Queuno, I think he wants you to suggest which you think is at fault and why.
I like to follow David Zinczenko with Matt Goulding on their “Eat this not That” column.
http://health.yahoo.net/experts/eatthis/10-scariest-food-facts

In their most recent column they reported that:
“2. Nutritious food costs 10 times more than junk food.
University of Washington researchers calculated the cost discrepancy between healthy food and junk foods and found that 2,000 calories of junk food rings up at a measly $3.52 a day. Yet for 2,000 calories of nutritious grub, the researchers plunked down $36. To add insult to fiscal injury, out of every dollar you spend on food, only 19 cents goes toward the stuff you eat. The other 81 cents goes toward marketing, manufacturing, and packaging. Think about that the next time your grocery bill jumps into the triple digits.”

Now I don’t know that this is the smoking gun that bbell is looking for, but if you combind that with the economic distress our country is in, it’s at least a bloody knife.

In response to Ron, it may or may not be a bloody knife. I have never been on food stamps but my family WAS on the WIC program and that state-run program is pretty strict on what you can and cannot get, i.e., ‘nutritious’ foods from a grocery store. If food stamps don’t work that way, then it is just another way for parents to be blamed for not providing for their children properly.

Yes,

I listed the potential bad actors in this situation.

I seriously doubt the study that Ron cites. For one I doubt that you can get 3 meals for $3.52. 2000 calories at this price sounds like 2 bags of Twizzlers on sale. I also doubt that eating decently will run $36 unless you really try to buy crazy expensive food at Trader Joes. This sounds like snob food to be honest.

bbell,

taking care of the poor costs money. Cutting taxes for the rich is easy. Tell me which one benefits the poor?

ron, that’s BS that 2,000 good calories costs $36 and 2,000 bad calories costs $3.52. They distorted things to make their phony point. They must have chosen candy or fried snack foods to get the 2,000 calories at $3.52, and gone to a restaurant to get the $36/2,000 calories.

It’s actually the other way around.

One junk food meal at McDonald’s or a convenience store is going to cost at least $5.00, so there’s $15/day for bad calories.

But you can eat 3 square meals for under $5.00/day if you shop correctly at a grocery store, and prepare things yourself.

See http://www.hillbillyhousewife.com/

Here are some recent Walmart prices I’ve paid in Indianapolis: $1.88/pound for boneless skinless chicken breasts. $.87/pound for frozen mixed vegetables (corn, peas, green beans, carrots), $.87/pound for frozen cut broccoli.

At various places:

Dried beans can be had for $1.00/pound if you shop around. $1.25/pound without even trying to find bargains.

White Rice about $.70/pound.

Brown Rice about $1.00/pound.

Fresh Idaho potatoes at about $.15 to $.20/pound for the 10 to 20 pound bags.

Pasta at about $.75/pound. Even whole wheat or multi grain pasta at $1.00/pound.

Apples at $.75/pound at Aldi.

Skim Milk at $2.50/gallon or less at Aldi.

Canned mixed fruit at $.75 per 15 ounce can, Aldi.

Canned Tuna $.55/can at Aldi.

Cheese $3.00/pound at Kroger.

I read that article, and it’s not about kids getting the WRONG calories, it’s about the kids getting NOT ENOUGH calories in the first place.

Bbell is not giving the whole picture when he says “malnourished”. Yes, they’re malnourished, but it’s the “under fed” kind of malnourished, not the “poor diet” or “eating the wrong things” kind of malnourished.

According to the article they are “hungry and dangerously thin young children”.

Wait a second, I thought we had an OBESITY problem in this country, and that poor people are TOO FAT? What gives?

If illegal Mexicans who can barely speak English can work our system to get food stamps, then I say it must be the parents’ fault in Boston. #3, Dallske is right. It’s the parents.

Another key is that the article is talking about BABIES under 1 year old:
“BMC has also seen a 58 percent increase, from 24 in 2005 to 38 in 2010, in the number of severely underweight BABIES under the age of 1 who were referred by family physicians to its Grow Clinic, where doctors provide intensive nutritional, medical, and other services to boost babies’ growth.”

