Boggess 1

Sam Boggess
Brighton Capua
Writing 150
24 October 2014
What Food Says: Freedom or the Sign of Inequality?
Throughout history, America has stood as a place striving for equality. Our forefathers
fought for this ideal. In 2010, Lisa Miller writes about the stark irony in America surrounding
food inequality and states social and economic implications as the cause. When Miller wrote the
article, the high-classs food fads and diets, the poors limited access to quality produce and
grocery stores, and the debated government policies on food stamps showed the inequality. She
writes from her personal interactions along with public findings to bring awareness to the issue.
What Food Says about Class in America is an effective argument to convince middle-class
Americans of the irony surrounding the impact socioeconomic statuses have on Americans diets.
The article uses strong diction, observations from society, and statistics to create awareness of
food inequality in America but lacks a completely sound argument due to distracting information
and a non sequitor.
Throughout the article, Miller states the current irony of food inequality, clearing up any
misconception that this is not a problem in America. Some in her audience might assume that it
is the wealthy that have the unhealthy food behaviors simply because they have the money to eat
what and how much they want. Millers article shows the obvious irony of obesity. It is the poor,
with limited budgets, that are influenced the most towards buying unhealthy food. The audience
learns that due to lower socioeconomic statuses then their own, the poor simply lack choice when
it comes to food. Her audience, the middle-class, would be aware of current discussions about

Boggess 2
the food stamps program but due to possible negative feelings toward funding the program,
might be blind to the reality of the poors inequality. Millers purpose is to bring to light the
irony about the inequality to the middle class.
Though Miller is clearly able to support the irony that socioeconomic statuses impact
food choice, she lacks a complete argument due to logical fallacies in the article. Some
information shared in the article detracts from the irony she presents. At some points in the
article, Miller effectively reasons the ironic nature of the issue but adds unnecessary information
that distracts from her purpose. In the middle of the article, Miller writes about the controversial
proposal to ban food-stamp[s] for being able to buy soda (Miller). As she shares the two sides
of this issue, the audience becomes distracted from the irony of the issue and becomes more
focused on the presented issue itself. Although the audience is not confused nor lost in the article
by the unnecessary information, it makes it harder for them to fully grasp the strength of the
irony.
Another way that Miller leaves less than a fully effective claim is through a non sequitor,
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow the previous one. The audience is left
confused as Miller concludes her article with a story about Jabir Suluki. He has the food
struggles of the poor, but finds ways to eat healthy and says that good food in moderate
portions is possible on a fixed income (Miller). The reader is left puzzled as to why this story is
included. Miller shows the irony of food choice and obesity throughout her article then finishes
with this example that contradicts the irony, losing some credibility. Had Miller explained that
this was a rare case or had explained the difficultly Suluki goes through in order to eat healthy,
this example would further support the idea of irony in food choice. Some in the audience would
find that Suluki eats healthier than they do, causing small doubts in the idea that the poor are

Boggess 3
limited to unhealthy food. This hinders Millers ability to fully support her point, but the
numerous examples that do show the irony overcome this one contradiction. Though this one
example slightly detracts from her overall effectiveness, the irony she presents is still supported
by the paper as a whole.
The minor faults in the article do little to impede her effectiveness, and through the use of
strong diction, Miller successfully leads the audience to see the irony about food inequality. She
describes herself as a food snob and her neighbor as a health nut (Miller). The words snob
and nut bring a negative connotation to those who have options when it comes to food. Snob
brings with it the idea that they are wealthy, privileged, and have an unfair advantage; using the
word nut presents them as not being able to think clearly yet, through their wealth, still eating
healthy. Through these words, Miller supports the irony. By giving those with choice a negative
connotation, she causes the audience to see the issue as having two sides, the privileged and the
impoverished. By showing the two sides, Miller is able to effectively acknowledge the inequality
and irony in the situation. Had Miller wrote that she was careful in her eating choice and that
her neighbor diligently sought healthy options, her audience would have only seen the benefits
of choice and this part of the article would not have caused any reaction from the reader. The
words snob and nut bring a reaction of negativity towards the privileged. Though the
audience would doubtfully see themselves as food snobs or health nuts, they realize that while
they may have numerous options when they shop at a grocery store, there are others who are not
as fortunate as them. Through diction, Miller is able to share the irony in how socioeconomic
statuses directly relate to food choice.
Furthering her claim, Miller uses an ironic analogy to show differences in food choice.
She received a Christmas catalog from a high-end retail store and finds the models outfits

