DN Editorial: Health Nuts

IN THESE DAYS of growing income inequality, the rich get richer and the poor get . . . diabetes. And heart disease. And cancer.

A recent study of the eating habits of 29,124 Americans by the Harvard School of Public Health verified a widening "food gap" between the poor and everyone else. While people at higher income levels are eating more healthy foods than they were 12 years ago, low-income Americans are lagging even farther behind.

Poor eating habits, and the obesity that often results, are strongly tied to a host of chronic (and expensive to treat) diseases. So the poor get sicker and health-care costs rise for everyone.

Not that Americans in general eat anywhere near healthy. On Harvard's Index of Healthy Eating, a perfect score is 110. In the most recent measurement (for 2009-2010), the American average in was 46.8 - and that was an improvement. In 1999-2000, the score was 39.6.

Score one for the Nanny State: Much of the improvement can be traced to changes in government policy, specifically on super-unhealthy trans fats, which used to be ubiquitous in restaurant and processed foods. Not only did the U.S. Food and Drug Administration require trans fats to be included in nutrition labels, many states and cities - including Philadelphia - banned their use in restaurants and other food sources.

After grumbling, most processed food manufacturers responded to the changed marketplace and lowered or eliminated the trans fats in their products. Last November, the FDA administered the coup de grace by proposing to essentially ban the stuff.

Not surprisingly, Harvard's scientists concluded that depending on individuals' "personal responsibility" is nowhere near as effective as "collective action" - legislation and taxation.

So much for the somewhat encouraging news about healthier eating: The real takeaway from the study is that, as the income gap between rich and poor grows, so does the gap between the amount of healthy food they eat. According to Harvard, low-income people lagged 3.9 points behind the average 12 years ago; the most recent figures have them 7.8 points behind.

There's no mystery why: healthy food like fruits and vegetables cost more than processed and junk food. Large numbers of the poor live in "food deserts" far from supermarkets or discount stores. Even if they could afford to buy fresh produce, some lower-income people don't have the knowledge of nutrition, let alone the time it takes to turn healthy ingredients into regular meals.

Right now, this sad situation could be much worse in Pennsylvania than it is. Last year, Congress passed cruel cuts to food stamps that would have resulted in 400,000 Pennsylvania households losing an estimated $60 to $65 per month in food aid. In an instance of rare good sense, Gov. Corbett found a way to forestall the cuts, by increasing federal utility subsidies for poor families, which allowed them to stay eligible for the food stamp program. (In fact, after 14 other governors took similar action, just four states - one of them New Jersey - enacted the food-stamp cuts.)

But the average $1.40 a meal supplied by food stamps can't supply the basics of a nutritious diet, no matter how knowledgeable or skilled the cooks. And that isn't healthy for the nation.