Luevano 1 Rodolfo Luevano 12 December 2012 Social Status and its Correlation to Food Consumption One can often

see a distinct correlation between the socioeconomic status of a person and what they eat. By analyzing data and patterns one can see that the type of food that is bought, says much about their social economic status in society. There are many things to look at when considering the effect of higher and lower economic status on their respective food intake such as protein intake, macronutrient intake, fat intake for examples, as well as what it does the persons health. People of higher socioeconomic status tend to have diets rich in proteins and nutrients unlike people of lower socioeconomic status which tend to have diets with a higher concentration of calories and fat and because of their diets, people of lower socioeconomic status tend to have higher rates of illnesses. Certain foods tend to cost less which is why people of lower socioeconomic status purchase the type of food that they do. The people of socioeconomic status buy things that it their budget, so they usually turn to lower priced products. These lower priced products tend to be energy dense foods like simple grains and fats. Grains and fats food groups supplied the lowest-cost of dietary energy (Drewnowski 1181). Drewnowski states that grains and fats supply the lowest cost of dietary energy meaning that products like those cost less for the dietary energy they provide. Drewnowski analyzes the trends in food cost and energy output of the food. He was able to see the correlation of low cost foods and their high energy density but lower protein and vitamin and mineral content. Dry, energy-dense foods provided lower-cost calories than did fresh produce (Drewnowski 1181). The dry energy-dense foods tend to have lower-cost calories than that of

Luevano 2 fresh produce, and this illustrates why people of lower socioeconomic status would tend to purchase food of this type over fresh produce. Because fresh produce tends to be of higher cost than the dry energy-dense food, people of higher socioeconomic status are able to purchase it without any trouble. One main reason why dry food is energy dense is because it lacks water so there is a higher volume of energy per weight of product. Product whose weight is mainly water; lettuce for example is composed of 96% water which leaves it with a larger volume compromised of mainly water with little energy. Water is the main determinant of energy density of foods, whereas dry grains are energy dense (Drewnowski 1187). The fact that energy-dense foods have more energy per volume means that one can get more out of it. Being able to get more out of something is great but it is even better if that dry energy-dense product is cheaper than a fresh produce product. People of lower socioeconomic status tend be the main component of the working class. This working class is composed much manual labor which requires a lot of energy. The only way that such a life can be maintained with limiting circumstances such as a tight budget, as is the main case for most people of lower socioeconomic status, is by consuming food that can deliver the required energy but with such circumstances governing the lives of people lower socioeconomic status, they purchase the less costing product. The people of higher socioeconomic status dont require such higher amounts of energy because they tend to divulge from manual labor but by having the resources to buy more costly food products such as fresh produce, people of higher socioeconomic status tend to have better diets. Nicole Darmon, a social scientist, found there to be a socioeconomic gradient relating to diet quality. A large body of epidemiologic data shows that diet quality follows a socioeconomic

Luevano 3 gradient (Darmon 1107). Whereas higher-quality diets are associated with greater affluence, energy-dense diets that are nutrient-poor are preferentially consumed by persons of lower socioeconomic status (Darmon 1107). The quality of diets is very much visible for people of lower and higher socioeconomic status. The quality of a lower socioeconomic persons diet would lack many nutritional components needed for a healthy life. This is part of the reason why there tends to be more morbidity and mortality rates within people of lower socioeconomic status (Darmon 1107). Obesity a surging problem with people, but it is seen more within people of lower socioeconomic status. The morbidity and obesity have a direct link to nutrition and diet (Darmon 1107). The reason that the illnesses are connected to nutrition and diet is because the diet consumed by the person either lacks a certain nutrient or has an excess of something. Anemia for example can be an illness attained from a diet lacking in iron. Obesity on the other hand can be attained through overeating high energy foods. The extra energy is converted into fat and stored in the body. Obesity being a high occurring illness brings about many more illnesses including heart disease and diabetes which attribute to the mortality rates in lower socioeconomic people. Fast food is causing more and more obesity among people. The more disadvantaged groups suffer from higher rates of obesity (Darmon, 1107). Higher rates of illnesses tend to arise within lower socioeconomic groups because of their lack of proper nutritious meals. Fast food comes into play when speaking about cost of meals and can be seen as aiding the rise obesity as well. Since fast food is relatively cheap to acquire, it is readily bought as a way to replace a meal cheaply by people who dont have as much to spend on food. These people can be associated as people of lower socioeconomic status. The food that fast food sells for the most part is just a simple meal that contains high amounts of calories and fat. Since people who tend to buy fast

