Opportunity: if your area cannot give you produce (raw materials to cook with) that's pretty direct. Time: I'm fortunate enough that I can blow at least an hour a day just cutting up meat for stir-fry or preparing my omelet and oatmeal, and a lot of this is really time-optimized but it's still way more than the microwave-box lifestyle. That hour (at least, and distributed among all my meals for the day) is also an attention sink that I can't skip, even though I make the same stuff over and over. If I couldn't do that, I'd have to not only be getting different foodstuffs, but also figuring out different recipes every time I got bored.
You can let corporate America do that stuff for you and just pick different enticing boxes of microwaveable stuff, but you will get bombed with combinations of sugar and salt because competing in the supermarket aisle is serious business and those who fail are lost. They'd be putting fentanyl in the Hot Pockets if they dared. Anything to make the sale, it's that or perish.
Then, that's what you eat, if you're poor and can't spend hours doing it yourself and doing it right. And if you're poor enough… the selection at Cumberland Farms is going to be strictly kept to whatever the other poor people in your neighborhood are addicted to, because that's what will sell.
That's it. There's a huge difference between US and many other countries
It also compounds with the social/cultural context of a living in a city full of very wealthy people.
The statistics make it quite clear that it is hard, maybe your assumptions are wrong.
If there was demand for food in those areas people would sell it, but there isn't.
Edit: A strong piece of evidence is that people aren't getting poorer, but they sure are getting fatter.
Or are you talking about statistics that asked if poor people tried to not be overweight but couldn't do it? If so, could you please send link to that - as I'm not aware of any such large-scale study and quick search didn't reveal anything significant?
If we put poor people in the same conditions they had 40 years ago they would be slimmer than rich people today.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2015/july/growth-in-inf...
I asked if you see the conclusion of this view, and if you endorse it.
To be very very clear it goes like this: if poor are fat because they make bad choices and for no other reasons, then you can reasonably conclude that that is also why they are poor. That they deserve to be poor for that reason.
Is that a fair summary of your view?
Where are they saying that? This entire conversation has no relevance to what one deserves. Causality is not changed by one deserving something.