Is the food consumption in American society an example of social and economic inequity?

Answer

1. 1. Is the food consumption in American society an example of social and economic inequity?

      Introduction

      Recent studies have outlined strong positive correlations between food consumption and social and economic status. Indeed, extant reviews by Kaya (2016) and Dong et al. (2020) among others have established connections between socioeconomic status indicators (SES) and nutritional health of populations in the Americas, New Zealand, and other parts of the world.  Specifically, these studies have and others have established negative impacts of inadequate food supplies on poverty stricken members of society, further entrenching social and economic inequity (Metcalf, Scragg, and Jackson 2014). The aim of this paper is to establish whether food consumption in American society is an example of social and economic inequity by focusing on relationships between income, education, and hedonic eating patterns on inequity. Subsequent discourse affirms the role of food consumption as an exemplifier of inequity and recommends concerted action to increase access to quality food as a way of preventing escalation of inequity.

      Evidence from Income Disparities

      In recent times, income has emerged as a key mediating variable in the exploration of food consumption as an example of socioeconomic inequity. Quantitative data by Metcalf, Scragg and Jackson (2014) have provided useful insight into the moderating roles of food consumption on income induced disparities. Available data shows that individuals in the 30k - $50k bracket tend to favor high calorie carbohydrates and starch in contrast to their counterparts in the ≥$70k income bracket. However, the investigations showed no significant disparities after other SES indicators were considered. Yet, the same findings also reveal a startling proclivity for high cholesterol consumption among individuals in the $30k to $50k. Alcohol consumption was reportedly lower among the <$30k earners (Metcalf, Scragg and Jackson 2014).

      Similar patterns of inequality have been inferred from study of nutrients “expressed as their contribution to total energy intake” by families in various income strata (Metcalf, Scragg and Jackson 2014. For instance, alcohol use was observed to be considerably lower among the under $30k income groups as high income earners exhibited high levels of alcohol consumption.. Similarly, less than typical calcium consumption was reported among workers earning a monthly salary of <$30k (Metcalf, Scragg and Jackson 2014). The same low income cohort had greater consumption of starch as well as greater carbohydrate ingestion interspersed with comparatively lower consumption of fiber. There were also markedly fewer regular users of calcium in the $50k - $70k categories. On the whole, the least earners were associated with lower fiber and calcium consumption in contrast to higher income earners. Further analysis of geometric mean data on “food group servings” ordered according to net average incomes corrected for “age, gender, ethnicity and total energy intakes” seem to reinforce the preceding findings. In comparison to the higher earning cohort, the materially deprived members of American society registered fewer servings of “vegetables, fruit, cheese, milk and spirits” (Metcalf, Scragg and Jackson 2014). The high consumption of wine by income groups also served as a reminder of food accentuated inequities across America. Yet, it is instructive to note that the considerably lower vegetable intake among workers in the $40k - $50k income category still remains inconsequential upon consideration of all other factors in the SES considerations. The findings show that “milk, cheese, cereal, wine, beer and spirit” consumption among members of the lower income groups (Metcalf, Scragg and Jackson 2014. 

       

      Evidence from Variations in Educational Attainment

      While conceding to the dearth of research data linking education and nutritional consumptions, on one hand, and socioeconomic equity on the other,  it is noteworthy that several studies have specifically showed peculiar eating patterns among different demographic segments in America. For instance, studies have highlighted low fiber and calcium consumption in people without post-secondary education in comparison to individuals with tertiary education (Metcalf, Scragg and Jackson 2014). However, the study failed to establish connections with the ratio of “contribution of nutrients to total energy intakes” It should be noted, however, that lower intakes of “vegetables, cheese, milk, and wine”, and higher consumptions of “eggs, bread, cereal and beer” still remained higher among the college educated individuals in relation to the populations under review.

      Similarly, a cross-sectional a study by Dong et al (2020) seems to delineate unique nutritional needs to teenagers and young adults. In fact, numerous data on human growth and development associate the two stages as critical, and desperately in need for support to engender impressive growth. That being the case, it is sensible to conclude that continued growth of children and adolescents will naturally require the right quality and quantity of nutrients. Correspondingly, should nutritional supply from foods be limited, it may be important to provide additional nutritional supplements for the affected individuals to safeguard critical growth stages. Suitable supply of food could support “adolescent growth and development”, cognitive capabilities, brain growth, and development, and psychosocial development. It is possible that children and adolescents from economically disadvantaged and materially deprived socioeconomic backgrounds will endure poor nutrition, in addition to other foods common to low income earners. The same are seldom balanced, and are generally in low supply as richer members enjoy expensive and more nutritionally balanced foods. The research findings have a caveat to them: the data is moderately old with certain limitations. However, the results have been passed as reliable and consistent.

