The word "food" occurs only 2 times in the body of the executive summary. So I think it's a stretch to use "can't afford" as the main title of the article. The

The word "food" occurs only 2 times in the body of the executive summary. So I think it's a stretch to use "can't afford" as the main title of the article. The full report doesn't have much to support it, it never shows us what food cost, how they're unable to afford it. At best it talks about "availability" of healthy food as if the supermarkets doesn't sell it. The report never considers that the unhealthy food might be a taste preference just like smoking even though everybody knows it's very unhealthy and very expensive. Giving up smoking isn't expensive, it's not money that stops people from quitting smoking. Low-income groups are more likely to consume fat spreads, non-diet soft drinks, meat dishes, pizzas, processed meats, whole milk and table sugar than the better-off (pg 133) My personal observation from observing shoppers in a number of supermarkets: poor people buys quite a lot more soft drinks than the well educated. The health of the poor is not improved much by giving them (free) fresh produce when they drink a couple of liters of non-diet Coca Cola every day. They end up obese or with diabetes which are the mother of all ills. An ounce of broccoli can't cure 2L of Coca Cola. I think the single most effective policy would be to ban sugar in drinks and severely restrict its use in fast food (and bread). The fat-free policies must be reverted to avoid foods using sugar as replacement for fat.