A recent Newsweek piece cautioned that “one of the most insidious health effects of a downturn is in the area of diet. Eating healthily can be expensive and time-consuming—two qualities Americans currently have little appetite for.”
Earlier stories, like this one from MSNBC in September, already hinted that “Rising unemployment, higher food prices and dwindling savings may exacerbate the nation’s obesity problem, sending already high rates ballooning as consumers turn to cheaper, less healthful choices ranging from boxed mac ‘n’ cheese to fast-food dollar menus.” This is a simplistic, reductive, and speculative allegation, but it gets replayed with startling frequency. Newsweek does nothing to contest these moldy allegations, or back them up with facts.
It is true that most Americans might not be able to afford an entirely organic, Gourmet diet. But there are other, cheaper ways to eat healthy. Families that switch to weekday vegetarianism, for example, can save money and improve their health. But Newsweek doesn’t mention this, nor talk to nutritionists or public health to testify to the fact, only quoting those that agree with the thesis, for example:
“So often, making the healthy choice is the difficult choice. It’s imperative that we make it the easy choice,” says Harold Goldstein, the executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, which studies the state’s obesity epidemic and advocates for measures like mandatory menu labeling to better inform consumers about what they’re ordering.
However, while the ‘poor people will eat crappy food’ narrative is pervasive, the health concerns of the wealthy Americans are portrayed much differently, with specific emphasis on how the well-off proactively seek solutions to their problems, while the poor perpetuate their own problems themselves. The New York Times documented how mental health is affected by the recession:
With economic damage expected to last months or years, such reactions are becoming common, experts say. Anxiety, depression and stress are troubling people everywhere, many not suffering significant economic losses, but worrying they will or simply reacting to pervasive uncertainty.
The piece goes on to describe how yoga, therapy, meditation, and medication are helping Americans deal with the stress of the recession, some of whom aren’t even adversely affected:
Ms. Hubbard, knowing “financially we were fine,” said she believed “I shouldn’t feel like this, I’m lucky.” She cried visiting her primary doctor, who recommended therapy and medication, hard to accept, she said, because her Depression-era parents believed “you pull yourself up.”
“I felt like a neurotic middle-class, middle-aged woman too weak to deal with life on my own,” she said. “I should be stronger, it was simply money, and why do I have to take pills to not worry about money.”
Which is all fine, but it’s disappointing when the piece misses an opportunity to place its subjects on the reality continuum. Yes, some people have stress and can find relief in various therapeutic models, but many more can’t afford to seek those therapies.
Food writing itself often encourages a class divide, highlighting expensive restaurants, recommending pricey ingredients, and demanding unlimited time for preparation. And, articles that focus on the food habits of the lower classes frequently admonish people for the food that is affordable, without addressing the political realities how food prices are set, or why supermarkets are missing from poor neighborhoods.
Both the food and stress questions can be expanded to include all Americans by looking at the policies that support the two areas. Food stamps policy, for example, is one area where government influences dietary choices and can do more to help improve diet. And the public health care clinics that provide a tattered safety net for poor Americans should be examined for their readiness to support a more emotionally vulnerable population. Recognizing that members of all socioeconomic classes need help in maintaining positive physical and mental health would go a long way in shrinking the narrative gap between the haves and the have-nots.
This recession will certainly have an effect on what people are eating, but we’ve gotten our fill of tone-deaf stories. We’re hungry for solutions.

In Africa too there is a link between poverty and obesity. Read this if you can understand French : http://bit.ly/yvVTq [or translate with Google]. Amazing how the big corp make money by selling cheep crap food. [I am mimonette on Twitter]
#1 Posted by Michel Monette, CJR on Sat 25 Apr 2009 at 09:13 PM
Once again the Newsweek story illustrates how while the newsmagazines (both print and TV) are lured to reporting on health more and more , they refuse to do it properly. I almost never see a health story developed by a qualified health writer/reporter (and I don't mean a doctor spouting quick info for a two-minute spot.)
There are a couple of premises that are correct in this story: a) when people don't have money they can't eat organic foods and fancy produce, and b) stress tends to lead to grabbing food (usually less-healthy items) for comfort.
Still, this recession is hardly the cause of America's obesity problem. I've been writing consumer health information (BALANCED consumer health info, BTW) for more than 20 years and year after year, I've discussed America's poor eating habits and rising weight gain--and the corresponding rise of diabetes, heart disease, and many other health problems.
Far more than recession, American obesity is a result of:
* People sitting too much--Between 24/7 TV and the rise of computers, neither children or adults are as active as they were 20 years ago.
*People driving too much--The rise of suburbia meant people had to drive everywhere. Outside of a major city, no one walks to pick up their cleaning, go to the bank, do their food shopping, etc.
*The rise of convenience foods--Look at a woman's magazine of 30 or so years ago and the ladies in the ads are generally pulling an apple or something equally nutritious from the fridge, not a frozen pizza or a "sugar-free, fat-free" item that is actually higher in sweeteners (just not sugar) and carbs than the original.
* Increased number of working mothers--That means fewer people overseeing that kids at home are snacking nutritiously. If anything, many are leaving money for their kids to go to fast foods places (which have also risen), grabbing a 1/2-lb double burger with super fries and soda.
*Decline in health care--There are fewer and fewer primary care doctors out there and the ones still on the job have an average of 8 to 15 minutes to talk to patients. That means they rarely bring up nutrition; besides, doctors don't learn nutrition anyway. And who do you know gets regularly counseling from a dietitian--until it's too late and a disease has arisen?
I can continue this list for another two hours, but you get the idea. If the media insists on health reporting, the least they could do is stop going for the sensationalistic and simplistic (which used to be just the province of the tabloids) and learn to provide balanced, realistic pictures.
#2 Posted by Wendy J Meyeroff, CJR on Tue 28 Apr 2009 at 06:04 PM