It’s one thing to say that a family of thirteen in Bhutan eats for $20 a month and a family of four in North Carolina for over $1300. It’s another thing altogether to visualize it.
What the World Eats is a photo essay of families with their food for the week arranged about them, from a Sudanese refugee camp in Chad to a frugal family of four in California. It’s amazing to note both the similarities and differences from table to table, which have more processed and packaged foods, and the volume of food some families eat. Bananas seem only slightly less ubiquitous than Coke products.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Tanya Sue // Jun 6, 2007 at 2:44 am
That is amazing. I noticed the difference in packaging first. I was suprised at the processed food. I was saddened to see that we could feed a family for something like $1.23 a week-and we still don’t manage to do that.
I think that we forget how much we have in this country and the obligation we have to our neighbors in the world. Pretty much, we suck.
2 Lessie // Jun 6, 2007 at 1:04 pm
My initial response was very similar to Tanya Sue’s. However, I was also wondering if anyone knows how they were breaking down the weekly spending? My family doesn’t even spend that a month on food. Is it really possible to eat that much in a week? Anyway, this led me back to the feeling that somethings gotta give. That even though I don’t spend as much as the families featured in this article, I still could stand to cut down enormously on what I do spend. It gave me a lot to think about in terms of my own sense of entitlement and my responsibility to those who don’t have even a fraction of what I do.
Another thought I had was how gender roles have shaped the way our families work. Sometimes I long for the good old days when all the bread was home made and the cookies fresh out of the oven, but I’m not willing to take time out of my other activities to make bread or cookies all that often. So in the mean time, my family has to find other ways to eat. And a lot of times, it involves take out or boxed/canned foods.
So, my next question was, how much of my “liberation” is causing inequities like that illustrated by the family in Chad?
3 pilgrimgirl // Jun 6, 2007 at 8:09 pm
I think it was the soda and sugary drinks that made me feel sad. Zero nutrition and lots of wealth for a few companies at the expense of our health.
The amount of meat that appeared in most of the family’s diets made me feel kinda yucky, too.
4 John White // Jun 7, 2007 at 9:06 am
I was saddened by the -lack- of meat. Well, not meat specifically, but protein.
The really low dollar figure food expenditures were dominated by protein-poor starches, not lentils or pulses.
5 Miko // Jun 7, 2007 at 9:46 am
The people who did the book this was taken from (Hungry Planet) also did a fantastic book called Material World. It’s amazing & humbling to see families around the world with all their possessions. Sometimes now more than one bowl a piece. I’m interested in seeing the whole book.
6 Alon Levy // Jun 10, 2007 at 10:24 pm
There’s one wrong thing with this feautre: it ignores differences in price indices. The Chinese family’s food expenditure is said to be “1,233.76 Yuan or $155.06.” That only makes sense if you go by exchange rates. If you go by general cost of living in China, it’s closer to $700. Obviously, if you go by the general cost of food in Beijing it will be something else… which makes me doubt that the cost thing is valid.
7 Miko // Jun 11, 2007 at 8:58 am
I think that the cost thing is less to compare how much we spend scientifically than emotionally. For (Western) people looking at the meager portions that last some of the families for a week, the price that they pay is more important. For the Germanies, Englands, and Japans, the prices paid mean much less, even if all of them have a higher standard of living that needs to be taken into account in addition to exchange rates.
Leave a Comment