Obesity and poverty...

I was reading through the thread about who is to blame for obese children. The unanimous consensus is that it's the parents' fault. While I agree to a certain extent, I think people are forgetting a few key pieces of info. Let's take a look at Mississippi. It's the #1 poorest state in the nation. It's also the #1 most obese state in the nation. It's also the #1 most hunger stricken state in the nation. How could that be? How can people be starving AND obese!? It doesn't make sense. Or does it?

If you go to the grocery and buy enough fresh, whole food to feed a family of four for a week, you'll likely spend no less than $200. Good, fresh, real food is terribly expensive. Crap food is not! A cheeseburger, fries, and coke at McDonalds cost $3. A salad at McDonalds cost $6. Fresh produce and meat is expensive compared to ramen noodles and Vienna sausages. It's next to impossible for people living in poverty to eat healthy food!

I don't know how to fix that, but I know that something needs to change if we're going to solve the obesity epidemic in this country!

I'm not sure where you live but you cannot get a cheeseburger, fries and a coke for $3 at our McDonald's. And even if you could... a $3 meal x 4 people x 3 meals per day x 7 days per week comes out to $252 per week....and that doesn't even touch the other junk snacks in between like the bag of chips or the cookies or the extra soda!

I spend $200 per week on ALL my groceries including cleaning products, paper products, personal hygiene products and vitamins/supplements and my kids are lean and healthy. I spend much less since I got on a cleaner diet with my family than when we ate crap all the time!

Most families below the poverty have less than $300 to spend on food A MONTH. I have heard of people screwing over the system and getting way more than that, but they are the minority. The rest of us scrabble from month to month, when food prices go up, our amounts don't. You're not being realistic. You spend less than you did. But you probably also have a nice house, a good car, and a decent supermarket nearby. You're comparing apples and oranges.

For the record I drive a 1997 Toyota with 210,000 miles on it and my husband drives a 2000 Ford with close to 200,000 miles on it as well. I don't get my nails done I don't shop for clothing unless mine are falling apart, i havent been on a vacation since my honeymoon in 2000 and we live with my mother so before you assume and judge someone, ask what their lifestyle is like.

Hi MFP's,

I am a candidate for a Master of Public Health with a specialty in epidemiology (epidemics,pandemics, chronic and infectious disease) and I have a background coordinating an NGO that dealt exclusively with food insecurity and improving the health and social outcomes of food insecure individuals. Poverty plays a significant role in both childhood and adult obesity.

This issues of food insecurity, food deserts (areas where fresh healthful food is inaccessible or otherwise unavailable) and obesity are intertwined in such a way that individuals without access may have to depend on boxed meals, fast food or other non-perishable options to ensure they are able to sufficiently feed themselves and their families until they can next access food. This is especially true for those who live in food deserts (which are typically populated by the poorest factions of the population). To make matters worse those who depend on food banks will often receive food that is filled with sodium, fat and preservatives and is often very calorie dense. Many food banks do not deal with fresh produce or perishable items and only collect or buy and distribute non-perishable goods. Often food banks could not maintain a stock of perishable foods even if they could collect those items because of the need for refrigeration of some products and because of the perishable nature of fruits and vegetables they may not be able to buy them in bulk or from farmers where they would more reasonably priced. On a regular basis food banks have to delegate funds, would they rather purchase X amount of canned soup or pasta and sauce or some significantly lesser amount of fresh vegetables, being able to feed more people will more likely win out over fresh more varied foods

Another underlying issue is that high fat high sugar foods, along with being inexpensive are also highly palatable and well advertised. As a result children will be more likely to want and ask for items like chips(crisps), boxed macaroni and cheese, Oreo's and other cookies, and sugary cereals like Fruit Loops, Cap't Crunch etc. that are loaded with refined sugar, refined flours, fat and overall are not very nutritious but are addictive. Parents and caregivers play a large role in childhood obesity because they provide and prepare food for young children and as a result they can choose whether or not to buy these items. However, parents may also feel that in giving their children these high fat, high sugar items that they are asking for they are making up for other areas where they may feel their children are being deprived (i.e. not being able to play in organized sports because of cost, not being able to spend much time with their children because of their busy work schedules, not being able to afford new toys, clothes etc.) This is not to say that that type of behavior is correct or that this is the case for all overweight children or parents living in poverty.

