The fall of capitalism: Quarter of US children went hungry last year

[eyeswideopen]

Poor people are obviously more likely to be stupid - why do you think they are poor in the first place?

They then eat food that is bad for you, doesn't provide the body or the brain with the vitamins it requires so they stay stupid, and due to genetics their children are likely to be a bit thick too.

That is life - many are just too lazy to cook a proper meal too.

One way people get poor is when a large employer closes down. Maybe 1,000 people find themselves unemployed without warning and are all competing for a handful of jobs. If they own the house, no one wants to buy it because there is no employment and moving is difficult. They take lower paid work when they can get it and are on the slide.

Ill health is another way people end up poor, particularly in the US.

Another way might be having had your ancestors abducted and sold in to slavery.

Use your imagination - there are plenty more possibilities for finding yourself on the bread line.

[johnfás-inabstentia]

And if cheap and nutritious food isn't available in Detroit, that would be through lack of demand - the American poor prefer not to eat healthy food.

What a ridiculous statement.

The whole idea of solving food poverty is about how to both i) provide better food at cheaper prices and ii) provide education so people want it and know how to prepare it etc.

[Ifor Bach]

What a ridiculous statement.

Why is that a ridiculous statement?

[johnfás-inabstentia]

Why is that a ridiculous statement?

Well if your singular argument is, poor people don't want good food, therefore they have no access to such food - then there isn't much point in engaging in a debate on food poverty is there? Because under such a hypothesis, the situation is simply zero-sum - if poor people want better food they will get it, but they don't, so they won't and thus you move on.

If one recognises food poverty as something which is not desirable for society it is clear that remedial action has to be taken beyond the simple supply and demand paradigm.

[Ifor Bach]

I would imagine that McDonald's provides food for the poorer sections of society, and vegetarian restaurants for the richer. (As a general rule).

If poorer people wanted to eat health food rather than chips, hot-dogs and burgers, then for sure someone would open a business to meet this demand.

[YoungLiberal]

If poorer people wanted to eat health food rather than chips, hot-dogs and burgers, then for sure someone would open a business to meet this demand.

If one recognises food poverty as something which is not desirable for society it is clear that remedial action has to be taken beyond the simple supply and demand paradigm.

Did you not understand what he was saying, or did you just choose to ignore it?

[eyeswideopen]

There's a cracking blog here, with links that nail a lot of these issues.

Junkfood Science: Knock knock: Diet police

It relates to UK experience, which is different to the US because they still have the remains of the Welfare State, which provides a safety net of sorts.

It seems to make no difference whether you prefer pasta al dente to a chip sandwich, or guacamole to mushy peas. One of the biggest studies into eating habits of the poorest families in the UK has gone against conventional wisdom by finding their nutritional intake is similar to the rest of the country. Food experts have argued for years that the poorest families suffer from "food poverty", meaning they consume less nourishing food than the better-off and are at greater risk of long-term health problems.


But the [$11.7 million] study by Britain's Food Standards Agency (FSA), which looked at the eating habits of 3500 people, found the nutritional value of the food eaten by the poorest 15 per cent in society was little different from the average.


The study also found the rate of obesity, which has often been linked to poverty, was at a similar level among the poor as it is in the general population... the research found no direct links between a poor diet and income, nor access to shops, nor cooking skills. "The gap between the diets of people on low incomes and those of the rest of the population is not as big as some feared,"...

It seems that lower income groups cook more, not less, than the better off, who rely more on expensive processed foods.

The poorest families in the population did differ from the general population in a notable way: they suffered more food insecurity and difficulties finding enough to eat:


Just under two-fifths (39%) of the low income population reported that, in the last year, they had been worried that their food would run out before they got money for more, while a similar proportion (36%) indicated that they could not afford to eat balanced meals. Overall, 22% reported reducing or skipping meals, and 5% reported not eating for a whole day, because they did not have enough money to buy food.


Parents’ love for their children was also evidenced in this report, as parents everywhere sacrifice their diets to ensure their children are fed.

So, if we are most concerned about helping low-income families eat nutritionally, they need enough food. And the report found that the extra nutrients to address deficiencies in daily recommended intakes are best supplied by meat, fats and dairy products. Fruit and vegetable vouchers aren’t the best ways to help meet their most pressing nutritional needs for health. But these ‘healthy eating’ initiatives aren’t really about health, are they?

The idea that people on low incomes feed their children badly, are often obese, are ignorant of what they should eat, won't cook and avoid fruit and vegetables, is just a myth.

[Ifor Bach]

Did you not understand what he was saying, or did you just choose to ignore it?

I don't really understand the point, no.

If poor people wanted to eat 'good' food, then market mechanisms would provide them with such food.

And if they don't, then why blame 'capitalism', which is simply providing people with what they want.

[Ifor Bach]

The idea that people on low incomes feed their children badly, are often obese, are ignorant of what they should eat, won't cook and avoid fruit and vegetables, is just a myth.

It's pretty hard to see why.

[eyeswideopen]

I don't really understand the point, no.

If poor people wanted to eat 'good' food, then market mechanisms would provide them with such food.

And if they don't, then why blame 'capitalism', which is simply providing people with what they want.

The market mechanism requires that they have enough money to pay for it. Capitalism simply is not providing them with what they want.