The great and widening gap between capitalist luxury and working-class poverty is one of the significant facts of capitalism. From time to time more or less official bodies for various reasons manifest concern in the indifferent health of the working-class. One of the latest investigations is embodied in Food, Health and Income, the joint work of Sir J. B. Orr, a leading expert on nutrition, the Rowett Institute and the Market Supply Committee. It is a dear and scientific analysis of much available information. Written without working-class bias, it is an apt commentary on the state of the working class under capitalism to-day; all the more useful in that the standard of nourishment used is one high enough to maintain “a state of well-being such that no improvement could be effected by a change in the diet.” All previous examinations have used a minimum standard—the smallest allowance on which life can be supported. The attempt has often been made by writers using the latter to show that workers’ diet is, in general, satisfactory. One such account stated that only 0.02 per cent, of the persons in a depressed South Wades mining area were suffering from malnutrition (British Medical Journal, January 4th, 1936). A minimum standard is also the basis of unemployment scales. A committee, under the chairmanship of Miss E. Rathbone, M.P., showed in December, 1935, that these scales were too low even for a “ down to the bone ” expenditure.
The present enquiry divides the population into six income groups. The income per head is the family income divided by the number of persons supported.
and Income”
It is worthy of notice that while in Group VI not quite one-third or less is spent on food, in Group I upwards of two-fifths of the income is so spent; and yet this high proportion still leaves that-section of the population underfed in every particular.
The sum spent on meat, milk, fish, fruit, and vegetables increases steadily with income. Butter, however, is a luxury often beyond the means of those in Group I, but replaces lard, margarine and dripping in Group VI. Cheese also is replaced by more expensive foods in this group. Where dear, but nourishing, foods are unavailable, cheap foods, often devoid of certain essential factors, such as potatoes and bread, have to do duty.
Sir J. B Orr says: "It looks as if either the purchasing power of this group is so low that the consumption of even the cheapest foodstuffs is limited, or, what is more probable, the appetite in the lowest income group is below the average. One of the first signs of sub-optimal nutrition is diminished appetite.” (p.29)—that is, that a poor diet is rapidly reflected in loss of appetite.
In the upper groups, not only is the quantity of food consumed greater, but the quality is higher. In determining the requirements for health of the essential nutrients, the standards compiled by Stiebeling, of the Government Bureau of Home Economics, U.S.A., were used. These detail the amount of protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, vitamins, and calories required. The reasoned conclusion of Sir J. B. Orr is that “the average diet of Group I is inadequate for perfect health in all the constituents considered; Group II is adequate only in total proteins and total fat; Group III is adequate in energy value, protein and fat, but below standard in minerals and vitamins; Group IV is adequate in iron, phosphorus and vitamins, but probably below standard in calcium; Group V has an ample margin of safety in everything, with the possible exception of calcium; and in Group VI the standard requirements are exceeded in every case.”
It is obvious that much disease must be the direct outcome of an indifferent diet. There is evidence that rickets, bad teeth, and certain anaemias are much commoner in the lower income groups. Moreover, the liability to a great variety of diseases is higher when nourishment is low. It is instanced that “children with rickets show a higher incidence of complications, and a higher death rate from some common diseases, such as whooping-cough, measles and diphtheria, than do those in the same environment without rickets ” (page 43).
In a group of measurements quoted, public schoolboys of 17 are an average of 3.8 inches taller than ”employed males,” and at 13 Christ's Hospital boys are an average of 2.4 inches higher than council schoolboys. While height is partly determined by hereditary factors, in a number of experiments the height of children has been increased by giving additional milk. In one instance, the rate of growth in children so fed was about 20 per cent. greater than in those not having extra milk.
Well may the author hold in his conclusion that “these findings .... raise important economic and political problems.” But they are not problems to be solved by “economic statesmanship.” They are the problems of capitalism, which is concerned with production for profit and offers the workers no more than is necessary to maintain in efficiency the capitalist system. By uniting to abolish this system, the workers themselves can take charge of the forces of production, so that food and all necessities of life fall into the hands of those who need them, not for profit, but for use.
C. J. Kilner.
No comments:
Post a Comment