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
-
VintageFeline wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I think there is a tendency for those with a grasp on their dietary intake and the means to comfortably support that to judge those who, on the surface, are making poor choices.
But poverty strips people of every little bit of themselves, mental illness increases, access to education often poorer and the ability intellectually and mentally, to change dietary habits becomes insurmountable when you're just trying to keep your life together as best you can.
Food deserts aren't necessarily the issue. Not having the means or ability to make a tiny little bit of money stretch far enough with fresh wholesome food is. Coupled with the abject misery of having to be so careful for years on end. Sometimes it's just easier to to grab a family size pasta tray bake for £3 and a packet of custard creams for 20p.
I've been there. I know how to cook and well, I can throw together a meal from virtually nothing (or at least used to be, damn cognitive issues) but when I was dirt poor crying about not being able to pay bills, my desire to get creative in the kitchen vanished. It might not be right but this whole culture of those who can afford to eat relatively well and pay their bills telling the poor to just manage their life and finances better is bullcrap.
I've been on both sides. You know what happened when I was working a low paying manual labor job and living in my truck, only able to eat McDonald's dollar menu crap twice per day? I lost 30 lbs. in three months. I got fatter again when I started being able to afford more food the following season.
Then I realized what needed to be done, and fixed the problem again. Physics gives not a single damn about your income bracket.
No it doesn't. But you had a very physical job. Not everyone does.
Obesity is about a lot more than physics and ignoring that isn't useful.
I sit at a desk all day and am not fat or struggling with my weight. I also eat much better and cheaper than I did when I was poor, because I'm smarter now. Vegetables aren't expensive, particularly if you're in an urban area that has ethnic markets. But even at a regular grocery store (and I'm in Vegas, where everything has to be shipped in) it's not expensive. The salads w/chicken I eat for lunch every day cost <$2 to make - you're not going to beat that at McDonalds. In fact, I'm not sure I ever make a meal at home that costs more than $3-4, unless it includes a big piece of steak or some shrimp.
Eating well is cheap, as long as you educate yourself.
Also, obesity is entirely about physics. Unused energy in the form of calories is stored in the body as fat. Reduce the energy entering the system and/or increase the energy being expended via exercise, and you reduce the energy being stored. There is no way around this.
You're missing my point. I said nothing about the cost of healthy eating, sure i mentioned a tray bake and biscuits (cookies) and in a single meal those can be cheaper than making yourself, financially and mentally. And if you read again, I mention other barriers, such as issues pertaining to planning ahead so that better meals are more affordable and more healthful.
And there is the chicken egg question. IS the poor planning the result of, or the cause of the obesity and poverty. No doubt there is a link, but which is the cause and which the result.
0 -
snickerscharlie 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.
So, the poor are poor because they have no self-control? Is that really what you're saying here?
In the industrialized so called "first world" Yes. It's really that simple.2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »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?
I'm not aware of any fines for growing gardens. That seems weird. I am in a city and grow vegetables, and I happen to know that laws permit chickens too. The problem is (a) space, and (b) if your building prohibits chickens. The lower income neighborhoods have houses often (but in other areas not), so space depends. However, there are also LOTS of options for community gardens.
I am not actually convinced that home gardening is cheaper for most in a city -- it's not for me with the kind of space I have, the time it takes, chance of crop failure, etc. There are some things I am very successful with (tomatoes) and others less so. I don't have a big yard, though -- most of my gardening is on my rooftop. With a yard I think it would be easier. (And you could at least possibly have fruit trees, which without one you can't have, of course.)5 -
From my own past experience in the U.K., it is often cheaper to buy carbs, and junk or processed food than it is to buy fresh fruit and vegetables. You can for example, buy pasta/rice for many meals but a equivalent amount of veg (price-wise) might only give you 1-2 portions. Equally, things such as biscuits can be very cheap here. There may also be a correlation between income and education that affects diet.
I 100% agree. To go into Tesco and fill a basket with fresh fruit/veg is gonna cost more. Lean meat is always more expensive than high fat.
One example for my family is fajitas! We love them but they work out so expensive for 3 people.
