Poverty and obesity

All unapproved Citizendium articles may contain errors of fact, bias, grammar etc. A version of an article is unapproved unless it is marked as citable with a dedicated green template at the top of the page, as in this version of the 'Biology' article. Citable articles are intended to be of reasonably high quality. The participants in the Citizendium project make no representations about the reliability of Citizendium articles or, generally, their suitability for any purpose. This article is currently being developed as part of an Eduzendium student project in the framework of a course entitled Appetite and Obesity at Edinburgh University. The course homepage can be found at CZ:UoE Appetite and Obesity 2011. For the course duration, the article is closed to outside editing. Of course you can always leave comments on the discussion page. The anticipated date of course completion is 01 April 2012. One month after that date at the latest, this notice shall be removed. Besides, many other Citizendium articles welcome your collaboration!

Introduction

Draft:

Poverty and obesity are said to be very closely linked but the relationship is complex. Whilst historically being overweight was predominantly seen in the upper class as a sign of wealth and prestige, today the recent trends show a somewhat different picture. In the USA, some of the highest rates of obesity occur in the poorest population groups and in the UK the trends are similar. The inequality in income resulting in obesity is largely associated with less expenditure on food, decreased diet quality, and energy-dense foods that represent the lowest-cost option for consumers. Cheap palatable foods high in fat, sugar and energy are the result of developments in agriculture and food technology and the shifting ‘nutrition transitition’ now seen in developing countries highlights the need for a greater awareness of diet quality and a need for preventative action to hinder the growing obesity epidemic in both high income and low income areas.

Diet Quality

The Relationship Between Diet Quality and Socio-Economic Status

Eating a high quality diet helps to maintain good general health. This involves consuming an appropriate balance of essential nutrients, macronutrients, calories and water obtained from different foods. Some nutrients are required in a greater supply than others, and the dietary needs of each individual vary with their body composition, basal metabolism and daily activity levels.

The World Health Organisation and national government schemes have been active in publicising healthy eating guidelines to educate people in how to eat healthily. However, despite this, there are still many individuals with bad quality diets. Such poor diets often involve excessive calorie intake and consist of too much fat, sugar and salt. Bad diet quality can be detrimental to general health by contributing to many health risks such as obesity, hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and cancer.

It has been found that people with low socio-economic status (low income families or poorly educated individuals) have poorer quality diets and tend to be more obese than people with high socio-economic status.

Evidence for Socio-Economic Status Affecting Diet Quality

Many studies have been done to investigate how different aspects of the diet are consumed in high income and low income families, and it has been found that the consumption of different food types is unevenly distributed between high and low socio-economic statuses.

Fruit and vegetables are healthy foods providing a natural source of essential nutrients that are considered to be vital to a good quality diet. Studies have shown that not only are families of high socio-economic status more likely to eat higher quantities of fresh fruits and vegetables, they also eat a greater variety of these foods. Data collected from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, many countries in Europe, and Australia provide strong evidence that those with higher socio-economic status eat more fruit and vegetables than those individuals with a lower income and education.

Protein is an important component of a healthy diet and it has been discovered that different socio-economic groups generally eat different food products to obtain protein. Those with low socio-economic status tend to eat more fatty meats and less fish. Meat and fish that is consumed by this group tends to be canned, breaded or fried. These products tend to have a lower nutritional value and can be high in calories and fat. Lean meats and fish, including other seafood, is mostly consumed by those of high socio-economic status. These food products are considered to be healthier and good quality fish products are essential for omega 3 intake in the diet.

Sweets consumption has been found to be similar as far as quantity is concerned across the socio-economic gradient. However, low socio-economic status is associated with a greater intake of sugar from sweetened beverages and ready meals with added sugar. Low socio-economic status is also associated with a greater consumption of foods with added fats.

Causation of Poor Diet Quality in People of Low Socio-Economic Status

Socio-economic status is largely determined by income. Low income individuals are limited in what foods they can afford and will generally choose food items that will satisfy hunger for the cheapest cost. The cheapest foods in supermarkets tend to be nutritionally deficient and high in calories, fats and sugars which, when eaten in large amounts, contribute to health issues such as obesity.

Healthy foods that are high in vitamins and nutrients such as fruits, vegetables, nuts and whole grain breads and cereals tend to be expensive and therefore more affordable to only those of high socio-economic status. It has also been found that individuals of low income are inclined to buy dry, packaged foods with a long shelf life that can be stored for longer without the risk of spoiling. These foods generally tend to be of a low nutritional value. Studies have also discovered that this category often buy the same cheap foods every week resulting in an unvaried, monotonous diet. This could be due to wanting to avoid the risk of waste by trying new foods.

