4 ms·

Lower income gets kids hooked on sugar.

by barrenko 3y ago

gonzalj3 3y ago
on* sugar
- barrenko 3y ago
  ^ thanks
slothtrop 3y ago
If that were true you'd expect this replicated in everywhere.
- stuff4ben 3y ago
  It is in the US. Ever hear of food deserts?
  - slothtrop 3y ago
    The US isn't "everywhere".
    - stuff4ben 3y ago
      The original article was about lower-income "countries". I pointing out it's also in the US. So yeah, pretty much everywhere. Unless you have data to prove otherwise, you're wrong.
      - slothtrop 3y ago
        The original article was about how Nestle uses more sugar in products sold to certain poor countries, not about consumer trends in those countries. According to this - https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/sugar-consumption-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/sugar-con... , countries trending lowest per-capita consumption of sugar tend to be the poorest. Exceptions are in latin America. Higher inequality does not predict more sugar consumption either.
- Tade0 3y ago
  It is. Low household income correlates with obesity.
  - slothtrop 3y ago
    In the US.
olliej 3y ago
Yeah, there’s a real failure to understand that sugar and junk food while unhealthy in the long term remains the most cost effective source of calories. Having little money doesn’t mean your kids don’t magically need fewer calories (and not providing those calories is itself a crime), so if you have an affordable source of calories that’s what you go for, even if those calories come with a side helping of excess calories (stopping hunger requires volume of food so high calorie/volume ratio results in over eating), and often huge amounts of fat as well. I grew up dirt poor in the early 80s in NZ, and the cheapest food then was oatmeal and dried spaghetti, but by the 90s the time people were having to work and the amount being paid for that work and rent, and the super steep drop in price of McDonald’s etc (it went from being an expensive birthday treat when I was a kid to being cheaper than fish&chips) means that the diet switch was likely unavoidable. Luckily for me by that point my parents had been able to start working, so fridge and weekly shopping was an option (bread wouldn’t go stale, we could keep meat and vegetables in a freezer), but I can’t imagine having the same outcome if my families life was shifted ten years later (much higher student loans, even less money while they were students, most non junk food being more expensive while junk food was cheaper). I recognize 80s NZ poverty is not US poverty, but even in NZ I can’t imagine how much harder life would be for a similarly (economically) placed family is today vs for me, everything seems tailored to create obesity and struggles.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > Yeah, there’s a real failure to understand that sugar and junk ... remains the most cost effective source of calories. This is usually the point where someone interjects some examples of cheap foods that poor people ought to just buy - because everyone, everywhere has trivial access to their middle class shopping experience. But even past that: Being poor also means subject to ceaseless Denial of Resources Attacks. Resources here meaning funds, attention, energy, ability, hope, will and anything one needs to raise one's station. Hacking a meal plan struggles to rise to the top of a priority stack when one has dozens of problems in a critical state. And because of poverty, it requires 10x the steps to solve those issues than non-poor people face. source: decade of hunger-level poverty with kids
  - 3y ago

Lower income gets kids hooked on sugar.

gonzalj3 3y ago

on* sugar

barrenko 3y ago
^ thanks

slothtrop 3y ago

If that were true you'd expect this replicated in everywhere.

stuff4ben 3y ago
It is in the US. Ever hear of food deserts?
- slothtrop 3y ago
  The US isn't "everywhere".
  - stuff4ben 3y ago
    The original article was about lower-income "countries". I pointing out it's also in the US. So yeah, pretty much everywhere. Unless you have data to prove otherwise, you're wrong.
    - slothtrop 3y ago
      The original article was about how Nestle uses more sugar in products sold to certain poor countries, not about consumer trends in those countries. According to this - https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/sugar-consumption-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/sugar-con... , countries trending lowest per-capita consumption of sugar tend to be the poorest. Exceptions are in latin America. Higher inequality does not predict more sugar consumption either.
Tade0 3y ago
It is. Low household income correlates with obesity.
- slothtrop 3y ago
  In the US.

olliej 3y ago

Yeah, there’s a real failure to understand that sugar and junk food while unhealthy in the long term remains the most cost effective source of calories. Having little money doesn’t mean your kids don’t magically need fewer calories (and not providing those calories is itself a crime), so if you have an affordable source of calories that’s what you go for, even if those calories come with a side helping of excess calories (stopping hunger requires volume of food so high calorie/volume ratio results in over eating), and often huge amounts of fat as well. I grew up dirt poor in the early 80s in NZ, and the cheapest food then was oatmeal and dried spaghetti, but by the 90s the time people were having to work and the amount being paid for that work and rent, and the super steep drop in price of McDonald’s etc (it went from being an expensive birthday treat when I was a kid to being cheaper than fish&chips) means that the diet switch was likely unavoidable. Luckily for me by that point my parents had been able to start working, so fridge and weekly shopping was an option (bread wouldn’t go stale, we could keep meat and vegetables in a freezer), but I can’t imagine having the same outcome if my families life was shifted ten years later (much higher student loans, even less money while they were students, most non junk food being more expensive while junk food was cheaper). I recognize 80s NZ poverty is not US poverty, but even in NZ I can’t imagine how much harder life would be for a similarly (economically) placed family is today vs for me, everything seems tailored to create obesity and struggles.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> Yeah, there’s a real failure to understand that sugar and junk ... remains the most cost effective source of calories. This is usually the point where someone interjects some examples of cheap foods that poor people ought to just buy - because everyone, everywhere has trivial access to their middle class shopping experience. But even past that: Being poor also means subject to ceaseless Denial of Resources Attacks. Resources here meaning funds, attention, energy, ability, hope, will and anything one needs to raise one's station. Hacking a meal plan struggles to rise to the top of a priority stack when one has dozens of problems in a critical state. And because of poverty, it requires 10x the steps to solve those issues than non-poor people face. source: decade of hunger-level poverty with kids
- 3y ago