Peppers €1.49
Onion €0.39
Mushrooms €0.99
Chicken €4.99
Wraps €0.79
Spices €1.00
Sweetcorn €0.50
Rice €.50
Total €10.65
Or a pre-packed ready meal full of salt, sugar and fat that can be microwaved = €1.00 each
It's crazy!!
thats why you have Lidl/Aldi2 -
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.
No, he was talking about cheap pleasures, among other things.
And yes, I think that was the point, that the reason isn't food deserts, but that doesn't mean it's not harder if you are poor.
You seem to be arguing against a point I'm not sure anyone here is actually arguing for -- that food deserts are the main problem.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »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?
I'm not aware of any fines for growing gardens. That seems weird. I am in a city and grow vegetables, and I happen to know that laws permit chickens too. The problem is (a) space, and (b) if your building prohibits chickens. The lower income neighborhoods have houses often (but in other areas not), so space depends. However, there are also LOTS of options for community gardens.
I am not actually convinced that home gardening is cheaper for most in a city -- it's not for me with the kind of space I have, the time it takes, chance of crop failure, etc. There are some things I am very successful with (tomatoes) and others less so. I don't have a big yard, though -- most of my gardening is on my rooftop. With a yard I think it would be easier.
I would certainly agree that space is usually the limiting factor. Hell, I eat nearly four pounds of various vegetables on a daily basis. I don't even think a full yard could cover that, and I really am not even that diverse in my choices. Potatoes, sweet potatoes, broccoli, peppers, cauliflower and green beans are all easy to grow, but would definitely require a large amount of land to cover just my own consumption. I live in a two bedroom apartment, by myself, and with minimal furniture and I still can't imagine where I would even grow the peppers that I can eat, and that's by far the smallest part.4 -
I think that there are always choices that we all can make.
Obesity is not limited to people in poverty. Taking control of our lives and making better choices. Portion control, CICO, moving more. Where there is will, there is a way. No matter what you eat, or where you get your food, you can not eat more calories than you burn without consequences. Overeating knows no income level. People can, and have, lost weight eating junk food. It comes down to personal choice.
BTW, gas stations here sell fresh produce, and you can get it cheaper than the grocery stores. Variety is limited, but it is available. Same thing with milk.4 -
3rdof7sisters wrote: »I think that there are always choices that we all can make.
Obesity is not limited to people in poverty. Taking control of our lives and making better choices. Portion control, CICO, moving more. Where there is will, there is a way. No matter what you eat, or where you get your food, you can not eat more calories than you burn without consequences. Overeating knows no income level. People can, and have, lost weight eating junk food. It comes down to personal choice.
Absolutely. That's exactly what I was saying earlier on the portion thing. I don't give a damn if all you can afford is Ramen, frozen burritos and a cheap multivitamin; if you eat less, weight decreases.6 -
I grew up in a rural area where the nearest large grocery store was 35 miles away. There was a small one 2 miles but very limited choice. However it certainly had fruit and vegetables just a smaller selection.
Where I live fruit is quit expensive, I spend easily $30 week just on fruit. 6 oz box of raspberries can be $5 in winter, strawberries the same. The apples that I like are $2/lb, bananas are the cheapest at .79/lb. Sad to say for 2 people we spend at least $150/week on groceries thankfully we can now afford it.
When I was much younger and very poor, my weekly groceries consisted of a bag of frozen french fries, a package of hot dogs, loaf of bread and Pepsi. A jar of peanut butter as needed. Thankfully I waitressed and was able to get either discounted or free meals at work to supplement my diet.
So yes it can be expensive but carrots, turnips and that sort of thing are quite cheap as are canned and frozen veggies. Learn to be creative in the kitchen and make meals stretch but I understand its not easy especially when you are stressed about just making ends meet. There is no easy one fits all solution.1 -
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.
Eh?
Don't let me keep you though. Perhaps when you're done with your African Adventure you can swing by rural China and ask them about an increasing prevalence of overweight and obese individuals given the increased availability of cheap, easily accessible hyper-palatable foods despite ready access to whole foods and ask why they seek it out.
20 -
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.
So poverty is the result of outside forces in some countries, but self-inflicted in others?2 -
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.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »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?
I'm not aware of any fines for growing gardens. That seems weird. I am in a city and grow vegetables, and I happen to know that laws permit chickens too. The problem is (a) space, and (b) if your building prohibits chickens. The lower income neighborhoods have houses often (but in other areas not), so space depends. However, there are also LOTS of options for community gardens.
I am not actually convinced that home gardening is cheaper for most in a city -- it's not for me with the kind of space I have, the time it takes, chance of crop failure, etc. There are some things I am very successful with (tomatoes) and others less so. I don't have a big yard, though -- most of my gardening is on my rooftop. With a yard I think it would be easier. (And you could at least possibly have fruit trees, which without one you can't have, of course.)
I follow a group called Food Not Lawns, and am tapped into our local chapter, and you would be amazed at the number of petty dictators and psychopaths running city governments who are dead set against gardens, primarily through ignorance but also because they really enjoy being able to control things. Here are just a few examples, including one with the threat of criminal charges and the violence of jail, but there are many, many out there, and probably thousands more that get steamrolled without media coverage or any fight:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/garden/gardeners-fight-with-neighbors-and-city-hall-over-their-lawns.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/vegetable-garden-brings-criminal-charges-oak-park-michigan/story?id=14047214
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/gone-viral/os-florida-couple-uproot-garden-20131120-post.html
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/man-charged-crime-fined-growing-vegetable-garden-front-yard/
Chicago is particularly progressive (or perhaps ultra-traditional) about gardens and chickens; their psychopathy is reserved for other matters like desperately milking soda bottles for revenue. In my own city, you can't have chickens, and if you have a vacant lot, you can't have a fence, shed or water source put in unless there is a dwelling there. They have been drawing up rules so that if you put in a community garden, you have to ensure it is ADA compliant. It is fairly insane. Also, we can't have chickens due to the strong arming of our animal care & control, because they don't want to take them in when irresponsible people tire of them as pets. Apparently they don't realize we are surrounded by thousands of Amish farmers who know EXACTLY what the purpose of a chicken is, and that they could easily be "sent to a nice farm" as is the euphemism when parents turn their children's beloved dog into the pound.
Regarding cost, I told the class I am currently teaching the following:
--You can garden cheaply
--You can garden easily (both physical labor-wise and knowledge-wise)
--You can garden productively
But you can only pick two of the three.
9 -
3rdof7sisters wrote: »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.
But to be fair, we have an exceptional public transportation system in Minneapolis/St. Paul so things that may be true for lower income people here may not be true elsewhere. I've lived in cities and towns where it can be incredibly challenging to get around without regular access to a car.
"Just get on the light rail" only works for cities that have them and where the stops are placed to facilitate how people want to use them. True here, not true for a lot of places.4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »3rdof7sisters wrote: »I think that there are always choices that we all can make.
Obesity is not limited to people in poverty. Taking control of our lives and making better choices. Portion control, CICO, moving more. Where there is will, there is a way. No matter what you eat, or where you get your food, you can not eat more calories than you burn without consequences. Overeating knows no income level. People can, and have, lost weight eating junk food. It comes down to personal choice.
Absolutely. That's exactly what I was saying earlier on the portion thing. I don't give a damn if all you can afford is Ramen, frozen burritos and a cheap multivitamin; if you eat less, weight decreases.
This is true, but certain foods make it more challenging to eat less (because you may be more hungry).5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
So poverty is the result of outside forces in some countries, but self-inflicted in others?
Yes. When poverty and obesity coincide, it's self inflicted.
When poverty and starvation coincide, there are likely external factors.
Why is this so hard to accept?
3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
So poverty is the result of outside forces in some countries, but self-inflicted in others?
Yes. When poverty and obesity coincide, it's self inflicted.
When poverty and starvation coincide, there are likely external factors.
Why is this so hard to accept?
I don't think you understand my question -- my question isn't about poverty *and* obesity, it's about poverty. The argument is being made that in some countries poverty is self-inflicted, the result of poor self-control, while in other countries it is the result of outside forces. I am not sure what evidence exists for this argument, but I'm not yet convinced by it.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »3rdof7sisters wrote: »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.
But to be fair, we have an exceptional public transportation system in Minneapolis/St. Paul so things that may be true for lower income people here may not be true elsewhere. I've lived in cities and towns where it can be incredibly challenging to get around without regular access to a car.
"Just get on the light rail" only works for cities that have them and where the stops are placed to facilitate how people want to use them. True here, not true for a lot of places.