So even with WIC, and food stamps, and the zillion programs there are for children, those mothers just aren’t feeding their babies.

Something is wrong with those parents, especially the mothers.

The real question is, what is going on with those mothers? Is it that they don’t know how to feed infants and small children? Did not their own mothers teach them? Are schools failing them? Why aren’t they able to navigate the many food programs available?

When you got a kid under 1 who is under-weight, the key is the mother.

I believe much depends on the parents. My mother received “commodities” free from the welfare such as milk, cheese, etc., but she wasn’t resourceful in preparing meals for us. It takes time, yes, and effort to feed your children well on less, but it’s doable. Regardless of how much produce Harmon’s has. Perhaps the times have changed and parents who’ve depended on expensive and quick food do not know how to prepare inexpensive, nutritious meals for their kids. I’m reading the Duggars’ latest book. Yeah, she’s home all the time, but she has 19 kids. They plan and save and care well for those kids.

I’d like more info on those children who are malnourished–their family backgrounds, level of education in the mother, etc. You can put a pot of lentils or beans in a crockpot which is a good meal, but takes planning and foresight. Not much time to put on.

I don’t know why people assume everyone just knows how to cook, but that’s far from the truth. My wife and I didn’t have any classes in school, the only reason we lived through the first year of our marriage is because my mom started cooking with me when I was young, my wife could cook spaghetti when we got married. Period.

Just telling people to buy healthier food isn’t enough when they don’t know what to do with bookslingers’s chicken breasts and dried beans.

We’ve actually got two topics going on here:

1) The point in the OP which is described in the article about babies (under 1 year of age) in Boston not getting enough calories. They’re underweight. So the problem isn’t that the babies are getting the -wrong- food, they’re not getting enough of -any- kind of food, good or bad. I see two possible answers to bbell’s questions: either the fault lies with the mothers, or somehow those mothers are being kept very ignorant of how to take care of babies, and of how to access the many programs available. I guess a third option is that the programs themselves are failing people in Boston. But since Massachussetts is a liberal paradise, I find that hard to believe.

2) the bad general state of nutrition in America, which is people eating -too much- of the -wrong- food.

Coffinberry #13/jjohnsen #14: You’re both right. Many people just don’t know how to properly shop for and prepare food. But the point of the OP is more insidious and tragic. The babies in question aren’t getting wrong or bad food, they’re getting too little food at all.

I don’t know what current medical wisdom recommends as far as duration of breastfeeding. But from what I saw on my mission in Ecuador, babies could live entirely on mothers’ breast for at least a year.

Cooking needs to be taught much more than it is. If I had my way, I would require anyone getting food stamps, WIC, or food from a food bank take basic cooking classes. That might begin to solve the problem. However, there are so many people of all income levels who don’t know how to cook and refuse to put in any effort to learn. They think the excuse, “I don’t like to cook” justifies remaining ignorant. I don’t feel any obligation toward this type of person. I’m will warn my children against marrying anyone like this.

The article spelled out plainly one major problem: emergency housing does not offer the kind of cooking facilities the inexpensive healthy food requires; in such places, food preparation facilities are limited to microwave and a mini fridge. The sink is a bathroom sink. You cannot wash dishes let alone fill up a pot. What the article is saying is that more people with tiny children are homeless and requiring services, but the available spaces are designed for the solo adult homeless. It’s a poor fit. What might be a better solution then would be better emergency facilities, perhaps more in a community shared style where there are full kitchen equipment and turn-taking in food preparation with a full time home economics instructor on site. The trick would be to model autonomy and self reliance while sharing resources.

Sorry y’all, I tried to go the UW’s website to see if I could find a link to the actual study, since Zincechko doesn’t have a bibliography at the bottom of his article, but I couldn’t find it.

It would be nice though to know exactly how the figures were reached.

I know you can get an oreo cookie shake at Baskin Robbins for under $5 that has over 2,000 calories in one shot so your points about using skewed data are valid.

What the inner city needs is Aldi–much better than Walmart.

bbell,
Two things. First, I doubt most inner-city people eat the same range of products as you and your family do, especially the poorer inhabitants. Aldi would work for most of them, most the time.