Put simply, we live in an environment where cheaper, easier more palatable food is less expensive than healthier alternatives, not to completely shift blame but we need to consider the roles played by the food industry and governments in the cost of food especially fresh food and the provision of (IMO) inadequate social assistance for those living in poverty. This is not to say that I necessarily think we should pour more tax dollars into welfare systems but perhaps subsidize the cost of fresh or fresh frozen healthful foods to make them more appealing and making regularly eating fresh unprocessed food financially feasible for the population as a whole. Though food deserts would need to be examined in order to improve livelihoods in those areas but overall if this were the case, perhaps we would not be facing such a widespread overweight and obesity epidemic in the west (the global north).

Many people living in poverty, even overweight and obese individuals are malnourished. I like to assume that all parents inevitably want the best for their children but simply may not be able to provide the foods that they need to have a healthy varied diet. So we can all assign "blame" as we see fit but as we look at the more holistic picture we may recognize that it is not as cut and dry as we may have thought. I really appreciate whoever posted this topic, its great that we have started the conversation about overweight and obesity and its contributing factors. Many of you have made really great and nuanced points that will contribute to a better understanding of the issue for all of us who read the forums. Keep up the great work MFP's!

Brit

I recently went to a talk about food security. Basically, it talked about the ability of people living at or below the poverty level, and their ability to feed themselves and their families. Basically what it came down to is this: if a single mother with two kids is on income assistance, she receives $1124 a month.

Now by my calculations:

Monthly income: $1124
Rent: $ 700
Basic telephone/cable: $ 65
Electricity: $ 40
Bus passes $ 122

So that leaves Mom with $197 a month to feed herself and her two kids. That's $49.25 a week, or $7.04 a day.

Where I live, 4 liters of milk costs $7.49. A 2 liter of pop is $1.49. A loaf of bread costs $2.29. A box of Kraft dinner is $1.09.

In this lecture, they talked about the "basic food basket" which is the food that one would need to buy to follow Canada's food guide for healthy eating. The cost in our community to meet those basic requirements was over $80/week for this hypothetical mother and her two kids.

If a parent is trying to feed herself and her kids on less than $50 a week, of course they are going to eat a lot of boxed meals.

Another issue addressed was the fact that in the cycle of poverty, a lot of times parents just don't know or have the skills to prepare healthful meals, so even though you might be able to cook a healthy stew for $15 that would feed them for three days, Mom might not have the skills or the tools available.

So my point, after this rather long post, is that I do agree, poverty certainly plays a role.

Why isn't this mom getting a job, instead?

It's amazing that everyone thinks its just so easy.

Maybe she is disabled.

Maybe she has a child that is disabled and cannot afford full time care.

Maybe she is unemployed temporarily.

Maybe her husband just died and she was a stay at home mom.

Maybe her husband left her.

Maybe her husband was abusive and she decided to leave him.

Maybe this amount includes her full time job and income assistance?

What the hell difference does it make?

Eating healthier is actually cheaper. Think how much something like carrots cost for example. They are like a dollar a bag. The reason people by processed and fast food is simple, convenience and taste. You are paying for the convenience of not having to put work into making the meal. People have decided they are willing to pay more so they have less prep time. There is a premium on convenience that many people think is worth paying for. That is really all you are paying for at McDonalds, etc. We could make our own hamburger but McDonald's can do it in 1 minute. Same thing with other packaged/prepared meals.

Eating healthier is actually cheaper. Think how much something like carrots cost for example. They are like a dollar a bag. The reason people by processed and fast food is simple, convenience and taste. You are paying for the convenience of not having to put work into making the meal. People have decided they are willing to pay more so they have less prep time. There is a premium on convenience that many people think is worth paying for. That is really all you are paying for at McDonalds, etc. We could make our own hamburger but McDonald's can do it in 1 minute. Same thing with other packaged/prepared meals.

When will people understand that processed and "unclean" foods don't cause weight gain, an excess of calories does. In 98% of the posts in this thread and on the whole forum all I see are these claims about clean eating. Living on cheap fast foods DOESN'T cause obesity, however, eating 4000 calories when you need 2000 to maintain your weight WILL.

With all do respect, and please understand I am not snarking you in any way, but why do people keep saying this on MFP? A calorie, is a calorie is a calorie and the like?

