Validity of Left-Right Divide Concerns

[LordsFire]

Alrighty then.

(All of this post is regarding the US, not the world at large.)

So, I see people pushing the 'lack of access to affordable healthy food' BS again. I understand that some people end up at this conclusion, because they're exposed to large amounts of media that paint a grim picture, and it can be hard to see past that, but let me explain this very simply to you:

The idea that poor people cannot get access to healthy food is a pernicious myth that has only the faintest bearing on reality.

The only reason it has any bearing on reality, is because yes, in a country with over 300 million people, there are some outliers who are in genuinely harsh circumstances who can't get to what they need for an affordable price. That is not the norm. And you do not restructure your society to service a fraction of a tenth of a percent better, that will absolutely do more harm than good.

How do I know this? Because I have been one of those poor people. Depending on how you count it, I may still be. This might be the first year in my life where I crack 20k$ income in a year.

When I was working part time (~25 hours a week) earning a dollar more than minimum wage (still less than ten an hour), I was still able to eat just fine. More than fine. I like my cheese and meat, two of the most expensive types of food, even when you're just buying ground chuck and cheddar, and I ate heartily for every meal.

You know what foods are cheap?

Vegetables. Potatoes. Chicken. Eggs. Even fruit isn't very expensive when it's not out of season.

And this shit isn't super-complicated to cook either. Crock pots are relatively cheap, and can often be had super-cheap from thrift stores. Throw a bunch of vegetables and meat (if you've got it) into the crock pot before you go to work, and dinner's ready when you get back. Throw the leftovers in the fridge, and you can microwave up a whole bunch of meals out of that single batch of relatively low-effort cooking.

You can have a 'baked' potato out of the microwave if you want. Add some butter and salt (both also cheap) and you've got a tasty little meal.


This is not complicated. This is not something that is beyond the reach of most poor people. This is not even counting the many, often extravagant charity programs that provide meals to the poor.

And I'm not talking about a minority of parts of the country. Anywhere that has a grocery store or a wal-mart falls into this category, and that is the overwhelming majority of the country.

'Food deserts' or 'food insecurity' being anything beyond an extremely marginal issue is a myth. Yes, there are a miniscule number of people who actually have a problem getting enough or decent food, but that's a problem that could be solved with a rounding error in the welfare programs that already exist, not something that requires mass restructuring of any portion of society.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

And how does one find the time and energy to cook healthy meals from fresh ingredients every night when you're working multiple jobs to make ends meet? The reason food insecurity is heavily linked to obesity is because when time and energy are factored in, fast food is vastly more affordable than healthy food.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

You know what foods are cheap?

Vegetables. Potatoes. Chicken. Eggs. Even fruit isn't very expensive when it's not out of season.

And this shit isn't super-complicated to cook either. Crock pots are relatively cheap, and can often be had super-cheap from thrift stores. Throw a bunch of vegetables and meat (if you've got it) into the crock pot before you go to work, and dinner's ready when you get back. Throw the leftovers in the fridge, and you can microwave up a whole bunch of meals out of that single batch of relatively low-effort cooking.

You can have a 'baked' potato out of the microwave if you want. Add some butter and salt (both also cheap) and you've got a tasty little meal.

I did most of these things too and managed to make ends meet when I was a student. But that was when I was a full time student who was only doing a little bit of tutoring work on the side, not trying to balance school and a *full time job*, or multiple full time jobs, or worst of all a single job that only gives employees part time hours but treats them as if they are on call at all times.

And as certain posters here so enjoyed screaming at me just a few days ago, your situation is not everyone's situation. You cannot conclude based on your single case, that only a "miniscule" number of people are actually struggling. Especially not when you're not even talking several dozen-to-hundred cases that you're personally aware of / witnessing, but literally just one person.

 

[Morphic Tide]

Crock pots are like 5 minutes setup if you understand what you're doing. If you have a reliable schedule, which the extremely vast majority of even the "poor" do because there's these things called managers who won't put up with those hell hours most of the time, you have the time to do cooking in crock pots. You can set it up in between jobs if you have a vaguely sane commute, or adjust water ratio to extend time before burning.