Boggess 4
covered in food. To quote Miller, she says, Food is no longer trendy or fashionable. It is
fashion (Miller). The audience knows that fashion usually correlates with the word expensive
and that many of the high and middle classes find fashion important. This knowledge allows the
audience to see the near ludicrous trend that food is in the high class and can compare this to the
limited options for the poor. Whereas food is a basic need not often met for the poor, food is
portrayed as an expendable item for the wealthy. Millers observation again informs the audience
of the impact socioeconomic statuses has on food choice. Some might suggest that having a few
models dressing up in food is just one of the many odd things that the fashion industry does; they
dont see how this could remotely relate to what options people have for food. One known
underlying principle of fashion is that it allows you to choose whether you want to have the latest
and greatest, make yourself unique, have the ability to fit in, or numberless other approaches to
presenting yourself. By making food part of fashion, particularly for the wealthy, there is a given
assumption that Americans can choose to follow the latest trend of food if they so choose. The
audience easily sees through this false assumption, further developing the stance of irony in diet
inequality.
The irony Miller presents is also shown through observations she has made on poor
families, causing the reader to feel empathy for the poor. One such family is the Davis family,
led by a single mother. Not only is cost an issue for this low income family, but time and
having nearly every item packaged and full of chemicals at the stores available to them play
major roles as well (Miller). Doubts a reader might have in the legitimacy of the claim is lost
through this example as empathy for the family convinces the audience the truth of food
inequality. Readers feel for the Davis family as they are made aware that multiple socioeconomic
factors limit food choices for the poor. They are held bound by their limited access. Though

Boggess 5
Millers purpose in writing is to inform about the issue, the irony leads the audience to think that
they need to do something about the issue. It causes them to be more invested in the article and
the inequality problem, effectively bringing to light the irony.
In addition to her more emotional appeals, Miller shares statistics that clearly show the
glaring irony in food choice in America. She shares from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
that, 17 percent of Americanslive in households that are food insecure (Miller). By food
insecure, it means families run out of food before they can acquire more money. This statistic
dismisses any argument against the presence of food inequality; the fact is that nearly one in five
Americans run out of food. Not only does the statistic clearly show the legitimacy of the
problem, but the word insecure brings a connation of anxiousness and worry to the reader.
Through the word, the audience can feel the uncertainty of the families. These feelings bring to
light the food struggles that the lower class goes through and helps to create empathy for them.
The audience now sees that the poor simply cannot afford choice. The statistic and in particular
the word insecure further shows the irony that the underprivileged are forced to buy the
cheapest food available, which directly impacts their diets.
Another statistic shares that, the most nutritious foodsrose 29 percent, while the least
nutritious foods rose just 16 percent (Miller). This plainly informs that those with a limited
budget have less variety when it comes to food and their diets are not as balanced and healthy as
those with more money. The blunt nature of the statistic supports her claim effectively. The
audience can see the connection from the healthy verse unhealthy food costs to dietary choices of
Americans. Little argument, if any, can be made against this. The audience can easily make the
connection that those with little money will, out of necessity, buy the inexpensive, unhealthy
food and that those with the money can afford better food and therefore have more options and

Boggess 6
healthier diets. Because Millers purpose is to bring to light the impact of wealth and status on
food, the objective reason of statistics clearly supports the irony.
Miller convinces her audience through personal examples, observations, and statistics of
the irony that American diets are directly impacted by socioeconomic statuses. Though
supported, Miller loses some strength in her argument through distracting information and a
contradicting example. Overall, the irony Miller conveys effectively brings to light the struggles
of food inequality in America and indirectly causes empathy for those with food struggles.