Here is, what I consider, a very good editorial in the NY Times about health care reform and the need to tackle some of the problems with the food industry and the American diet (or, as referred to in the article, "the elephant in the room in the debate over health care") Big Food vs. Big Insurance.
Juan and I were discussing this topic, and what the government could do to address the American diet, at lunch today. [Note: Ironically, we ate lunch at a bar and proceeded to have the most disgusting meal in Chambana, I think. An oily, disgusting mess. I even got 1/2 off the ticket at the end, because the manager agreed that the chili and salad looked pretty awful.] I had not read this editorial, but offered three suggestions off-hand: tax unhealthy foods, subsidize healthy foods, and educate the public on healthy lifestyle choices. I think it foremost important to bring about equilibrium in the cost of unhealthy and healthy food choices; only then will people have a real choice in the matter. Seems the author of this piece has a similar mode of thinking.
[An aside] I'm not sure about this conclusion in the article:
"A patient with Type 2 diabetes incurs additional health care costs of more than $6,600 a year; over a lifetime, that can come to more than $400,000. Insurers will quickly figure out that every case of Type 2 diabetes they can prevent adds $400,000 to their bottom line." My take: If insurers prevent these diseases, the average lifespan will ultimately increase. What are the cost comparisons of treating someone with obesity-related health problems for X number years or preventing the disease and insuring over an increased lifespan? Just wondering if health care providers will ever have a significant reason to help. Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
I'm posting a correspondence string.
First, a comment on this post that was sent to my email:
"I have lots to say about that article though. It is well written..but that whole topic scares the daylights out of me. We cannot forget the idea of being in this country is that we do have freedom of choice. If the government starts to dictate what we are allowed to do it makes me wonder 1 WHO is going to make these decisions for us 2 what keeps the govt from telling us not to drink, to go to church and what church, I mean they could tell us Everything to do "for our own good"...who sets the limits?..and where does it stop? Soo..educate the public yes...make sure good foods are served in schools..yes..we never had cokes in schools!!..but give up my right to choose..no way!"
-Anonymous
_____
& my response to this person....
"no, but there are definitely ways to make the choices more balanced... If you were struggling with money, and had the choice to feed your family of 5 with cokes/burgers from McDs for $2 per meal or to go to a restaurant with quality food (probably costing $8+ per meal) or buy quality groceries (rather than the $3 frozen dinners)... which would you choose or is there a choice? I'm not saying that leveling the prices of healthy vs unhealthy choices would solve the problem (probably people are just lazy in the end and would go with the easier/faster choices), but it might be a good start.
I also think that paranoia about how government regulated we *might* become is oftentimes just an excuse to not do anything, not take any action. I sincerely believe that the food industry needs to be regulated. That does not mean that our choices as individuals need to be or would be regulated, but the industry itself.
I don't think that anyone wants to take away choices. Don't you think at some level that big companies in some sense take away the "choices" for the majority of the population? The company becomes all about achieving the lowest prices, at the cost of quality of ingredients/products, at the cost of individual's health, to the point where the prices are so low that there cannot be competition from other healthier/better quality choices."
Any additional thoughts anyone on either side?? :D
& since "Anonymous" seems to email comments to me, rather than post... here's the response to my comment..
"You know,I think you are not afraid of losing your freedoms because I suspect you have not seen or seriously studied how gradually you can lose everything you take for granted. No, the government is not supposed to "take care of us"..Government must make sure it does not interfer with that free competition you seem against! If you develop a product people like.(.and we DO have food and drug depts that won't allow you to sell dangerous foods..right?) Now they have to be low sugar and low fat and healthy! Give me a break! Then maybe a government full of vegetarians think meat is dangerous for us and the environment. Please realize that once you allow government to take over your life choices..there is no way to stop it. It is much too dangerous. Besides I don't agree with the spending and other decisions of the government so why would I think they know what is healthy for me? Oh noo...more govt agencies to study what will keep me thin and healthy. Good Lord!"
To Anonymous:
Point taken, and I do understand what you are saying. I do actually have the foresight to understand that the lines are blurry (at best) as to where government regulation will stop. However, I strongly believe in what I posted previously, which has little to do with government regulating our choices, and more to do with offering fair choices to the consumer.
Juan, the secret is to educate the public. YOU can buy TWO or THREE fresh oranges for the price of ONE mcDonalds cokes. You can buy at our fanciest supermarket a huge baking potato or sweet potato for Less than a McDonalds package of French fries!! So..even if fresh foods are cheaper it does not mean the public will eat them.You can plant tomatoes and it cost almost nothing for an endless supply! It is all in educating the public on wise choices...and let the free market continue. When people want only fresh veggies..those fast food or processed corn syrup garbage will go under no matter how much lobbying goes on. Doesn't this make sense.
I worry because I keep hearing that the government will get involved (especially if they are involved as a health insurance company and need. To keep us healthy!!) and that really truly bothers me. I see now that I can eat anything my heart desires..my choice. I like that.where is the peanut butter?! It is a great feeling.
Educate, and let's admit that the majority of the population is just plain lazy. Why stay at home and make a home cooked meal when fast food is cheaper and well, faster. And not just fast food, pre-cooked meals. Why prepare, cut, wait, bake, clean when I can just heat up in the microwave? Has anyone thought about it- the "McDonald's" of the country are controling our supply. If I want an organic tomato i'd be better off growing it myself or going to the local farmers market. THAT's what the government should regulate, the crud that goes into our food. How much sodium is in those TV Dinners? Can you pronounce all the ingredients?
Government subsidize healthy and not unhealthy.
all combined with supply/demand, soon we wont have to worry as much as we do about what we eat. Wont have to read labels as much.
It's like dehydrogenated oils, they were used like high fructose corn syrup is used tooday until "they" realized it wasnt healthy. Wonder how long it will take "them" to realize the same for High Fructose Corn Syrup and what it will be replaced with.
But reality is majority rules and wall-mart, mcdonalds, etc. are all in the profit making business, until we all demand healthier foods there wont be much change. We are seeing some but it's moving slower than it should.
It is difficult to understand what you would like. You want to close down the companies that make foods that are not good for you? They would have stopped the eating of eggs a few years ago because some studies mistakenly thought they were bad for you. It would make no difference to the government (who you would put in charge of telling food companies what they can put in foods we eat) if someone relies on the protein in eggs because their diet is limited because of not eating meat or beans! Don't you see that
A can of coke is 60 cents. It makes a cup, or more. A cup of juice can NOT be made with 60 cents worth of oranges or any fruit. A burger at McDonalds is what, $2? Can you really make a salad, or a burger at home for cheaper? I doubt it.
Hundred percent orange juice 64 oz is $2.25 and real grapfruit juice is $2.79 half gallon and water is free. It is all about choice and not COST! Move to PA if good foods are too expensive to buy. Juan, who are you guys listening to? No one tells me anything. I write what I o serve! AND this cornsyrup conspiracy you seem to be so emotional about probably came about as I remember sugar skyrocketed out of sight years ago and they needed to use a cheaper sweetner at the time. No one is trying to poison you with CORN!! We are not believing that you are believing what you are saying. AND they can subsidize all they want but the fact is oranges don't grow in IOWA and they will always cost a little more than an ear of corn!!!!
One more point to make about choice/ cost of healthy foods. In vicenza Italy veggies and fresh fruits and fish ect were expensive.fast foods are available and most choose to have gardens and eat pizza which is healthy and cheap. They also learn at a young age to sit at a table together and relax and eat good food. Soo maybe this is our U.S.fast paced lifestyle that we are talking about..NoT COST! I really believe that. Oh..and a walmart rotisserie chicken is $5.99 and we eat large portions for TWO days and then I boil the carcass for a great chicken soup! That is dinner for 2 for 3 or 4 evenings basically $5.99 plus one bag of onions, lettuce and bottle of wine, bread.oh and tomatoes from the balcony!add a gallon of apple juice $3.79 a GALLON! Cooking lesson over now...
I kind of like the fact that the government subsidizes crappy foods and large companies and drives the small farmers out of business unless they are able to form larger socialist cooperatives to compete. It’s a proof positive sign of the pinko liberal crap that these Health Care Commies in our government are up to. And “Buongiorno” (what kind of un-American tag is that anyway –you don’t like English?) has a point about government overstepping. They’d put you on a straight up diet of Vicodan and Bootstraps if they could, keep you unawares… That’s how they get you, talk all day about Health Care while really they’re signing bills at night taking away your GOD given rights, like driving around buck naked drunk, shootin at telephone poles. This used to be a fun country till they started that over-regulating and “looking out for my health”! Used to go to a bar and it smelled like a bar, but all them sissy “my lungs are tarnished” folks start lobbying about their personal FEELINGS. Get that Big Government off my back! And speaking about that health care – what we need is to keep Government plans out of it, the government role is to subsidize the big companies (like with the food, see) so they can charge what they want. If someone wants a “cost effective plan for all”, well what world are they living in, ain’t no free lunch in this world. If you can’t afford health care then you probably don’t deserve any, that’s what my news channels say! The last thing I want is some darn politician who spent their life sucking at the Government teat with their government run plans thinking they know what it’s like out here for the rest of us. We need to privatize this country for real, get us a real mercenary army that could fight us out of these wars and let the towns run themselves instead of these high falutin politicians - and stop tearing down this country by bleeding out money for their retirements and their government health subsidies for all these career government workers. When they’re done they can pay their own way like the rest of us. That’s what I say and I know it’s right cause I don’t never hear no other view no matter how hard they try. Hey, this blogging is fun (punch and print it that’s my first one ever!!!)
What kind of Big Brother blog spot is this with these Adminsitrator Deletes?
I wish I had a chance to read this sooner and get in on some of the action! Oh well, the water still seems to be boiling... time to jump in!
From my perspective, this article, and many of the following arguments needlessly conflate the issues. Health Care reform is tied to an argument for subsidizing healthy food... these are two very separate problems, which need to be untangled before we think about solutions.
Health care reform needs to focus on the out-of-control system that results in millions of uninsured citizens and insane prices, which are a huge inhibitor for smaller employers, or the self-employed to fairly compete with large corporations. That is it... we have a greedy cartel that fixes prices and provides less and less of a benefit to the public. Everyone is at a breaking point. Profits rise and prices go up and coverage shrinks. This is not a result of a free market or textbook capitalism. It is the product of government interference in the market (granting privileges to a few companies and blocking free competition) and a lack of oversight of consumer issues (confusing contracts and small print, discriminatory pricing). To go a step further, we are now finally declaring (at least taking steps toward declaring) that health care is a public right (40-50 years behind every other developed nation). This insurance cartel, which rightfully in a capitalist society is driven only by the profit motive, is not to be trusted as a guardian of a public right w/o oversight by our representative government. That is how public rights/trusts such as the airwaves, social security, education, and national parks work. Everytime we grant unrestricted control of these public trusts to corporations, we find out that, lo and behold, the corporations care more about profit than guarding the sacred rights of the public interest. In these cases, the government is absolutely backed by the constitution in regulating and meddling in the interest of the public good. The arguments that state that it is against the foundations of a representative government to "dictate" rights for or "regulate" either individuals or corporations is absolutely false. The constitution of this country opens with a statement about the intentions of the government, which was set up "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". In this, our government has been mandated to ensure these provisions are met through its powers of law and regulation. Whatever we currently define as promoting "the general welfare", which is now health care (soon this could include preventative measures like eating healthy), must be guaranteed to all by our government. While our government often fall short in follow-through, we all need to understand that the constitutional basis is in fact there.
In looking at the question of how to promote heathy eating in this country, we start to hit a complex mass of intertwined problems. As you unravel this mess, government subsidies of corn, large corporate farms, and other products is one problem. Another problem is in the fact that we have a system set up so that the people with the most $$ get to have the most press (advertising based media), and reap the many advantages of this. A third problem is, as many have echoed, education. Let's look briefly at each of these.
Starting with subsidies, I see a tendency to think the answer is to subsidize heath food (like this article)... this *might* be the right solution, but there is an intermediate step that we need to take first. The government simply needs to stop subsidizing agricultural goods (with some provisions for certain essential goods). It is only in a market in which all goods are on an equal footing (unsubsidized) that the market is able to adequately react to public shifts in preferences. If corn wasn't subsidized, companies would have less reason to use High Fructose corn syrup than, say, cane sugar or something else. Subsidies won't necessarily get people to buy healthier products (that is more education), but will allow corporations to make better choices in what they put into their products (remember, they should only care about profit, so if cane sugar was a comparable price to corn sugar AND the public would by more product if the company made the healthier choice, then you will see the healthier choice in products. After we let the market settle and see what choices come to the fore, you can rethink how to subsidize agriculture, which should serve a larger plan of what type of agricultural system do we want in this country. Americans tend to think that the reason that things are the way they are is a result of laissez-faire capitalism-- it isn't. What we have now is a vision our government had 60 years ago... it is fallible and should be looked at critically with the knowledge we have today.
Now, we have the problem of media access, which pervades far deeper than this discussion warrants. However, media access is a constitutionally guaranteed public right that has been granted to private companies and they have turned it into a profit machine, with no regard for the public interest (which is what they are set up for). Whoever has the most money gets the most face time with america. It is that simple. Marketing crap products to kids is a billion $ industry. The hold that soft drinks, mcdonalds and other junk food has on this country is, in a large part, due to the fact that it is difficult for healthy choices to compete with mass advertising of the large corporations which also have interests in most media outlets.
The last topic I want to address is the issue of food education. To me, this needs to happen in public schools first and foremost. It is unconscionable that we allow unhealthy food and general crap into our public schools. Healthy food takes longer to prepare and can be costlier than fast foods, which prevents people from eating them, which, in turn, prevents people from tasting/appreciating the difference. By making school cafeterias a part of students' education, a place where children learn about healthy, sustainable, locally-grown foods, they can in their free time, make an informed decision about what foods they spend their money on. Thinking about it now, it really seems that there is room for local farms to work together with school boards to provide education and food to schools. Even if the food orders, preparation, and service is farmed out to bigger farms, the education and menus could be decided by smaller coops and farms with close ties to the community. However, as I understand it, government contracts and bureaucracy keeps this from ever happening...
Anyway, I think this is way too long for a blog comment. By the time I jumped in, there was TOO MANY points to respond to-- sorry!
in reaction to Natanya's stated question, "if health care providers will ever have a significant reason to help": The answer is yes. If they find that the result will assuradely result in greater profits, then the companies will do the right thing always. However, if this scenario necessitates that they will take the slightest financial risk in order to benefit the public, out of the goodness of their hearts, then NO.
It is interesting that people buy into corporate image to the degree that they believe that private industry has any vested interest in doing things for the public benefit. The very foundation of capitalism relies on the fact that the only thing that will drive business is the profit-motive. A corporations expressed intentions and marketing is simply a part of the image that they are trying to project, in order to appeal to their target market.
Jasoneats!!can it be I am in total agreement with your remarks?! Bravo (oops better than any English word)! You have such well organized thoughts and your facts are in order..your mind is working at top speed. You must be eating right!
In response to the cynical response who doesn't like my Italian..if you are comparing smoking to eating fast foods..smoking hurts people around you and the government has a right to protect us from second hand smoke by insisting you smoke outdoors. You can smoke yourself to death outside and no one cares. It is a choice you are free to make. We benefit from the taxes you pay for every pack of cigarettes you buy. Smoke on! The fact is YOUR health care is less a burden to us because it is a fact that smokers die sooner! Enjoy those marlboros..And.by the way,you still do smell like a bar.
My husband swears he suffers from second hand obesity because I'm always munching on potato chips. I guess he does need some sort of government intervention. And I am sure I need to jog every day so I need a government law to make me do it (there must be a fine or prison term to get me jogging).
In short, maybe some of the responsibility for our own health depends on us! And not on our government.
.comment#3 this morning..Are you all listening to the same propaganda tv/radio station? Why are you reciting the same enemy..have you been brainwashed by the media? Why McDonalds (who DO have salads on their menu)..By some of your remarks I know that you have NOT even eaten at MacDonalds because the prices are MUCH higher than you are quoting!why not badmouth some other business? Is it because they are more successful than some of the others? Have any of you ever visited a Ronald MacDonald House? It is well worth yur while to see and realize that some of that money they rake in goes to a very good cause.Visit. One of these places..they are all over the country..easy to find. If you want to badmouth a company for serving food that is bad for you..what about dunkin donuts? You cannot find anything healthy there! I think the Real enemy is Cheesecake!Cupcake bakeries and Nachos NOT the MacDonalds menu!
It is important to think for yourself and not be brainwashed ..and don't recite things you hear without investigating for yourself!
Well thought out Jason - a few quick thoughts on the way to buy sugar paste to sculpt oxen for a Birthday cake (how healthy, so much for integrity in what follows)... The problem with local coops working with schools (which by the way happens to some extent pretty regularly) is the school budget. Cheaper, mass produced cans of pre-packaged and often subsidized foods are going to be fit into a budget and be much less susceptible to market fluctuations and storage losses than fresh foods. But the good news is that there is some movement towards a balance and introduction of eduation about food choices. Second, the smoking tax is exactly the point in unhealthy foods. I would assume that tobacco was subsidized in years past and I recall quite a big stink about "free market" resistance to taxation (this was for additional "health tax" on tobacco products). The point was exactly as made by Boungiorno - that it was free choice by those who smoke and government should not be involved. The argument that swung the discussion was that those in poor health ended up costing everyone else by additional costs on our insurance and medical system. The point raised earlier in the postings are equally valid (I mean this in a relative term, not saying that either is necessarily true) - that if unhealthy foods and lifestyles lead to earlier health problems and costs to society it might be in the interest of government to tax these items to offset public costs being incurred. The idea that many of these foods are instead subsidized is difficult to rationalize - but is tied to lobbying and political issues more than anything else. Jason's context of advertising is equally valid for political clout of larger companies compared to smaller farms and stores. Ultimately everyone is trying to overstep boundaries (self interest lobbying and push for market share and profits versus over-regulating to make up for perceived negative impacts). While I've found these posts somewhat interesting, it's probably time to go and actually read the article that was posted to formulate some relevant thoughts.
First, thanks for all the comments, and discussion. For the most part, the arguments on many fronts are constructive and thoughtful, and really show some interesting perspectives on this topic.
Second, Thank you jasoneatsfood for getting us back to the original points and for taking a step back to the larger picture, from which we had become so derailed.
__
jasoneatsfood: I have to say too that I enjoyed reading your posts; there are a lot of good points in there. When thinking about Health Care Reform, however, don't you think that we must think about preventative measures too? That is, yes, Health Care can be viewed in one direction as treatment of disease, but I think that a whole view would incorporate preventative measures too. In the end, the health of the general population does affect us all, in terms of health care costs, no?
Buongiorno! Why is there a tax on cigarettes? Wouldn't banning smoking in public buildings be enough, if we were only intervening on behalf of second-hand smoke? Perhaps I am missing something.
