

One-sixth of Americans don’t have enough food to eat - zvanness
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/hunger/

======
fossuser
> It can be tempting to ask families receiving food assistance, If you’re
> really hungry, then how can you be—as many of them are—overweight? The
> answer is “this paradox that hunger and obesity are two sides of the same
> coin,” says Melissa Boteach, vice president of the Poverty and Prosperity
> Program of the Center for American Progress, “people making trade-offs
> between food that’s filling but not nutritious and may actually contribute
> to obesity.” For many of the hungry in America, the extra pounds that result
> from a poor diet are collateral damage—an unintended side effect of hunger
> itself.

This doesn't make sense to me. Doesn't calorie intake directly correlate with
gaining weight?

From earlier in the article:

> Chances are good that if you picture what hunger looks like, you don’t
> summon an image of someone like Christina Dreier: white, married, clothed,
> and housed, even a bit overweight. The image of hunger in America today
> differs markedly from Depression-era images of the gaunt-faced unemployed
> scavenging for food on urban streets. “This is not your grandmother’s hunger

Is this not because the people in the depression era were actually starving?
I'm not intending to downplay the issues here, but I find it hard to follow
the disconnect of people being overweight not having enough food to eat.

~~~
seivan
YMMV

No. Have you ever noticed the "pot-bellies" of undernourished kids from all
those poverty photos from Africa?

That's because they get the cheapest crap we can send/buy them - Rice.

It's not as simple as general thermodynamics. Kcal in and out is just half the
equation.

We eat too much sugar today. Everything has so much damn sugar in it. All
sorts of different varieties of carbs that eventually just become blood sugar
and activating your insulin causing you to store it all as fat.

~~~
fossuser
I think the distended stomachs are caused by actual starvation:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwashiorkor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwashiorkor)

Though it's possible you're referencing something else.

------
apsec112
"In 2006 the U.S. government replaced “hunger” with the term “food insecure”
to describe any household where, sometime during the previous year, people
didn’t have enough food to eat. By whatever name, the number of people going
hungry has grown dramatically in the U.S., increasing to 48 million by 2012...
"

There are lots of people in the US in terrible situations, and we should try
to help them, but that does not give reporters a license to make up facts.
"Food insecurity" _does not mean_ that people are going hungry. It means
people who are "at risk of" going hungry, a much broader group. From the Texas
Food Bank Network ([http://tfbn.org/food-insecurity/](http://tfbn.org/food-
insecurity/)):

"What does “food insecure” NOT mean?

Food insecurity is not “the government’s definition of hunger.” It is a
broader term that captures outright hunger and the coping mechanisms that
households use to avoid hunger.

Food insecurity is a household situation, not an individual situation. While
food insecurity affects everyone in a household, it may affect them
differently. Therefore it is not correct to state that specific individuals in
a food insecure household (such as children) definitely experience outright
hunger or specific coping mechanisms. Rather than describing these individuals
as being “food insecure”, they should be referred to as “living in a food
insecure home.”

Food insecurity is a year-long measure. Therefore, it is not correct to assert
that every food insecure household is experiencing food insecurity “right
now,” will experience hunger “tonight” or “does not know where their next meal
is coming from.” Research shows that food insecurity tends to be episodic and
often cyclical.

Food insecurity does not mean that a household lacks access to grocery stores,
lives in a “food desert,” or does not have time to shop/cook. It only refers
to lack of food access based on financial and other material resources."

A much better, but less pageview-generating, term for the problem a large
number of Americans face is "malnutrition". If you are malnourished, you may
not be going hungry (and may actually be overweight), but still don't get the
nutrients you need to be healthy.

------
frio
As a visiting New Zealander, the one thing I've noticed about the American
price structure is that food is reasonably expensive, while superfluous goods
aren't. A decent-ish pair of shoes is $50USD; a board game off Amazon $35,
(which I'll admit to blitzing while visiting!). Both would probably set you
back a minimum of $120NZD back home. Comparatively, our food is cheaper, and
generally healthier (Whole Foods feels the closest to a New Zealand
supermarket; lots of fresh fruit, vegetables, bulk bins).

The other surprising thing is that debit cards are new-ish here; credit cards
are prevalent. Couple the accompanying fees (?) with pricing structures that
are less declarative (food advertised sans tax; tipping expected), and it's
more difficult to budget. Further, having/using credit means it's always
tempting to dip further into it. In comparison, we've had EFTPOS (debit) for
decades, sales tax is included in the advertised price, and there isn't a
tipping culture.

