Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
The Urban Food Desert Myth
Options
Replies
-
I think it's changing but it honestly used to be true. I've lived in some dismal city areas. I lived in one where there were no grocery stores in the immediate area, and as I didn't have a car at that time I walked across a rather large park to get decent food and then carried it home. Where I live now is getting much better but only five years ago the stores were essentially full of spoiled produce. I had to drive a ways to get decent food.0
-
If anyone has read George Orwell's classic book, "The Road to Wigan Pier" written back in the 1930s about poor mining communities in the North of England they are probably familiar with this quote:Would it not be better if they spent more money on wholesome things like oranges and wholemeal bread or if they even, like the writer of the letter to the New Statesman, saved on fuel and ate their carrots raw? Yes, it would, but the point is that no ordinary human being is ever going to do such a thing. The ordinary human being would sooner starve than live on brown bread and raw carrots. And the peculiar evil is this, that the less money you have, the less inclined you feel to spend it on wholesome food. A millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits; an unemployed man doesn’t. Here the tendency of which I spoke at the end of the last chapter comes into play. When you are unemployed, which is to say when you are underfed, harassed, bored, and miserable, you don’t want to eat dull wholesome food. You want something a little bit ‘tasty’. There is always some cheaply pleasant thing to tempt you. Let’s have three pennorth of chips! Run out and buy us a twopenny ice-cream! Put the kettle on and we’ll all have a nice cup of tea! That is how your mind works when you are at the P.A.C. level. White bread-and-marg and sugared tea don’t nourish you to any extent, but they are nicer (at least most people think so) than brown bread-and-dripping and cold water. Unemployment is an endless misery that has got to be constantly palliated, and especially with tea, the English-man’s opium. A cup of tea or even an aspirin is much better as a temporary stimulant than a crust of brown bread.
Over-eating and therefore obesity is an expected consequence of poverty.
Tasty food and drink is one of life's greatest pleasures. Poverty is rubbish. Therefore if you are poor you are likely to seek out "luxury" goods which bring pleasure to life which is within your means. This has the effect of increasing demand for those items, driving innovation and bringing lower prices. The bonus is that means more luxury items come into the reach of those on lower incomes. And so the circle goes on...
I think its this in a nutshell.
There was a viral article some time back about a woman explaining why, on food stamps and with x number of children, she spent money on cigarettes.
Essentially, the cigarettes were just a small escape, the small pleasure in her life of working three jobs at minimum wage, etc.2 -
annaskiski wrote: »If anyone has read George Orwell's classic book, "The Road to Wigan Pier" written back in the 1930s about poor mining communities in the North of England they are probably familiar with this quote:Would it not be better if they spent more money on wholesome things like oranges and wholemeal bread or if they even, like the writer of the letter to the New Statesman, saved on fuel and ate their carrots raw? Yes, it would, but the point is that no ordinary human being is ever going to do such a thing. The ordinary human being would sooner starve than live on brown bread and raw carrots. And the peculiar evil is this, that the less money you have, the less inclined you feel to spend it on wholesome food. A millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits; an unemployed man doesn’t. Here the tendency of which I spoke at the end of the last chapter comes into play. When you are unemployed, which is to say when you are underfed, harassed, bored, and miserable, you don’t want to eat dull wholesome food. You want something a little bit ‘tasty’. There is always some cheaply pleasant thing to tempt you. Let’s have three pennorth of chips! Run out and buy us a twopenny ice-cream! Put the kettle on and we’ll all have a nice cup of tea! That is how your mind works when you are at the P.A.C. level. White bread-and-marg and sugared tea don’t nourish you to any extent, but they are nicer (at least most people think so) than brown bread-and-dripping and cold water. Unemployment is an endless misery that has got to be constantly palliated, and especially with tea, the English-man’s opium. A cup of tea or even an aspirin is much better as a temporary stimulant than a crust of brown bread.