Another contributory reason for people of low income having poor diet quality could be due to difficulty in accessing supermarkets. Grocery stores and large supermarkets tend to be situated in areas where there are plenty of high income families close to visit the store and buy the products. Individuals of low socio-economic status are less likely to have cars to be able to drive to supermarkets also. Studies in the US have shown that, even within low income populations, if there is a well-stocked supermarket near people tend to eat more fruit and vegetables than people of the same income category living in a neighbourhood that has limited access to food.

Some studies have suggested that low socio-economic status is associated with a lack of cooking skills and a disinterest in cooking. However, there is little evidence to back up this claim, as there are also correlations between high socio-economic status and limited time for cooking and therefore the preparation of quick and easy to make meals.

Obesity occurring as a result of poor diet quality has been correlated with low socio-economic status in the lack of education and motivation. Research has showed that disadvantaged people tend to have a poor knowledge of what foods are nutritionally good for them and have also been show to be apathetic towards government schemes to promote healthy eating. People in this category tend to have an inaccurate perception of healthy body weight compared to those of better education and income.

Therefore, the causation of obesity due to diet quality is multi-factorial and heavily dependent on income and social status. To better target the increasing problem of obesity, healthy eating advice, schemes and help should be given specifically to those of low socio-economic status and other vulnerable groups to promote better diet quality. This may be a successful way to treat the obesity epidemic and kerb the rising trends in overweight.

(Just need to read over for errors and add references.) Helen Golz 20:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Dietary Energy Density

Influence on energy intakes

Energy dense foods have been shown to result in higher energy intakes overall. It has been found that upon eating any given meal under laboratory conditions, participants consume a constant volume. Therefore, the calorie intake is determined by the energy density of the food eaten. In addition to this, palatable, energy dense foods have also been linked to an attenuation of satiety and ‘passive consumption’, thus resulting in a greater energy intake . Foods with a low energy density, however, give a lasting feeling of satiety and fullness. This effect results in a lower consumption of energy during the meal, and for the rest of that day . Previous literature has postulated that the effect of energy density of foods on energy intake is due to poor human ability to distinguish between high and low energy dense foods. Therefore we do not accommodate for this in our eating habits, thus fail to maintain energy balance .

Function of water content

The energy density of foods (MJ/kg) is determined by their water content, whereby energy dilute foods are well hydrated, and energy dense foods are comparably dry. Energy dense foods may also contain fat, sugar and starch, and include foodstuffs such a s crisps, with an energy density of 23MJ/kg and chocolate (22MJ/kg). Examples of foods with a low energy density are fruits and vegetables .

Palatability of energy dense foods

Energy-dense foods tend to be more palatable and pleasurable to eat than foods with a low energy density. Animal studies have shown that sugar and fat stimulate reward centres in brain, resulting in taste preference. It has been proposed that humans, and other animals, developed a taste preference for energy dense foods in order to promote their survival in an environment where food can be scarce and unreliable. Conversely, it has also been suggested that human taste preference for energy dense foods is acquired during early life from their environment. This preference can be developed through repeated exposure, an association with the metabolic consequences, or parental influence.

Hannah Harman 09:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Energy Costs

The Relationship Between Energy Density and Energy Cost

It is seen that there is an apparent inverse relationship between the energy density of foods and the energy cost of food (Drewnowski and Darmon 2005). This meaning that energy dense foods are cheaper for food consumption than the healthier less energy dense food substances (Drewnowski, Darmon et al. 2004). It is noted that the use of refined grains, adding fats and sugars to foods are some of the lowest-cost methods of obtaining energy from our diet (Drewnowski and Darmon 2005). Due to this inverse relationship it is now thought as a way to save money but still have the ability to satisfy the need for food. According to Drewnowski, Darmon et al. it was investigated that the cost of foods such as oil, sugar, potatoes and beans were significantly cheaper than for foods such as meat, fish and vegetables for the equivocal overall energy. Figure 1 shows that when applied to a logarithmic scale the difference in energy cost between fresh produce and fats saw a 1000% variation (Drewnowski, Darmon et al. 2004)

A French study published in 2004 revealed that for every supplementary 100g portion of fruit and vegetable there was an increase in dietary cost within the range of 0.18 – 0.29 Euros per day. The opposite was seen when an additional 100g of fats or sweets were consumed and an observed 0.05 – 0.40 Euro per day reduction in expenditure was the result (Drewnowski, Darmon et al. 2004).