Luevano 4 food a lot are people of lower socioeconomic status, they are more susceptible to obesity and this is why it is predominantly seen within people of lower socioeconomic status. People of higher socioeconomic status tend to be healthier because of the variety of food that they eat that is not as available for people of lower socioeconomic status. In many epidemiologic studies, the consumption of whole grains, lean meats, fish, and fresh vegetables and fruit has been associated with better health (Darmon, 1107). It is no doubt that eating more vegetables and fruits along with whole grains, lean meats, and fish are healthier than fatty foods and simple grains. People of higher socioeconomic status tend to eat low energy diets. Diets high in whole grains, lean meats, fish, and fresh vegetables and fruit have a low energy density (Darmon 1107). Since eating low energy diets promotes better health over high energy diets, the people seen eating the healthier diets are that of higher socioeconomic status. Conversely, diets high in refined grains, added sugars, and added fats tend to be energy-dense but nutrient-poor (Darmon 1107). Nicole Darmon identifies the component of each diet respectively to each persons status, and evaluates what each type of food product includes and where it belongs. Each diet contains their respective food products. One can see that refined grains and added sugars is not nearly as nutritious as fish, lean meat, and vegetables. Whether a person is from a lower or higher socioeconomic status, they do ultimately eat things from each of their pictured diets. What separates them apart is the amount they eat from each diet. People of lower socioeconomic status cannot delight themselves with a grilled salmon accompanied by a raspberry salad everyday but perhaps once a every other week or so, while a person from a higher socioeconomic status does in fact grab a batch of French fries from McDonalds every once in a while. This is to say that persons from each status do eat food

Luevano 5 products from both sides but it is more prominent that they indulge in their respective diets; for one, the lower status people cannot afford it every day and the higher status people have the option to indulge in finer food with higher nutrition and quality. Fresh produce tends to be consumed less by people of lower socioeconomic statuses because the fresh produce cost higher. Higher SES groups were more likely to consume vegetables and fruit, particularly fresh, not only in higher quantities but also in greater variety (Darmon 1108). Being able to purchase vegetables and fruit in higher varieties ensure that the people of higher socioeconomic status obtain all the essential vitamins and minerals that are found with in vegetables and fruits. Having a high influx of a variety of vitamins and minerals leads a healthier lifestyle than that of a person who is limited to an intake of few minerals and vitamins. Looking at the evidence, it can be seen that there is indeed a correlation between the socioeconomic status of a person and the type of diet they have. A lot of research that has been put into analyzing data and trends in food products Bought by people of certain incomes, suggest the gap in healthiness of the diets of lower and higher socioeconomic people. People of higher socioeconomic status tend to have diets rich in proteins and nutrients unlike people of lower socioeconomic status which tend to have diets with a higher concentration of calories and fat and because of their diets, people of lower socioeconomic status tend to get more illnesses associated with the deficiency of needed nutrients or overabundance of unhealthy fats and calories.

Luevano 6 Works Cited 1. Darmon, Nicole, and Adam Drewnowski. "Does Social Class Predict Diet Quality?" The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 87.5 (2008): 1107-117. Web. 07 Nov. 2012. 2. Drewnowski, Adam. "The Cost of US Foods as Related to Their Nutritive Value." The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 92.5 (2010): 1181-188. Web. 07 Nov. 2012.