I wouldn't call it exceptional, especially considering very little mass transit in the suburbs. Seriously? I lived in Mpls and either walked or bussed to get my groceries as I had no car then, and there was no light rail. There are busses and light rail in both cities with frequent schedules. Anyway, where are they getting the food that makes them obese, and why can't they make better choices where they get the food they do eat? Use moderation and portion control. Is it ok to overeat anything? It is an excuse, someone else to blame. My grandparents were Swedish immigrants. Their home was in west Minneapolis(in those days it was almost living in the country). They had no car. Took a streetcar to get groceries.
BTW, mass transit is exceptional if you live in the inner cities, not so much for the suburbs.1 -
3rdof7sisters wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »3rdof7sisters wrote: »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.
But to be fair, we have an exceptional public transportation system in Minneapolis/St. Paul so things that may be true for lower income people here may not be true elsewhere. I've lived in cities and towns where it can be incredibly challenging to get around without regular access to a car.
"Just get on the light rail" only works for cities that have them and where the stops are placed to facilitate how people want to use them. True here, not true for a lot of places.
I wouldn't call it exceptional, especially considering very little mass transit in the suburbs. Seriously? I lived in Mpls and either walked or bussed to get my groceries as I had no car then, and there was no light rail. There are busses and light rail in both cities with frequent schedules. Anyway, where are they getting the food that makes them obese, and why can't they make better choices where they get the food they do eat? Use moderation and portion control. Is it ok to overeat anything? It is an excuse, someone else to blame. My grandparents were Swedish immigrants. Their home was in west Minneapolis(in those days it was almost living in the country). They had no car. Took a streetcar to get groceries.
I don't live in the suburbs, so I can't speak to that. But we're talking about the urban experience here and I'm just saying that Minneapolis/St Paul has very good public transportation for a US urban area so using it as an example of "Why can't you get on a bus or light rail?" may not fully cover the situation in other cities.
I'm not sure why you would take my comments as an argument that it's okay to overeat anything, that isn't even close to what I'm suggesting.
"Why don't they make better choices?" is the exact question we're debating here. Saying "Just make better choices" is less interesting for me, in the debate area, than actually exploring *why* people aren't doing it. It's also probably going to be much less helpful in terms of exploring what types of policies and changes could actually help people make better choices.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
So poverty is the result of outside forces in some countries, but self-inflicted in others?
Yes. When poverty and obesity coincide, it's self inflicted.
When poverty and starvation coincide, there are likely external factors.
Why is this so hard to accept?
I don't think you understand my question -- my question isn't about poverty *and* obesity, it's about poverty. The argument is being made that in some countries poverty is self-inflicted, the result of poor self-control, while in other countries it is the result of outside forces. I am not sure what evidence exists for this argument, but I'm not yet convinced by it.
I understood your question. In the industrial world, with universal education, remaining poor is a choice. It may not be a conscious choice, but it is a choice nonetheless.
Pursuing the quick, the easy, the temporarily satisfying is how and why the poor remain poor.
It's easy to use a payday loan to buy sneakers, it's harder to wear Walmart wonders.
And yeah. I've been ramen poor. I didn't know how poor I was until I enlisted in the military, and discovered that my first paycheck(monthly) was more than my parents had been making while providing for a family of 5 with no public assistance.
That was 1996 and about $900 a month.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »3rdof7sisters wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »3rdof7sisters wrote: »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.
But to be fair, we have an exceptional public transportation system in Minneapolis/St. Paul so things that may be true for lower income people here may not be true elsewhere. I've lived in cities and towns where it can be incredibly challenging to get around without regular access to a car.
"Just get on the light rail" only works for cities that have them and where the stops are placed to facilitate how people want to use them. True here, not true for a lot of places.
I wouldn't call it exceptional, especially considering very little mass transit in the suburbs. Seriously? I lived in Mpls and either walked or bussed to get my groceries as I had no car then, and there was no light rail. There are busses and light rail in both cities with frequent schedules. Anyway, where are they getting the food that makes them obese, and why can't they make better choices where they get the food they do eat? Use moderation and portion control. Is it ok to overeat anything? It is an excuse, someone else to blame. My grandparents were Swedish immigrants. Their home was in west Minneapolis(in those days it was almost living in the country). They had no car. Took a streetcar to get groceries.