Over-eating and therefore obesity is an expected consequence of poverty.
Tasty food and drink is one of life's greatest pleasures. Poverty is rubbish. Therefore if you are poor you are likely to seek out "luxury" goods which bring pleasure to life which is within your means. This has the effect of increasing demand for those items, driving innovation and bringing lower prices. The bonus is that means more luxury items come into the reach of those on lower incomes. And so the circle goes on...
I think its this in a nutshell.
There was a viral article some time back about a woman explaining why, on food stamps and with x number of children, she spent money on cigarettes.
Essentially, the cigarettes were just a small escape, the small pleasure in her life of working three jobs at minimum wage, etc.
That and tobacco is an addictive substance.0 -
annaskiski wrote: »If anyone has read George Orwell's classic book, "The Road to Wigan Pier" written back in the 1930s about poor mining communities in the North of England they are probably familiar with this quote:Would it not be better if they spent more money on wholesome things like oranges and wholemeal bread or if they even, like the writer of the letter to the New Statesman, saved on fuel and ate their carrots raw? Yes, it would, but the point is that no ordinary human being is ever going to do such a thing. The ordinary human being would sooner starve than live on brown bread and raw carrots. And the peculiar evil is this, that the less money you have, the less inclined you feel to spend it on wholesome food. A millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits; an unemployed man doesn’t. Here the tendency of which I spoke at the end of the last chapter comes into play. When you are unemployed, which is to say when you are underfed, harassed, bored, and miserable, you don’t want to eat dull wholesome food. You want something a little bit ‘tasty’. There is always some cheaply pleasant thing to tempt you. Let’s have three pennorth of chips! Run out and buy us a twopenny ice-cream! Put the kettle on and we’ll all have a nice cup of tea! That is how your mind works when you are at the P.A.C. level. White bread-and-marg and sugared tea don’t nourish you to any extent, but they are nicer (at least most people think so) than brown bread-and-dripping and cold water. Unemployment is an endless misery that has got to be constantly palliated, and especially with tea, the English-man’s opium. A cup of tea or even an aspirin is much better as a temporary stimulant than a crust of brown bread.
Over-eating and therefore obesity is an expected consequence of poverty.
Tasty food and drink is one of life's greatest pleasures. Poverty is rubbish. Therefore if you are poor you are likely to seek out "luxury" goods which bring pleasure to life which is within your means. This has the effect of increasing demand for those items, driving innovation and bringing lower prices. The bonus is that means more luxury items come into the reach of those on lower incomes. And so the circle goes on...
I think its this in a nutshell.
There was a viral article some time back about a woman explaining why, on food stamps and with x number of children, she spent money on cigarettes.
Essentially, the cigarettes were just a small escape, the small pleasure in her life of working three jobs at minimum wage, etc.
That and tobacco is an addictive substance.
Inb4 "sugar addiction".0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I do find the discussion somewhat frustrating, like people are talking past each other.
i'm just skimming since last read, and not caught up anyway. but from as far as i've gotten, it seems like people are mostly arguing about the definition of 'desert'. and the tacit underpinnings of the definition seem to be: what constitutes a reasonable expectation for how much effort should be involved in accessing food.
all the rest of the words seem to follow from that. people have wildly differing personal ideas of what's 'reasonable' for other people to do.
3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »FreyasRebirth wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »After reading these last few posts, I think I am starting to see the real problem.
Unless you are 75, physically handicapped, or a literal midget, there is no reason in the world why walking a couple of miles while carrying 20-30 pounds in a duffel should be considered unreasonable. Holy *kitten* people are lazy as *kitten*.
Or you're heavily pregnant, have an infant/toddler, or a child who is unwilling to walk. Heck, I wouldn't be shocked if neighbors called CPS on you after one of your older preschoolers had a tantrum over having to walk.