Second, a lot of people in the inner-city end up taking the bus to go shopping, and because grocery stores tend to be so far away this can be difficult. You can put up several Aldis in the space it takes to have one single Walmart, and you can spread those Aldis out so that one is always within a mile or so of everyone in the inner-city. Need for the bus for basic shopping would be greatly lessened.

Ron: Two reasons:

1) you have to have a credit score, job, job history, etc, to get an apartment lease. You often have to pay a deposit. And you have to pay a month at a time.

At a cheap motel, you don’t need the credit score, job, job history etc. You don’t have to pay a deposit. And even if it’s a long term stay, you only have to pay a week at a time.

So even if a family wanted, and could afford that $500/month apartment, they either: can’t get a deposit together, can’t get together enough money to pay a month at a time, have a recent bankruptcy, have a recent dead-beat situation where they walked out on their bills, etc. So the only solution is to pay the higher priced motel, but only pay a few days, or a week, at at time.

And if you walked away from your electric/gas/water bills at a previous apartment or house, you might get an apartment owner to rent to you, but the electric/gas/water company may not turn on service to you at your new place until you pay your past bills with them.

2) There actually are some really cheap flea-bag or skid-row type motels that are cheaper than apartments. I forget what kind of errand I was on, but I came across some in Indianapolis, where you have families of 4, 5 or 6, living in a single motel room. They even have school buses make stops at the motels to pick up the kids. Sad.

bbell: In my experience, Aldi’s is cheaper than WalMart on many or most basics. Even though my nearest Aldi’s is in a worse neighborhood than my nearest Wal-Mart, I’d much rather shop at that Aldi’s, not just for the prices, but because I feel safer there due to the type of clientele that shop at that particular Wal-Mart. This web site describes the people of my nearest Wal-Mart: http://www.peopleofwalmart.com

by Marion Nestle.A few eyebrows were raised over Michelle Obamas participation. Some people dismissed the press conference as a simple PR stunt. Others just couldnt get past the fact that this was Walmart an often controversial chain that has been criticized for its treatment of workers and dismissal of unions as well as its mammoth size and impact on a community..Whatever you think about the countrys largest retailer this was a big deal. Sure we can argue that this was a PR stunt and its all about making money. But still these changes can make a huge difference. Heres what our First Lady had to say..today with this announcement the largest corporation in America is launching a new initiative that has the potential to transform the marketplace and to help American families put healthier food on their tables every single day. This Nutrition Charter promises a real change that can have a fundamental impact in how our kids eat you see because when parents have the information they need about the products they buy that puts them back in charge so they can make good decisions for their families..When kids are consuming these products every day those reductions in sugar and salt and trans-fat can really add up. Walmart is not only changing the nutritional profile of its private brand its calling on all the major food manufacturers to get in line. And theyll do it..Thats the power of this announcement. Yes its great that Walmart is reducing the price of fresh produce. We need to encourage the consumption of more whole foods. Thats really important. But we need to face the facts families rely on packaged foods and we shouldnt outright condemn anything that comes in a box bag or can. Lets try to make these convenience items more nutritious reduced sodium soups cereal and yogurt with less sugar and frozen entrees void of trans fats..We can nudge folks to eat fresh and prepare foods from scratch using whole foods. But Im happy to know that when they stray from the perimeter of the grocery store theyll have more nutritious packaged options to choose from..We can do all the educating we want but people need healthier options to choose from and they need the healthy options to be affordable. Why shouldnt Michelle Obama acknowledge Walmarts nutrition initiative. Im glad she was part of the press conference. She recognizes that to truly change the way America eats we need to tackle the issue from several angles..I applaud Walmart for this commitment. The bar has been raised. Thats how positive changes happen..

Yes, poverty is a reality in America, just as it is for millions of other human beings on the planet. According to the US Census Bureau, 35.9 million people live below the poverty line in America, including 12.9 million children.

This is despite abundance of food resources. Almost 100 billion pounds of food is wasted in America each year. 700 million hungry human beings in different parts of the world would have gladly accepted this food.