I've only been on here a few days and it repeats itself like a very bad mantra. Unclean food won't make you get weight, yes, I understand the arithmetic here, but its presented as though everybody are immortals on this board and as if coronary disease, hypertension and diabetes are non factors of eating unclean. Maybe its premature of me to make this assessment but I'm starting to feel if I dive deeper in the MFP archives, I'm going to see more of this. This is not just a fallacy, its dangerous. Please don't take offense because I mean none to you.

I see alot talk about those who are receiving food stamps and other types of government assistance. But what about those families who do not qualify for any state assistance but do not make enough money to thrive on. I don't think the issue is just as simple as to stop having babies especially when some politicians are determined to restrict access to birth control. I think there are larger issues at play.

Im going off topic. No politician is trying to limit access to birth control. they just don't think the Federal Gov't should subsidize peoples sex habits. Condoms are sold in drug stores and there is a variety of other forms of BC women can take.

again I agee. It's not the governments responsibility to make sure you don't get knocked up its yours. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY PEOPLE. if you don't want babies don't have unprotected sex.

This is targeted towards single women of course. First, none of those methods are 100% guaranteed to not produce a baby. Let's not even get into the crazy side effects many of these birth control methods have on women. Second, I find it highly unlikely that married folks are going to be using protection (isn't that a benefit of being married) so I feel that point is mute under these circumstances. My point is that the issue goes deeper than to just stop reproducing children. he issue is way more complex than that.

Of course they aren't 100% accurate. But the pill is 99%. Condoms don't have any side effects. and as for married couples not using BC, what do you think we stop having sex. Or do we just have unlimited children. I've been married for 25 years and until my husbands surgery a few years ago I was on the pill. And I have friends (married) who only use condoms. Your argument isn't valid.

Maybe my argument is not valid to you and your situation but that does not apply to everyone. I have two kids, both of them are birth control babies (two different forms of BC I might add). I almost had third (also while on birth control) but the damn thing implanted in my Fallopian tube and just about killed me. Finally, after my having my second I had my tubes tied. and I had to CONVINCE the doctor to perform the procedure because I'm "young". That is alot to go through to just stop having babies. So my point is valid.

I reiterate my original statement, I don't think the issue is just as simple as to stop having babies especially when some politicians are determined to restrict access to birth control. I think there are larger issues at play.

again I say politicians are NOT trying to limit access to birth control. They just don't think the gov't should pay for it. And I agree. It is not the governments responsibility to make sure we don't conceive. That lies within us.

This makes sense for the US and Canada and other countries, but....

I live part of the year in the Dominican Republic. I rarely see over weight, fat, obese people there. The usual monthly income is around 200-300 dollars or less! But people aren't starving, they are a healthy weight.

Not to mention that Dominican people spend a huge part of their monthly income on things like their hair, cell phones and other things.

How do they do it?

Well...rice and beans is cheap and healthy. Veggies actually only cost a little bit less or the same as here in Canada in the summer time, but they eat them regularly. A chicken there is about three dollars. But when you look at the cost of living, that is still more than the 6 dollars I spend on a chicken here ( all things adjusted)

They very rarely crap or processed food. Those things are imported and very expensive.

Not to mention that most of my Dominican friends are a lot less active than we are....they all hate to walk anywhere and I have never seen one exercise on purpose.

The point is...you can be poor and eat properly, it is cheaper to eat properly if you eat the basics and stay away from processed food.

I have learned a lot from the Dominican people on how to live healthy, that is for sure.

You can be poor and not be fat. A bag of rice is a few dollars, a bag of beans is a few dollars...a chicken is a few dollars, basics that you actually cook into meals that are healthy, can be pretty cheap.

Rice, eggs, frozen veggies, beans, frozen chicken, apples, lettuce and bananas are all pretty inexpensive. And people could garden. Seeds are dirt cheap. If you have a backyard, you *could* grow some veggies.

My community received a grant to provide nutrition and cooking education to food-stamp recipients. They offered classes that focused on how to budget your food stamps, how to cook whole meals, and where to shop for the best deals. Attendance and participation were so poor that we didn't receive funding for a second year. Some people don't want to learn to change - which is true of any economic status. There are plenty of fat rich people too - they don't want to give up the drive-through or high calorie foods either.