Hunger & Obesity… a food praxis issue?
[hat tip to Lou Proyect]
I have some trepidation about posting this, because it’s important, but also a minefield where fat people are devalued and even demonized, and where cultural difference is swallowed up in unstated US white middle-class norms, and the medical pathology paradigm. It’s the NYT, but It’s still important. -SG
NY Times March 12, 2010
The Obesity-Hunger Paradox
By SAM DOLNICK
WHEN most people think of hunger in America, the images that leap to mind are of ragged toddlers in Appalachia or rail-thin children in dingy apartments reaching for empty bottles of milk.
Once, maybe.
But a recent survey found that the most severe hunger-related problems in the nation are in the South Bronx, long one of the country’s capitals of obesity. Experts say these are not parallel problems persisting in side-by-side neighborhoods, but plagues often seen in the same households, even the same person: the hungriest people in America today, statistically speaking, may well be not sickly skinny, but excessively fat.
Call it the Bronx Paradox.
“Hunger and obesity are often flip sides to the same malnutrition coin,” said Joel Berg, executive director of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger. “Hunger is certainly almost an exclusive symptom of poverty. And extra obesity is one of the symptoms of poverty.”
The Bronx has the city’s highest rate of obesity, with residents facing an estimated 85 percent higher risk of being obese than people in Manhattan, according to Andrew G. Rundle, an epidemiologist at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University.
But the Bronx also faces stubborn hunger problems. According to a survey released in January by the Food Research and Action Center, an antihunger group, nearly 37 percent of residents in the 16th Congressional District, which encompasses the South Bronx, said they lacked money to buy food at some point in the past 12 months. That is more than any other Congressional district in the country and twice the
national average, 18.5 percent, in the fourth quarter of 2009.
Such studies present a different way to look at hunger: not starving, but “food insecure,” as the researchers call it (the Department of Agriculture in 2006 stopped using the word “hunger” in its reports). This might mean simply being unable to afford the basics, unable to get to the grocery or unable to find fresh produce among the pizza shops,
doughnut stores and fried-everything restaurants of East Fordham Road.
Precious, the character at the center of the Academy Award-winning movie by the same name, would probably count as food insecure even though she is severely obese (her home, Harlem, ranks 49th on the survey’s list, with 24.1 percent of residents saying they lacked money for food in the previous year). There she is stealing a family-size bucket of fried chicken from a fast-food restaurant. For breakfast.
That it is greasy chicken, and that she vomits it up in a subsequent scene, points to the problem that experts call a key bridge between hunger and obesity: thescarcity of healthful options in low-income neighborhoods and the unlikelihood that poor, food-insecure people like Precious would choose them.
Full-service, reasonably priced supermarkets are rare in impoverished neighborhoods, and the ones that are there tend to carry more processed foods than seasonal fruits and vegetables. A 2008 study by the city government showed that 9 of the Bronx’s 12 community districts had too few supermarkets, forcing huge swaths of the borough to rely largely on unhealthful, but cheap, food.
“When you’re just trying to get your calorie intake, you’re going to get what fills your belly,” said Mr. Berg, the author of “All You Can Eat: How Hungry Is America?” “And that may make you heavier even as you’re really struggling to secure enough food.”
For the center’s survey, Gallup asked more than 530,000 people across the nation a single question: “Have there been times in the past 12 months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?”
The unusually large sample size allowed researchers to zero in on trouble spots like the South Bronx.
New York’s 10th Congressional District, which zigzags across Brooklyn and includes neighborhoods like East New York and Bedford-Stuyvesant, ranked sixth in the survey, and Newark ranked ninth, both with about 31 percent of residents showing food hardship. (At the state level, the South is the hungriest: Mississippi tops the list at 26 percent, followed by Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, the Carolinas and Oklahoma. New York ranks 27th, with 17.4 percent; New
Jersey is 41st, with 15.5 percent; and Connecticut is 47th, with 14.6 percent.)
The survey, conducted over the past two years, showed that food hardship peaked at 19.5 percent nationwide in the fourth quarter of 2008, as the economic crisis gripped the nation. It dropped to 17.9 percent by the summer of 2009, then rose to 18.5 percent.
Though this was the first year that the center did such a survey, it used a question similar to one the Department of Agriculture has been asking for years. The most recent survey by the agency, from 2008, found that 14.6 percent of Americans had low to very low food security.
Bloomberg administration officials see hunger and obesity as linked problems that can be addressed in part by making healthful food more affordable.
“It’s a subtle, complicated link, but they’re very much linked, so the strategic response needs to be linked in various ways,” said Linda I. Gibbs, the deputy mayor for health and human services. “We tackle the challenge on three fronts — providing income supports, increasing healthy options and encouraging nutritious behavior.”
To that end, the city offers a Health Bucks program that encourages people to spend their food stamps at farmers’ markets by giving them an extra $2 coupon for every $5 spent there.
The city has also created initiatives to send carts selling fresh fruits and vegetables to poor neighborhoods, and to draw grocery stores carrying fresh fruit and produce to low-income areas by offering them tax credits and other incentives. The city last month announced the first recipients of those incentives: a Foodtown store that burned down last year will be rebuilt and expanded in the Norwood section of the
Bronx, and a Western Beef store near the Tremont subway station will be expanded.
