I'm talking about Americans working 2 or 3 jobs who don't have the time, and honestly don't have the money either (yes, such poverty does exist in the US, perhaps you are just lucky enough to have not encountered it...) needed to cook meals with sufficient nutrient value for their (often quite large...) family. The result of this is that malnutrition is a very real problem among children of poor families. The worst part about this is the problem is infectious. Children that grow up without proper nutrition will be intellectually and physically stunted, dramatically increasing the chances that when they eventually have a family their children will end up the same way.
Statements like "local poor people eat meat regularly." are just flat out ignorant. I've known families that save up for bulk rice. "Seaweed, legumes or whatever" is so unrealistic it is absurd. People with time and money have those luxuries.
Search for "Food Consumption of Poor Children", read the following two paragraphs. USDA data shows poor people eat a) more protein than non-poor people (yes, really), b) more meat than average citizens of many rich nations (like Japan or the UK), and c) vastly more meat than average citizens of Mexico/Brazil/etc.
You do realize that the "research" you cite comes from an ultra-rightwing think tank, right? They have a longstanding agenda of trying to make people believe that poverty doesn't exist in America.
Data from the National School Lunch Program suggests the same thing. Protein deficiency is not statistically a challenge faced by Americans living below the poverty line. You can disagree with Heritage's politics (I certainly do), but it's naive to suggest that they're simply fabricating their underlying data.
I didn't suggest an outright fabrication. No need to restate here all of the cliches about how statistics can be manipulated. My only suggestion was that the Heritage Foundation are an absolutely worthless source. If you've provided a better one, that's great.
Even if we grant that protein deficiency itself is not a huge problem for America's poor, it nevertheless remains that the protein (and food generally) available to our poor is of the lowest quality.
Since Heritage here provided data that ultimately appears to be correct, your assertion that it's a "worthless" source isn't borne out, and so I'm less inclined to pursue a tangent about protein "quality" with you.
That's too bad, because I have a lot of thoughts about protein quality, and I think you'd probably agree with them. Unfortunately, you're in a place where you seem more inclined to troll threads with politics, so, maybe some other time.
I disagree with your logic here. To my mind, there are many sources that are absolutely not worth wasting any time on who may nevertheless say true things from time to time. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a source that tells only lies.
Heritage's data come from a Dept of Ag study. This seems like an excellent example of why we should try to cite original authors instead of intermediaries.
I honestly didn't mean to do anything trollish. And what's with "quality" in scare quotes?
The guy who attempts to refute an apparently correct study by putting the word "research" in scare quotes doesn't get to complain about other people's quotation marks, but for what it's worth, I'm a local protein guy.
Next time someone who does not share your exact political beliefs (or your orthodoxy in ensuring that his/her tertiary sources have unimpeachable credentials), I suggest you actually read what they're saying and come back with facts. The reality is that in a community of professionals, you're unlikely to find yourself conversing solely with people who agree with your worldview.
The irony is, I probably do agree with your politics, but I find the way you handled this particular wrinkle of the discussion so repellant that I've been driven somewhat apey.
I had totally forgotten that I had put "research" in scare quotes. You're right: it turned out to be unwarranted.
That having been said, I think you misunderstand me. I'm quite eager to learn from people who don't share my beliefs; it's the only reason I spend any time slogging through these comments in the first place. The spirit of my original reply, and what I should have said, is that bringing the Heritage Foundation into the discussion can only serve to muddle things.
He didn't bring Heritage into it. He sourced a fact to a Heritage report, which turned out to be (surprise!) a fact. Please just stop talking about Heritage. An HN survival skill that has served me in good stead: just say "I was wrong, sorry." People will even upvote you for saying it, because it's so rare for a nerd to say it. You will be amazed how many pointless arguments those words get you out of.
> "bringing the Heritage Foundation into the discussion can only serve to muddle things."
Only if you choose to let it. Here on HN, we usually don't.
You mention in your profile that the quality of discussion here is "slightly better than most places on the web". This is not an accident; it's a result of our strong community standards. Name-calling or ad hominem is generally rewarded with downvotes. Our preference is to look deeper into data and disagree in productive ways [0], not to get upset at the mention of a politically slanted organization.
You've had a rough introduction to our community. I hope you stay a while, learn our standards, and have a productive time here.
They appear to be the group with USDA data to back up their claims regarding a measurable fact of material reality. If you have better data, please, do share.
This is a content free comment. Please stop sucking the oxygen out of the thread. Nutrition information specific to the US cross-tabbed by income is a pain in the ass to find, but it is out there. If you want to refute a study, you'll actually have to refute it, not simply cast aspersions on its authors.
I go to a largely agricultural school, and that's actually one of the programs they have. Legumes are both nutritious and fairly easy to grow, so are great for small farming communities where protein deficiency is rampant. Animals are used for their products like eggs and milk to sell at market and not used for protein. I'm not really poor, but legumes are much cheaper than meat and have extended my own budget, so I think it can apply for families in America as well.
I mostly agree with what you said, with the addendum that poor Americans do have the tendency to buy cheap, bulk process foods for the same reason they wouldn't be able to afford "Seaweed, legumes or whatever". I'm not saying that families who need to save money for rice do this, but families with a little more money seem to always have alot of processed food.
Statements like "local poor people eat meat regularly." are just flat out ignorant. I've known families that save up for bulk rice. "Seaweed, legumes or whatever" is so unrealistic it is absurd. People with time and money have those luxuries.