The reason not to is not having the awareness of or patience to get to an actual grocer, or actually sit down and work out your schedule, or some other matter of not putting in the effort to learn how to deal with your circumstances. Not because you can't do it.

 

[LordsFire]

I did most of these things too and managed to make ends meet when I was a student. But that was when I was a full time student who was only doing a little bit of tutoring work on the side, not trying to balance school and a *full time job*, or multiple full time jobs, or worst of all a single job that only gives employees part time hours but treats them as if they are on call at all times.

And as certain posters here so enjoyed screaming at me just a few days ago, your situation is not everyone's situation. You cannot conclude based on your single case, that only a "miniscule" number of people are actually struggling. Especially not when you're not even talking several dozen-to-hundred cases that you're personally aware of / witnessing, but literally just one person.

You do not know what you are talking about, and blank assertions with no substantiation are not an argument.

It takes minutes to prepare food that can feed you for days. People absolutely have the time to do it.

The idea that there are statistically significant numbers of poor people run into the ground by working 2-3 jobs who can't even afford minutes to prepare their food, is complete hogwash. Yes, there are a very small number of people in such situations, but they are not even remotely close to common.

We are both making assertions. You do not have anything to back them up with. I am going from facts that I am 100% solid on, because I have done these things myself. I'm not just saying 'this is what life is like for me,' I'm saying 'I know this is possible because not only have I seen it done, I've done it myself.'

I have shared living space with other poor people. I have visited families that are chronic welfare dependents. I have seen the eating and purchasing habits thereof. I've looked at different costs of living in different areas, and I've moved more than once to try to find a better place to live and a different job market myself. I've studied patterns of human behavior, and statistics around and with welfare programs and dependency.

'I don't have the time to cook' is nothing more than an empty excuse. Yes, in a nation of over 300 million there will be a tiny sliver of a fraction of a minority who actually live in something approaching those conditions. For 99%+ poor people though, it's because a frozen pizza is easier and tastier than a crock pot full of stew. It's that McDonalds is easty, tasty, and feels cheap, even if it's still an order of magnitude more expensive than serious effort made to live on a budget.

A few dishes that can be prepared with just minutes of work, some available immediately, some later:

1. Stew in a crock pot. (10-20 minutes if you know what you're doing)
2. Oatmeal in a microwave. (~2 minutes)
3. Roast in a crock pot. (10-30 minutes if you know what you're doing)
4. Literally just eat a few pieces of fruit or vegetables. (No time at all.)
5. Tacos; with beef if you have a little extra money, chicken if money is tight. (20-30 minutes)
6. Spaghetti w/meat sauce. (10-30 minutes).

All of these except oatmeal and 'eat fruit' can be cooked in large batches and reheated throughout the week. All of them are very affordable. Unless you live in a very remote location, you can get access to all of these goods. I would know, because I've done all of these, except the roast which I helped a housemate with. Several of these are staples for me, because they are both money and time efficient.

This isn't just 'me giving an example of one person,' this is me claiming personal experience to know that this is possible. If you expect to convince anyone that large numbers of poor people are so damn busy that they can't spend two hours out of an entire week cooking, you'd better start giving some very substantial evidence.

Especially because a number of these options? They are just as if not more time efficient than going through a drive-through or cooking less-healthy frozen foods. The burden of proof on you isn't just to prove that people really are that short on time, but also that the less-healthy alternatives are actually sufficiently more time-efficient that these options I'm listing aren't reasonable.

I think that what we are clashing on here, is primarily the popularized idea of the 'hardworking poor.' The idea that most poor people are pushing themselves to the limit just trying to make ends meet. Is that what you believe is the case?

 

[Rocinante]

It's also worth noting that it's not just fast food that's the problem.

It's the choices at the fast food. A mcdouble is a nutritious piece of food. For only a dollar and some change.

It's the milkshakes, fries, sodas, and over eating in general that gets you.

If you're poor and have a dollar and some change, a mcdouble will do you well.

Available at 14,000 locations across America, the mcdouble has 390 calories. It contains 23g, (or half a daily serving,) of protein, plus 7% of daily fiber, 20% of daily calcium.

