Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Do Rich And Poor Eat Differently?

In the nineteenth century and before, the mark of the wealthy was fat: Plump women, plump men, and their plump children. They were all fat because they had the wherewithal to buy more food. More food meant more calories, which of course meant plumpness. It’s no surprise that early portrait photography almost uniformly depicted fat people: Photographs were expensive, and the people with the money to get their portraits done had the money to eat well.

The poor, of course, were skinny and frail-looking. They were short of stature—because they hadn’t received enough protein as they were growing up. Look at any nineteenth century picture of a crowd, say soldiers on a Civil War battlefield, and everyone looks as skinny and slight as a professional jockey—not an ounce of excess fat on anyone, and no one over 5’6”.

Today, in the XXI century—where presumably everyone has access to enough food—we can easily spot the poor as well:

They are fat. They sport massive bellies falling over their belts—or more often, hidden under tent-like t-shirts (both men and women)—and the flesh of their faces runs smoothly into their shoulders: They have no necks.

Their obesity comes from the cheap processed foods that they eat: Fried meats and starches, not to mention sugary soft-drinks drunk by the gallon.

The poor today are also big: Not merely fatter but taller, larger. This is because of all the hormones that they are ingesting, hormones injected into the cheap processed foods that they eat by the corporations trying to bulk up the poultry and beef they are selling.

No comments:

Post a Comment