On the other hand, walking through a poor neighborhood with a full duffel bag (or a store with an empty duffel) looks a bit suspicious. How many people are willing to bring attention to themselves over some lettuce?
[1] IDK. I think most people in poorer city areas are more apt to mind their own damn business and care more about their own lives than what their neighbors are doing. (Not so many bored housewives/SAHM's with nothing better to do than watch the neighbors). I've never seen a kid have a temper tantrum over walking...when you grow up well aware that this is the only way to get from point A to point B, it is second nature. I think the temper tanrum would be more of an issue with the spoiled suburban kid used to being ferried around by car or who wants to stay home and play video games. (though, in fairness, I should point out that most of the children walking with their parents in my neighborhood are refugees, so the walk up to the store is really, really, really not going to be seen as a hardship).
[2] No. not really suspicious at all. Bags and carts are common..people need to get stuff from point A to point B. Any local looking at someone carrying a heavy bag would assume work clothes/equipment and/or gym and/or laundry and/or groceries. (The random suburbanite driving through or going to one of the bars/clubs might potentially think they are suspicious - they are so laughably adorable sometimes).
[on original] I regularly walked long distances (or took buses) hauling heavy books or groceries or laundry as a child, and I am still only 4'10" -- I think the healthy midgets would do just fine. ;P
(Laundry and getting to/from work or the university are WAY WAY bigger P.I.T.A.'s than the grocery store). Try getting up at still night to take 2 buses and a subway to drop kids at the 1 daycare center you can (almost, but not quite) afford, then taking a few more busses to get to work - and doing this twice a day everyday. Or hauling laundry (at least nowadays there are frequent dollar stores that carry cheap rolling luggage that can be used for this purpose - I would've loved one of those when I was a kid). In comparison, grocery shopping is nothing. I think people really have gotten so much lazier nowadays in this car culture. The older urban generation would have thought nothing of walking to their destination (they didn't know anything else)(neither did I when I was a child). And unfortunately, convenience foods have been around for so long, that an entire generation (or 2) doesn't really know how to cook. Prior generations would have had no problem throwing together a soup with whatever limited root vegetables & meat they could get their hands on in the winter. Hell- there are probably still a few folks around who remember making dandelion soup during the depression.
25 years ago(when I was a teenager) a 12 mile total distance walk to get to and from the public library to get a book, or use a computer for research was routine.
And was it also uphill both ways in the snow? Sounds like the yarns my grandpa used to spin when he wanted us to understand how easy we had it compared to him.
And the walk may have been long, but you obviously had excellent resources, having a computer in a public library in 1992 for research. We didn't get email at my (private) college until 1993.
In spite of your long walk there and back again, it sounds like you might not understand the points about poverty some folks are trying to make.4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »FreyasRebirth wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »After reading these last few posts, I think I am starting to see the real problem.
Unless you are 75, physically handicapped, or a literal midget, there is no reason in the world why walking a couple of miles while carrying 20-30 pounds in a duffel should be considered unreasonable. Holy *kitten* people are lazy as *kitten*.
Or you're heavily pregnant, have an infant/toddler, or a child who is unwilling to walk. Heck, I wouldn't be shocked if neighbors called CPS on you after one of your older preschoolers had a tantrum over having to walk.
On the other hand, walking through a poor neighborhood with a full duffel bag (or a store with an empty duffel) looks a bit suspicious. How many people are willing to bring attention to themselves over some lettuce?
[1] IDK. I think most people in poorer city areas are more apt to mind their own damn business and care more about their own lives than what their neighbors are doing. (Not so many bored housewives/SAHM's with nothing better to do than watch the neighbors). I've never seen a kid have a temper tantrum over walking...when you grow up well aware that this is the only way to get from point A to point B, it is second nature. I think the temper tanrum would be more of an issue with the spoiled suburban kid used to being ferried around by car or who wants to stay home and play video games. (though, in fairness, I should point out that most of the children walking with their parents in my neighborhood are refugees, so the walk up to the store is really, really, really not going to be seen as a hardship).