      Evidence from Hedonic factors

      This is illustrated by the fact that many people will pay an equivalent price for

      artificially sweetened versions of liked foods or drinks. Operant studies show a powerful

      reinforcement effect of non-nutritive sweeteners,

      17

       which can exceed that of cocaine,

      18

       

      demonstrating that caloric consequences are not necessary for sweet taste to maintain

      food-seeking behavior. Since the spending on artificially sweetened products like diet

      soda is not offset by compensatory increased spending on calories in ordinary foods,

      19

       a

      behavioral economic perspective suggests that people, at least “health conscious” ones,

      are often willing to pay a caloric cost to obtain sweetness per se.

      The importance of sensory pleasure is further illustrated by consequences of

      removing it. Nutrients infused intravenously or via nasogastric tube (therefore not tasted,

      chewed, or swallowed) are generally less satisfying. In studies of healthy volunteers,

      tube-fed participants still consume near-normal meals when permitted to do so.

      20

       In long-

      term clinical cases, tube-fed individuals become preoccupied by food cravings.

      21

       Healthy

      volunteers who consumed nothing for several days except a sweet, nutritionally complete

      drink experienced cravings caused by lack of sensory variety.

       22

       During a chocolate

      craving, it is only the tasting, smelling, and eating of chocolate, rather than its post-

      ingestive effects, that satisfy the craving.

      23

       Thus, not only will people pay a significant

      cost to obtain taste pleasure, but nutritional repletion without oral stimulation is

      unsatisfying, and sensory deprivation can powerfully stimulate interest in food and evoke

      mental imagery of food’s desirable sensory characteristics.

      This is illustrated by the fact that many people will pay an equivalent price for

      artificially sweetened versions of liked foods or drinks. Operant studies show a powerful

      reinforcement effect of non-nutritive sweeteners,

      17

       which can exceed that of cocaine,

      18

       

      demonstrating that caloric consequences are not necessary for sweet taste to maintain

      food-seeking behavior. Since the spending on artificially sweetened products like diet

      soda is not offset by compensatory increased spending on calories in ordinary foods,

      19

       a

      behavioral economic perspective suggests that people, at least “health conscious” ones,

      are often willing to pay a caloric cost to obtain sweetness per se.

      The importance of sensory pleasure is further illustrated by consequences of

      removing it. Nutrients infused intravenously or via nasogastric tube (therefore not tasted,

      chewed, or swallowed) are generally less satisfying. In studies of healthy volunteers,

      tube-fed participants still consume near-normal meals when permitted to do so.

      20

       In long-

      term clinical cases, tube-fed individuals become preoccupied by food cravings.

      21

       Healthy

      volunteers who consumed nothing for several days except a sweet, nutritionally complete

      drink experienced cravings caused by lack of sensory variety.

       22

       During a chocolate

      craving, it is only the tasting, smelling, and eating of chocolate, rather than its post-

      ingestive effects, that satisfy the craving.

      23

       Thus, not only will people pay a significant

      cost to obtain taste pleasure, but nutritional repletion without oral stimulation is

      unsatisfying, and sensory deprivation can powerfully stimulate interest in food and evoke

      mental imagery of food’s desirable sensory characteristics.

      Choice and intake are intrinsically bound up with hedonic evaluation of food’s sensory

      attributes—the pleasures of tasting, smelling, and feeling food as it is consumed.

      Understanding hedonic influences becomes especially important now that technologized

      food production brings an increasing variety and ease of access to foods that are

      specifically designed with sensory appeal in mind. It will always be difficult to elucidate

      a causal role of palatability per se in eating patterns, since palatability is neither a

      physical property of a food nor a fixed response tendency of the individual, but rather an

      interaction between the food, the external context, and internal signals for current

      physiological state.

      14,15,16

       Nonetheless, virtually all acts of eating generate some degree of

      sensory pleasure.

      This is illustrated by the fact that many people will pay an equivalent price for

      artificially sweetened versions of liked foods or drinks. Operant studies show a powerful

      reinforcement effect of non-nutritive sweeteners,

      17

       which can exceed that of cocaine,

      18

       

      demonstrating that caloric consequences are not necessary for sweet taste to maintain

      food-seeking behavior. Since the spending on artificially sweetened products like diet

      soda is not offset by compensatory increased spending on calories in ordinary foods,

      19

       a

      behavioral economic perspective suggests that people, at least “health conscious” ones,

      are often willing to pay a caloric cost to obtain sweetness per se.

