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
Replies
-
I think it comes down to lack of structure. There is not structure in many of these places. Look at the crime statistics - school scores you name it. It screams no structure. A good diet is a function of structure. You must plan - prepare - make choices. When you dont plan and prepare food its very easy to fall into the trap of less than optimal food. Case in point - when I bring my lunch - I tend to lose weight -when go out each day for lunch - lbs start to appear. Not really hard to figure out. Also in this day and age - the word poverty needs some context. I would be willing to bet that in the worst of neighborhoods in this country - you will find many iPhones and large data plans with internet access. In most cases it comes down to the choices you make in life. Food Deserts is a catchy word that allows the Govt to take more control and thus tax dollars. Congress does not care how fat people are - they only care about power.
For some families, the phone with the data plan is the only internet access they have and internet access is becoming increasingly less optional for employment, schooling, paying bills, etc.11 -
Part of a discussion on the topic: https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-food-deserts-cause-unhealthy-eating-1436757037 (Helen Lee, the author of the study discussed in OP's links above, also comments on the junk food tax idea, which is the subject of another thread here)
Response to the Kolata piece: http://www.marigallagher.com/site_media/dynamic/project_files/RESPONSE_NYT_FOODDESERTS-OBESITY.pdf
0 -
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...
BRB going to actual starving children in Africa and tell them they are in fact, obese.
2 -
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...
BRB going to actual starving children in Africa and tell them they are in fact, obese.
This seems like an almost willful misreading of what was written there, the person clearly stated that the "luxuries" being sought out would be within the means of the poor person in question.
That obviously doesn't apply to someone starving in Africa - if food was within their means, they would already have it.11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
BRB going to actual starving children in Africa and tell them they are in fact, obese.
This seems like an almost willful misreading of what was written there, the person clearly stated that the "luxuries" being sought out would be within the means of the poor person in question.
That obviously doesn't apply to someone starving in Africa - if food was within their means, they would already have it.
That's because his definition of poor is just wrong. I was born and raised in a poor country and the "poor" in the U.S or U.K or any Western nation are quite well off by our standard.
edit: I didn't run into any obese person back then.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
BRB going to actual starving children in Africa and tell them they are in fact, obese.
This seems like an almost willful misreading of what was written there, the person clearly stated that the "luxuries" being sought out would be within the means of the poor person in question.
That obviously doesn't apply to someone starving in Africa - if food was within their means, they would already have it.
That's because his definition of poor is just wrong. I was born and raised in a poor country and the "poor" in the U.S or U.K or any Western nation are quite well off by our standard.
edit: I didn't run into any obese person back then.
To compare poverty in a third world/developing country with that of a first world country is patently ridiculous. We aren't saying people are starving, or surviving on aid rations. It's a straw man of the highest order.
Poverty is relative.21 -
VintageFeline wrote: »
To compare poverty in a third world/developing country with that of a first world country is patently ridiculous. We aren't saying people are starving, or surviving on aid rations. It's a straw man of the highest order.
Poverty is relative.
Seems simple then, the solution to the obesity problem is use a bit self control and eat less. But of course, if they had more self control they might not be "poor" in the first place.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
BRB going to actual starving children in Africa and tell them they are in fact, obese.
This seems like an almost willful misreading of what was written there, the person clearly stated that the "luxuries" being sought out would be within the means of the poor person in question.
That obviously doesn't apply to someone starving in Africa - if food was within their means, they would already have it.
That's because his definition of poor is just wrong. I was born and raised in a poor country and the "poor" in the U.S or U.K or any Western nation are quite well off by our standard.
edit: I didn't run into any obese person back then.
Is his definition of poor wrong or are you trying to insist on a universal definition of the term when the conversation was clearly about obesity among the poor in the countries where the "urban food desert" concept is potentially applicable?
Yes, the poor in the US and UK are better off by some standards. But that doesn't mean that poverty has been eliminated in the US and UK or that it isn't associated with some specific human suffering here.
If there is no obesity among the poor in the country where you grew up because excess food isn't available, that doesn't contradict the point being made: that when they are able, at least some poor people will seek out what they perceive to be luxury items, including food.4 -
Is his definition of poor wrong or are you trying to insist on a universal definition of the term when the conversation was clearly about obesity among the poor in the countries where the "urban food desert" concept is potentially applicable?
First, you have to prove "urban food desert" is a real thing.Yes, the poor in the US and UK are better off by some standards. But that doesn't mean that poverty has been eliminated in the US and UK or that it isn't associated with some specific human suffering here.
And the actual poor live in the streets or shelters and I doubt many are obese.If there is no obesity among the poor in the country where you grew up because excess food isn't available, that doesn't contradict the point being made: that when they are able, at least some poor people will seek out what they perceive to be luxury items, including food.
How could food be luxury items when the poor can afford it in mass quantity.1 -
Is his definition of poor wrong or are you trying to insist on a universal definition of the term when the conversation was clearly about obesity among the poor in the countries where the "urban food desert" concept is potentially applicable?
First, you have to prove "urban food desert" is a real thing.Yes, the poor in the US and UK are better off by some standards. But that doesn't mean that poverty has been eliminated in the US and UK or that it isn't associated with some specific human suffering here.
And the actual poor live in the streets or shelters and I doubt many are obese.If there is no obesity among the poor in the country where you grew up because excess food isn't available, that doesn't contradict the point being made: that when they are able, at least some poor people will seek out what they perceive to be luxury items, including food.
How could food be luxury items when the poor can afford it in mass quantity.
That's what we're discussing in this thread -- whether the urban food desert is real. We're discussing poverty in that context and that context holds whether or not one accepts the urban food desert theory.
The "actual poor" don't just live in the streets and shelter. Countries have a standard of poverty that is based on the context of that country and -- in the US and UK -- it clearly includes people beyond the homeless. Your point only holds if you ignore the standard of poverty for the countries that we're discussing and insist there is some universal standard by which hardly anyone in the US or UK is actually poor.
"Luxury" was in quotes in the initial post. This is what was said: "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..."
Do you disagree that people who can purchase pleasurable things within their means, things that are not strictly necessary to life, will often do so?3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Do you disagree that people who can purchase pleasurable things within their means, things that are not strictly necessary to life, will often do so?
I disagree that everyone does so impulsively. And if they do, it's their own fault.
2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »
To compare poverty in a third world/developing country with that of a first world country is patently ridiculous. We aren't saying people are starving, or surviving on aid rations. It's a straw man of the highest order.
Poverty is relative.
Seems simple then, the solution to the obesity problem is use a bit self control and eat less. But of course, if they had more self control they might not be "poor" in the first place.janejellyroll wrote: »Do you disagree that people who can purchase pleasurable things within their means, things that are not strictly necessary to life, will often do so?
I disagree that everyone does so impulsively. And if they do, it's their own fault.
Must be nice up there on your high horse. Careful you don't lose your balance.26 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Do you disagree that people who can purchase pleasurable things within their means, things that are not strictly necessary to life, will often do so?
I disagree that everyone does so impulsively. And if they do, it's their own fault.
What was written was that poor people were "likely" to do this, not necessarily that it was done impulsively or that everyone did it.
2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Do you disagree that people who can purchase pleasurable things within their means, things that are not strictly necessary to life, will often do so?
I disagree that everyone does so impulsively. And if they do, it's their own fault.
Not clear on your meaning. Are you saying they do it 'intentionally' but it's someone else's fault?1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »
To compare poverty in a third world/developing country with that of a first world country is patently ridiculous. We aren't saying people are starving, or surviving on aid rations. It's a straw man of the highest order.
Poverty is relative.
Seems simple then, the solution to the obesity problem is use a bit self control and eat less. But of course, if they had more self control they might not be "poor" in the first place.
I'm surprised to see that your experiences have led you to conclude that poverty is an issue of poor self-control. Didn't you open the conversation with something about starving children in Africa? Have they failed to sufficiently exercise self-control or is it only the poor in the US and UK who have morally failed?19 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
What was written was that poor people were "likely" to do this, not necessarily that it was done impulsively or that everyone did it.
Sounds like the poor have some self reflection and improvements to do.Not clear on your meaning. Are you saying they do it 'intentionally' but it's someone else's fault?
How can they not do it 'intentionally'? No it's their own fault. I'm unclear on why you were unclear.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
What was written was that poor people were "likely" to do this, not necessarily that it was done impulsively or that everyone did it.
Sounds like the poor have some self reflection and improvements to do.Not clear on your meaning. Are you saying they do it 'intentionally' but it's someone else's fault?
How can they not do it 'intentionally'? No it's their own fault. I'm unclear on why you were unclear.
