Let food by thy medicine. Hippocrates, dubbed the father of Western medicine, gave us this advice over two thousand years ago. Judging by the way Congress is spending billions of tax payer dollars to boost the sales of unhealthy food, I don't think we've learned our lesson.
Let's review some current facts that back the Hippocratic notion.
• More than 60 percent of all deaths in the U.S. are from diseases linked to unhealthful saturated fat and cholesterol laden diet: heart disease, cancer, stroke, liver disease, and high blood pressure.
• Approximately 66 percent of Americans are overweight or obese -- diet-related conditions linked to other diseases such as hypertension and heart disease.
• About 33 percent of children born in 2000 will develop diabetes, another diet-related disease, during his or her lifetime.
• Being unhealthy is expensive! The annual medical cost of obesity reached $147 billion in 2008. The Medicare and Medicaid spending for obesity-related conditions now totals $61 billion per year. Heart disease costs $189.4 billion per year. Cancer costs $102.8 billion per year. Diabetes costs $128.1 billion annually.
Statistics show that by 2030, the annual medical costs for heart disease alone are projected to triple, to $818 billion!!!
The statistics are stark but it's not all bad news. Food trends show that more people are taking their health into their own hands by changing their diet. When it comes to unhealthy food, the primary culprits are meat and dairy, which are high in saturated fat and cholesterol, and over-sweetened processed food.
On the other hand, plant-based diets, which are naturally nutrient rich, low in fat, high in fiber and cholesterol free (!!) are growing in popularity. Several months ago, Business Week profiled some of those discerning eaters who choose a plant-based diet, like Bill Clinton and Russell Simmons. Even Mike Tyson claims to eschew meat and dairy for better health. Kathy Freston's book on veganism hit #1 on Amazon's bestseller list, and Neal Barnard, M.D., who is head of the organization I work for, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, has recently released a 21-day guide to making the switch.
This trend is great news if you care about the health of our country, so why is Congress delegating billions of dollars that help boost the production of the most unhealthy food -- meat, dairy and sweeteners for processed food -- while fruits and vegetables receive almost none?
If you don't like the idea of your tax dollars lining the pockets of wealthy corporations flooding the market with hot dogs and other junk food, now is the time to speak up. Congress is gearing up to vote on the legislation that perpetuates this system of misplaced subsidies.
Misleadingly referred to as the "Farm Bill," this legislation doesn't benefit the family famers who grow the bell pepper and squash in your stew. The beneficiaries of agricultural subsidies laid out in this legislation are the corporations that convert crops like corn into corn syrup and soy into feed for the cows and pigs who end up in a McDonald's wrapper.
The result is an artificially controlled market that floods grocery stores and eateries with foods high in saturated fat, cholesterol and high fructose corn syrup. These are exactly the types of food we should be avoiding if we want to stay healthy.
When Sarah Palin complains about the "Nanny State," I wonder if she's aware of the tens of billions of tax dollars that dictate what food we can choose from at the grocery store. Consumer demand, not corporate interest, should determine what we can put in our shopping carts. And consumers want healthy food that won't lead to a double bypass.
In 2012, Congress has an opportunity to fix agricultural subsidies in a way that will help real farmers and every day people.
By reducing federal subsidies that boost the production of meat, dairy and high fructose corn syrup, and leveling the playing field for fruit and vegetable farmers, more Americans will be able to buy the wholesome foods they need to stay healthy.
An additional benefit to this reform would be that smaller farms that practice sustainable agriculture and better husbandry could more fairly compete with the notoriously destructive mega-operations.
Another benefit will be a savings in health care costs.
As I mentioned before, being unhealthy is expensive. The annual medical cost of obesity reached $147 billion in 2008. The Medicare and Medicaid spending for obesity-related conditions now totals $61 billion per year. Heart disease costs $189.4 billion per year. Cancer costs $102.8 billion per year. Diabetes costs $128.1 billion annually.
Statistics show that by 2030, the annual medical costs for heart disease alone are projected to triple, to $818 billion.
Want to cut the federal budget? Have a country of healthy people.
Aligning agricultural subsidies with nutritional recommendations would save lives, money and farmers. That means less heart surgeries, cleaner rivers and more fresh vegetables and fruit -- a sweet alterative for everyone.
To find out more about my work in this area, please visit: http://pcrm.org/health/agriculture/index.html
Follow Elizabeth Kucinich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EJKucinich
Plants are an important part of the human diet but if they are grown in poor soil (FACTORY FARMED PLANTS) they are a poor source of nutrition, and even grown in good soil you need to eat natural fats to absorb the fat-soluble nutrients from them. But plants are not high in energy value so you need to eat huge amounts of them to support physical activity - easy to do if you are sedentary but if you want to be active you'd better be eating more natural fat.
A healthy ecosystem is comprised of plants and animals in balance. A healthy farm (a biodynamic one) must also have both; chickens, for example, if allowed to roam freely will not only fertilize the crops but eat the pest. Their eggs would be extremely nutrient dense (and tasty!); even chickens recognize this as they will eat their own eggs occasionally...
WRONG.
Saturated fat and cholesterol are NOT unhealthful.
Carbohydrates are the problem - stop the subsidies for sugars and grains.
"In March (2010) the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a meta-analysis—which combines data from several studies—that compared the reported daily food intake of nearly 350,000 people against their risk of developing cardiovascular disease over a period of five to 23 years. The analysis, overseen by Ronald M. Krauss, director of atherosclerosis research at the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, found no association between the amount of saturated fat consumed and the risk of heart disease..."
http://www.ajcn.org/content/91/3/535.full
www.forksoverknives.com (see the film, opening in NYC in MAY)
The work of these two doctors Esselstyn and Campbell, goes back longer and is far more comprehensive than any single study.
By the way, the findings of several European studies suggest that heart disease can be reversed with nothing more than moderate exercise on a daily basis. In other words, the best prevention and cure for heart disease may be walking a dog for thirty minutes a day.
"The China Study: A Formal Analysis and Response
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/03/the-china-study-a-formal-analysis-and-response/
Introduction
SECTION 1: Reiteration and Expansion of Criticisms
1. Linkage of animal protein with cancer by way of cholesterol
2. Misleading association of breast cancer with lipid intake and lipid intake with animal protein
3. Supposition that plasma cholesterol increases liver cancer risk
4. Misrepresentation of heart-protective effects of green vegetables, and the three-variable linkage between animal protein, apolipoprotein B, and cardiovascular disease
5. Biased use of unadjusted univariate correlations to confer protective benefits of plant foods but not with animal foods
6. Use of a three-variable chain to connect animal foods with “Western” diseases
7. Unexplored role of blood glucose, insulin, and disease
8. Dismissing relevant variables
9. Errors in the extrapolation of casein to all animal protein
SECTION 2: Biological Models and Cited Papers
1. Breast cancer
2. Liver cancer
3. Energy utilization
4. Affluent-poverty diseases
5. Summary
SECTION 3: Response to Points Raised by Campbell
1. Wheat: confounded variable or legitimate concern?
2. Selection of univariate correlations and confirmation bias
3. Tuoli county and erroneous data
4. Whole-food, plant-based diets versus whole-food diets with animal products
5. Conclusion
is there no HuffPo piece still, yet, about the absolutely incredible Mercy for Animals footage that
came out this last week? I cannot believe this has not yet been written about by any of the vloggers on HP.... the footage is a potent argument against the insanity of our current animal agricultural system. No conscious, sensible person could watch it and defend the system, the subsidies, the diet, the violence - - www.mercyforanimals.org I am very disturbed that nothing has been on HuffPo yet about this, and beseech all food bloggers of conscience to help this footage be seen. Thank you so much! (And thank you for all the work you do, with PCRM and in your life in general.)
End the subsidies, or rearrange them. Get educated and change behavior.
Years ago, the late Peter Jennings did a documentary about how gov. subsidies personally affects us. He called it, "How to Get Fat Without Really Trying", and you can watch it here:
http://wp.me/pA04z-5K
Don't believe the government, or the lobbyist, common sense and good health don't have tons of money behind them.
Ms. Kucinich please keep posting> I am sure that there are many people who will be looking actively for your posts.
On health...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbs-against-cardio
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2010-releases/processed-meats-unprocessed-heart-disease-diabetes.html
http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html
http://www.thincs.org/news.htm
http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/3/667.full
On the environment...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8583308.stm
http://challenge.bfi.org/2010Finalist_OperationHope
http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/spring-11/sp11-range-saving_the_world.pdf
Another good reference is Gary Taubes' "Good Calories Bad Calories"
http://www.garytaubes.com/writing/books/good-calories-bad-calories/
or the lighter version "Why We Get Fat and What To Do About It"
http://www.garytaubes.com/writing/books/why-get-fat/
Taubes just published "Is Sugar Toxic?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine
and has a blog at http://www.garytaubes.com/blog/
Going back to the way our grand parents and great grandparents ate wouldn't be such a bad idea. When we gave up the labor intense creation of our meals, we also gave up control over the quality of what we eat. We need to get that back. While I don't want to buy leaf fat and make my own lard, I will if I have to. When the dog passes away he may be replaced with a few urban chickens. I bake my bread but I can't grow and grind my own wheat. Cooking from scratch is the only way I can control some aspects of the quality of my food. I've cut out all HFCS and it's not easy.
People don't know they have choices and can be a valid voice if they're not made aware. We will be sure to visit your work at PCRM. God Bless.
Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
p.s. Keep up the great work! Had cancer 11 years ago (at age 38) and had no idea that the supposed "healthy eating" could possibly be making me sick. We're building more and more cancer wings when maybe we just need to look at the ends of our forks. Do most Americans even use forks anymore?
Best health always!