They're one of the cheapest, most nutritious and most bountiful food in human history.

I love grabbing a couple after the gym when I'm in a pinch. I'll do that once or twice a week. I've lost 80 pounds and I regularly eat mcdoubles.

The only problem I see with them is that they're high in sodium, so I cut sodium elsewhere that day.

You can make similar choices at taco bell. The skinniest I was in my entire life was when I worked at taco bell and ate there literally twice a day because they offered free food. Wendy's and BK each offer competing items similar in price and nutrition to the mcdouble.

The issue isn't fast food, it's the choices people make at this fast food. Cut out the large sodas, shakes, fries, and you're not doing too bad.

The greatest food in human history

What is “the cheapest, most nutritious and bountiful food that has ever existed in human history” Hint: It has 390 calories. It contains 23g, or half a daily serving, of protein, plus 7% of daily f…

nypost.com

 

[Marduk]

And how does one find the time and energy to cook healthy meals from fresh ingredients every night when you're working multiple jobs to make ends meet?

Loads of people, especially of the young and unmarried kind, including those who absolutely don't struggle to make ends meet, don't give enough of a damn about food to bother, even if they could. This group is not exceptionally high on obesity either. So it's a ridiculous standard to expect for people in poverty.

The reason food insecurity is heavily linked to obesity is because when time and energy are factored in, fast food is vastly more affordable than healthy food.

How typical...
First someone scaremongers than USA has a serious hunger problem, and soon someone arrives at a conclusion that USA has cheap, tasty and calorie dense food widely available... and that's making poor people fat!
Absolute clown world.

 

[Aldarion]

Loads of people, especially of the young and unmarried kind, including those who absolutely don't struggle to make ends meet, don't give enough of a damn about food to bother, even if they could. This group is not exceptionally high on obesity either. So it's a ridiculous standard to expect for people in poverty.

How typical...
First someone scaremongers than USA has a serious hunger problem, and soon someone arrives at a conclusion that USA has cheap, tasty and calorie dense food widely available... and that's making poor people fat!
Absolute clown world.

Just 2c, but I think problem is the way food is made. There was a documentary I watched a while ago which made a point that modern processed food - fast food especially - is, by accident or by intent (and I suspect latter), designed to be addictive. It is like having kids live on calorie-dense crack. Of course they will be getting fat. And once you get addicted to that garbage in youth, it is hard to stop when you are an adult - like trying to give up lifelong heroin addiction. Couple that with moronic parents and packages designed to lure in kids...

And you can confirm the above just by looking at some food labels. Sugar - causes addiction, chocolate - can cause addiction even if no sugar is involved. Fat - causes addiction. All processed food contains one of the three, and most often sugar and fat both - oftentimes hidden.

I found a quick article listing most addictive food. Try finding one healthy food on the list. But addictive food sells, and that is what matters.

 

[Rocinante]

Just 2c, but I think problem is the way food is made. There was a documentary I watched a while ago which made a point that modern processed food - fast food especially - is, by accident or by intent (and I suspect latter), designed to be addictive. It is like having kids live on calorie-dense crack. Of course they will be getting fat. And once you get addicted to that garbage in youth, it is hard to stop when you are an adult - like trying to give up lifelong heroin addiction. Couple that with moronic parents and packages designed to lure in kids...

And you can confirm the above just by looking at some food labels. Sugar - causes addiction, chocolate - can cause addiction even if no sugar is involved. Fat - causes addiction. All processed food contains one of the three, and most often sugar and fat both - oftentimes hidden.

I found a quick article listing most addictive food. Try finding one healthy food on the list. But addictive food sells, and that is what matters.

God forbid restaurants sell food that people actually want to eat. The horror!

 

[Aldarion]

God forbid restaurants sell food that people actually want to eat. The horror!

So should selling meth and crack be legal simply because people who had taken it once want to take it again? At any rate, my point was that part of the reason people are getting fat is that the food which makes people fat is also highly addictive. I never suggested what should or should not be done, so what is your problem?

