Response to "Divided We Eat"

This post is a response to “Divided We Eat,” an article published in the November 29, 2010 edition of Newsweek

I applaud Lisa Miller's effort to address food-related socioeconomic issues. However, I disagree with many of the key points within the article. As a compassionate Progressive I believe that no one in America should go hungry, that all Americans should be assured access to quality health care and be assured access to a quality education.

There are many reasons for poverty and for food insecurity and I believe that we need to research causes with the goal that a better understanding of the causes will provide understanding for us to create solutions.

Many of the viewpoints outlined in “Divided We Eat” are exactly the kind of views that give liberals a bad name. Much of the article seems to suggest that low income people are victims of their circumstances, that people in bad circumstances are not in bad circumstances as a result of poor decision making and that if only the poor could afford to shop at Whole Foods all would be O.K.

Let’s walk through some of the issues. In more than one bullet point I think I am channeling my Depression-era maternal Grandmother.

1. “He (Adam Drewnowski, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington) argues that the most nutritious diet—lots of fruits and vegetables, lean meats, fish and grains—is beyond the reach of the poorest Americans, and it is economic elitism for nutritionists to uphold it as an ideal without broadly addressing issues of affordability.”

I do not agree with this. Yes, shopping at Whole Foods and probably even local farmers markets is going to be out of reach for those on food stamps and other assistance programs. Heck, I would love to buy all of my groceries at Whole Foods, but it is out of reach for me. However, I contend that there are several approaches to healthy eating that are far less expensive than junk food.

About two years ago my husband and I conducted an experiment. For six weeks we cooked most of our meals from a cookbook called Extending the Table. Extending the Table is a cookbook with recipes from around the world compiled by missionaries and aid workers who worked in very poor areas. What did we learn?

We learned to appreciate food a lot more. We learned that cooking like poor peoples in other parts of the world produces very tasty and nutritious foods for very little money. I learned that I can put a quick, tasty, nutritious, protein and vegetable rich meal on the table and serve four people for no more than $3.00 - $4.00. Tell me how you can fill a family on junk food for this amount of money.

Now, my $3.00 - $4.00 meal was not filet minion, lobster tail and high-end wine. Beans, rice and vegetables were much more common features on our dinner table.

2.Food deserts are very big problems in some areas and this area needs to be addressed.

3. The article tends to paint the poor as victims rather than adult (children cannot be held responsible for their position while they are children) people who are making chronically bad decisions. I am a compassionate person and know that people fall into poverty for all kinds of reasons—it is not a simple issue. And some food insecure people have circumstances that are out of their control. But at one time or another, we have all noticed a food stamp recipient ahead of us in the grocery line making very poor choices.

Pop Tarts is not a better choice than oatmeal and oatmeal is a lot less expensive. Doritos is not a better choice than homemade hummus (about $0.75 for 4-6 servings) and pita bread. Carryout pizza is not a better or more economical choice than vegetable soup made from heavily discounted ripe produce.

So when food stamp recipients chose high-sugar, high-fat, high-calorie foods rather than less expensive, healthy foods, the conclusion can only be made that some decision making skills may not be finely honed.


4. Obesity and tightening restrictions on what can be purchased with food stamps. I do not agree with the idea that imposing restrictions on what can and cannot be bought with food stamps is an undue intrusion into the lives of the recipients of benefits. Social safety net programs are necessary and I fully support the existence of safety net programs, but they cost a lot of money. Obesity resulting from poor decision-making while using these benefits will only cost American tax payers even more money. To put this issue very crassly….does a food stamps recipient have the right to consume huge amounts of Cheese Whiz and Fritos for years on end, then ring up an even bigger tab by becoming diabetic at the age of 40 or a heart attack at 48?

What do we do about this? I am not totally sure. I do not believe in a “Scarlet Letter” approach as no one should be embarrassed or made to feel lesser…but the way we are executing these programs today is not working.

5. Nutrition, cooking and life/household management courses must be made mandatory for as many people on assistance as possible. Basically, I believe that courses of this nature, including completed homework assignments, should be made mandatory for able bodied people with appropriate levels of ability (courses may or may not be appropriate for developmentally disabled, or other mentally/physically handicapped people).

What are the answers? Tough love coupled with education and improvement of the factors that are truly problematic (like food deserts) have to be key components within a solution. Also, perhaps a realization that people on benefit programs many not have exactly the same freedoms as those not receiving benefits. This is also a bit crass, but Doritos are a privilege, not a right.

As a Progressive I believe that we need to start from scratch and think creatively. The beginning two-part premise needs to be “No One In America Goes Hungry. Our National Debt Cannot Keep Rising.” Solely adding funding to our existing programs will not accomplish either aspect of the premise. I have some crazy ideas, but I would love to hear your thoughts.