Research reveals need for social equality

You are what you don’t eat. Or actually, you are what is not available to eat in your neighborhood, apparently. Who’d have guessed?

A recent U study conducted by experts from the family and consumer studies department found that “living near a variety of restaurants, convenience stores, supermarkets and even fast-food outlets actually lowers your risk for obesity.” The study also notes that individuals who live more than a half mile from “any food outlets” are generally more obese than those who do not.

Which neighborhoods in Salt Lake City actually boast such options? I live in the 1500 East and 1500 South neighborhood of Sugar House. The area seems to be one of the only business districts in the city located directly within the same jurisdiction as a residential zone and boasts not only a wide variety of different cuisines—everything from French to Middle Eastern to bagels to coffee—but also The King’s English, an independent bookstore, and retail outlets. Directly up Emerson Avenue is Emigration Market, a grocery store within walking distance from the central business zone. The only variable missing seems to be the neighborhood bar. Having so many options literally across the street gives 1500 East and 1500 South a cozy, communal feeling, and apparently a lower risk of obesity. Good to know, but what about the rest of the city?

Although the Avenues, 9th and 9th, and downtown have variations of the Sugar House scheme, there are portions of the valley that sorely lack such options. Although some neighborhoods such as Rose Park and the Marmalade are slowly but surely gentrifying, wide sections of Salt Lake City remain void of food options for residents. The study suggests that neighborhood income is a major factor in determining local food choices.

According to the study, “Residents in low-income neighborhoods—defined as having an average household income in the lowest quartile of the 2000 census—were 26 percent less likely to be obese if there was one or more healthy grocery options within walking distance, compared with low-income residents without neighborhood retail food outlets.”

In the constant push to fight obesity, to eat better, to eat more locally, to eat organically—in essence, to be green in saving yourself and the planet—findings such as these only highlight the economic disparities that hinder such development. The bottom line is that some have the privilege of living in a neighborhood close to a variety of food options, and some do not. Until we rethink the large class gap in this country, those who make less will continue to gain more living in neighborhoods that lack healthy options.

letters@chronicle.utah.edu
 

4 comments

e pur si muove

Wed Nov 11 2009 16:59

It's untrue that eating local/organic = saving carbon emissions. Actually the opposite is true. Carnegie Mellon economists Weber and Matthews have demonstrated the majority of carbom emitted in agriculture comes from the processing not the transport (as it is commonly said) and corporations are the most efficient in processing.

Secondly, I'm wondering what kind of solutions are in the offering. What does "rethink the large class gap" actually mean? The main argument against most of the above is found in the methods people like Jennings may support. They usually bridge a divide between problem and solution by thinking that central planners can dictate to obese people what they will eat and how they will live their lives. We who value freedom assume that the best circumstances will come about in a voluntary framework, forged by history and constitutions. We think that people are healthier than they have ever been thanks to the free exchange of behaviors and ideas.

We who support a free society understand very well that these kinds of disparities have been the norm and not the exception for 100s of years, that we don't have the tools or the resources to save everyone without sacrificing everything we hold dear, that we can't even say that those who live outside of the Avenues or Sugar House would want to act in the way we want them to if given the chance.

Like most Chrony contributions, this article was nonsense.

Jeff

Sun Nov 8 2009 01:37

Sounds like the author has found a cozy place next to the golden tit of the organic, cultured, sustainable and marxist culture cow.

Albert K. Alberts

Fri Nov 6 2009 19:03

Doug, you are awesome man.

Jason

Thu Nov 5 2009 14:13

While I do not dispute that socio-economic status may create barriers, your agenda driven column misses the point. What this research demonstrates is that personal lifestyle choices influence obesity regardless of income. While those that are poorer might have less options, they still have options. I would hazard a guess that the study you mention (and do not bother to give the title to) might not come to the same conclusion as your article title suggests. It sounds to me like the study suggests that people who make healthy lifestyle choices like walking to the grocery store and grocery shopping more often tend to be less obese. This is a far cry from saying that poor people gain weight because they are poor and are therefore doomed. Someone who doesn't live in one of these "privileged" areas might have a similar outcome if they made similar lifestyle choices.

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Enter the characters in the image above:

log out