 

[LordsFire]

Just 2c, but I think problem is the way food is made. There was a documentary I watched a while ago which made a point that modern processed food - fast food especially - is, by accident or by intent (and I suspect latter), designed to be addictive. It is like having kids live on calorie-dense crack. Of course they will be getting fat. And once you get addicted to that garbage in youth, it is hard to stop when you are an adult - like trying to give up lifelong heroin addiction. Couple that with moronic parents and packages designed to lure in kids...

And you can confirm the above just by looking at some food labels. Sugar - causes addiction, chocolate - can cause addiction even if no sugar is involved. Fat - causes addiction. All processed food contains one of the three, and most often sugar and fat both - oftentimes hidden.

I found a quick article listing most addictive food. Try finding one healthy food on the list. But addictive food sells, and that is what matters.

Diet patterns can be habit-forming, but to compare them to crack is disingenuous. Especially because almost any food out there you can eat healthily if you eat it in moderation, so it's a lot easier to still keep a little bit of what you're so fond of in your diet, while shifting the mainstay of it to something healthier, which is the exact opposite of how drugs work, your body requiring larger and larger doses to get you the same high.

That said, this can be a bit of a problem, but it's far from overwhelming. In fact, given it's a small-to-midsized problem, I'd say that it's exactly the sort that's useful for learning to be self-disciplined with, because failing a few times, or even semi-regularly, along the way to mastering your appetites is a good way to build self-discipline.

I've been fighting back and forth across the same ten pounds of weight for about three years now, so this is a struggle I'm intimately familiar with.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

It's also worth noting that it's not just fast food that's the problem.

It's the choices at the fast food. A mcdouble is a nutritious piece of food. For only a dollar and some change.

If you're poor and have a dollar and some change, a mcdouble will do you well.[/quote]

I've read that article before, and while it was accurate at the time it was published, it's not any longer -- McDonalds restructured their "value menu" to triple the price of the McDouble, along with substantially increasing the price of every low cost item on their menu.

The issue isn't fast food, it's the choices people make at this fast food. Cut out the large sodas, shakes, fries, and you're not doing too bad.

That is true, but it's also true that people don't make choices in a vacuum. The fact that certain strategies (undeniably) work well for some poor people don't mean that the problems others face are mythical and/or entirely self-inflicted.

 

[Aldarion]

Diet patterns can be habit-forming, but to compare them to crack is disingenuous.

It is not, because fast food - and processed food in general - does not become addictive merely due to being a habit. It is chemically addictive as it creates chemical reaction in human brain. Hell, I'm having potato chips cravings just writing about this despite not having eaten them for years. There is reseach about it (I put links below just from the first page of Google search), and I know that from personal experience: it took me long time to stop craving fast food after quitting it. But I hadn't been on it for a long time, and it also helped that it made me feel like shit.

Links to research:

Is fast food addictive? - PubMed

Studies of food addiction have focused on highly palatable foods. While fast food falls squarely into that category, it has several other attributes that may increase its salience. This review examines whether the nutrients present in fast food, the characteristics of fast food consumers or the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

What Is the Evidence for “Food Addiction?” A Systematic Review

The diagnostic construct of “food addiction” is a highly controversial subject. The current systematic review is the first to evaluate empirical studies examining the construct of “food addiction” in humans and animals. ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

And some articles:

Does Fast Food Have Addictive Chemicals? | Addictions.com

Learn the science behind food addiction and how to stop being addicted to junk food at Addictions.com Food addiction is a serious problem for many Americans

www.addictions.com

Addictive Ingredients in Fast Food and their Effect on Your Body

Whether you like fast food or not, you cannot ignore the inviting fatty and salty aroma that flows through the air as you drive by a fast-food restaurant.

www.onegreenplanet.org

7 Reasons We Can't Turn Down Fast Food

It may be junk food, but its tactics are far from junk science.

www.psychologytoday.com

Fast food is addictive in same way as drugs, say scientists

Overeating might not be a simple matter of self-control. Lovers of burgers, fries, fizzy drinks and other fast foods could be in the grip of an addiction similar to that experienced by users of hard drugs, scientists claim.

www.independent.co.uk

Food Companies Are Making Their Products Addictive, and It's Sickening (Literally) - EcoWatch

