6 ms·

I'm talking about Americans working 2 or 3 jobs who don't have the time, and honestly don't have the money either (yes, such poverty does exist in the US, perha

I'm talking about Americans working 2 or 3 jobs who don't have the time, and honestly don't have the money either (yes, such poverty does exist in the US, perhaps you are just lucky enough to have not encountered it...) needed to cook meals with sufficient nutrient value for their (often quite large...) family. The result of this is that malnutrition is a very real problem among children of poor families. The worst part about this is the problem is infectious. Children that grow up without proper nutrition will be intellectually and physically stunted, dramatically increasing the chances that when they eventually have a family their children will end up the same way. Statements like "local poor people eat meat regularly." are just flat out ignorant. I've known families that save up for bulk rice. "Seaweed, legumes or whatever" is so unrealistic it is absurd. People with time and money have those luxuries.

thegoatrope 15y ago
I go to a largely agricultural school, and that's actually one of the programs they have. Legumes are both nutritious and fairly easy to grow, so are great for small farming communities where protein deficiency is rampant. Animals are used for their products like eggs and milk to sell at market and not used for protein. I'm not really poor, but legumes are much cheaper than meat and have extended my own budget, so I think it can apply for families in America as well. I mostly agree with what you said, with the addendum that poor Americans do have the tendency to buy cheap, bulk process foods for the same reason they wouldn't be able to afford "Seaweed, legumes or whatever". I'm not saying that families who need to save money for rice do this, but families with a little more money seem to always have alot of processed food.
patio11 15y ago
Statements like "local poor people eat meat regularly." are just flat out ignorant. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1990/09/how-poor-are-americas-poor http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1990/09/how-poor-ar... Search for "Food Consumption of Poor Children", read the following two paragraphs. USDA data shows poor people eat a) more protein than non-poor people (yes, really), b) more meat than average citizens of many rich nations (like Japan or the UK), and c) vastly more meat than average citizens of Mexico/Brazil/etc.
- ambler0 15y ago
  You do realize that the "research" you cite comes from an ultra-rightwing think tank, right? They have a longstanding agenda of trying to make people believe that poverty doesn't exist in America.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Uh huh. http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/NHANES-NSLP.pdf http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/NHANES... Data from the National School Lunch Program suggests the same thing. Protein deficiency is not statistically a challenge faced by Americans living below the poverty line. You can disagree with Heritage's politics (I certainly do), but it's naive to suggest that they're simply fabricating their underlying data.
    - ambler0 15y ago
      I didn't suggest an outright fabrication. No need to restate here all of the cliches about how statistics can be manipulated. My only suggestion was that the Heritage Foundation are an absolutely worthless source. If you've provided a better one, that's great. Even if we grant that protein deficiency itself is not a huge problem for America's poor, it nevertheless remains that the protein (and food generally) available to our poor is of the lowest quality.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        Since Heritage here provided data that ultimately appears to be correct, your assertion that it's a "worthless" source isn't borne out, and so I'm less inclined to pursue a tangent about protein "quality" with you. That's too bad, because I have a lot of thoughts about protein quality, and I think you'd probably agree with them. Unfortunately, you're in a place where you seem more inclined to troll threads with politics, so, maybe some other time.
        ambler0 15y ago
tptacek 15y ago
You know that a "legume" is a "bean", right?

thegoatrope 15y ago

I go to a largely agricultural school, and that's actually one of the programs they have. Legumes are both nutritious and fairly easy to grow, so are great for small farming communities where protein deficiency is rampant. Animals are used for their products like eggs and milk to sell at market and not used for protein. I'm not really poor, but legumes are much cheaper than meat and have extended my own budget, so I think it can apply for families in America as well. I mostly agree with what you said, with the addendum that poor Americans do have the tendency to buy cheap, bulk process foods for the same reason they wouldn't be able to afford "Seaweed, legumes or whatever". I'm not saying that families who need to save money for rice do this, but families with a little more money seem to always have alot of processed food.

patio11 15y ago

Statements like "local poor people eat meat regularly." are just flat out ignorant. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1990/09/how-poor-are-americas-poor http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1990/09/how-poor-ar... Search for "Food Consumption of Poor Children", read the following two paragraphs. USDA data shows poor people eat a) more protein than non-poor people (yes, really), b) more meat than average citizens of many rich nations (like Japan or the UK), and c) vastly more meat than average citizens of Mexico/Brazil/etc.

ambler0 15y ago
You do realize that the "research" you cite comes from an ultra-rightwing think tank, right? They have a longstanding agenda of trying to make people believe that poverty doesn't exist in America.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Uh huh. http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/NHANES-NSLP.pdf http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/NHANES... Data from the National School Lunch Program suggests the same thing. Protein deficiency is not statistically a challenge faced by Americans living below the poverty line. You can disagree with Heritage's politics (I certainly do), but it's naive to suggest that they're simply fabricating their underlying data.
  - ambler0 15y ago
    I didn't suggest an outright fabrication. No need to restate here all of the cliches about how statistics can be manipulated. My only suggestion was that the Heritage Foundation are an absolutely worthless source. If you've provided a better one, that's great. Even if we grant that protein deficiency itself is not a huge problem for America's poor, it nevertheless remains that the protein (and food generally) available to our poor is of the lowest quality.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      Since Heritage here provided data that ultimately appears to be correct, your assertion that it's a "worthless" source isn't borne out, and so I'm less inclined to pursue a tangent about protein "quality" with you. That's too bad, because I have a lot of thoughts about protein quality, and I think you'd probably agree with them. Unfortunately, you're in a place where you seem more inclined to troll threads with politics, so, maybe some other time.
      - ambler0 15y ago

tptacek 15y ago

You know that a "legume" is a "bean", right?