For some time now, so-called 'researchers' and academics in Australia have discounted the 'food desert' phenomenon that has been found to exist in the US and Britain. They proclaimed that fruit and vegetables are available even in areas of Australian cities considered to be of low socioeconomic status and that the prices of those fruits and vegetables were not significantly higher, ergo affordability was not a factor in the failure of people from low socioeconomic groups to consume a healthy, balanced diet.
Ignoring, of course, that the proportion of income that a non-wealthy person's food bill consumes is much, much higher and that regardless of equality of cost across urban regions, fruit and vegetables cost exponentially more per kilojoule, meaning it is more cost effective to consume a more energy-dense and less healthy diet.
Finally, someone with more than an ounce of common sense to scrape together has done a study on the bleeding obvious:
A welfare-dependent family of four would spend nearly half of its total weekly income on the healthy meal plan (44 per cent or 38 per cent using generic brands), compared with 18 per cent for an average-income family (16 per cent with generic brands).
Now, considering that rent also takes up a large proportion of poorer peoples' income (often upwards of 30%), that leaves around 25% of a meagre income to cover utilities, clothing, fuel, education etc. Achievable?
