Roi Aldric Trawon

Michael Lindsay-Chiappini

English 150

March 6, 2017

Synthesis Essay

Healthy food is both unappetizing and less affordable than Junk Food making it more

and more inaccessible to the general population. The commercialization and promotion of less

nutritious food has increased further its accessibility financially as companies make the mass

production of such foods more efficient and cheaper, psychologically being bombarded with

carefully crafted commercials tempting consumers to focus on the experience of the food

disregarding the nutritional content, and physiologically having access to such food much more

than fresh and raw whole foods. Therefore, eating healthy has now become primarily an

economic construct.

In both Joe Pinskers article on Why so many Rich Kids come to Enjoy the Taste of

Healthier Foods and James Hamblins article on The Food Gap is Widening both tackle that

nutrition is a socio-economic paradigm i.e. the rich have healthier diets than the poor but both

have different theories why that became to be.

Pinskers view is focused on the preference of taste itself. Affluent families can afford to

force feed their children healthier food and risk it being rejected by their children. Richer

parents tend to have room in their budget to force brussel sprouts on their children and throw out

what gets rejected. (Pinsker,2016). Pinsker argues that a lot of healthy food is naturally
unpalatable. Citing broccoli as an example, humans and other plant-eating animals have reason

to consume a lot of broccoli, it has come to produce goitrin, a compound that tastes very bitter to

people with a certain genewhich serves as a (meager) defense against getting eaten. Other

vegetables that come from the very same plant, including kale, brussel sprouts, and collard

greens, all employ a similar protective strategy. (Pinsker, 2016). Eventually the taste is acquired

by children who ate it around 8-15 times and are able to consume it la carte.

Data has shown healthier food takes a bigger bite out of the pocket. Naturally less

affluent families save as much as they can and aim for red or processed meats and junk food.

Hamblin claims that these choices are not just due to the cost but also due to the lack of

nutritional education of the lower socioeconomic groups. We need to intensify efforts to

educate the public about the role of diet in prevention of disease, and also implement policies

that can help to improve the food environment. Lack of affordable and accessible healthy

foods among low socioeconomic status groups, especially in minority and inner city

populations (Hamblin, 2014).

Level of education is undeniably generally both a result and effect of economic standing.

In the end nutrition boils down to the same thing, socioeconomics. But is education itself enough

to prevent someone from eating an unhealthy diet? Pinsker studies this methodically while

Hamblin simply claims that enough education about the dangers of a specific unhealthy diet

would be enough to deter them from doing such.

Pinsker cited a research that described the eating habits of around 2,500 Danes. They

recorded the consumers education level correlated it with the monthly consumption of Fiber,

Sugar, and Saturated Fat. Their findings were just as they hypothesized While everyone could

stand to eat less sugar and saturated fat, it was the least-educated who were exceeding
recommendations the most.. But what they found out next was surprising. Those exceeding the

recommendation of sugar and saturated fat was not due to the knowledge and perception about

these nutrients. The research concluded that Those with the most education and those with the

least education had extremely similar understandings of how healthy (or unhealthy) sugar, fiber,

and saturated fat were. But the big difference between these two groups was that more-educated

people liked the taste of more-nutritious foodsfoods lower in sugar, lower in saturated fat, and

higher in fiberthan less-educated people.

Apparently more affluent people and consequently better-educated are actually more

indulgent when buying food. But, due to the tastes they acquired when they were a child they

learned to prefer a different sort of diet. A diet incorporating healthier foods that is an acquired

taste like Brussel sprouts and broccoli.

Hamblins conclusion that lack of educating people on nutrition is one of the reasons of

the nutrition dietary gap between the rich and poor is straightforward and simple but it is due to

some spurious correlations. The Danish study found that most people whether rich or poor know

the basics of nutrition: to eat a balanced diet of fats, vegetables, grains, fruit, and meat. But the

upper class were brought up to prefer a more balanced diet and therefore was able to maintain it.

Even due to this conflicting conclusions they both offered similar solutions to the deterioration of

the dietary nutrition of the lower class.

Hamblin suggests a government approach [a] combination of nutrition education and

financial incentives can really shape people's attitudes and behaviors We urgently need to

support multi-pronged initiatives to improve dietary quality for persons of lower socioeconomic

status. Pinsker on the other hand tackles the school front schools could absorb the upfront

losses that low-income parents worry about when feeding their children novel, but healthy,
foods. And if policy solutions dont materialize, Daniel notes that buying frozen produce can

reduce waste, since it can be stored for long periods of time and doled out in small servings.

In the end the policies and strategies that are most effective in the long run are those that

change peoples mindset and palette and actually make them able to sustain a healthy and

balanced diet. Both of these articles offers very clear and specific steps forward in order for this

to materialize. Things such as government subsidies towards more nutritious and organically

grown foods will help make the lower income households make an easier decision in buying it.

Incentives such as this should also be partnered with negative promotion through nutrition

education and taxation. Hamblin states that Regulations such as taxation of sugary beverages

and removing sugary beverages from vending machines in public schools, reducing accessibility

of sugary beverages in public placesthose kinds of policies can have a major influence on

consumption." Simply enough the efficiency of producing processed and unhealthy food have

come so far that it completely changed the food paradigm.

The correlation of wealth and the quality of diet is not as simple as it sounds. Not only

economical but geographical and psychological effects come into play. But one thing is for sure

the rich have all the leverage to eat healthier across the whole spectrum and only through

effective intervention the gap would not be as disastrous. To be able to eat healthy is a

fundamental human right and should not be a privilege for the rich.