[2] No. not really suspicious at all. Bags and carts are common..people need to get stuff from point A to point B. Any local looking at someone carrying a heavy bag would assume work clothes/equipment and/or gym and/or laundry and/or groceries. (The random suburbanite driving through or going to one of the bars/clubs might potentially think they are suspicious - they are so laughably adorable sometimes).
[on original] I regularly walked long distances (or took buses) hauling heavy books or groceries or laundry as a child, and I am still only 4'10" -- I think the healthy midgets would do just fine. ;P
(Laundry and getting to/from work or the university are WAY WAY bigger P.I.T.A.'s than the grocery store). Try getting up at still night to take 2 buses and a subway to drop kids at the 1 daycare center you can (almost, but not quite) afford, then taking a few more busses to get to work - and doing this twice a day everyday. Or hauling laundry (at least nowadays there are frequent dollar stores that carry cheap rolling luggage that can be used for this purpose - I would've loved one of those when I was a kid). In comparison, grocery shopping is nothing. I think people really have gotten so much lazier nowadays in this car culture. The older urban generation would have thought nothing of walking to their destination (they didn't know anything else)(neither did I when I was a child). And unfortunately, convenience foods have been around for so long, that an entire generation (or 2) doesn't really know how to cook. Prior generations would have had no problem throwing together a soup with whatever limited root vegetables & meat they could get their hands on in the winter. Hell- there are probably still a few folks around who remember making dandelion soup during the depression.
25 years ago(when I was a teenager) a 12 mile total distance walk to get to and from the public library to get a book, or use a computer for research was routine.
And was it also uphill both ways in the snow? Sounds like the yarns my grandpa used to spin when he wanted us to understand how easy we had it compared to him.
And the walk may have been long, but you obviously had excellent resources, having a computer in a public library in 1992 for research. We didn't get email at my (private) college until 1993.
In spite of your long walk there and back again, it sounds like you might not understand the points about poverty some folks are trying to make.
So a 6 mile walk to another city counts as having excellent resources?
0 -
canadianlbs wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I do find the discussion somewhat frustrating, like people are talking past each other.
all the rest of the words seem to follow from that. people have wildly differing personal ideas of what's 'reasonable' for other people to do.
A lot of the ideas of what is reasonable for "other people" to do is predicated on what the individual responder finds it reasonable to do themselves. Many of us who are or were urban poor consider it quite reasonable to get on a (usually single) bus 1-2 times/week to go to the grocery store because we regularly do or did that. A lot less effort for most people than daily getting to and from a specific place of employment (especially for those with kids that might need to take a few extra bus lines to get them to/from daycare). Those who have always had a car and consider a 30-minute walk to be "exercise" might not.2 -
canadianlbs wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I do find the discussion somewhat frustrating, like people are talking past each other.
i'm just skimming since last read, and not caught up anyway. but from as far as i've gotten, it seems like people are mostly arguing about the definition of 'desert'. and the tacit underpinnings of the definition seem to be: what constitutes a reasonable expectation for how much effort should be involved in accessing food.
all the rest of the words seem to follow from that. people have wildly differing personal ideas of what's 'reasonable' for other people to do.
I wrote that a while ago, but I am someone who lives in an urban area and walks everywhere, and don't think that's what I was talking about.
My impression, best as I can remember now, is that most posters agreed that food deserts play little role in obesity.1 -
Ah, if you'd just quoted the whole thing there's context that explains the comment and the point,
indeed, was that it was not about the food desert at all.
janejellyroll said:
"I feel like the conversation has been more nuanced than that (at least in many posts). I think we can discuss how economics influence our food/activity choices without saying that anyone has been "forced" to do anything. And those influences, by the way, aren't just on the poor. We're all influenced the circumstances of our lives."
I responded:
"Agree with this.
I do find the discussion somewhat frustrating, like people are talking past each other.
