ZIP Codes And Property Values Predict Obesity Rates

Science Daily — Neighborhood property values predict local obesity rates better than education or incomes, according to a study from the University of Washington being published online recently by the journal Social Science and Medicine. For each additional $100,000 in the median price of homes, UW researchers found, obesity rates in a given ZIP code dropped by 2 percent.

The study, based on analyses of responses to a telephone survey conducted in King County by the local health department and the federal Centers for Disease Control, found six-fold disparities in obesity rates across the Seattle metropolitan area. Obesity rates reached 30 percent in the most deprived areas but were only around 5 percent in the most affluent ZIP codes.

"Obesity is an economic issue," said Dr. Adam Drewnowski, director of the UW Center for Obesity Research and leader of the study. "Knowing more about the geography of obesity will allow us to identify the most vulnerable neighborhoods."

Working with the local health agency, Public Health-Seattle & King County, the researchers aggregated multiple-year data from Washington state's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to analyze data for more than 8,000 respondents. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention use the same data to map rising obesity rates in the United States at the state level. However, unlike most states, Washington codes the BRFSS data by the respondents' ZIP code, which permits more detailed analyses of local obesity rates at a finer geographic scale. Other information about the ZIP code areas was provided by data from the U.S. Census.

Residential property values were used as a proxy measure of ZIP code socioeconomic status. "Incomes are not the same as assets and wealth," said Drewnowski. "The chief financial asset for most Americans is their home."

Area prosperity can also be a good predictor of access to healthy foods, or opportunities for exercise.

The UW study was the first to examine obesity rates by area-based indexes of poverty and wealth across a metropolitan area. Previous studies have found higher obesity rates among racial and ethnic minorities and groups of lower education and incomes. Analyses of the same BRFSS data for King County showed that obesity rates were higher for African-Americans (26 percent) than for whites (16 percent), and were higher for people with annual incomes below $15,000 (20 percent) than for those with incomes above $50,000 (15 percent), all consistent with national trends. These disparities were much lower than those dependent on ZIP codes and geographic location. The study concluded that social and economic disparities were more important in predicting obesity than previously thought.

Well-known maps of rising obesity rates in the United States, also based on BRFSS data, showed only small differences among the poorest and the richest states.

"Those maps were used to support that argument that the obesity epidemic did not discriminate," said Drewnowski. "Our research shows that geography, social class, and economic standing all play huge roles in the obesity problem. Some of the most disadvantaged areas -- those hardest hit by low income, low education, and low property values -- are also the ones most affected by the obesity epidemic."

The study co-authors were Dr. David Solet, Epidemiology Unit, Seattle-King County Department of Public Health, and Colin Rehm, epidemiologist, Snohomish Health District, Snohomish County, Wash. The research was supported by the Roadmap grant from the National Institutes of Health, through the UW Center for Obesity Research.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University of Washington.

Interesting relataionships here. But, are they causal relationships; i.e., does having a lower income cause obesity?

It certainly contributes. Poorer neighborhoods have crappy grocery stores with a limited selection, and folks working two jobs don't have time to cook. I'm not surprised that there's a stronger correlation to home values than to household income -- healthy eating doesn't cost more money than junk food. It takes time, knowledge and access to good ingredients.

There are plenty of middle-class and up couch potatoes, and eating right and getting some exercise are conscious decisions. But folks in more affluent neighborhoods have safer places to walk, jog or ride a bike, and better supermarkets, not to mention farmer's markets and specialty stores like Whole Foods or Trader Joe's. Folks in less affluent neighborhoods have to try harder.

I've said many times before that in my judgment, the war on poverty is over, and we won it. Of course, solving one set of problems creates new ones; the old programs don't address the new needs.

What the inner city needs is community kitchens -- start with at least seven families, one for each night of the week. Someone from one family cooks a nutritious, tasty dinner for everyone participating. The program could even expand to prepare pre-packed lunches for kids to take to school. Or invest in one of those vacuum-sealer machines, and have ready-made meals in a plastic bag ready to reheat. If you have an able-bodied adult in the house, you participate on the work or you don't partake in the meals.

Get help from a nutritionist, maybe even an occasional visit from chefs at local restaurants -- soul food, Mexican, Asian, maybe even more fancy fare every now and then. Get the chefs to offer simple, fast and easy recipes, compile them into a cookbook, and sell it as a fundraiser.

Churches are the obvious folks to coordinate the effort -- they have room, roots in the community, volunteer labor, and some sot of vehicle that can bring in ingredients not available at the corner bodega. Maybe their own resources, maybe block grants or corporate donations. Wheel in a van from the nearest Publix, Kroger, Safeway or Super Wal-Mart once a week.

When the New Deal and Great Society programs were created to combat poverty, the problems were malnutrition, substandard housing, disease, and substandard , often segregated schools.

Today, the problem is broken families a poverty of values, not a lack of material goods. Public housing projects were an improvement over shanty towns, but now their time has come and gone. There are no role models, because by definition success means getting out. So we dump kids in a "community" where the only folks who have anything like material success are the pimps and drug dealers who stay in the 'hood because that's where their "business" is. The role models are either running a fraud, running a crime, or in the case of folks with real character and ethics, working themselves half to death.

The challenge facing the poor today is not the lack of a roof, but the lack of a real community. Housing projects are nothing more than a warehouse for hopeless people. Tear them down, or if you have good structures in a good location, auction them off as apartments or condos. as part of a real neighborhood. Offer tax credits -- enterprise zones are one of the best programs of the last 20 years -- to being needed businesses and services into the neighborhood.

There are real people facing real obstacles not of their making. The way to help those people, and to help them all fend for themselves and achieve success so we're not forever supporting or incarcerating generation after generation, is to get smarter and more adaptive to specific local needs. Grants to local groups, including religious groups, that are immersed in the community and responsive to local needs are far more effective than a one-size-fits-all monolithic federal plan.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.