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.

Interesting article about processed food and social status /poverty

Replies

  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,754 Member
    Thank you for sharing.
  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,754 Member
    JeromeBarry1 wrote: »
    I read the whole thing. Packerjohn doesn't seem to have done so.

    Yes. It was narrow minded.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited April 2018
    JeromeBarry1 wrote: »
    I read the whole thing. Packerjohn doesn't seem to have done so.

    Packerjohn did read the whole article. I prefer to get my nutrition information from people actually trained and practicing science as opposed to a glorified fry cook.

    Dude is just a Gary Taubes for the other side, randomly picks and chooses what he personally likes or doesn't like.
  • comptonelizabeth
    comptonelizabeth Posts: 1,701 Member
    edited April 2018
    Ok, the way I interpreted this blog was not as a scholarly, evidence based article and I don't think it pretends to be one. What I found interesting was the take on 'processed food' and the extent to which it does or doesn't impact on our health. It's more of a sociological paper rather than a piece of research.
    Surely people other than those with a scientific background can have opinions and share them?
  • concordancia
    concordancia Posts: 5,320 Member
    comptonelizabeth wrote: »
    Ok, the way I interpreted this blog was not as a scholarly, evidence based article and I don't think it pretends to be one. What I found interesting was the take on 'processed food' and the extent to which it does or doesn't impact on our health. It's more of a sociological paper rather than a piece of research.
    Surely people other than those with a scientific background can have opinions and share them?

    Sociology involves very scientific research methods, this sounds more like a personal opinion article.
  • comptonelizabeth
    comptonelizabeth Posts: 1,701 Member
    concordancia wrote: »
    comptonelizabeth wrote: »
    Ok, the way I interpreted this blog was not as a scholarly, evidence based article and I don't think it pretends to be one. What I found interesting was the take on 'processed food' and the extent to which it does or doesn't impact on our health. It's more of a sociological paper rather than a piece of research.
    Surely people other than those with a scientific background can have opinions and share them?

    Sociology involves very scientific research methods, this sounds more like a personal opinion article.

    True re sociology (it's what I trained in) but research always starts with a hypothesis - it's rarely completely devoid of opinion.
    Anyway I just found it to be an interesting slant on the subject
  • comptonelizabeth
    comptonelizabeth Posts: 1,701 Member
    edited April 2018
    sarahbums wrote: »
    "In using the NOVA classification to shame people, we ignore the real problems of our broken and unfair society.

    If you want to take away the foods that people currently eat, or tax them until they are out of reach, perhaps it would make sense to give them a better life first. To hand them the time, money and resources to improve their existence. To pay them a wage that would allow them to buy a table for their family to eat around, and afford to have the occasional culinary experiment fail. To provide enough financial security so they that can leave the oven on for a couple of hours if they want to slow cook a cheap cut of meat. And most of all, to let them be free from the constant, grinding stress of not having enough money to keep their children from hunger.

    If not, your shame and vitriol over their food choices is just that. You are adding to the stress of already difficult lives. It may feel as if you are helping, but in reality you are making things far worse. "

    i've only skimmed it so far, but this last paragraph seems very well said imo. I earned my Bachelor's degree in sociology with a concentration on the sociology of health and illness so this has always been an interesting topic for me.

    I definitely think the link between poverty and obesity is much, much more complicated than many people realize, and we shouldn't waste time shaming those in poverty for choosing cheap, convenient (and yes, highly processed) foods when that's really all that's readily available to them. Instead of blaming each individual for their circumstances, we need to focus on broader societal changes- like improving health education/access, raising the minimum wage, and addressing issues like food deserts in rural/low income areas.

    Yes, very much this! I read it as almost a political statement and a recognition that there are many, many factors involved in health.
  • Hamsibian
    Hamsibian Posts: 1,388 Member
    sarahbums wrote: »
    "In using the NOVA classification to shame people, we ignore the real problems of our broken and unfair society.

    If you want to take away the foods that people currently eat, or tax them until they are out of reach, perhaps it would make sense to give them a better life first. To hand them the time, money and resources to improve their existence. To pay them a wage that would allow them to buy a table for their family to eat around, and afford to have the occasional culinary experiment fail. To provide enough financial security so they that can leave the oven on for a couple of hours if they want to slow cook a cheap cut of meat. And most of all, to let them be free from the constant, grinding stress of not having enough money to keep their children from hunger.

    If not, your shame and vitriol over their food choices is just that. You are adding to the stress of already difficult lives. It may feel as if you are helping, but in reality you are making things far worse. "

    i've only skimmed it so far, but this last paragraph seems very well said imo. I earned my Bachelor's degree in sociology with a concentration on the sociology of health and illness so this has always been an interesting topic for me.

    I definitely think the link between poverty and obesity is much, much more complicated than many people realize, and we shouldn't waste time shaming those in poverty for choosing cheap, convenient (and yes, highly processed) foods when that's really all that's readily available to them. Instead of blaming each individual for their circumstances, we need to focus on broader societal changes- like improving health education/access, raising the minimum wage, and addressing issues like food deserts in rural/low income areas.

    Yes! With most of my old clients (case worker and youth counselor), the struggle to maintain a healthy lifestyle was real. Disabled, Working at least 2 jobs, raising young kids, living in unsafe neighborhoods, living paycheck to paycheck, food deserts are common obstacles. It seemed impossible to eat on a regular basis let alone have healthy options.

    Don't get me started on food shelves.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    comptonelizabeth wrote: »
    Ok, the way I interpreted this blog was not as a scholarly, evidence based article and I don't think it pretends to be one. What I found interesting was the take on 'processed food' and the extent to which it does or doesn't impact on our health. It's more of a sociological paper rather than a piece of research.
    Surely people other than those with a scientific background can have opinions and share them?

    Of course they can. It's also said opinions are like ***holes, everybody has one. Personally prefer to read information regarding nutrition authored by someone with some training in the science. Others are obviously free to do what they want.

Categories