With the above data being taken from France where the obesity percentage for the population is 9.4%, you can’t help but think the effects of this relationship between energy density and energy cost when put into the context of the UK and USA where obesity percentages are 23% and 30.6% respectively.

Furthermore, recent research is now thinking that the obesity epidemic in America is now an economic issue, rather than a medical, education or genetic issue. This can be attributed to reasons such as the ‘falling value of the minimum wage’ and an ever present, especially in the populations that categorise into the lower SES’s, a lack of health and family benefits (Drewnowski and Darmon 2005).

Will edit references at a later date. Ross McEwan 18:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Pricing of Foods and Influence of Income/SES

It is well known that fats and sugars at a very low cost provide dietary energy. Therefore price reduction studies were carried out on alternative foods to investigate whether a reduction in price would see an increase in the consumption of foods such as lower fat foods and fresh fruits. The results show that when price reduction of 10%, 25% and 50% were applied to lower fat foods this resulted in an increase in sale of 9%, 39% and 93% respectively. A second study carried out by the same group, showed that by reducing the price of fresh fruit and baby carrots by 50% led to a four-fold and two-fold increase in the sale of the products respectively (French 2003).

A variation of the above study where an increase on high sugar/fat foods price caused a reduction in consumption of such foods. A 20% increase in the price of soda was associated with a 25% decrease in visits to a fast food restaurant per week (Gordon-Larsen, Guilkey et al. 2011). This can then be further enhanced into a larger context and if taxes were applied to such foods would we see any significant change in BMI or obesity prevalence across the population ((Powell and Chaloupka 2009). We may see a reduction in the consumption but does this directly relate to a decrease in weight (Schroeter, Lusk et al. 2008)? Or would this intervention be considered insignificant? (Gordon-Larsen, Guilkey et al. 2011).Thus, is this observed choice to eat unhealthily that is seen in the lower socioeconomic groups of the population due to economic constraints(Darmon, Ferguson et al. 2002)? Darmon et al highlighted that when cost restrictions were imposed on individuals not belonging to the lower SES groups a reduced intake of fruits and vegetables, lean meat etc and an increase in consumption of cereals, fats and sweets was observed. This, being the pattern seen in communities of the lower SES (Darmon, Ferguson et al. 2002).

Will edit references at a later date. Ross McEwan 18:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

discussion about general trends regarding relationship between poverty and obesity. Future initiatives and solutions etc. conclusion of article.??

notes/draft so far:

For the most part limited economic resources may shift dietary choices towards an energy-dense, highly palatable diet that involves a high amount of calories per the least volume and ultimately, the least cost. These diets are most likely to contain added sugars and vegetable fats and those from a low socioeconomic status are the most at risk. In addition poverty has been linked to lower physical activity, lack of nutritional education, poorer access to healthcare, greater exposure to marketing of unhealthy foods, and high stress levels .The appropriate built environment allows the individual adequate access to gyms, parks and healthy food options as opposed to an area with an abundance of fast food restaurants and limited recreational facilities. In many cases, poorer areas are most closely situated to clusters of fast food eateries where there is a lack of healthy choices and often in unsafe neighbourhoods there is a tendency to avoid outdoor activity. Studies also suggest that those living in high poverty areas are more likely to watch TV.

Overall, research linking poverty and obesity is more consistent for women and children than men of low socioeconomic status but the research has shown varying results in regards to ethnicity and general trends over the last few decades. The CDC in the US highlight that obesity is higher in minority groups (with the exception of Asian-Americans). In non-hispanic white women, obesity was found to increase as income decreased whereas in non-hispanic black and Mexican-American men obesity decreased as income increased. Although the prevalence of obesity among women with income below the poverty level is higher than among those with higher incomes, most obese women do not have incomes below the poverty level. General obesity trends have shown that between 1986-2002, BMI was increasingly higher in low income groups than high income groups and recently a persons salary was found to be inversely related to BMI and obesity. However in one national study spanning 30 years, the relationship between poverty and obesity weakened among most gender and ethnic groups and especially among women, even though overall obesity prevalence increased considerably. Additionally in some studies obesity rates were found to increase over all income groups and for instance between 1992 and 2008, obesity prevalence increased by 42.3 percent for the lower income group compared to 88.5 percent for the higher income group. This may suggest that the gaps between low and high income groups may be closing over time as more of the higher income population become obese. Yet some may argue that being poor gives you a very unfair disadvantage. Drewonski