But the Bronx’s hunger and obesity problems are not simply related to the lack of fresh food. Experts point to a swirling combination of factors that are tied to, and exacerbated by, poverty.
Poor people “often work longer hours and work multiple jobs, so they tend to eat on the run,” said Dr. Rundle of Columbia. “They have less time to work out or exercise, so the deck is really stacked against them.”
Indeed, the food insecurity study is hardly the first statistical
measure in which the Bronx lands on the top — or, in reality, the bottom. The borough’s 14.1 percent unemployment rate is the highest in the state. It is one of the poorest counties in the nation. And it was recently ranked the unhealthiest of New York’s 62 counties.
“If you look at rates of obesity, diabetes, poor access to grocery stores, poverty rates, unemployment and hunger measures, the Bronx lights up on all of those,” said Triada Stampas of the Food Bank for New York City. “They’re all very much interconnected.”

Lisa:
One hundred dogs and 94 bones
Once upon a time there was a small community comprising 100 dog bone-winners and their families. Each morning for as long as anyone can remember the 100 dogs set off into the field to dig for bones to bring back home to their families. The government’s bone policy was designed to ensure that there were always enough bones for all the bone-winners to succeed in their search and no dog families went without a bone. The community was secure, young dogs were happy and well prepared to take over the bone-winner’s role when the older dogs retired. There was no bone-stealing and all the bone-winners always had an incentive to get up each day to dig for the bones that were buried in the field each night.
Full article:
http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/coffee/pubs/briefs/dogs/dogs_and_bones.cfm
——————–
From Bill Mitchell:
Imagine a small community comprising 100 dogs. Each morning they set off into the field to dig for bones. If there enough bones for all buried in the field then all the dogs would succeed in their search no matter how fast or dexterous they were.
Now imagine that one day the 100 dogs set off for the field as usual but this time they find there are only 90 bones buried.
Some dogs who were always very sharp dig up two bones as usual and others dig up the usual one bone. But, as a matter of accounting, at least 5 dogs will return home bone-less.
The rest (end of quest. 3) at:
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=8709#more-8709
14 March 2010, 2:40 pmDanceDreaming:
Just wandering through, and thought I’d toss down a comment. My first impression reading this would be that the time factor plays a bigger role then this article gives credit for. Single working mothers, -far- more common amongst the poorest Americans, rarely have time to do much cooking. Without time or much money, the food options are very limited. I’m not certain how much good fresh produce will do in these circumstances. Without time, mom doesn’t cook(and there’s no dad around). If mom doesn’t cook, the kids don’t ever learn to. Not the skills, and as important, not the habit. Work stress, and the psychic stress of inequity, make one less likely to want to do a bunch extra when you do get home. A job on your feet all day makes leisure exercise less appealing. Tack on the notions that depression is notably more common amongst the poorest adults, and the American mythology of the ‘comfort food’.
Not all poor families have single mothers, though single mother families at any per-earner rate are going to be poorer. But I imagine the same problem can arise with 2-parent families where both parents work. It seems to me likely that much of the reason why there is limited produce available in the poorest neighborhoods has less to do with price and more to do with a limit on the number of people buying, regardless of price. The setting up of more availability of produce in these areas, though on one level quite positive, does smack a little bit of a ‘Let them eat cake’ solution.
21 March 2010, 4:56 amJimmy Cruz:
here in Philippines, obesity is also becoming a problem. More and more children are getting obese due to a lifestyle that is not fully of physical activities. most kids just wants to watch TV, play computer games and surf the net.
28 March 2010, 9:10 amMichael Anderson:
Found this on Stars and Stripes this A.M. Perhaps something will be done about nutrition if obesity is classified as a threat to national security (sic)! Openly militarizing food? Will backyard gardens require an inspection from DoD?
The latest threat to military readiness: school lunches
Posted April 20th, 2010 by Leo Shane
That mystery meat in the high school cafeteria may be a national security threat. And not just because no one can figure out what animal it came from.
Members of Mission:Readiness held a press conference today to urge Congress to revise standards for school lunches and encourage healthier eating habits because of the long-term effects obesity is having on military recruiting.
The group — which includes notables like retired Army Gen. John Shalikashvili, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, and retired Navy Adm. Edmund Giambastiani Jr. — notes that 75 percent of all 17- to 24-year-old Americans do not meet military standards for enrollment because of poor grades, criminal activity or obesity.
The first two issues have been the focus of recruitment issues in recent years, but the obesity issue hasn’t been a major point of discussion so far.
Mission:Readiness officials hope to change that. Earlier today they enlisted Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in the fight.
In a statement, the group called on Congress to “pass new child nutrition legislation that would get the junk food out of our schools; support increased funding to improve nutritional standards and the quality of meals served in schools; and provide more children access to effective programs that cut obesity. If we don’t take steps now to build a strong, healthy foundation for our young people, then it won’t just be our military that pays the price – our nation as a whole will suffer also.”
They also released a new report, titled “Too Fat to Fight,” which notes the steep rise in the number of obese adults state-by-state in just the last 10 years. (See the graphic below)
The bottom line? America needs to lose about 195 million tons to get to a “normal weight” for military service. The report calls that an epidemic with dangerous national security implications.
21 April 2010, 8:51 am