LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksWe've already discussed this story earlier in the discussion imokyrok, please read the thread.Originally Posted by imokyrok
We've already discussed this story earlier in the discussion imokyrok, please read the thread.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
: :
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Have you a better suggestion as to the causes of obesity?
Perhaps you might consider my second sentence before you reply. You are very selective in what parts of people's post you like to read.
About a third of these struggling households had what the researchers called “very low food security,” meaning lack of money forced members to skip meals, cut portions or otherwise forgo food at some point in the year.
Isn't this a good thing for many if not most Americans?
If there is demand for better food and shopping options on the south side, then theoretically the market would respond, and merchants would begin selling goods in these areas.
But the market isn't perfect.
First, there are huge information problems. Part of the reason why we have FINALLY seen major merchants opening up shop on the south side is because large companies started asking customers for their zip codes when they made a purchase. Using this data (which was originally supposed to be for marketing), they realized that there was a huge untapped market in pockets of the city that they had previously ignored.
Second, there are legitimate concerns about risk in high poverty inner-city neighborhoods with high levels of crime. However, this is not the whole story; the University of Chicago is in a relatively affluent neighborhood of the south side, and commercial development is still relatively low.
Third, merchants in the US are just starting to figure out that there are lots of people who live in cities but who don't have cars - yet still need to buy clothes and food. Retailers like Target are finally developing multi-level urban stores for high-density areas that are close to public transportation. Ultimately, the companies that can sell relatively cheap healthy food are large chain supermarkets. However, these companies are not necessarily the most innovative, and are quite risk-averse.
Finally (and I am sorry this is such a long post!), I think food subsidies in the US play a huge part in how distorted the food markets are. We overproduce grain and corn to provide materials for cheap sweeteners and cheap feed for beef and hogs. The government also uses the surplus from the arrangement for its student lunch programs, meaning that poor children who qualify for federal breakfast and lunch programs are getting high-calorie, overly sweetened and processed food. If the government withdrew some of all of these subsidies, I think it would have a positive effect on health and hunger in two ways. First, it would certainly help the obesity epidemic; currently corn syrup is in EVERYTHING, and meat over-consumption is astronomical. Second, if the government were to keep subsidies but shift them towards fresh food and produce production, then poor children would have access to higher quality food through the meals program, and it would be easier for poor families (or for that matter all families) to afford higher quality food. This could also have an impact on school performance, because kids who are hopped up on Kool-Aid and cookies aren't doing much in class besides driving their teachers crazy.
........
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
: :
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Basically, the causes of obesity are obvious.
If you consume more calories than you burn off, then you get fat.
Whether you obtain these calories from large or small portions of food is immaterial.
Can any country which has substantial numbers of citizens who regularly experience hunger, healthcare deprivation and homelessness consider itself successful?Hunger and poverty may increase the risk of obesity.
The causes of obesity are complex; and problems associated with being overweight and obese affect all Americans, regardless of income or race. Emerging research suggests, however, that hunger, poverty and obesity may be intricately linked. Recent work from Cornell University and the University of California at Davis suggest that obesity among poor women may be linked to their habit of periodically going without food so that their children can eat.
Others factors also may contribute to the problem. Low income people may consume greater amounts of less expensive, high-calorie and high-fat foods to guard against hunger, or may be unable to afford sufficient amounts of more nutritious food. Cash-strapped families may increasingly rely on fast food chains, which promote "value" meals, such as oversized burgers, extra-large servings of fries and buckets of soda. Healthier foods – such as meat, fish, fresh fruits, vegetables and whole grains – often are more expensive than alternative junk food.
Poor neighborhoods often lack large grocery stores that typically offer the lowest prices and greatest range of brands, package sizes and quality choices.
They also often do not have access to farmers’ markets that sell locally grown fresh fruits and vegetables. Transportation to these large grocery stores and farmers’ markets also may be unavailable or expensive. Consequently, many families in low-income neighborhoods depend on their corner convenience stores, which often are stocked with high-cost, processed, pre-packaged foods. Exacerbating this problem, low-income families, especially those living in urban areas, often do not have safe areas for physical activity. Burning calories by exercising is half of the weight control solution.
"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense." - Chapman Cohen.
the amrecans deserve every thing they get shower of murderin basterds killin women an children in afganistan and iraq if the spent less money on there army theyd be able to feed themselfs!!!!!
The point you ignore is that unhealthy food has far more calories in it, owing to artificial sweeteners and other products added to it in order to beef it up. Thus, where an unhealthy diet is the only one you have access to, or indeed the one you have most access to, it is more likely that you will, as a consequence, have obesity issues.
This isn't rocket science. That is the whole issue of food poverty - it isn't that people are not necessarily eating, it is that people are forced, both financially and because of social and educational norms, to eat an unhealthy diet. Unhealthy diets lead both to obesity and also poorer development in kids, which compounds the issues for them into later life.
In the USA, as was alluded to above, a single dollar can buy 1,200 calories of potato chips, but only 170 calories of fresh fruit. This is owing to subsidies within the American economy for various producers.
Last edited by johnfás-inabstentia; 25th November 2009 at 03:00 PM.
Reply With Quote