities became part of the accounting. Drug sales are now taxed, and a large share of that tax income is put toward drug prevention programs and illicit drug education. The country has not only seen a decline in violence and drug-related crimes, but has actually seen a decrease in illicit drug usage, all by simply accounting for the negative externalities.

As another example of accounting for negative externalities, certain counties and states have begun taxing carbon emissions. On a global scale, this is exactly the incentive we need to start accounting for the negative externalities of industry. Companies and technologies with comparatively low emissions will start to have a competitive advantage, displacing some share of the unsustainable incumbents.

Certain counties and states have begun taxing carbon emissions [credit MIT].

What if we did the same for unhealthy foods, foods with high carbon footprints, and all other products and industries that have unaccounted for externalities?

Not all externalities are negative. There are positive externalities, too. For example, buying an electric car is displacing the use of a car powered by fossil fuels (petroleum based gasoline). In fact, the government does often account for these positive externalities by means of tax incentives.

In the food industry, formulating a product that has a lower blood sugar impact may go unnoticed by many, but that food product is producing a positive externality in people's health.

Externalities should be accounted for in those cases where one individual or company is responsible for them, yet our entire society pays the price. When someone unknowingly consumes rancid, oxidized vegetable oils in a restaurant meal and as a result is one step closer to a heart attack, it's the restaurant that's responsible for that adverse health outcome, but it's our entire society that pays the price, in the form of increased insurance premiums, higher healthcare costs, and lower productivity. The restaurant benefits in the form of cheaper cooking oil, but on the grand scale of accounting, the books are not balanced.

When pesticide spray in agriculture ends up in rivers that flow into the ocean, the farms benefit with fewer pests and thus higher profits, but our planet's biodiversity suffers. The farmer's books may be balanced, not having to account for the downstream effects of heavy pesticide use, but there is no entity left responsible to pay the price of our planet's losses.
Externalities need to become a part of our accounting. If we put resources into accurately calculating both the positive and negative externalities of products, practices, and industries, we can "balance the books" by taxing them and putting that additional income into preventing and fighting chronic disease, pollution, biodiversity loss, and unsustainable practices.
And it doesn't have to be perfect. We start with the low hanging fruit and ensure our "life cycle analysis" of the externalities are accurate. There should be some strict criteria to prevent frivolous externality taxes, like 90% of scientists agreeing on the order of magnitude of the externality. Ultimately, most of fast food will become more expensive and fresh produce will become more affordable in relation.

Such a change would not widen the inequality gap, it would narrow it. For example, not only would people be healthier (assuming some % of spend shifts from fast food to real food), but they would also have more financial support. A major reason for fast food consumption is that it's cheap, it tastes good, and it's convenient. Many families don't even own the proper cooking equipment to prepare a meal from "real food." Income from taxing the worst offenders in junk food could be funneled into food education, programs to feed the poor, community gardens and farmers markets, public food halls, and the like.
Income from taxes on sodas, candy bars, cigarettes, and french fries could go into better food education in school, or even government funded health coaches for those suffering from food addiction and obesity.
As another example, income from taxes on roundup-ready corn could go toward diminishing the effects of that roundup in our rivers. Governments could provide grant money for promising technologies that turn fertilizers and herbicides in rivers into harmless byproducts.

Externalities that present local problems are comparatively easier to solve and account for than global externalities. We're seeing this in climate change. Certain countries and leaders don't want to be individually burdened to help fix a global threat. All countries contribute to climate change, but smoke from deforestation in Indonesia may have more extreme externalities in nearby Singapore. Emissions in Mexico may cause pollution in California. It's easy for Mexico or Indonesia to shrug, thinking it's "someone else's problem."

While we can't impose a tax on the production of goods in other countries, we can still tax their importation and consumption. If a few other powerful countries follow, we could affect major change. If all conflict palm oil from Indonesia faced a 50% tax, the price of unsustainable palm oil would actually be higher than the price of sustainable palm oil for sales to those countries. Farmers in Indonesia would be financially incentivized to farm more sustainably, and demand for sustainable palm oil would increase as the price decreases.
The answer is not to make glyphosate, cigarettes, alcohol, and sugar illegal; rather, it's to do like more progressive governments, and turn something harmful into a vehicle for good.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Accounting for the Negative Externalities of Food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Externalities need to become a part of our accounting. If we put resources into accurately calculating both the positive and negative externalities of products, practices, and industries, we can "balance the books" by taxing them and putting that additional income into preventing and fighting chronic disease, pollution, biodiversity loss, and unsustainable practices.