I don't live in the suburbs, so I can't speak to that. But we're talking about the urban experience here and I'm just saying that Minneapolis/St Paul has very good public transportation for a US urban area so using it as an example of "Why can't you get on a bus or light rail?" may not fully cover the situation in other cities.
I'm not sure why you would take my comments as an argument that it's okay to overeat anything, that isn't even close to what I'm suggesting.
"Why don't they make better choices?" is the exact question we're debating here. Saying "Just make better choices" is less interesting for me, in the debate area, than actually exploring *why* people aren't doing it. It's also probably going to be much less helpful in terms of exploring what types of policies and changes could actually help people make better choices.
Why isn't anyone, of any economic class, making better choices? Why isolate it to inner city populations? It isn't only poor people who are obese.
What policies and changes do you think should be made?
1 -
But wasn't Michele Obama's work with food deserts focused on community gardening, increasing access to farmer's markets and things of that nature? Basically getting residents in these areas to focus more on learning about nutritious food, more financial access to purchasing nutritious food, and/or having a stake in where it comes from? This is what is needed.
We have the farm share program here, where you can get boxes of fresh produce based on what farmers have a surplus of. We are not struggling financially, but a member who is shares her produce with us -- she can get a huge amount, and she lives alone. They give out veggies that most people around here are not familiar with -- spaghetti squash, plantains etc. As well as almond milk and other foods that are foreign to them.
I'm in the southern US, and if it's not okra, greens, tomatoes, summer squash or sweet potatoes most people are clueless on what to do with those vegetables. So it gets wasted. What would be helpful is if there was a nonprofit that would hold free classes on how to prepare what goes in those baskets. Perhaps doing it on the same day as distribution.
And what is considered a supermarket or a grocery store? Because in the south side of where I live, there is no grocery store with varied produce -- only mini-marts with the basic bread, eggs, milk and cheese. They are actually building a Publix in the area to fix the food desert situation.
0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
So poverty is the result of outside forces in some countries, but self-inflicted in others?
Yes. When poverty and obesity coincide, it's self inflicted.
When poverty and starvation coincide, there are likely external factors.
Why is this so hard to accept?
I don't think you understand my question -- my question isn't about poverty *and* obesity, it's about poverty. The argument is being made that in some countries poverty is self-inflicted, the result of poor self-control, while in other countries it is the result of outside forces. I am not sure what evidence exists for this argument, but I'm not yet convinced by it.
I understood your question. In the industrial world, with universal education, remaining poor is a choice. It may not be a conscious choice, but it is a choice nonetheless.
Pursuing the quick, the easy, the temporarily satisfying is how and why the poor remain poor.
It's easy to use a payday loan to buy sneakers, it's harder to wear Walmart wonders.
And yeah. I've been ramen poor. I didn't know how poor I was until I enlisted in the military, and discovered that my first paycheck(monthly) was more than my parents had been making while providing for a family of 5 with no public assistance.
That was 1996 and about $900 a month.
I understand that your family may have used payday loans to buy sneakers, but my family didn't. We wore clothes from Walmart, in fact getting new clothes from Walmart was thrilling because most of the time our clothes weren't new at all. There was a lengthy period where my mom just had two shirts, we used a cooler for a fridge for months, a winter where we didn't have a hot water heater.
I'll try to reflect on the choices we made to put ourselves in such a situation, but to my POV my mom isn't a better person than she was when she was poor. She isn't a smarter person than when she was poor. She isn't poor anymore, but she hasn't magically transmogrified into a person who used to be irresponsible but has somehow learned to dismiss the quick, the easy, and the temporarily satisfying choices that made her poor.
"We're better than the poor" is, to my mind, such an unhelpful way to approach the discussion. Do I make better choices than some poor people? Absolutely. Some poor people probably make better choices than me. And there are some rich people who probably make poorer choices than me, but have sufficient wealth to insulate themselves from the full consequences of their choices.
We're in a society that pushes and glamorizes the quick, the easy, and the temporarily satisfying and some people -- of all income levels -- do sometimes pursue it. But look at who we critique the most for doing it (and often in somewhat coded language like "sneakers")? There was a time in my life when I supervised people who were quite close to the poverty level or below it and sometimes they would use payday loans. In the situations I knew about it was for things like major car repairs, unexpected home repair expenses, or simply to make the rent (we were in an area that had major layoffs and many people who were used to having two decent incomes were having to make due with much less). Do people take payday loans to buy sneakers? I'm sure some people probably do. But there are also people who are using them to try to survive in a situation where there aren't a whole lot of great options to cover unexpected major expenses.
