The Bronx Paradox


I like cultural paradoxes.  They often give us a keyhole view onto the vast room of the “unthought,” i.e., those scarcely-noticed prejudices and instincts that color thought and action.  So, in that voyeuristic spirit, I thought I would draw attention to the “Bronx Paradox,” the puzzling coincidence of hunger and obesity chronicled recently in the New York Times:

The Bronx has the city’s highest rate of obesity, with residents facing an estimated 85 percent higher risk of being obese than people in Manhattan, according to Andrew G. Rundle, an epidemiologist at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University.

But the Bronx also faces stubborn hunger problems. According to a survey released in January by the Food Research and Action Center, an antihunger group, nearly 37 percent of residents in the 16th Congressional District, which encompasses the South Bronx, said they lacked money to buy food at some point in the past 12 months. That is more than any other Congressional district in the country and twice the national average, 18.5 percent, in the fourth quarter of 2009.

Hunger and obesity are now so closely linked that the Department of Agriculture dropped the word “hungry” from its official reports in 2006.  It now prefers the term “food insecure.” Predictably, the experts whom the New York Times consults lay most of the blame for “food insecurity” on certain features of the South Bronx: the scarcity of fresh vegetables, the ubiquity of fried chicken, the prevalence of overtime employment—in short, all those factors that fall within the metrics of public health and social planning.

One might ask, however, how much promise such analyses hold.  Are people unhealthy because vegetables are scarce? Or are vegetables scarce because people are unhealthy?

I feel that it’s almost too obvious to point out, but the Bronx Paradox seems another window onto the moral drama peculiar to our age: material hypertrophy and spiritual atrophy.  The close connection between obesity and poverty suggests that even the poorest in developed countries have access—quantitatively speaking—to more than enough food.  But there exists also a qualitative dimension to food, one unaddressed by material abundance.  A fully human diet would require that we discern healthful foods, establish personal sovereignty over our appetites, and humanize our consumption—such that meals come to express both personal and social value.  We do the latter by marking days for feasting and fasting, by observing etiquette, by conferring seats of honor, etc.  Reading between the lines of our article, however, we can gather that the “food insecure” often eat impulsively, compulsively, and alone.  These problems touch the spiritual core of the person and, as such, resist the remedies of policy and planning.

It’s all part of the same picture.  When war-prevention rests on the threat of “mutually assured destruction” rather than on solidarity and diplomacy, the world is “peace insecure.”  When AIDS-prevention rests on condoms rather than on chastity and mutual respect, the world is “AIDS insecure.”  And, when hunger-prevention rests on the abundance of food rather than on moderation and genuine festivity, the world is “food insecure.”

Surely it is here, in the domain of moral and spiritual development, that the Church must make her distinctive contribution to human “security”.  And for this reason, regrettably, all crises of moral credibility in the Church turn out to be crises for humanity as well.


5 Responses to The Bronx Paradox

  1. Henry says:

    I like your post very much Aaron and I wish you would flesh out some of the intuitions you have because I am left with the desire to go deeper into the points you raise. FYI, it reminds me of a book that a friend once lent me to read – “When Food is Love.” I found the book fascinating and I think you might too!



  2. Patricia Sargent says:

    Even if more fresh produce were available, the sad fact is that healthy food is more expensive than less healthy choices. Eating healthy costs money. My experience is that the cheaper foods, even canned goods, inevitably have some or all of the characteristics of more calories, more salt, or more fat than the pricer version. And don’t even start with organic. You have to pay an arm and a leg to eat chemical free.

  3. mrteachersir says:

    “These problems touch the spiritual core of the person and, as such, resist the remedies of policy and planning.”

    Maybe this is why socialism and the Great Society and War on Poverty failed. Perhaps if we only learned our history…

  4. Patrick says:

    I think it is as simple as eating cheap food. Cheap food is what stays on the shelf the longest and is highly advertised. What stays on the shelf the longest tends to be full of both sugar and bad fats, and simultaneously un-full of good fats. Not to mention the sodium. This is all a recipe for compulsive eating. I’d read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes for more info. Also, the following is a great video by a professor at UCSF.

    As a side note, I am not entirely convinced this food is actually cheap. Rathe, goverment and corporate policies make it unacceptably cheap.

  5. Jack says:

    I liked your article in general, especially your “chicken and the egg” statement regarding vegetables and healthy eating. I feel that this food issue is prevalent not only in the Bronx, but throughout America in General. It ties in with the Catholic Social Teaching of human dignity, and rights and duties. Since our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, we are responsible for caring for them in the best ways we can. This applies to our diet and exercise as well, if we don’t take into consideration what and how much we put into our bodies, we are essentially disregarding the fact that our bodies are gifts from God. Also we must take into consideration the immense amount of food that America possesses and the obscene amount of food that goes to waste that could be alternatively used on people and nations experiencing famine and hunger. I feel that people have turned a blind eye, or perhaps have been deceived of the food system in America for too long and it is time for a change in the way we eat and the way the rest of the world eats. With all the current research going on, I feel that the change is coming. My only question for you Aaron, is in what ways do these poor, undeveloped nations have access to an abundance of food yet people die of starvation every day?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: