By: Marc Orkins
Reading Time: 4-5 minutes
There is a problem stewing in the genetic code of American society. A problem unnoticed amidst the current social and political turmoil, and has existed for years before then. One that cannot be solved with a quick and easy fix, nor if everyone banded together under the flag of a passionate politician if this reality were brought to light.
That is because, simply put, this is not just a flaw in the country’s social structure; by proxy, it is not a solitary issue in which politicians can point a proverbial finger towards and direct the masses. It is an entanglement of numerous deep-seated facets manifested in America’s economic structure, businesses, and social climate compressed within an ever-narrowing middle class.
There is a problem in American society, a widespread plague invisible to the untrained eye. Obesity runs rampant in our country, but it is not solely a result of the prevalence of fast-food chains and processed snacks but rather a phenomenon labeled as “food insecurity.”
Food insecurity, as revealed by one New York Times journalist, is the leading cause of obesity in America; although malnutrition across the nation certainly exists, numerous households capable of purchasing food are not sustained enough so as to encourage a healthy lifestyle (Dolnick, “The Obesity Hunger Paradox”).
As mentioned before, food insecurity has several facets to its design. It is prevalent across the country but concentrated in the New England region, particularly Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey, and several southern states geographically ranging from Kentucky to Alabama (Dolnick, “The Obesity-Hunger Paradox”).
A connection between these cities stems from a core throughline that is the origins of food insecurity: urbanized areas with high populations, many of whom live by the day below the poverty level, function daily via quick, filling but unhealthy meals from restaurant chains with little time to counter this intake with exercise.
The lifestyle of these individuals, typically demanding more than one job in order to make ends meet, does not allow it.
The result of this is a credible explanation for the United States being one of the most obese countries in the world. Despite its inherent wealth on a global scale, America is built upon the backs of hard-working people who are either too busy, too apathetic, or too uneducated about the cost of their time-and-money-saving way of life.
Not enough to fully grasp the damage they inflict upon themselves in the longer term.
This reality is compiled by a fact of the research cited in Dolnick’s article, in that the areas where food insecurity was most prevalent were determined by the seemingly unrelated question prompted to over five-hundred thirty-thousand Americans: “Have there been times in the past twelve months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?”
The fact that many who answered “yes” were congregated in high-population areas suggests another link between food insecurity and obesity, that being a lack of food compounded by a sporadic diet of unhealthy eating leads to greater percentages of an obese population (Dolnick, “The Obesity-Hunger Paradox”).
These greater percentages are more commonplace within impoverished populations, specifically those of teenagers and children. While this would be an easy problem to fix in theory, at least to address and combat, the choices to exercise and eat healthily are decisions left to the individual, and the choices they make are most affected by family life and community environments, especially at an impressionable age.
The result of these influencing factors, as detailed by Lee et al., comes in the form of barriers that impede at-risk youths’ ability to choose and act, especially in their ability to make such choices at all (505).
These barriers are the aforementioned commonalities of food insecurity.
On the monetary side of things, impoverished neighborhoods typically do not offer supermarkets with healthy, inexpensive options, and instead host multiple fast-food chains or small convenience stores with unhealthy options. People living in food deserts (areas without a grocery store in a reasonable distance) are most affected by food insecurity.
If such places where supermarkets and grocery stores do exist, however, the sustenance families can afford are high-fat non-perishables such as canned meat, potatoes, cereals and the like.
Physical activity is limited to these populations as well. Local school districts can not typically afford extracurricular activities like after school sports, nor can families afford the membership for such activities outside of that environment.
Supporting extra activities is possibly the most prevalent issue within these populations, as the busy lives of parents, many of whom might even be single mothers, can only manage to settle their kids in front of the television.
Their neighborhoods may not be safe enough to let their kids run loose, resulting in learned behavior that may encourage kids to partake in sedentary activities like sitting in front of the television.
A psychological component is added to the eating habits of youths: stress and depression, resulting from their family’s disposition (Lee et al. 505).
Together, these issues comprise a complicated web of factors that disillusions youths from making healthy lifestyle choices. Their future, in all likelihood, will be spent teaching their own children similar habits unless a change is implemented.
Combating such an ingrained, multi-faceted issue seems a herculean task.
To suggest simply lowering the price of fresh produce and raising that of processed foods is akin to cigarettes seems logical, but it avoids the reality of production costs in both types of food that would make such a change resisted at best.
In terms of changing the way people think, which might be the easiest and most efficient route to go, Dolnick cites the efforts of some cities such as produce vendors going through impoverished neighborhoods and the incentivizing program, Health Bucks (“The Obesity-Hunger Paradox”).
Ostensibly, helping improve the quality of poor neighborhoods, allowing for more freedom of exercise, would be a big step in inflicting change. It should be isolated to a few key areas before being enacted on a national scale, which is needed before real change is wrought.
A journal by an author of the American Diabetes Association sheds light on the reality that longer and larger studies are necessary showcasing the effects of these efforts before such a widespread shift is accepted by congress (Marks, 2).
Marks suggests that the solution might be as simple as changing the language, such as how to best communicate the need for a healthier way of life in the patient-doctor relationship.
Something as simple as advising “better food choices” and “more physical activity” instead of just dieting, as well as encouraging perseverance and making food choices they still like within reason, is thought to improve adherence to such a diet and its success as a result.
The answer, therefore, could be as simple as applying this theory about language to PSAs; taking the information learned here and spreading it through effective messaging strategies might be the key to raising awareness about food insecurity and obesity, and enact wide change in at-risk populations.
Works Cited
- Sam Dolnick, “The Obesity-Hunger Paradox.” The New York Times, 12 March, 2010. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/nyregion/14hunger.html
2. Lee, Hedwig et al. “Life Course Perspectives on the Links between Poverty and Obesity during the Transition to Young Adulthood,” Population Research and Policy Review 28, no. 4 (2009), 505-532, https://scholars.org/contribution/why-poverty-leads-obesity-and-life-long-problems. Accessed 17 August, 2019.
3. Marks, Jennifer. “Obesity in America: It’s Getting Worse.” Clinical Diabetes. 22 Jan, 2004, 1-2, DOI: 10.2337/diaclin.22.1.1.