"This thing you do that all sorts of people do, this is why you're poor."
I'm not convinced by the argument.24 -
3rdof7sisters wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »3rdof7sisters wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »3rdof7sisters wrote: »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.
But to be fair, we have an exceptional public transportation system in Minneapolis/St. Paul so things that may be true for lower income people here may not be true elsewhere. I've lived in cities and towns where it can be incredibly challenging to get around without regular access to a car.
"Just get on the light rail" only works for cities that have them and where the stops are placed to facilitate how people want to use them. True here, not true for a lot of places.
I wouldn't call it exceptional, especially considering very little mass transit in the suburbs. Seriously? I lived in Mpls and either walked or bussed to get my groceries as I had no car then, and there was no light rail. There are busses and light rail in both cities with frequent schedules. Anyway, where are they getting the food that makes them obese, and why can't they make better choices where they get the food they do eat? Use moderation and portion control. Is it ok to overeat anything? It is an excuse, someone else to blame. My grandparents were Swedish immigrants. Their home was in west Minneapolis(in those days it was almost living in the country). They had no car. Took a streetcar to get groceries.
I don't live in the suburbs, so I can't speak to that. But we're talking about the urban experience here and I'm just saying that Minneapolis/St Paul has very good public transportation for a US urban area so using it as an example of "Why can't you get on a bus or light rail?" may not fully cover the situation in other cities.
I'm not sure why you would take my comments as an argument that it's okay to overeat anything, that isn't even close to what I'm suggesting.
"Why don't they make better choices?" is the exact question we're debating here. Saying "Just make better choices" is less interesting for me, in the debate area, than actually exploring *why* people aren't doing it. It's also probably going to be much less helpful in terms of exploring what types of policies and changes could actually help people make better choices.
Why isn't anyone, of any economic class, making better choices? Why isolate it to inner city populations? It isn't only poor people who are obese.
What policies and changes do you think should be made?
We're isolating it to the inner city because the subject of this thread is "The urban food desert myth."
If you're interested in a discussion that includes all areas, creating a different thread may be a good idea.
I don't have any specific policy or change suggestions -- I'm very interested in exploring the issue, but I haven't come up with a solution.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »One thing that I think should be underscored is just how *tiring* it is to be low income sometimes. When I was a teenager, we were pretty poor. The adults and teenagers in my family were all either working two jobs or working and going to school. The meals my mom and dad would spend more time on when I was younger just sort of fell by the wayside because nobody seemed to have the energy to plan the meals and prepare them.
Another factor is that we often didn't have a time when the family could all sit down together -- we were eating in smaller groups or alone and that can often discourage more careful meal planning and prep. And I know the foods my parents were choosing were biased towards the things that A. they could afford and B. they were confident they could get the younger kids to eat. If you don't have much money for food, I think you're less inclined to spend it on something that your kids might reject. And if you can't get your kids the other things they might want, things you can't afford, I imagine it may feel good to at least buy them foods that they enjoy, even when it may not be the best long-term plan.
I remember that time in my life and my meals were things like a pastry from a vending machine at school, an egg sandwich before work, and then chicken strips and french fries at work. Of course one could maintain a healthy weight on those foods assuming calories were in order, but mine weren't. And I was doing things like drinking lots of full calorie soda when I was at work, because it was free and it boosted my energy.
Do people with higher incomes get tired too? Absolutely. Now that I'm better off, I sometimes still work lots of hours or have a weird schedule. But I have more of a buffer to deal with it -- I have better appliances to help with meal prep, I have the free time to plan out my meals each Sunday and take the week's events into account. It feels totally different than the trapped "I'm not sure if my car is going to start and we don't have enough food in the house to help everyone feel full" feeling I often had back then.
My point isn't that lower income people don't have choices -- I obviously made choices every day and I could have chosen different things. But there are many different forces operating on those choices (just as there are many different forces operating on my choices today now that I'm in a different situation).