NZ has its own problems with growing inequality which need addressing, and
this is anecdata at best, but I can see why avoiding temptation and sticking
to a good budget might be more troublesome.

~~~
bpodgursky
Where are you shopping? While the average american supermarket (Kroger,
Gerbes, Safeway, Wal-Mart) has a lot of unhealthy food available, there are
also a lot of fresh fruit and vegetables.

Whole foods is a REALLY bad example of the average cost of food in the US--
it's well known for being expensive and catering to the organic/locally
grown/whatever crowd. You're not going to get an accurate idea of US food
prices shopping there.

~~~
frio
Sure, I'm aware that costs are higher at Whole Foods :). Sorry, I shouldn't
have left that unqualified. I've been elsewhere too; they just had a selection
which reminded me the most of a supermarket at home (partly because this
particular one wasn't massively oversized like the Wal-Mart I visited --
everything here is _bigger_!).

I'm also staying in an area (Downtown in an nice city) where food _would_ be
more expensive anyway, which may be influencing my perception. So, again --
it's just an anecdote, but the area I'm in back home is generally regarded as
an expensive one too.

------
xherberta
Here's a visual approach to cost per calorie:
[http://www.mymoneyblog.com/what-does-200-calories-cost-
the-e...](http://www.mymoneyblog.com/what-does-200-calories-cost-the-
economics-of-obesity.html)

When I made my own cost-per-calorie calculations, I found that the much
maligned non-synthetic FATS are a wonderfully cheap source of calories.
They're nutritious, satisfying, and make veggies taste great.

There's a lot of bias against fat, and most Americans believe that eating fat
makes you fat, but what does the evidence say? Look to the research, and
you'll see that the opposite is true, provided you're staying away from
vegetable oils and trans-fats.

Here's a sample from my calculations, for comparison with the link above
(where foods were chosen to make the point that low-cost foods are bad for
you). I live where food is pretty cheap. The most economical picks are very
unpopular, I suppose because of the popular non-evidence-based, government-
touted slander of eating a high-fat diet. Yes, it's bad for rodents. I'll give
you that. But when you look at humans who are eating high-fat AND low carb,
the research looks pretty awesome. And we could use more of it.

All prices are per 200 calories. (Grass fed items and etc. included to show
the level of health and principle that can be achieved while keeping it
cheap):

Trader Joe's PEANUT BUTTER (non-hydrogenated, no sugar added) $.10

OLIVE OIL $.14

Roasted SUNFLOWER SEEDS, $.14,

MAYO (fancy, safflower oil with no canola or soy) $.22

DRY LENTILS $.24

BACON ENDS $.26

ALMOND MEAL $.38

CANNED COCONUT CREAM $.32

Grass fed BUTTER $.36

CREAM $.38

REFRIED BEANS(canned)$.40

SOUR CREAM $.44

SWEET POTATO $.50

WHOLE CHICKEN $.56

COTTAGE CHEESE $.60

EGGS (local) $.70

YOGURT (plain,full fat)$.88

GROUND BEEF grass fed $1.38

Apples $1.40

GREEN BEANS (frozen) $2.00

Chicken Breasts ($5/lb)$2.00

------
greyskull
I'm not denying that there are relevant problems that should be addressed, but
why are all these families having kids, multiple even, if they're not fit to
raise them? I'm not saying they deserve it, but is it really all that
surprising that one or two low-wage adults aren't able to provide for
themselves on top of growing children? I'm sure there are families with no
kids also facing difficulties, but damn, people!

Also, I'd like to see the breakdown of these families' budgets. Where is their
money going? If they're like most Americans, they're likely pissing money away
needlessly.

The cynic in me is showing again.

~~~
aianus
My politically incorrect opinion: the same factors that cause them to be poor
influence how many children they have, poor decision making and low impulse
control.

That and the fact that having children makes them poor by robbing them of the
time to improve themselves and earn a higher salary.

