Jesse Paul
English 1010
October 18, 2011
No Income, No Diet Obesity has been an on-going blame battle between the food industries and the consumers. Diane M. Gibson, associate professor and director of the New York census research data center, sheds new light on the on-going rise of obesity in the United States. Gibson’s prime focus on this situation is the increasing rate of obesity surrounding low-income women who are also participating in the SNAP program. S.N.A.P. (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), formerly known as the food stamp program, issues aid to low-income applicants who meet their pre-requisites. This article, written by Gibson, tries to persuade viewers to see the reasoning behind the obesity epidemic in SNAP participant, low-income women. Being over-weight, and not physically fit is something that the United States is publically renowned for. Obesity is highly overlooked in the country as something that could not prove fatal, when in actuality it should be attended to highly. Obesity is a causing agent towards heart failure, diabetes, and many other fatal diseases. This excess of weight can be linked to irregular eating habits, depression, and inheritance from other family members. In her article, Diane M. Gibson stated that, “Forty-two percent of low-income women in the United States are obese” (Para. 1). This statement presented by Gibson, shows a strong statistic used to sway the reader into a realization over the sweeping pandemic. This strong use of logos, logistics, is a focal point in an argument having a strong fact to support her cause. By following the quoted statement above, in her article, with the obesity level being even “higher” in low-income women, who are SNAP participants as well, brings an alarm to the reader creating a new perspective on the fight against obesity (Para.1). This relationship between the SNAP participation and higher rate of obesity in low-income women is lead to be derived from the environment of which the women are situated in. Within these lower income neighborhoods, across the United States, supermarkets are starting to make an appearance to aid in the battle against obesity. “More supermarkets in poor neighborhoods might not change people’s diets, if they only make more junk food available” (Para. 2). The statement made previously by Diane in the article could project multiple meanings to the reader. One of these possible meanings could visualize the sprout of multiple supermarkets in the lower income neighborhoods. Another possible projection created from the