Many common snack foods have been expertly engineered to keep us addicted, almost constantly craving more of whatever falsely satisfying manufactured treat is in front of us. While addictive drugs like cocaine and heroin are illegal, the U.S. currently has no regulations on the amounts of sugar...

www.ecowatch.com

Why Junk Food Is So Addictive

Your desire for sweet treats and salty snacks is not as a random as you think. In fact, there are many reasons why junk food is so addictive, here's why.

kaynutrition.com

https://themeadowglade.com/food-addiction-fast-food/

BBC NEWS | Health | Fast food 'as addictive as heroin'

news.bbc.co.uk

 

[Rocinante]

If you're poor and have a dollar and some change, a mcdouble will do you well.

I've read that article before, and while it was accurate at the time it was published, it's not any longer -- McDonalds restructured their "value menu" to triple the price of the McDouble, along with substantially increasing the price of every low cost item on their menu.



That is true, but it's also true that people don't make choices in a vacuum. The fact that certain strategies (undeniably) work well for some poor people don't mean that the problems others face are mythical and/or entirely self-inflicted.

it did go up in price, and it's the single cheeseburger that's a dollar and some change now. Still, everything has gone up in price since 2013, so that's to be expected.

So is fast food so cheap and easy that poor people have to eat there, as you claimed, or is is prohibitively expensive?

 

[Marduk]

Diet patterns can be habit-forming, but to compare them to crack is disingenuous. Especially because almost any food out there you can eat healthily if you eat it in moderation, so it's a lot easier to still keep a little bit of what you're so fond of in your diet, while shifting the mainstay of it to something healthier, which is the exact opposite of how drugs work, your body requiring larger and larger doses to get you the same high.

That said, this can be a bit of a problem, but it's far from overwhelming. In fact, given it's a small-to-midsized problem, I'd say that it's exactly the sort that's useful for learning to be self-disciplined with, because failing a few times, or even semi-regularly, along the way to mastering your appetites is a good way to build self-discipline.

I've been fighting back and forth across the same ten pounds of weight for about three years now, so this is a struggle I'm intimately familiar with.

There is actually pretty interesting science to it.

Story from Bright Line Eating: The genetic trait that makes you susceptible to unhealthy food cravings

How to break free from food addiction once and for all.

eu.usatoday.com

“If someone’s on the low end of the Susceptibility Scale, they’re not interested in food—they can take it or leave it,” Dr. Thompson explains. “They have to remind themselves to eat. In the mid-range are people who have some degree of addictive pull toward processed, refined foods. On the high end, people are going to experience feeling a lack of control over the foods they eat—promising themselves they'll just have one and then having more.”

Based on research, Dr. Thompson says that the population is split into thirds, with 1/3 not susceptible, 1/3 moderately susceptible, and 1/3 profoundly susceptible to food addiction.

'Food addiction' and its association with a dopaminergic multilocus genetic profile - PubMed

The YFAS identified 21 participants with food addiction. As predicted, the MLGP score was higher in those with YFAS-diagnosed food addiction, and it correlated positively with binge eating, food cravings, and emotional overeating. We then tested a multiple-mediation model proposing that...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Results and conclusions: The YFAS identified 21 participants with food addiction. As predicted, the MLGP score was higher in those with YFAS-diagnosed food addiction, and it correlated positively with binge eating, food cravings, and emotional overeating. We then tested a multiple-mediation model proposing that reward-driven overeating facilitates the relationship between the MLGP score and food addiction. The model was statistically significant, supporting the view that the relationship between a composite genetic index of dopamine signaling and food addiction is mediated by certain aspects of reward-responsive overeating.

So here's a pretty typical and underrated problem when it comes to any government mandated, large scale solutions. Roughly a third of the people can say they don't have the problem and aren't going to have it no matter what, and as far as they are concerned they are right.

The other third indeed has a tendency to develop a pretty significant problem when opportunity arises, whether they realize or not, whether they want to do something about it or not.

And the rest are somewhere in between, possibly open to being pushed either way by various lesser social and environmental variables.

No matter which option you adapt policy to, some major group of people is going to get the short straw, and the only two ways to avoid this problem are to either leave it up to everyone as a private matter, or apply this policy on custom tailored individual level, which in turn would would raise the specter of discrimination and unfair treatment both on statistical group and individual rights levels.

Oh, and to make this even more controversial, at very least some of these factors are genetic and heritable.

 

[Abhishekm]

Why has pages of this thread gone to diet and fastfood? How about a ethics of fast-food thread or something?

 

[LordsFire]

Why has pages of this thread gone to diet and fastfood? How about a ethics of fast-food thread or something?

Because whether or not people are starving is being questioned as 'is this a valid concern or not?'

I'm arguing that it only is for a tiny minority of people, not enough that we should be doing crazy things like restructuring the entire economy over.

I think Arxxy is arguing something like that it's 10%+ of the population that has this problem, but might be conflating several different posters somewhat-similar positions at this point.

There is actually pretty interesting science to it.

Story from Bright Line Eating: The genetic trait that makes you susceptible to unhealthy food cravings

How to break free from food addiction once and for all.

eu.usatoday.com

Huh. That makes some sense, I suppose I'd be in the middle-third if that's true. This might be more serious than I've been considering it to be, but you still cannot make laws banning entire types of food because 1/3rd of the population finds it much harder to exert self-control about them.

We don't ban peanut butter because people are allergic to it (including me), and we're not going to ban processed foods for reasons much less serious than potentially-lethal allergies.

 

[Abhishekm]

Because whether or not people are starving is being questioned as 'is this a valid concern or not?'

I'm arguing that it only is for a tiny minority of people, not enough that we should be doing crazy things like restructuring the entire economy over.

I think Arxxy is arguing something like that it's 10%+ of the population that has this problem, but might be conflating several different posters somewhat-similar positions at this point.

In the US? The country that spends close to 700 billion subsidizing healthcare and over a trillion on other welfare programs? If there is actual death by starvation among the population it is beyond the point where government money or general programs would be at all cost effective.

Also why is it a matter of government concern what people eat? Everything from Macdonalds to organic produce in a farmers market has a list of nutrients to any ingredients added or hormones/pesticides used. There are national and local government sponsored eat healthy awareness programs and legal requirements for disclosure of production methods.

Short of a Bloomberg style ban on Jumbo Fries or a Universal Basic Grocery List whats the proposal here?

 

[LordsFire]

In the US? The country that spends close to 700 billion subsidizing healthcare and over a trillion on other welfare programs? If there is actual death by starvation among the population it is beyond the point where government money or general programs would be at all cost effective.

Also why is it a matter of government concern what people eat? Everything from Macdonalds to organic produce in a farmers market has a list of nutrients to any ingredients added or hormones/pesticides used. There are national and local government sponsored eat healthy awareness programs and legal requirements for disclosure of production methods.

Short of a Bloomberg style ban on Jumbo Fries or a Universal Basic Grocery List whats the proposal here?

Some people simply refuse to accept the idea that a lot of people's problems, are purely self-inflicted. They think that if person A is suffering, not only must it be someone other than person A's fault, but that person A's suffering cannot be ended without someone else's help, almost certainly via the vehicle of government.

The fact that some problems certainly aren't self-inflicted is generally used to push the argument that therefore all problems either aren't self-inflicted, or the ones that are are indirectly someone else's fault, because of trauma other people caused that an individual is completely helpless to overcome, or even just manage.

It's pretty bloody infantilizing.

 

[Sir 1000]

When you posted that article, what you said was, "I should have added a 'and then' to that part about surgeries. Though the drugs is spot on unfortunately fam."

If the article headline of "New California Law Allows Children to Get Transgender Treatments Without Parental Consent" was actually accurate, you would have been right. However, as I have shown by referencing the actual law in question, the headline is grossly inaccurate. The California law in question absolutely does not allow children to get transgender treatments -- even "just" hormone therapy -- without parental consent.

Sorry for the wait, i chose that article because it showed children being able to do that stuff period not just without parental consent. I don't think we are going to get anywhere in our discussion so i'm going to drop it.