The topic of the thread is whether food deserts are a significant factor in whether or not people are able to eat healthfully.
Some people brought up other factors about being poor that affect that (which I think are important and true).
Others jumped in to defend the food desert concept (if I am reading correctly) or to claim that other similar issues make it impossible for people to eat healthfully -- maybe I am reading that wrong, but that's what I was getting out of it) and seem to be assuming that a disagreement with the food desert concept means that people are saying it's easy to be poor. I understand that to some degree -- there were posts that I disagree with that suggested the only issue was self control, etc. -- but I would also say that the issue is different than people buying potato chips because they have no alternative. IMO it's a more nuanced and accurate conversation if we acknowledge that people DO have alternatives, it is not impossible for the vast majority of even poor people to cook healthfully, and yet there are a number of reasons why they may not (not just self control).
IMO, yes, there are reasons people will choose not to cook in a time-consuming way vs. convenience, or choose "healthy food" (which they may think of as unappealing) vs. junk food or other high cal ultra processed foods, and I don't think this is difficult to understand. That it's a huge pain to shop on top of everything else is probably part of it (it used to be for me before I figured it out, and that's when I was a healthy 20-something in a decent area of the city). That stores with fresh produce are less convenient than other stores, same. But to insist it's because it's impossible and people just don't get it suggests that if we just brought in a better store the problem would go away (when BMI seems to be related to poverty level, in part, but not distance from good stores). I also think to claim it's because people can't phyically cook is a questionable tactic when in the US something like 97% of people in poverty (vs. 98% of people overall) have a gas or electric oven/stove.
Also, worth noting that in the US obesity is hardly limited to poor people, urban poor people, or people in so called food deserts."
_________________
In other words, then, there were a few people committed to the idea that the food desert is significant (and if you say otherwise you are saying there's nothing hard about being poor or stresses that might play a role in having a harder time eating well). I thought those people were ignoring the fact that many of us who agreed with OP were ALSO saying that of course there were other things that made it tough for many.
And on the other side, there were those who kept claiming that if you suggested there were things that might make it hard (maybe including inconvenience), that you were saying that weight loss was impossible for poor people or that they did not have agency, which also wasn't the case at all.
That's what I meant by people talking past each other.
I didn't really think there was that much of a debate about the food desert thing itself.3 -
I think lemurcat has summerized well. We were talking past each other. I think we pretty much all agreed, there are various difficulties including distance and other obstacles including poverty and food preparation in regard to eating at optimum. I think there are food deserts in small towns and country areas, not so much in Urban areas. Whether food desert causes obesity in the USA, well, how would we be able to prove that. I dont know if distance from food causes obesity.0
-
Not sure about food food deserts really but I have noticed this. Poorer neighborhoods don't have sidewalks to walk on. Or nice parks nearby, or walking/running/biking trails close either.
I notice cause I'm living it. That said, diet is everything, weight loss wise but it must be nice to have a miles long paved trail right outside your door.0 -
menotyou56 wrote: »Not sure about food food deserts really but I have noticed this. Poorer neighborhoods don't have sidewalks to walk on. Or nice parks nearby, or walking/running/biking trails close either.
I notice cause I'm living it. That said, diet is everything, weight loss wise but it must be nice to have a miles long paved trail right outside your door.
? where? I don't think I've ever been in a city where there weren't sidewalks everywhere. Rural & suburban areas (rich & poor) sure, but I can't think of any ghetto urban areas that wouldn't have sidewalks.
And the nice long river-side bike path in Buffalo where I live mostly goes through pretty crappy low-income neighborhoods. (It actually has a discontinuation between Buffalo and Niagara Falls, where somewhat richer people have homes on the riverfront).1 -
menotyou56 wrote: »? where? I don't think I've ever been in a city where there weren't sidewalks everywhere. Rural & suburban areas (rich & poor) sure, but I can't think of any ghetto urban areas that wouldn't have sidewalks.
