4 ms·
That analysis is ridiculous. They begin by explaining that "food insecurity" means periodic reduction in quality and variety of food, then several paragraphs la
by stellar678 16y ago
That analysis is ridiculous. They begin by explaining that "food insecurity" means periodic reduction in quality and variety of food, then several paragraphs later they're accusing "food insecure" people of going hungry in one part of the month because they gorged in another part of the month.
The reduction in quality and variety is the key to the bad health outcomes of diet anyway. When a daily Big Mac is cheaper and more readily available than a variety of healthy and well-prepared foods, health problems ensue.
One of the greatest ideas in the OPs article was the deal the government made with farmers: we give you affordable access to prime real estate in the city, but in exchange you regularly take your better-quality food into poor neighborhoods that otherwise lack access. Obviously it takes more than just showing up with good food to get people to eat it, but it's a start.
- yummyfajitas 16y agoThey begin by explaining that "food insecurity" means periodic reduction in quality and variety of food, then several paragraphs later they're accusing "food insecure" people of going hungry in one part of the month because they gorged in another part of the month. Unless you believe fat people are perpetual motion machines, this is obviously a true statement. Regarding healthier food, anyone with access to a Big Mac also has access to a "Premium Southwest Salad", or a number of other fairly healthy options. If they choose to eat so many big macs that they get fat, and ignore the "Premium Caesar Salad", that's the very definition of gluttony. http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food.html http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food.html
- stellar678 16y agoI guess I didn't explain clearly: In paragraph two, the article explains that the USDA defines "low food security" as a episodic reduction in the _variety_, not the quantity of food. 5 paragraphs later, the article says these same people are going hungry during parts of the month. Which one is true? They can't both be. As for the Premium Southwest Salad - well, meeting your daily calorie requirement with that dish versus the Big Mac costs just over twice as much. ( http://www.smartmoney.com/Spending/Budgeting/Fast-Food-Fixes-What-You-Really-Pay-For/?page=2 http://www.smartmoney.com/Spending/Budgeting/Fast-Food-Fixes... - Big Mac is on slide 8 )
- yummyfajitas 16y agoI think you are conflating "low food security" and "very low food security" (the article probably should have been more clear on this point). http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/labels.htm http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/labels.htm As for "meeting your daily calorie requirements", we are discussing people who are already exceeding them. Such people can either a) consume less and save money or b) consume the same dollar quantity of food, but substitute low calorie items for high calorie items. I.e., a person getting 2500 cals/day who needs 2000 can either go from 5 to 4 big macs + more money, or go from 5 big macs to 4 big macs + 1 salad.
- stellar678 16y agoAlright, fair enough. I think the article also conflated the two in service of its hyper-focus on individual responsibility to the exclusion of factors like food accessibility. But it does suggest policies to help people make better-informed choices about their food consumption instead of simply throwing more aid money at them. That sounds reasonable. Would you agree with the premise that the government has had huge impacts on the quality and variety of food available (I'm talking subsidies of commodity crops here), and therefore shares some of the blame for the fact that the American version of "hungry" is "overweight and under-nourished"?