~~~
throwaway7548
And they are also likely to be happier than you are ;) Primarily because of
the same factors that you've mentioned.

~~~
qq66
If that's true, which is doubtful, then their problems should become a 2nd
priority, since our 1st priorities should be improving the happiness of the
least happy.

------
zkirill
_Of course it is possible to eat well cheaply in America, but it takes
resources and know-how that many low-income Americans don’t have._

I think that more food education, especially at a young age, could play a big
part in addressing this problem and I wish that the article expanded more on
this. I don't know if schools currently have any curriculum revolving around
cooking, nutrition and reducing food waste but it could go a long way to
prepare these children for rising food prices and the abundance of cheap, low-
quality food products.

Edit: grammar

------
tokenadult
I saw the chart of "more than half a mile from a supermarket," and I recalled
that for as long as I have lived in my current neighborhood (since mid-2001),
all my children have known how to walk along with me a mile out and a mile
back to shop for groceries and carry them home. I have been doing something
more or less like this most of my adult life. Sometimes I would walk for a
while before catching a bus home from my grocery shopping, or sometimes share
rides with friends who had cars and go on shopping trips together at
especially inexpensive discount grocery stores, but whether traveling farther
or nearer, I always preferred buying food in grocery stores and preparing it
at home to buying fast food. Always. My children have grown up into slim and
athletic adults, perhaps because for them eating is something they do after
engaging in exercise. Yeah, some places in the United States (and some of
those are featured in the article kindly submitted here) are a lot lousier
even than the Near North Side of Minneapolis for taking walks outside or for
finding any access at all to a grocery store, but for the most part the first
thing to change here is the trade-off of how far to travel by what means for
what kind of food. That will promote better health, even with very low
incomes.

------
drewcon
We spend less on food than ever before.

[http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1009/50-years-
of-...](http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1009/50-years-of-consumer-
spending.aspx)

We spend less on food than any other nation.

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/03/daily-c...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/03/daily-
chart-5)

It's debatable that food deserts are a thing.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/health/research/pairing-
of...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/health/research/pairing-of-food-
deserts-and-obesity-challenged-in-studies.html)

~~~
oh_sigh
Isn't that last article saying that food deserts aren't necessarily correlated
with obesity?

~~~
drewcon
Correct.

The questionable correlation in the original article is:

Good food is simply not available in low income neighborhoods >people are
forced to make make cheaper choices >they become obese and malnourished.

The times article cites studies that call that into question, citing apparent
actual availability in those areas and focusing more on people just making
poor choices.

I'm no expert, but sheer economics does not seem to be primary influencer
causing current outcomes.

~~~
oh_sigh
Okay. I just wanted to point out that your original post makes it sound like
"Food deserts don't exist". Not "Food deserts aren't necessarily correlated
with obesity"

------
cscurmudgeon
Problems like this make me feel we need two parallel governments and you could
subscribe to either.

1\. Govt 1: Nanny state. Will support you if you get poor, but you agree to
controls on your life.

2\. Govt 2: Do whatever. Don't come crying if you crash and burn.

~~~
JackFr
I find it interesting, that the article seems to view the fact that the family
has to supplement their SNAP assistance with visits to a food pantry as a
problem, rather than something to be happy about.

Indeed, poverty, hunger and food insecurity are awful, but why is it more
attractive for amelioration of these conditions to come from the Federal
government, than from non-governmental actors?

~~~
arg01
Seems to me a government mandated program might seem more limitless and be
less personal and thus you don't feel like your taking advantage of the
kindness of caring people or stopping resources going to those who are
possibly even more needy.

On a related note: One of the things I somewhat like about taxes for welfare
rather than "rely on the largess of charitable billionaires/private entities"
argument is that it helps ensure expenses from charitable acts wouldn't be a
drain on a business competing. Thus 'asshole' private entities wouldn't have a
concrete market advantage over 'nice' private entities.

------
skittles
The U.S. is full of people that can barely make it to the next paycheck, but
they'll have an iPhone, a car, cable tv, cigarettes, etc. Unless you are
taking public transportation to your 2 jobs without all the consumer goods
I've mentioned, then you aren't poor.

------
jehb
The other five-sixths of us have too much.

~~~
AJ007
Several of the people pictured in the story are overweight. The cruel irony is
that if the price support for wheat/corn/soybean processed food was removed
these people would get to feel what physical starvation was like.

~~~
stefan_kendall3
Yeah, because corn, wheat, and soybean are inelastic goods, am I right?

I can't go 3 days without that sweet sweet soybean oil, or I will literally
starve to death.

I'd actually draw the supply and demand curve and what would happen to the
various suppliers and buyers if the subsidies were removed, but I'm afraid I
would get labeled a dirty Randian and branded a heretic.

------
naturalethic
bullshit

------
antidamage
Are the rest obese?

------
rdmcfee
Mrs. Dreier looks to be at least 20kg overweight. She could quite healthily
fast for at least 3 months living of of those reserves plus some magnesium
supplements. It has been done before with great success:

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/post...](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf)

~~~
xherberta
Hmm. Do you want to pay for the medical supervision she'll need for that fast?
Healthy food might be cheaper.