You get it. Being poor is stressful. If you are in a cycle of poverty, you may not know about healthy eating choices. While sitting in our middle-class lives, we can instantly judge and say..."Well why don't they learn?"
I am not poor. My parents were both teachers (not affluent), but they never let us see them sweat financially -- so I have never been poor. When I decided to learn how to cook healthy food for my husband and I, I did it in my free time -- time afforded to me as a working member of the middle class. People who are just treading water to keep the lights on and the rent paid do NOT have that luxury. Their minds are occupied with just the bare essentials and getting the hell out of their current situation -- or getting their kids out of their current situation. It's why the working, single moms grab McDonalds on the way home -- to make sure they have time to help with homework/ensure it gets done. I see it every day around here.15 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
I don't have any specific policy or change suggestions -- I'm very interested in exploring the issue, but I haven't come up with a solution.
I have to say that I have become rather fatalistic about the issue.
Without going into a mind bending philosophical discussion on whether free will exists in any kind of meaningful sense I think unless some kind of radical Communist uprising sweeps the West and effectively turns the current food environment upside down (welcome to rationing Comrade) obesity rates will not improve meaningfully.
Personally I would divert all funding in this area towards a universal, liveable basic income because just as one the best contraceptives appears to be wealth so is the best appetite suppressant...
8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
So poverty is the result of outside forces in some countries, but self-inflicted in others?
Yes. When poverty and obesity coincide, it's self inflicted.
When poverty and starvation coincide, there are likely external factors.
Why is this so hard to accept?
I don't think you understand my question -- my question isn't about poverty *and* obesity, it's about poverty. The argument is being made that in some countries poverty is self-inflicted, the result of poor self-control, while in other countries it is the result of outside forces. I am not sure what evidence exists for this argument, but I'm not yet convinced by it.
I understood your question. In the industrial world, with universal education, remaining poor is a choice. It may not be a conscious choice, but it is a choice nonetheless.
Pursuing the quick, the easy, the temporarily satisfying is how and why the poor remain poor.
It's easy to use a payday loan to buy sneakers, it's harder to wear Walmart wonders.
And yeah. I've been ramen poor. I didn't know how poor I was until I enlisted in the military, and discovered that my first paycheck(monthly) was more than my parents had been making while providing for a family of 5 with no public assistance.
That was 1996 and about $900 a month.
I understand that your family may have used payday loans to buy sneakers, but my family didn't. We wore clothes from Walmart, in fact getting new clothes from Walmart was thrilling because most of the time our clothes weren't new at all. There was a lengthy period where my mom just had two shirts, we used a cooler for a fridge for months, a winter where we didn't have a hot water heater.
I'll try to reflect on the choices we made to put ourselves in such a situation, but to my POV my mom isn't a better person than she was when she was poor. She isn't a smarter person than when she was poor. She isn't poor anymore, but she hasn't magically transmogrified into a person who used to be irresponsible but has somehow learned to dismiss the quick, the easy, and the temporarily satisfying choices that made her poor.
"We're better than the poor" is, to my mind, such an unhelpful way to approach the discussion. Do I make better choices than some poor people? Absolutely. Some poor people probably make better choices than me. And there are some rich people who probably make poorer choices than me, but have sufficient wealth to insulate themselves from the full consequences of their choices.
We're in a society that pushes and glamorizes the quick, the easy, and the temporarily satisfying and some people -- of all income levels -- do sometimes pursue it. But look at who we critique the most for doing it (and often in somewhat coded language like "sneakers")? There was a time in my life when I supervised people who were quite close to the poverty level or below it and sometimes they would use payday loans. In the situations I knew about it was for things like major car repairs, unexpected home repair expenses, or simply to make the rent (we were in an area that had major layoffs and many people who were used to having two decent incomes were having to make due with much less). Do people take payday loans to buy sneakers? I'm sure some people probably do. But there are also people who are using them to try to survive in a situation where there aren't a whole lot of great options to cover unexpected major expenses.
"This thing you do that all sorts of people do, this is why you're poor."
I'm not convinced by the argument.
Exactly the opposite. See, you misunderstood the answer. Those who stayed poor in my neighborhood did that. We did thrift shops and Walmart.
There are ALWAYS better options than payday loans.2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »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.
