I have a serious problem with how much money it costs to live a healthy lifestyle, when processed foods and sugar laden drinks are dirt cheap. Isn't it the responsibility of our government to assure that healthy food and active lifestyles are available to it's citizens? In response to the growing obesity epidemic in this country, the United States Government has issued new health guidelines that seem extensively rigorous to follow. Wouldn't it be more responsible of them to subsidize food costs? As things are now, the most cost effective way to eat is also the most direct way to a heart attack. I can buy a litter of Pepsi, a weeks worth of macaroni and cheese, ground beef, potato chips, cookies and processed cheese for less than $10. But weekly I spend well over $20 on a weeks worth of fresh vegetables. As a nation, Americans eat more chemicals, growth hormones, and saturated fat, than any other country, seconded closely by Australia and Canada.
Today I read a really interesting article about obesity and environment that was published in the San Francisco Gate. The article highlights a staggering problem in the food choices available to us today. The food that we eat is extremely processed, and I’m not talking about candy, and soda, things that we all know are processed, foods. But the basic foods we eat are processed. Wheat is stripped of it’s natural fiber and vitamins when it is ground and bleached to make bread, later vitamins are added back into the wheat as supplements, which is where we get the term enriched from. The food is not actually enriched, made healthier that it was to begin with, it’s stripped of it’s natural health benefits, and then processed to add some of those benefits back.
Doctor Robert Lustig of the University of California, San Francisco discusses the real problem with processed foods:
The processed food that is most readily available to Americans -- from potato chips and cookies to yogurt and white bread -- is loaded with sugars that cause the body to believe that it is hungry, which makes people feel compelled to consume more calories and conserve energy, he said. Sugar makes the body produce more insulin, which blocks hormones that would normally tell the brain to stop eating
Lustig goes on to discuss, that this constant spike in insulin, makes people almost defenseless against constant hunger, and it’s not a lack of will power that causes most people to be overweight, but their inability to whole, unprocessed foods.
Do I agree with all of this? No, not really. I do agree that there is way too much sugar in the foods that we eat, I agree with his insulin theory (well it’s not really a theory, it’s been proven that a constant spike in insulin can lead to obesity), but I don’t agree to the idea that we are helpless against this evil monster sugar. We aren’t helpless, we always have a choice. No, there isn’t always a healthy choice, but there’s always something. If you’re waiting for a train and you go to one of those handy-dandy newsstands chocked full of magazines and chips and candy, chances are there going to have an overpriced packet of cashews or almonds you can grab. Which brings me back to my first point, yes it is unbelievably expensive to live a healthy lifestyle in this country, but how much is our health worth? Lustig goes on in his article to say that “in California, families on welfare can buy juice with food stamps, but not fresh fruit.” I think that about sums up just about how much our government really cares about our health.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
One of the most progressive legislations related to healthy food choices in the U.S. is The California Childhood Obesity Prevention Act, which bans the sale of sodas and junk foods in public schools. Although an intelligent decision on the part of the government, which indicates a kind of decent involvement in the matter, the law, as it is usually the case with progressive legislation, was enacted as a result of a greatly organized grassroots effort initiated by parents and food activists concerned about the unhealthy choices available for students in the public education system. In terms of the political relationship that exists between the government and the governed, this seems to represent responsible engagement and participation in order to address issues of concern for the population.
One aspect that should be considered, however, involves the relationship between advertisement and values, the latter to be understood both in economic and psychological terms. It seems to me that in spite of prohibition, as long as the producers of junk food retain the marketing power to captivate the young minds of potential buyers with clever advertisement campaigns, they would not only obtain and keep their loyalty, but also access to their pockets. Not without reason Mcdonald’s, for example, spends millions of dollars in making sure that the first hamburger a child eats comes from their menu since, according to research, consumers will use that first experience as a frame of reference and will stick to the product if the experience was pleasant. As a result, children are lured with the newest gadgets from the latest film, or simply by constant repetition during Saturday morning programming.
The foregoing can be extrapolated to other situations and age groups. The growth of the energy drink industry is but one example. Five cups of coffee concentrated in a brilliant can, bearing a lascivious name and spiked with an excessively balanced amount of sugar—for that much caffeine—apparently have the power to transport one into the inner sanctum of “Coolness.” Who cares if it makes an ADHD case out of you almost instantly? You can go to the psychiatrist for that, a reason for which HMOs and pharmaceutical companies must definitely be investing in the Energy Drink Industry. The soda drinking preferences of Russians also seem to illustrate this. While on a recent trip to Moscow and St. Petersburg, I was perplexed to discover Pepsi as the cola drink of choice. The fact that Coca Cola was introduced later seems to be a possible explanation.
To conclude, let me say that I agree with you. If the elitist part of government were not in collusion with corporations that present an acceptable, although manipulated, depiction of reality through marketing or public relations campaigns, welfare parents would not be buying sugar drinks instead of fresh fruit because they would have choices and their mind would not be so corrupted by advertisement. In the same manner, government restrictions for the “Organic Grown” label would not have been diminished if the interest for such products would not have been so lucrative, a situation that corporations took advantage of and are currently capitalizing from as a result of their intimate relationship with government (intimate relationship, of course, meaning lobbying, campaign contributions, or stock holdings in those corporations, which is a conflict of interest, but that is a matter for a political science dissertation). A change in ideas, behavior, or purchasing habits may not be the ultimate solution, because researchers at corporations eventually investigate the trend and develop ways to appropriate it. Social change often begins at the grassroots level, and after a struggle is overcome, there seems to be an infinite number of subsequent counter-struggles to face. Yet, it seems to me, that this line of events is what keeps the government in check. Your blog seems to be a reference point from where change can originate.
Trovanguardia makes some really insightful points. Let me start by saying that California’s Childhood Obesity Prevention Act, is extremely progressive in terms if state legislature. There are many states that still allow corporate sponsorship of public school districts. When ‘Coca-Cola Day’ is a school event, and all of your chalk boards, textbooks, sports uniforms, and cafeteria’s are encrusted with a with a brand insignia, when vending machines litter your hallways, that brand loyalty becomes a part of your identity. As, school budgets continue to decrease and more and more public schools are faced with the choice between cutting their music, art, and after school programs, or taking on a corporate sponsor, it’s a real fear that not only will this generation go into their future fighting the health consequences brought on by their sugar-laden academics, but will see big business as a hero and guiding figure.
I recently watched the film ‘McLibel’ and will later blog about it. A part of the film discusses McDonald’s blatantly overwhelming advertising toward children and their false portrayal of their products as healthy. Much of this reiterates the content in Eric Schlosser’s book Fast Food Nation, but it is a good reminder. What’s most startling in the film is The McDonalds Corporation’s vicious pursuit to punish those that speak out against them, by breaking into Greenpeace offices, sending private investigator’s to meetings, even paying an investigator to maintain a romantic relationship with a member of the organization for 6-months. Finally, suing members of the organization for Libel in an epic trial that lasted from the late 1980s through the late 1990s.
I believe that the current organic movement is bringing to light much of what is unhealthy about mainstream eating habits, but there’s still a long way to go. Old habits die hard, and fast food has become a part of our national identity.
Thank you for your comments, they’re refreshing and appreciated.
Post a Comment