19 September 2011

Economic Issues in Diabetes

Reading all of the lay articles last week, especially "Candy Not Dandy" and "We're Not Saying Drink Wine to Lose Weight" really made me think about the economic classes of the majority of diabetic patient.

"Low income appears to be associated with a higher prevalence of diabetes and diabetes related complications..."

"... the author finds that high school dropouts are roughly sixty percent more likely to have diagnosed diabetes and twice as likely to have actual diabetes as men who have attended college."

High school drop outs make less money than college graduates generally. If this lower middle class population has a higher rate of diabetes and obesity then I see a link. I would take this to mean that it takes more effort to find healthier meals for people of a lower economic status, and they tend to have high fat diets leading to obesity, and then to diabetes. In "Candy Not Dandy" we discussed in class how they do not take into consideration what is being eaten instead of candy and what can be practical to have in the house at all times for these children as well. "We're Not Saying Drink Wine to Lose Weight," doesn't consider economic status either. If you look at the stereotype for people who usually drink wine, it is associated with a higher economic standing. This means that they can afford to shop at organic markets and buy healthier meals. It also usually means that they are educated which goes along with the above article saying that college graduates are less likely to be diabetic.

I want to talk about how this is highlighted in Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution, a show that sees how class is the root for many issues in obesity. Jamie Oliver has been heading to schools in low income areas to try to shed light on and implement the need for better nutritional meals in order to lower obesity rates, which are high in these low income areas. For example, Huntington, West Virginia was one of his stops. The show did place healthier meals in the cafeteria but the budgets for keeping up these meals skyrocketed, causing children to drop from school food programs and putting the schools in debt. A higher economic standing means easier access to healthier meals, and so to a healthier lifestyle.

I think it is interesting to see how economic standing is really an important factor in obesity rates. If better food was made more readily available then would people eat healthier? I would hope so and I hope that changes like these would be able to have more positive effects on the US markets.


4 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree that this is a very interesting and important aspect that should be considered when approaching this epidemic. I also think it’s wonderful that there is a push towards healthier meals in school and hope that a solution to the cost is in the near future. It’s interesting that a New York Times article discussing these costs was posted the same day this post was written: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/education/20lunch.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=fernanda%20santos&st=cse/

    Looking at the quotes posted sparked a new question. They are looking at correlations between amounts of schooling and income, but what about the fact that they simply have more education? From personal experience (working with patients in Mexico) I can see a desire in the public to have nutrition information more readily available to them. Patients suffering from diabetes or even those unaffected probed us with questions and took the information to heart.

    I definitely think that a combined effort of education and having access to healthy meals would make the greatest impact on our community.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To continue off your idea that healthier foods are more easily accessible to people of higher socioeconomic status, I want to highlight the idea of food deserts. Food deserts tend to refer to areas that "lack access to affordable fruits, vegetables, whole grains, low-fat milk, and other foods that make up the full range of a healthy diet," which can be rural or urban.

    A study by the USDA in 2009 discovered that in the US:
    --2.3 million, or 2.2 percent, live more than a mile from a supermarket and do not have access to a vehicle.
    --An additional 3.4 million households, or 3.2 percent of all households, live between one-half to 1 mile and do not have access to a vehicle.
    --11.5 million low-income residents live in low-income areas that reside more than 1 mile from a supermarket.
    --people living in low-income areas with limited access spend significantly more time (19.5 minutes) traveling to a grocery store than the national average (15 minutes)

    From this data, I can't help but think the idea of eating healthier for certain individuals is not as easy as we would like to assume in the academic setting. The study even goes on to continue that most people go to convenience stores as an alternative to grocery stores; prices for similar products at these convenience stores were also found to be more expensive, continuing the cycle. Increased accessibility needs to be addressed for all areas to show a better commitment to reducing poor nutrition and factors that lead toward such diseases as obesity and type II diabetes.

    I also found an interesting site that maps (like Google maps) where food deserts are located in the US. (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/fooddesert/)

    Sites for Reference:
    http://www.cdc.gov/features/fooddeserts/
    http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ap/ap036/

    ReplyDelete