Well, we have sidewalks in my neighborhood but I find them hard to use because kids (and others) smash so many glass bottles on them, one of our neighbors pulled a gun on my husband for walking our dog in front of his house, my dogs and I were attacked by a loose pitbull, and I get constantly harassed by various men (including one who was so insistent even after I repeatedly told him to back off that my (RIP) now-departed foxhound knocked him to the ground and bit his neck... We have a park near home, but it is so full of trash that I finally gave up (I used to go and try to pick up the trash but people even dump old appliances and dead cars there) and there are so many prostitutes using the trees for cover and I don't like just "happening" upon that. Then there are the homeless people camping out there and they've never caused me a problem, but one was repeatedly punching himself and screaming so I was concerned....So yeah, I don't walk at home any more.
And ours isn't even the worst, there are areas where people are getting shot all the time so parents won't let their kids out doors lest they get caught in the crossfire.
I do go out and walk at work though.0 -
menotyou56 wrote: »Not sure about food food deserts really but I have noticed this. Poorer neighborhoods don't have sidewalks to walk on. Or nice parks nearby, or walking/running/biking trails close either.
I notice cause I'm living it. That said, diet is everything, weight loss wise but it must be nice to have a miles long paved trail right outside your door.
I'm living in a smallish poorish town in spain ATM. Its surprising but there is literally a yellow brick road ( a wide sidewalk ) all through the town. We are on the edge of the village and can walk probably three miles to the other end of town and back. That walk includes grocery store, pharmacy, household goods, a bakery and fresh fish shop. As I wrote above in this thread, its paradise compared to so many other places I've lived. From my experience and what I have read in this topic it's not easy to find towns like this.
1 -
-
menotyou56 wrote: »Not sure about food food deserts really but I have noticed this. Poorer neighborhoods don't have sidewalks to walk on. Or nice parks nearby, or walking/running/biking trails close either.
I notice cause I'm living it. That said, diet is everything, weight loss wise but it must be nice to have a miles long paved trail right outside your door.
? where? I don't think I've ever been in a city where there weren't sidewalks everywhere. Rural & suburban areas (rich & poor) sure, but I can't think of any ghetto urban areas that wouldn't have sidewalks.
And the nice long river-side bike path in Buffalo where I live mostly goes through pretty crappy low-income neighborhoods. (It actually has a discontinuation between Buffalo and Niagara Falls, where somewhat richer people have homes on the riverfront).
Yeah, there are all kinds of issues in the bad neighborhoods in Chicago, but they have sidewalks.0 -
I stand corrected.. larger suburbs that technically count as cities may not have sidewalks. (In my vicinity, that would include Amherst, NY and Lackawanna, NY).1
-
menotyou56 wrote: »Not sure about food food deserts really but I have noticed this. Poorer neighborhoods don't have sidewalks to walk on. Or nice parks nearby, or walking/running/biking trails close either.
I notice cause I'm living it. That said, diet is everything, weight loss wise but it must be nice to have a miles long paved trail right outside your door.
I think that's a localized phenomenon.
Right next to my upper middle class neighborhood is a very, very poor neighborhood. We share the same sidewalks, parks, public schools, etc. Anywhere you have revitalization efforts you would expect to see this. Also, more rarely, in places with no or bizarre zoning laws - like Houston, at least while I lived there. Things may have changed in that regard in the last 10+ yrs.1 -
I stand corrected.. larger suburbs that technically count as cities may not have sidewalks. (In my vicinity, that would include Amherst, NY and Lackawanna, NY).
All of the residential neighborhoods north of 100th Street in Seattle. City limits are at 145th so we're not talking about suburbs.
Here's a Google Street View: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.7028819,-122.3477193,3a,75y,271h,87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slPF38Dvyt6ay0N4KyfrYgQ!2e0!7i13312!8i66560
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions