Tuesday, November 30, 2010
I was thrilled to hear that this happened today as I have been following this issue for a couple of weeks now. I think it is a very imperative bill that will go a long way in helping us avoid major food-borne illness outbreaks that we have recently seen. Last year, 1,422 people were sickened by jalapeños and another 1,813 people were sickened by eggs this year. The American food system is becoming more harmful to people than ever before. The care for food is declining as the fight for money is mounting to an all-time high. With the increased demand for food, agribusinesses and factory farming has taken over the food system. They are churning out as much food as they can in as little time as possible. Their practices are enhanced by using chemicals and pesticides on plants, fruits, and vegetables or fattening up farm animals via mass corn and grain consumption.
For me, it is nice to see this bill get passed to keep a big portion of the food system more honest. It is scary to think that anyone could consume food that is contaminated at any time and not know it until they become very ill with the potential of dying. Just to play a little devil’s advocate on this article, I would also like to see things go further involving slaughterhouses and meat processing plants. These two types of institutions are (in my mind) so far off track it is only a matter of time before a major outbreak happens. The conditions these animals are slaughtered in are so horrid and vile one cannot begin to imagine the lives these animals have to endure. I would love to see the next step in the changing of the food process aimed directly at these two corrupt institutions. At the moment I could be one of the least supportive people on how food is produced in America. But with conscientious shopping and the passing of this bill I can still catch some sleep at night knowing I am doing my part and government is starting to do theirs. Good night and happy eating!
Monday, November 29, 2010
Katz discusses how Thanksgiving was a day for the “masses”, who generally barely scraped by, and this one day gave everyone a chance to feast just as the aristocrats did. However, today the majority of people do not participate in back-breaking labor to support themselves; and we also do not need to worry about food shortages.
So what does this mean about our contemporary Thanksgiving? If we are not celebrating a rare bounty of food or rest from hard labor, then what is the point? What are we celebrating? I believe that we are still celebrating rest from labor, however, it is rest from the crazy hectic lives that we have on cell phones, with blackberries, and emails 24/7. Also, instead of celebrating rare bounty, it is a chance for us to share the food we have with our friends and family and also with those that may not have.
Thanksgiving today also has to do with its namesake and giving thanks for what we have. I believe a part of this is giving thanks for the farmers that supplied the food we enjoy. Australia has also recognized the importance of famers and they recently announced that 2012 will be its “Year of the Farmer”. A webpage recently created provides the purpose of this dedicated year. Australia wants to recognize what farmers do in creating fresh, fruits, vegetable, dairy, grain, meat, and also in providing fine products such as wool, cotton, and timber. This is really a great way to connect people to their food so that they are better educated about where there food comes from. This may even lead to smarter purchasing and helping to promote support of local farmers. So as you sit down to eat your Thanksgiving meal this year, or as you purchase and eat food throughout the year gives thanks for those that chose to live a life that can provide such a bountiful harvest for us all.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
I find this question intriguing, because it’s something that at first glance seems like it will have a simple answer. When you look at the definition of ‘organic’ on dictionary.com, the concept seems straightforward enough. “Characteristic of, pertaining to, or derived from living organisms” and “developing in a manner analogous to the natural growth and evolution characteristic of living organisms; arising as a natural outgrowth” are two of the major definitions. So, by these terms, it seems that organic can generally be summed up as ‘all-natural.’ And, by that logic, organic farming constitutes the use of only all-natural crops, pesticides, and fertilizer during production. Problem solved, right?
Yet, when you read this article about the USDA attempting to define organic, the concept becomes murkier. They bring debates about sustainability and humane treatment of animals into the mix, trying to fit the concept of ‘organic’ into these terms. But why? Why can’t organic farming simply be defined as previously stated? The problem may be that the public has finally gotten its foot in the door in terms of organic policy-making, and now that they have this hold they want to make the definition of ‘organic’ as broad as possible to address as many of the problems associated with conventional farming as possible. By broadening the scope of ‘organic,’ we wouldn’t have to follow dozens of different grassroots organizations that are trying to make a difference in each individual sector of agricultural. Instead, we could have this one word, and therefore one movement, that encompasses all the relevant issues.
I personally would love for organic to mean all of these things. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if 'organic' fixed every problem of agribusiness? If organic could just be defined as "the practices by which agriculture will become more sustainable and humane?" Unfortunately, this type of idealistic definition would be hard-pressed to work in the real world. In the context of law, regulations, and politics this definition is far too vague. So I think we need to keep organic ‘all-natural,’ and instead supplement other concepts, such as sustainability, worker’s rights, animal treatment, etc., into our agricultural regulations. It would be great if organic was the all-encompassing solution, but it can't be.
Friday, November 12, 2010
It seems the past few blog posts have been focusing on our discussion of obesity and I'm going to add to our body of knowledge, so to speak. Since my parents are healthcare professionals, the “obesity epidemic” has occasionally come up in conversation over the years so I had some biases that our class discussion let me see. For example, I found that I associate increased body mass with worse health. I generally don’t dislike people that are sick, but I feel like the reason that I judge people with very large body masses is because I think eventually their weight will either cause or contribute to ill health. And I can understand why healthcare professionals might perceive obese people in a negative light. My mom has a permanent (although relatively minor) injury from trying lift a 300 lb patient when she was working as a nurse. I also remember a section of a memoir called “Complications: A Surgeon’s Notes on an Imperfect Science” written by a ER surgeon named Atul Gawande that describes the extra trouble he runs into when trying to do tracheotomies and insert central lines on obese people. I am not saying that it is ok to treat obese people worse, merely pointing out that I can understand why healthcare professionals might have negative opinions.
Anyway, since I had heard obesity described as an epidemic, I decided to go to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (the CDC) and see what they had to say about prevalence, causes, and possible fixes. After thoroughly exploring the website, it became obvious that it really is an epidemic. This graphic shows how it has developed over the last 25 years. First of all there is a difference between overweight and obesity. Overweight is a BMI between 25 and 29.9 while obesity is a BMI greater than 30. (If you want to check your BMI, you can do so here courtesy of the CDC) Increased BMI is a concern because it increases a person’s chance of developing hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Medical costs attributed to both overweigh and obesity was between 51.5 and 78.5 billion dollars in 1998 which is about 10% of that year’s total healthcare expenditure. Weight gain is the result of taking in more calories than are expended (the previous post demonstrates that net caloric intake or expenditure is the only determinant of weight gain or loss.)
I also ran across a Grand Rounds Presentation about the childhood obesity epidemic. The CDC epidemiologists attribute the almost 20% obesity rate in children and teens to changes in familial eating habits, less activity, and more times spent watching TV and on the computer (as explained in an earlier post, time spent viewing TV is time spent watching advertisements for fast food.) In order to fix the problem, the CDC suggests integrated approaches that aim to decrease caloric intake and increase energy expenditure. This seems like a pretty intuitive approach but will still be a challenge.
The most interesting part about the Grand Rounds was how the epidemiologists considered lack of access to healthy food a direct and significant contributor to childhood obesity. They referred to the food deserts presented in "The Grocery Gap," the same policylink article that we read when we were discussing food deserts in class. Providing healthy food and increased exercise was the base of the case studies where the percentage of childhood and adolescent obesity was successfully decreased.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
I don’t know about you, but personally I am tired of having all of these people tell me what is healthy or not healthy for me, and what I should or should not eat. Currently, most of the pressure is coming from the organic foods industry. With the huge success of Whole Foods, and farmers markets springing up everywhere I was thinking whether or not there really was a significant health benefit to consuming organic foods. This led me on a search to find empirical evidence to justify one side or the other.
We all know what constitutes organic from non-organic: non GMO, organic fertilizer, no antibiotics, et cetera. But does any of that really affect the amount of health benefiting nutrients within the produce? According to a researcher of the subject Pia Knuthsen of the National Food Institute at the Technical University of Denmark, “organically grown foods do not have higher levels of healthful antioxidants and related substances known to fight cancer, heart disease and dementia.” This was the result of a two year experiment where they specifically targeted organic fertilizer (manure) and non-organic fertilizers on various vegetables. Clearly the organic fertilizers are not responsible for this health craze.
What about pesticides, antibiotics, and hormones in our foods, you ask? Well Carl Bartecchi, a medicinal specialist states in regards to this topic “there is no evidence for greater safety of organic foods.” In fact there has been more research on the effect of non-organic substances proving that they are benign to the foods, whereas the organic counterparts could very well have problems of their own.
In a last ditch effort some people say to eat organic foods because they taste better. Well taste is a subjective sense where not everybody has the same tastes and preferences. I feel that it is an unjustifiable advertisement to say that organically grown foods are “tastier”.
In all, the health aspect of organic foods to me seems like a way to mark up the price of a good without justification. Simply being able to place a USDA organic sticker on your product entitles you to make it more expensive, and for what reason. Somewhere along the line the word organic was associated with healthier and I know that I am not going to fall into a fad for the wrong reasons.
An article called “While Warning About Fat, U.S. Pushes Cheese Sales” was recently published in the New York Times. The article outlines what the USDA has been doing to bolster the dairy industry while at the same time trying to fight obesity. The USDA has created an agency called Dairy Management which functions to promote the sales of milk and cheese products in the US in an attempt to help the struggling dairy farmer.
Dairy Management has greatly intensified the attempts that the government had previously making to help the dairy industry. There are direct parallels to what the government has being doing to help stabilize the prices of wheat. The problem that has appeared is in the form of conflicting interests. The USDA is both putting out information that is supposed to help people make healthy nutrition decisions and trying to sell more dairy. While there is a huge market for low fat milk, the cheeses and higher fat milks and yogurts are suffering greatly. This has led the USDA to partner with places like Domino’s pizza to help them advertise cheesier pizzas and in turn buy more pizza. The USDA also start a campaign saying that 3 servings of dairy per day will help people lose weight, this information is highly contested and not considered valid.
Something different that can be seen in this article is an issue of deskilling. Many people rely on governments and even magazines to tell them how to eat to maintain their health or lose weight. Some people lack nutritional knowledge to the point that they need to be told that soda is not good for you. The USDA in this case is manipulating their position of power as the purveyors of knowledge by sending out controversial information to sell a product that they profit from. How much responsibility should we place on the government to give us truthful information about our own health? And how surprised should we be when they misuse the power they’re handed?
Friday, November 5, 2010
I wonder why only one such supermarket exists in our country. If we can build facilities that leave a smaller footprint, how does it make since to keep building stores that suck up twice as much energy? Do you think that Hannaford built this store for the savings or for the publicity? People simply don't realize how much effort goes directly to keeping our food cold and fresh while it's on the shelf. As the article states, half of a supermarket's electrical costs are from refrigeration. We can add this to the list of externalities that come with shopping at a supermarket. Still, the frugality of its operation does little to change the corn based, mono-culturally derived products that sit upon every shelf.
This being said, I live less than 30 minutes from this store, yet I have never set foot inside of it. In the case of a supermarket, people are inclined to shop at the most convenient location rather than one that might be slightly more efficiently operated. For this reason I will keep a watchful eye on this store and hope for it to be rewarded for its green efforts. Yet, I will smile as I watch, because the farmers' market consumes 100% less energy than any supermarket ever will.