Many people do find it easier to moralize about what the poor should do and how they've failed than to seriously try to understand what's going on in people's lives and consider *how* change can actually come about.
So what's more important to you? Understanding the situation or feeling superior?13 -
janejellyroll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »
To compare poverty in a third world/developing country with that of a first world country is patently ridiculous. We aren't saying people are starving, or surviving on aid rations. It's a straw man of the highest order.
Poverty is relative.
Seems simple then, the solution to the obesity problem is use a bit self control and eat less. But of course, if they had more self control they might not be "poor" in the first place.
I'm surprised to see that your experiences have led you to conclude that poverty is an issue of poor self-control. Didn't you open the conversation with something about starving children in Africa? Have they failed to sufficiently exercise self-control or is it only the poor in the US and UK who have morally failed?
Maybe you should read what I was replying to. But to answer the 2nd part of your last question, yes, by and large.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Many people do find it easier to moralize about what the poor should do and how they've failed than to seriously try to understand what's going on in people's lives and consider *how* change can actually come about.
We already know how. Laws of thermodynamics, CICO etc.So what's more important to you? Understanding the situation or feeling superior?
Let's see, we have obese people, who we can all agree do not need even more food, a subset of them are also "poor", and they use their limited resources to buy things (food) they do not need? I'm sorry, I'm not even going to try to understand irrational beings.
0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »
To compare poverty in a third world/developing country with that of a first world country is patently ridiculous. We aren't saying people are starving, or surviving on aid rations. It's a straw man of the highest order.
Poverty is relative.
Seems simple then, the solution to the obesity problem is use a bit self control and eat less. But of course, if they had more self control they might not be "poor" in the first place.
So, the poor are poor because they have no self-control? Is that really what you're saying here?4 -
I have seen these kinds of topics on here before.
My question is, where does personal responsibility come into this? Everyone, rich, poor and in between should have personal responsibility, for themselves and their families.
Packaged foods are labeled with serving sizes and calories per serving. Is it ok to overeat anything if you are poor?
Kraft macaroni & cheese is expensive compared to buying a 1pound box of elbow macaroni and making your own mac & cheese, using milk & cheese, which would give a lot more servings.
Buying things in bulk saves a lot of money, and everyone can pay attention to serving sizes and not overeat. In the inner cities of Mpls/St. Paul, there is better public transportation than the suburbs, I just can not buy the excuse that there is very few options for urban shoppers. Why can't you get on a bus or light rail. I know I did it when I lived in the inner city. We didn't have light rail then, but I got on a bus and did it, before I had a car.
Excuses seem to be easy now days.
Personal responsibility is a thing of the past.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Do you disagree that people who can purchase pleasurable things within their means, things that are not strictly necessary to life, will often do so?
I disagree that everyone does so impulsively. And if they do, it's their own fault.
What relevance does "it's their own fault" have to this discussion? Are we supposed to not be interested in or concerned about the obesity epidemic if fat people are to blame for being fat?
And again, as I said above:
I think the food desert is a real thing, and worth combating where it exists, but it is not why people are fat. Most fat people don't live in food deserts and there are many other reasons that contribute to obesity being an issue (and being more common among poor people).
By poor I am referring to people below the poverty line in the US and other countries with similar economics.5 -
One thing I do know: if you don't drive, bulk store shopping isn't so simple. Carrying your shopping on transit is difficult, if not impossible. All those large boxes and cans are pretty heavy and take up space. Bundle buggies take up space and block aisles, to say nothing of trying to manoever them past the baby strollers.
People with cars often have the time to go to different grocery stores to get the discounted food. For someone without a car, that can be a couple of hours they might not have to go traipsing about the city. If you're working more than one job, it's that much harder and it's understandable that people in that situation would head for the one supermarket and grab what they can in sizes they can carry, even if that means paying more for fewer servings. And if some items cost more there than they do elsewhere, it adds up.
I'm a stress eater and a boredom eater, trying to change. I'm also an introvert who gravitates to the food tables at parties. I suspect that there are people of all incomes in a similar boat. No, it's not okay to overeat, but it's understandable that people do, rich, poor, or middle-class.
You can dismiss what I've written in this post as more excuses, I suppose, but I'm curious about solutions.
17 -
Yup, life's not fair to people who don't have cars. Obama's cash for clunker's program should have been used to give them cars, so life would be more equal.
