Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
The Urban Food Desert Myth
Options
Replies
-
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.
It wasn't that physical. I wasn't slogging bricks or anything. Truthfully, about 70% of any given day was spent driving between job sites, and when we were working, it was just shoveling asphalt from a skidsteer bucket.
It is about more, but adding unnecessary variable just muddies the whole thing, and is dishonest. If it were truly about poverty and limited access to healthier food choices, we'd see this epidemic everywhere. We don't. It's only in Western civilization, where we treat our poor like yappy pet dogs. "Here's food, go away until it's time for you to be fed again."3 -
jennybearlv wrote: »In my experience living in Nevada more affluent areas have more supermarkets. As income in an area drops, the supermarkets close. I'm not sure this happens everywhere, but it happened to me a few times when I lived in Las Vegas. I was lucky enough to own a car.
This pattern is true in Chicago, although there are various efforts to change that and it's quite location-dependent (and public transportation is pretty good). I think the food desert as explanation for obesity is wrong, period, as I said in the other thread where this came out of (I think), but if you compare the grocery store (vs. merely convenience stores, liquor stores, fast food) in various neighborhoods there is an unsurprising pattern. (Also, nothing surprising or ominous about why it is, IMO.)
I do pretty much agree with the John McWhorter piece, although I think there are areas where good food is not nearly as easily available (I've been to some)--IMO it's not that there are no food deserts but that they are not the reason for the obesity problem. I'm reading the study discussed in the Kolata article, since it raised a few questions (specifically I am sure inner cities have more supermarkets within 2 miles or some such than the average upper middle class suburb in many cases, but that's not relevant when the car culture is different -- I live in an upper middle class urban neighborhood, and 2 miles from a supermarket would be extremely far and not normal, so the comparison should be between like places or take into account travel patterns and timing of public transportation).1 -
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).37 -
Some more articles/studies of possible interest:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/11/food-deserts/414534/ (consistent with the ones in the OP)
Linked in the article:
http://chicagopolicyreview.org/2015/10/26/if-you-build-it-they-wont-come-why-eliminating-food-deserts-wont-close-the-nutrition-gap/
http://cityobservatory.org/food-deserts/
http://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-12-117 (supermarkets and BMI, no link)
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/access-to-real-food-as-privilege/379482/
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1899558 (Trends in Dietary Quality in the US 1999-2010)
Also: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/12/who-looks-at-menu-labels/383320/ (I just thought this was interesting.)1 -
Oh good. I knew I'd seen an article that debunked the theory that lower income people buy less nutritious food due to lack of education. Here it is: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/rich-kids-healthier-foods/431646/
"What they found was striking: Those with the most education and those with the least education had extremely similar understandings of how healthy (or unhealthy) sugar, fiber, and saturated fat were. But the big difference between these two groups was that more-educated people liked the taste of more-nutritious foods—foods lower in sugar, lower in saturated fat, and higher in fiber—than less-educated people.
This pattern is hard to accept at first, because it goes against the way a lot of people think about nutrition: The reason that more-educated people have healthier diets may not be because they have more of an appreciation for the importance of a good diet, but because to an extent they’re following their palates. This explanation undoes a basic assumption about healthy eating—that for everyone, a better diet is a matter of overcoming the temptation of salty, sweet, and fatty foods.
Instead, better-educated people might be being somewhat indulgent and pleasure-seeking when they buy food. They just happen to have a preference for different sorts of foods—foods they might have been exposed to when they were growing up."
On the other hand, I do have something of a theory, that goes along with the piece on calories I linked in my prior post. I think that it's possible that less educated consumers may have more of an all or nothing assumption -- they have to stop eating EVERYTHING they like, that it's not calories but avoiding all bad foods, they may understand they shouldn't overdo sugar, sat fat, etc., but further think that they can't eat any of it, so good nutrition feels too hard and too extreme.
But obviously more research is needed, and you certainly find those attitudes among the better educated too.5 -
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.4
-
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.
6 -
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.
I'm not disputing that physiologically obesity comes from an excess consumption of calories. My point is about socio-economic and psychological barriers. Those cannot be ignored when we talk about tackling obesity in the wider context.17 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
This isn't my area of expertise, as I don't know what meat tastes like, but is this stuff that can be used to make meals that children going through a fussy phase will eat? Don't say "they'll eat when they're hungry" because some will, some won't.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »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!!
None of which has anything to do with obesity, assuming that one understands and applies basic math to their energy needs. You know what happened when I was eating keto, and dropping 2-3 lbs. per week? My grocery bill went through the floor, because chicken thighs, organ meat and 73/27 ground beef are insanely cheap.
Organ meat, no (well, depends on the child, but usually not). Chicken thighs and fattier ground beef? Sure. With meat often the more expensive cuts are ones that adults will care about, not kids.0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »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.
This plus the Orwell bit plus just everything that comes with constantly worrying about being able to pay bills and take care of kids and not missing work and perhaps working two part time jobs without health care from either, etc., I think are more the point.9 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions