You Can Take Control of the Food System Right Now

Food corporations aren't in business to help us eat healthier - they're in business to make money, since they are ultimately accountable to their shareholders. So when big food reassures us that they care about what's in our best interests - namely reducing lifestyle diseases like obesity and diabetes that stem from over-consumption of their products - that's really only a partial truth. It's a truth only in the sense that they care about how our interests will affect whether or not we purchase their products.  The idea that big food has any moral obligation to care about whether or not we get sick from their products is false, regardless of how their advertising might spin it. (Remember this ad by coke?  That's what I'm talking about.) And even that supposed "truth" that we as consumers are powerful enough to sway product development with our concerns could be considered a stretch.  Really, psychology is king in this industry, trumping public opinion and moral outrage, and the only thing we can do about it is to eat critically and move toward greater government regulation.

I was recently sent this article by a colleague that explains what I mean.  The article is long, but I'm glad I read the whole thing because it really gets into the nuts and bolts of how the food industry operates.  The fact that big food tries to create and optimize products for maximum addictiveness isn't all that surprising, but it does speak to the need for each of us as individuals to take control of our own health by making informed food choices, and to push for greater government oversight in order to regulate the production and marketing of these products.  Again, the industry isn't interested in pleasing the consumer; it's interested in pleasing its shareholders by selling product.  If the best way to sell product is to placate consumers with hollow reassurances while at the same time marketing them highly addictive and nutritionally poor goods, so be it.  There is no ethical compass here. In this system, the vast complexity of a human being is reduced to a set of psychological impulses.  If a company can capitalize on those impulses to make more money, all the better for them, but not necessarily all the better for you.

The point is, it's not about big food being good or evil.  Morally corrupt or not, they're looking after their best interests, and so should you.  It's easy to slip into eating unhealthy foods because we perceive them to be cheaper, tastier, and more convenient than their healthful wholesome cousins (I've fallen into that trap more than I'd like to admit) but when you're about to go for that prepared meal or snack because you think it's less expensive and less time consuming than making a real meal, consider whether or not that perception is really true, or if it's just the result of effective corporate marketing.  More and more I'm finding that I can make meals that are easily prepared and more delicious and satisfying than anything processed, despite what any food commercials tell me. There are thousands of variations on the sandwich, for instance, many of which are very quick and easy to make with local healthy ingredients, and are much cheaper and more delicious than fast food versions of the sandwich like burgers.  And if I really have no time for a full meal, or are just bored with the meal options I've been preparing for myself, I'll go the snack route, but not in the conventional chips and cookies way.  A combination of fruit, nuts, veggies, and cheeses makes a great on the go snack, and if you focus more heavily on the fruits and veggies it can be very affordable.

Regardless of your approach, buying locally produced food and preparing your meals yourself is a great way to feel empowered about your place in the food system.  On a larger scale, that empowerment means communities can work more effectively together to make lasting changes in government policy at all levels of the system, which translates into a better standard of living for everyone.  But it all starts with how we as individuals respond to the current food system, and who we choose to support with the one thing that big food cares about the most.  Money talks - how will you spend your opinion?

Have a great afternoon,
Melissa

Translating Cokespeak into English

The Center for Science in the Public Interest recently reported on a promotional video by Coca Cola that invites the American public to "come together" in the fight against obesity.  As a part of this report, the Center reposted Coke's video with edits and translations added that show the real meaning behind what Coke is saying.

When watching first the original Coke ad and then the translated version, I was reminded of how insidious and effective modern corporate advertising can be at using spin to bend the truth. It often requires substantial effort and knowledge to see past the glossy surface of a corporate public service announcement and get at the real core of what it means.  Despite working in a discipline that recognizes this, it's still sometimes hard to see through the smoke and mirrors, which is why responses like CSPI's video are important.

"Generally, when a company claims to be 'part of the solution' it means 'we know we're culpable so we must deflect the blame elsewhere,'" said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "So we thought it would be useful for consumers and policymakers to unpack similar examples of Coke's disingenuous corporate gobbledygook and present them in plain English."

Have a lovely, critically-minded evening,
-Melissa

PS, stay tuned for a report and photos from our Getting Started in Organic Farming Conference that just happened on Saturday January 26 - it was a wonderful event and we can't wait to tell you more!

New York City's Big-Soda Ban

By  now you have probably heard of Mayor Michael Bloomburgs plan to amend the New York City Health Code in order to establish 16 ounces as the maximum size for sugary drinks.  This would only be for containers served for immediate consumption like restaurants or theaters. The plan has drawn a great deal of criticism, and the CT NOFA staff weren’t sure how we felt about it. 

On one hand is the argument that adults can and should make their own decisions, especially about their own food consumption (as Jon Stewart pointed out on the Daily Show).  Also, the ban does not actually stop anyone from drinking more than 16 oz of soda, they can just buy a second drink.  The main argument is that, consumers must learn about nutrition and how to make these healthy choices, instead of having someone legislate their behavior. 

On the other hand (which I'm starting to lean towards as I read more) is that portion sizes are huge in the United States, and these unlimited portion sizes are probably the greatest contributor to America's obesity epidemic.  The issue is not as much our food choices (every culture has some delicacies and foods that are unhealthy, but delicious).  Take for instance, this infographic from the Center for Disease Control:

Even people who are very careful about their consumption and aware of proper portion sizes, just don’t have the self-control to “save half their meal for later” or “share with a friend” - the recommended methods to beat big portions.  According to this column in the Huffington Post (and the infographic above), sodas are six times larger than they were 60 years ago, and Americans consume 200-300 calories more per day than 30 years ago. 

Whether the obesity epidemic is addressed with more aggressive education initiatives or legislation (preferably both), Bloomberg's impatience and desire to take immediate action is an attitude more politicians should have.  Political affiliation and personal health decisions have little to do with the truth that drinking large amounts of soda can cause weight gain, weight gain can lead to obesity, and obesity is a serious health condition.

This Report “Economic Causes and Consequences of Obesity”published in Annual Reviews in 2005 found that: “Much of the rise in energy intake is related to increased consumption of carbohydrates. In 1976–1980, adult men and women aged 20–74 years consumed daily 1039 and 700 kcal of carbohydrates, respectively. In 1999–2000, these numbers increased to 1283 and 969 kcal (10). Beverages, particularly fruit and soft drinks, are also responsible for a surprising number of calories. In 1997, the average American consumed 53 gallons of soft drinks and 17 gallons of fruit juices or drinks, a 51% and 40% increase since 1980 (55).”

A press release from Mayor Bloomberg’s office explains “Obesity is the only major public health crisis in America that is getting worse and nearly 60 percent of New York City residents are currently overweight or obese. In addition to the toll on health, the costs to the public are steep: in New York City $4 billion is spent annually on health care costs related to obesity. The Mayor’s Task Force on Obesity has proposed initiatives – including limiting the size of sugary drinks, significant contributors to the epidemic – with the goal of reducing the percent of obese adults by 10 percent and children by 15 percent over the next five years. “

The statistics for the United States as a whole are staggering. In 2007, diabetes cost the United States $174 billion in medical expenditures and reduced productivity and in 2008, obesity expenses totaled about $147 billion. By comparison, cancer (of all kinds) cost the United States $125.5 billion in 2010.

Also, as this debate plays out, keep in mind the American Beverage Association's political and economic power. As Nancy Huehnergarth points out in her column in Huffington Post, the ABA spent close to $13 million in New York in a six-month period in 2010, lobbying against a proposed penny-per-ounce statewide soda tax.  No one wants there to be large soda sizes available more than soda companies themselves.

Here's to healthy hydration!

Kristiane