But life isn't equal and people in suburbia and rural areas have their own set of issues, especially if they are poor.2 -
Yup, life's not fair to people who don't have cars. Obama's cash for clunker's program should have been used to give them cars, so life would be more equal.
But life isn't equal and people in suburbia and rural areas have their own set of issues, especially if they are poor.
This was something I had thought about. The focus is often in urban areas, but due to their very nature, things tend to be relatively close. One would think, the truly screwed are the poor who live in areas where it can be 60+ miles to a reasonably sized town. However, these people often tend to be cash poor, but environment resourceful, so to speak.6 -
Oh, I don't think the obesity rate is lower among the rural lower income, is it? It would be interesting if stats were broken down more specifically: urban, by income quintile; rural, by income quintile. Even so it would be skewed by age and lying and other factors.
Also, with the poor in a city, the cost of a car isn't the issue so much as the cost of having a car. I have a car, and yet often choose not to drive it due to the cost/time involved with parking, etc. For example, my mom stops for groceries after work (or did before she retired), because she has her car. I also stop after work, but I never drive to work so don't have a car when I do this. (Where I live it's easy, though.)
Most commutes in the US are quite short, also. I think exceptions are around big cities and out in the sticks, as well as people who choose, for whatever reason, to live far from where they work (spouses have jobs in different places, live in-between, for example).
Anyway, like I said, I don't happen to think food deserts are the issue with obesity.1 -
The Orwell quote, if you believe it applies to modern urban poor, suggests that food deserts don't really make a difference because no sane person would eat healthy food. He was really talking about the cost of eating a healthy diet, not the availability of nourishing food, which he knew people had access to - thus the "raw carrots" remark.
This isn't proof of anything, but the documentaries I've seen on the subject usually conclude that there are food deserts - and at the same time, they admit that stores won't stock vegetables and fruit because they spoil and don't sell. One of the documentaries showed an urban store with a display of fresh produce in it, and the narrator was saying people had no choice but to buy chips and snack cakes - as if someone were preventing them from buying the produce.
My impression is that blaming food deserts (even if they are a real thing) isn't a useful thing to do, because it gives poor people no role in their own futures, and treats them as passive and constantly dependent on outside help. That's a problem because when you do get supermarkets and other sources of healthy food into inner cities, people still have to choose to change their food buying and eating habits. People who think of themselves as helpless, passive, and dependent won't do that.5 -
Are you talking about them having gardens, or at least knowing people who have gardens? (Same could apply to fishing, hunting, I suppose.)Gallowmere1984 wrote: »One would think, the truly screwed are the poor who live in areas where it can be 60+ miles to a reasonably sized town. However, these people often tend to be cash poor, but environment resourceful, so to speak.
0 -
Are you talking about them having gardens, or at least knowing people who have gardens? (Same could apply to fishing, hunting, I suppose.)Gallowmere1984 wrote: »One would think, the truly screwed are the poor who live in areas where it can be 60+ miles to a reasonably sized town. However, these people often tend to be cash poor, but environment resourceful, so to speak.
I live on the outskirts of a small rural town in Nevada with the nearest supermarket 3 miles away. Some of my neighbors who don't have cars rely on a gas station convenience store for their groceries, a limited and expensive resource.
A vegetable garden, fruit trees, and backyard chickens supplement my diet very nicely, a luxury unavailable to most urban food-desert-dwellers, I'm guessing.4 -
spinnerdell wrote: »
Are you talking about them having gardens, or at least knowing people who have gardens? (Same could apply to fishing, hunting, I suppose.)Gallowmere1984 wrote: »One would think, the truly screwed are the poor who live in areas where it can be 60+ miles to a reasonably sized town. However, these people often tend to be cash poor, but environment resourceful, so to speak.
I live on the outskirts of a small rural town in Nevada with the nearest supermarket 3 miles away. Some of my neighbors who don't have cars rely on a gas station convenience store for their groceries, a limited and expensive resource.
A vegetable garden, fruit trees, and backyard chickens supplement my diet very nicely, a luxury unavailable to most urban food-desert-dwellers, I'm guessing.
This, but usually it's not that they can't do it, in a realistic sense. It's that often, draconian city zoning codes levy fines for such things. Kinda defeats the purpose of growing your own food when you end up getting hit for 10x the value of the food potential in fines. Can't have people dodging your shady local sales taxes, ya' know?4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions