This is the second in a series of articles about
the food industry and its impact on society.
As part of my recent quest to eat healthier foods, I began
consuming (with my eyes and ears) a few videos on healthful eating. Hungry
for Change emphasizes how eating processed and refined foods deprives
us of necessary nutrients while overfilling our bodies with more calories than
we need for our mostly sedentary lifestyles. Meanwhile, it goes on, crash diet
culture tells us that avoiding certain foods for a short time will allow us to lose
weight, which usually doesn’t work. The panel of contributors advocates instead
that we transition to a healthy lifestyle including mostly unprocessed whole
foods, sufficient rest and exercise, and generally surrounding oneself with
positivity.
Forks Over Knives explains how
food is responsible for the poor health of many Americans, most of whom then
seek cures via pharmaceutical drugs and surgeries. The doctors featured have
found themselves shunned to the fringes of the medical community despite their
patients’ ability to overcome serious illnesses by eating whole-food,
plant-based diets.
I also watched a few TED Talks compiled as Netflix’s “Chew
on This” series, feeling utterly informed and empowered by Jamie Oliver’s quest
to improve
nutrition in schools and surrounding communities, Dan Barber’s concerns
about sustainable
fish, Mark Bittman’s lamentation over current societal
norms when it comes to food, and Graham Hill’s strategy of weekday
vegetarianism.
One central theme of particular import to this blog is the notion
of unhealthy eating as an overarching societal problem. On the one hand, hearing
the numbers – how many Americans suffer from obesity, heart disease, diabetes,
high blood pressure; how much meat we eat per year; how much of the rain forest
has been destroyed because of how much meat we eat per year – gave me an overwhelming
sense of guilt. But almost immediately, my skepticism kicked in and I felt
indignant about avoiding some kind of trap. “That’s just what they want me to
feel! Why should I stop eating meat
and dairy in moderation because so many other people overindulge and need
quadruple bypass surgery?” For my own reasons, I eventually settled on trying
to eat healthier. Moreover, personal quests for healthy eating aside, I came to
realize that the collective problem of lousy nutrition and our failing health
is exactly what concerns me as a
consumer protection attorney.
Numerous factors have conspired to result in our present
state of eating as a society. As I
discussed previously, the food industry has relied on corn as its staple input
due to its abundance and the low cost in using it to make a variety of
products. One of the documentary food experts went so far as to say that “we’re
not eating food anymore; we’re eating ‘food-like products.’” In his TED Talk,
Mark Bittman discussed early-20th century cuisine, wherein dishes
didn’t have “ingredients” because you were simply eating one food at a time.
Contrast today’s supermarkets, shelves stocked with boxed foods containing any
number of nutritional (not to mention chemical) components.
Because they’re produced on a massive scale with many
synthesized ingredients, packaged creations are relatively inexpensive to
produce. This makes them cheaper to buy than fresh and unadulterated fruits, vegetables,
grains, meats, etc. Additionally, processed foods are heavily marketed to
intended customers, and sold in portions and quantities that encourage mass
consumption. In conversations it’s typical for people to talk about being
“addicted to” certain foods, describing how many cases they have in their
basement or the size of the drink they had at lunch.
Likely as a result, the last several decades have seen our
food culture infiltrated by numerous “diet” or “light” products, marketed as healthful
alternatives to original versions of processed foods. “Eat this and you’ll be
healthier!” the products seem to say. But is that really true? To make a
low-fat version of certain processed foods, the manufacturer simply swaps the
fat content for more sugar, making the fare less filling and less nutritious.
Other products are advertised as low-sugar, but contain artificial sweeteners.
These chemically-constructed sugar substitutes have been shown to alter the way
the brain processes sweetness and therefore reek havoc on one’s ability to feel
satiated. (I’ve written about this before, here.)
In addition, the branding of something as “diet” or “light” has the
psychological effect of giving an eater license to consume as much of something
as he or she wants. I grew up in a diet-soda, fat-free yogurt, light bread, sugar
substitute (Equal was our brand) household. On one hand, my parents were both
trying to watch their weight and therefore sending a good message about being
healthy and taking care of oneself. On the other hand, I wish that I’d been taught
to eat healthy portions of original/regular/full-fat versions of processed foods,
alongside the wholesome fresh foods we kept in the fridge.
The proliferation of light and diet foods is part of a
cultural motive wherein certain components of food have been demonized. Jerry
Seinfeld has a bit about people’s bewilderment with grocery store ingredients
panels: “There’s fat! In it! It’s
going to be in me!” But where did we
as a society get this idea that fat – and carbohydrates, and cholesterol, and
sugar – is bad?
My experience as a pharmaceutical products liability
attorney left me wondering about the role the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) plays in influencing the food industry. What I didn’t realize is that a
more complicated array of government agencies and committees gathers and
proliferates information about diet and nutrition. Just this week, the
New York Times reported recent findings of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory
Committee (DGAC). The committee has met every five years since 1985, issuing
recommendations to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the
Department of Agriculture (USDA). These agencies then issue dietary guidelines
which are used as the basis for public school lunch programs and national food
assistance programs.
Subcommittee topics at the recent meeting touched on current
trends in food and nutrient intakes, dietary patterns and health outcomes, the
impact of physical activity, and food sustainability. The committee’s
recommendations included reduced consumption of added sugars, as well as
limiting salt and saturated fats. Further, social media was sent ablaze by the
DGAC’s suggestion that dietary cholesterol isn’t as harmful as once thought. This
shunning of cholesterol – which began in the 1980s – is partly responsible for
decreased consumption of red meat, eggs, and butter. In turn, people increased
their intake of grains and other processed foods. Despite our collective
avoidance of the fatty foods, problems like heart disease and obesity have only
increased; hence the reconsideration. In a related sign of progress, the DGAC
suggested deemphasizing individual nutrients in favor of an overall healthy
pattern of eating.
Past committee activity has been clouded by the appointment
of members with ties to key sectors of the food industry. At least one legal expert has asserted that the
USDA shouldn’t have any nutritional advisory influence at all, since its
primary objective is to support and promote the national agriculture industry.
While HHS is capable of developing appropriate dietary guidelines, he goes on
to suggest that the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would be more capable at
collaborating to formulate the recommendations.
In addition, stricter limitations are needed to prevent conflicts of interest amongst committee
members – even if they only stand to benefit indirectly.
Until these reforms are implemented, it seems that we’re
cautioned to take the HHS/USDA findings with a grain of hypertension-inducing
salt.