The problem that I see with taking the stance of no government regulation on this issue, is that the government is already involved. There are already subsidies that influence the market, as jasoneatsfood points out also. I understand that these subsidies were not put in place to promote crappy foods etc, but maybe it's time to reassess the byproducts of this decision.
Lastly, I've re-read each of the posts, and cannot see where it's warranted to accuse a single one of these bloggers of not thinking for themselves. It's difficult to "discuss" things when a disagreement turns into this accusation. So, please, points and discussion only, and lets give everyone a fair chance to defend their stance.
I think the government should regulate "maximum time spent on the computer" :) haha, It's gorgeous and sunny outside, and I will get vitamin D deficiency if I stay here reading all of your comments! :)
Just kidding...
Post away... and I'll read tonight.
One more before I get going:
I was just standing in the kitchen, eating my breakfast of an apple (organic), egg, and juice (from a plastic carton), thinking that there are compounds in that plastic bottle that could leech out and cause me to have cancer and thinking that prevention of disease may need to be a separate issue altogether. Not sure.
Michael Pollan's article does not talk about subsidizing healthy food, but about the link between the health-care industry and the food industry and how they both affect health. Pollan makes a clear cut distinction between the two industries, describes their links, and concludes at the end that health-care reform is a first step to solving the "health crisis" in the US, because it might lead to a situation where public health becomes an attractive (profitable) to health-care industry.
I asked Nat to delete my comments because I realized that they did not add anything significant to what Michael Pollan's article already said, and so I was not contributing anything new. And judging from the responses to my comments, my comments were not leading to anything constructive. Most of the comments by Jasoneatsfood, Nat, Scott and Gabriel E. repeat what Michael Pollan said, but at least these comments either explain Pollan's points in a different way, or support them by deepening a little.
And I agree with Nat in that accusing people of being brainwashed or other judgments of that type do not contribute anything constructive to the discussion, but only discourage it.
Oh, and by the way, making a comment on a blog post does not make you a blogger.
Just a quick answer before I head out to enjoy the day:
Natanya, I do agree that preventative measures could be addressed by the government through legislation, regulation, and taxation. As I stated:
"Whatever we currently define as promoting 'the general welfare', which is now health care (soon this could include preventative measures like eating healthy), must be guaranteed to all by our government."
I do feel, however, that more taxes/subsidization on top of the mess we've already created is not a good way to go about this. Rethinking the current subsidization (as Juan also mentioned) and american vision of agriculture is a good first step. The next step, in my mind, must be to rethink the role of education and food... and the access to media problem. Otherwise people won't be able to make informed decisions at the supermarket (it took me WAY too long before I realized the choices I was making at the supermarket were contrary to my ideals).
Scott, yes... you are correct about some initiatives happening in the schools. The cost is a problem... BUT, if we are talking about gov't subsidies, maybe that is where they should happen... they can forget about subsidizing commodities (corn, apples,...) and put that money towards subsidizing food education in the public schools. That would also be a way to get $ back into small,local, sustainable farmer's pockets.
Anyway, just a thought. Ok-- the next blog posting has to be about something OTHER than food... I start snacking everytime I jump into this!
hmmm... just a thought: What is the burden on the healthcare system from runners who constantly overdo it when they are younger and need knee and hip replacements in their older years? :)
OK, now that I've read the article it's interesting that the loose ends in the posts are tied up fairly well there... The article specifically describes the free market and ad campaigns and lobbying as the required mechanism to produce taxes on sodas (I assume an editorial in response to NY's shelved plans to implement a tax on sodas). Alternatively, the link to the ad campaign against sodas (with the fat pouring from the bottle) is in line with the "Education" that bongiorno was asking for. The article and links also note the private contributions used to start some school and ad campaigns. It's also worth noting that many of the programs in this area for health and food education in the schools are developed through grant activities - from non-profits but also through government agencies - since they are generally not possible from existing school funding (due to dwindling budgets but also restrictions on use and community oversight). These grants are very worthwhile, but only reach those in the school or district that come up with the idea. This is a rare case that would probably be better served by a top-down approach to all schools (at least public). So, new question. Would warning labels on foods with a fat or sugar to healthy content over a certain percentage be a worthwhile "education" tool, similar to tobacco and alcohol labeling? Could this apply to prepared foods as well? That would have an effect similar to the NY ad campaign and might also hit some products that people wouldn't expect. Then many products may also switch to healthier ingredients, not to avoid taxation or gain subsidies, but to meet the market demand of an INFORMED CONSUMER (through label "education"). And yes, I know that everyone is already "aware" that a soda is not health food, but I believe a reminder when choices are being made would make a difference in conjunction with ad campaigns.
Scott, Warning labels on foods with "high" sugar content sounds like a good step, though it may be more about overall nutritional value than just sugar content. In any case, it would be interesting if a blatant label would change consumer demand. We do already have the nutritional information on each package, perhaps consumers just need to be educated properly on what the information means, or do you think the message needs to be more direct, or do you think most consumers in the end don't really care to take responsibility for their choices?
I think it's a combination of all, and I'd like to add "cost".
Some dont care, some dont know better (education) and some cant afford healthy choices (but somehow they can afford big houses, big cars and expensive clothing/accesories, interesting....)
Scott's idea to educate better in the high schools is a good start. But we cant leave it up to the schools, the parents have to also help. So how do we educate those that are stuck in their ways?
Labeling I think is good, but it's already being used and manipulated. Take for example TV diners. First - I think you can get 5 for $5 (not sure because i dont buy them). This tells me people are cheap and lazy, that's just my opinion. Second - They state they have a low amount of calories. Yes okay fine low calories, however, how are these TV diners made? the sodium content is through the roof, but it's okay because it has low calories. This tells me people are not educated, and some just plain dont care because it's all they can afford.
When I shop I find myself reading labels more every time. Example; why does bread need high fructose corn syrup? (most times it's the first ingredient and we know what that means) The only answer I can come up with is: Because it's cheap, its available (subsidized) and the companies can make a larger profit. The only way to "fight" them is to have a large sum of money available. Unless there is a vested interest (profit) the Jimmy Buffet, Oprah Winfrey & Bill Gates' of the country are more than likely not going to try and change things.
I think it was Jason that noted on how these big companies are the ones who control the media outlets. So who do we rely on for help? the government. I'm not saying they should tell me what to do, but do offer more choices.
But again it's all about profit with the laws of supply and demand. What a vicious cycle.
Wow! This is way too structured for me! You mean we have to stick to one topic FOREVER? Good grief this is like writing a book report!I don't think I have the attention span for this blogging thing!
Oh! And I never WAS on the topic of the "article" because my Email got forwarded to this blog!..I was simply writing an email!..and expressing mostly my annoyance that the govt is having any part of our health care or my health in general.
I honestly did not mean to attack anyone. I was hoping someone would tell me why MacDonalds is always being used as the bad guy! I see happy little kids faces there all the time! They even have a playground!
Ok..ciao..
Now I want to ride around in that pickup with anonymous.where are you?
Nat - nutritional information on each package originally did change peoples habits, but I don't think it's so effective anymore. I and most posting here seem to read the labels quite a bit, but in the supermarket it's a handful that you see reading the label before putting it in their cart. And most get tired of trying to figure out what it all means (OK, certain fats bad, high % of daily sugar or sodium intake bad... but beyond that?) But a direct statement of link to poor health takes the abstraction out of it - similar to the "product has high fiber which may lower cholesterol" labeling was effective as a positive incentive. Look, when most people want to "splurge" they rarely reach for whole grains. When you're too busy to cook you buy prepackaged foods. There is a pleasurable aspect to many of these foods that's being ignored here. What I think most people need is a level of moderation. I think warning labels with associated advertising might make people think of these as indulgences rather than 3X daily intake. I'm amazed by how many professionals have sodas in the morning "instead of coffee" or eat fast food "only when I'm on the road" which is now half of their lives.
Bongiorno - perhaps a healthier diet would help you focus and increase endurance in pursuing a single topic? Amino acids to be exact... just kidding.. But to answer the question - McDonalds and Wal Mart have come to represent concepts as well as their own brands BECAUSE of their success and market practices. You are correct that it's lazy to use their names to make broad statements about an industry.
I just thought of an idea! Wouldn't it be nice to have a dietician or trained person in proper nutrician..working in supermarkets to help consumers buy groceries? They could even look at your lab results from blood test and put it in a computer program and tell you what should be in your grocery cart! It would be educational AND keep the population healthy lowering the money paid out by insurance companies! What do you think? Part time jobs would be created for college students or retirees!
Yes, that would be a good idea Buongiorno. In fact some grocery stores, mainly organic and whole food grocery stores, do have on-site dietitians that provide help. But they are hard to find. I can only think of one here in the surrounding three towns. It would be good to make that a more common practice. But I would think that there would be opposition to that from many of the companies that sell stuff to the grocery stores because it would reduce the sales of their products.
Labels like the ones Scott mentions would be similar to on-site dietitians: "a direct statement of link to poor health takes the abstraction out of it - similar to the 'product has high fiber which may lower cholesterol' ". But any label that will reduce sales will not be used by a producer's own initiative. Here is where the government has a role to play by trying to get these producers to use these labels, just like it makes cigarette companies use labels on cigarette boxes.
To answer Buongiorno's comment about McDonald's: McDonald's and Walmart have become a symbol of giant corporate fast food and giant corporate grocery-and-everything-else-you-might-need stores. You are right in that many times we end up stigmatizing these brands in particular (myself included). Things are not bad, good or evil in their own nature. It is the use we give them that can be bad or good. But in this post and its discussions, we have used them to refer to the industries they represent and the habits that have formed around them.
Nat and all the participants, this is a cool post. It has made me think about certain things and organize my ideas in ways I hadn't before. That in itself is positive. Thanks!
Probably nutrition labels are just as effective nowadays, but have just already hit/saturated the target audience -- the consumers that will read and understand the labels -- and the other consumers will just never catch on to this format, so you're probably right that it's time to think of a different format to get the rest of the population involved. I totally agree that those nutrition labels are pretty difficult to decipher and you're probably right that a warning such as "This food is considered low in nutritional value by the FDA" would make more people think about purchasing the product, even if the warning label is in small print on the back of the box somewhere.
Buongiorno! I wonder if even just computers at the entrance to the supermarket that have a program that does what you describe, take information about the person's health and spit back a list of "good foods" and "bad foods" and information as to why certain ingredients are bad for the person might be an interesting exercise. I see computer consuls already in stores, some that will print out recipes for a given ingredient and also blood pressure check stations, and from what I can see shoppers do take time to use these. Interesting idea that would be relatively easy to implement!
We certainly don't have to feel obligated to discuss this topic forever ;) I'll look for another article to post, but feel free to continue this discussion. I will continue to post articles that I find interesting to this blog, regardless, but I'd like to know if you enjoy discussing in this format or if you are just appeasing me since I've begged you all to comment here :) haha
If you go back out to the "NATomics" blog, then you will find any new posts there. For those of you with RSS readers, you can subscribe to easily be alerted to any new article posts.
Thank you all!
I have an "off topic" question speaking of reading labels.
As we know most products have calories per serving based on a x diet (usually 2000)
How do I measure calories on home made products? Like say bread. do i just add all the calories per serving for each ingredient. But for some reason I thought when cooked calories changed because it's changing the compound (I'm probably saying that wrong).
Something I've wondered for some time now (oh the things that go on in my head).
Post a Comment