Exactly! I live on the west side of Buffalo, and have a bunch of grocery stores within 2 miles (and multiple bus lines much closer). I can't think of ANY areas w/in my city where you would be more than half a mile from a bus route that has a full-fledged supermarket on it. In comparison, getting to & from work generally requires a bunch of bus/subway transfers. If someone opts to be lazy and waddle 200 ft to the bodega for chips instead of grabbing a backpack and getting on the bus, that is totally on them. Many little old ladies manage to do it just fine with their pull carts. And no- when you are poor, you don't go to multiple stores...you go to the one that is most convenient of those with reasonable prices and deal with the selection they have.
Now, poor rural areas are a different story. You are pretty much screwed if you don't have a car outside of the city.
Other people tend to forget that people ate a certain way in the winter in the north for a reason. If it looks like the frozen tundra outside, don't *kitten* that strawberries and broccoli are expensive. No *kitten*. It's a luxury of the modern age that we can buy these items up here at all in the winter at any price. Traditional northern soup vegetables are generally quite cheap.4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
So poverty is the result of outside forces in some countries, but self-inflicted in others?
Yes. When poverty and obesity coincide, it's self inflicted.
When poverty and starvation coincide, there are likely external factors.
Why is this so hard to accept?
I don't think you understand my question -- my question isn't about poverty *and* obesity, it's about poverty. The argument is being made that in some countries poverty is self-inflicted, the result of poor self-control, while in other countries it is the result of outside forces. I am not sure what evidence exists for this argument, but I'm not yet convinced by it.
I understood your question. In the industrial world, with universal education, remaining poor is a choice. It may not be a conscious choice, but it is a choice nonetheless.
Pursuing the quick, the easy, the temporarily satisfying is how and why the poor remain poor.
It's easy to use a payday loan to buy sneakers, it's harder to wear Walmart wonders.
And yeah. I've been ramen poor. I didn't know how poor I was until I enlisted in the military, and discovered that my first paycheck(monthly) was more than my parents had been making while providing for a family of 5 with no public assistance.
That was 1996 and about $900 a month.
I understand that your family may have used payday loans to buy sneakers, but my family didn't. We wore clothes from Walmart, in fact getting new clothes from Walmart was thrilling because most of the time our clothes weren't new at all. There was a lengthy period where my mom just had two shirts, we used a cooler for a fridge for months, a winter where we didn't have a hot water heater.
I'll try to reflect on the choices we made to put ourselves in such a situation, but to my POV my mom isn't a better person than she was when she was poor. She isn't a smarter person than when she was poor. She isn't poor anymore, but she hasn't magically transmogrified into a person who used to be irresponsible but has somehow learned to dismiss the quick, the easy, and the temporarily satisfying choices that made her poor.
"We're better than the poor" is, to my mind, such an unhelpful way to approach the discussion. Do I make better choices than some poor people? Absolutely. Some poor people probably make better choices than me. And there are some rich people who probably make poorer choices than me, but have sufficient wealth to insulate themselves from the full consequences of their choices.
We're in a society that pushes and glamorizes the quick, the easy, and the temporarily satisfying and some people -- of all income levels -- do sometimes pursue it. But look at who we critique the most for doing it (and often in somewhat coded language like "sneakers")? There was a time in my life when I supervised people who were quite close to the poverty level or below it and sometimes they would use payday loans. In the situations I knew about it was for things like major car repairs, unexpected home repair expenses, or simply to make the rent (we were in an area that had major layoffs and many people who were used to having two decent incomes were having to make due with much less). Do people take payday loans to buy sneakers? I'm sure some people probably do. But there are also people who are using them to try to survive in a situation where there aren't a whole lot of great options to cover unexpected major expenses.
"This thing you do that all sorts of people do, this is why you're poor."
I'm not convinced by the argument.
Exactly the opposite. See, you misunderstood the answer. Those who stayed poor in my neighborhood did that. We did thrift shops and Walmart.
There are ALWAYS better options than payday loans.
^Exactly right. And there are ALWAYS options for what, and how much, you eat. There are normal weight people in Urban areas, as well as every where else. People manage to make better choices for themselves and their families. It can be done if it is important to you.
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
There are a few stores I only shop at when I bike commute or walk/run due to traffic backups or parking. In heavy snow, it can also often be more convenient to take the bus(es) than un-bury your car.0
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