      The importance of sensory pleasure is further illustrated by consequences of

      removing it. Nutrients infused intravenously or via nasogastric tube (therefore not tasted,

      chewed, or swallowed) are generally less satisfying. In studies of healthy volunteers,

      tube-fed participants still consume near-normal meals when permitted to do so.

      20

       In long-

      term clinical cases, tube-fed individuals become preoccupied by

      Choice and intake are intrinsically bound up with hedonic evaluation of food’s sensory

      attributes—the pleasures of tasting, smelling, and feeling food as it is consumed.

      Understanding hedonic influences becomes especially important now that technologized

      food production brings an increasing variety and ease of access to foods that are

      specifically designed with sensory appeal in mind. It will always be difficult to elucidate

      a causal role of palatability per se in eating patterns, since palatability is neither a

      physical property of a foo

      New cross-sequential data from a study by Myers (2016) have been idealized for outlining the impact of Hedonic factors on choice of food, and by extension, the social and economic realignments in America. The findings appear to prove the existence of hedonic evaluations in the minds of individuals ultimately swaying their decisions on which food is appropriate for them. Still on the choice of food, hedonic considerations tend to view eating as a pleasurable undertaking, and the food so desired should yield the greatest corporeal benefits (Myers 2016). Similar studies have shown that hedonic factors not only provide an inclusion principle as far as certain foods are concerned, but they also control the reflexive actions responsible for influencing the substitution concerned nutritional and concomitant behavior.  Myers (2016) has illuminated the “significance of hedonics in the psychology of twenty-first century eating” by proving that decisions to eat or not to eat are embedded in hedonic assessments which seem to control the richer members of American society (Myers 2016). In this way, hedonic patterns will mostly be exercisable by the aristocratic elite whose vast resources accord them the luxury and pleasures of expending their sensory powers to the preferences of “tasting, smelling, and feeling food as it is consumed” (Myers 2016). For members in the upper echelons of the social order, a clear grasp of hedonic factors is important particularly with the emergence of   new technological innovations which have automated food production and processing to the extent that there are countless food varieties to choose from at any given time.as pointed out, each of the novel food varieties come with unique and delightful allures which the rich can readily access. In light of the above, it is plausible to acknowledge the impossibilities surrounding attempts to establish causality of palatability in nutritional decision making. The preceding challenge has been compounded by the fact that “palatability” as a concept does not refer to “physical characteristics” of food nor does it imply a need for a predetermined response inclination of the individual respondents, but rather an “interaction between the food, the external context, and internal signals for current physiological state” (Myers 2016).  Even so, there is no denying the fact that almost every interaction with food is bound to elicit varying degrees of sensory pleasure.

      This fact has been amply demonstrated the glaring human inclination to appropriate sufficient amounts of resources as “equivalent price” for industrially flavored brands of popular foods and drinks. In fact, numerous studies have revealed a potent knock on effect of nutritionally bereft flavors with calorific values exceeding cocaine. From the food manufacturer’s perspective, these findings have gone a step further to validate the established view that calorific concerns should not be regarded as consequential in sustenance of food-seeking behavior. Also, considering the fact that expenditure on  “artificially sweetened products” such as diet soda is not counterbalanced by corresponding increase in calories in ordinary foods, a social economic viewpoint submits that consumers in general, and “health conscious” ones in particular, are generally keen to meet caloric costs associated with sweetness. Remarkably, the significance of corporeal inclination is further demonstrated by potential demerits of abolishing it. Perhaps, this explains why intravenous and nasogastric tube will almost always be less stimulating and satisfying.

      Conclusion

      From the foregoing discussion, it is apparent that food consumption, through 3 mediating variables, namely income disparity, education level, and hedonic factors is pivotal as a lasting example of social and economic inequity. Income disparities have been found to influence the way different classes coalesce around meal times, and the foods they eat. Similarly, level of educational attainment continue to divide society as less educated folk prefer high calorie carbohydrates compared to their more erudite counterparts. Correspondingly, hedonic factors have given rise to various tastes and preferences among various classes. As a result, it has been observed that the wealthy tend to go for expensive wine, an effective delimiter from their poorer counterparts who pursue cheap liquor. To reduce inequity, perhaps it would be better for interventions are initiated from the food distribution and access

      More people of color reported perceived discrimination on all measures.