If current trends continue, 1 out of 3 Americans will get type 2 diabetes in their lifetime. This includes 1 out of 2 African Americans and Latinos. The facts are compelling and clear:
* People in poor areas often do not have access to fresh food.
* Good food often costs more money.
* Fast food restaurants target minority groups with their advertising dollars.
But what about the rest of us? What about those who can afford good food but choose not to buy it? Why do we overwhelmingly, consistently make poor food choices for ourselves and our kids, even when we know better? Here are a few ideas:
Good food costs more.
On the surface, we tend to accept this as a truism, a simple fact: local and organic food costs more than industrial food. Want evidence? There's loads:
* Grass fed beef costs $1 - $5 more than industrially raised beef per pound.
* Organic apples cost between $0.50 and $1.50 more than industrially grown apples per pound.
* Organic, fair-trade bananas often cost double what industrially grown bananas cost.
But why do families who can afford good food choose not to buy it? Joel Salatin says:
When it comes to most things, we believe we get what we pay for. Shoes, clothes, cars... but when it comes to food, we don't believe that. Most of us have a more intimate relationship with our hair cutter than we do with our farmer.
We've come to think of cheap food as our right, and the idea of paying more when we could pay less seems silly, almost un-American. We're saving our money for the things we think are really important, like cable TV and betting on football games.
But cheap food is a fallacy: it does not exist. When we choose to purchase industrially grown vegetables laden with pesticides, corn fed beef devoid of its nutritional value, and pork raised near manure lagoons, we pay the price. Health care costs skyrocket (the system is overwhelmed with type-2 diabetics and other obesity-related patients) as does the cost of cleaning up the environmental messes we make.
Simply put: we can pay a fair price for our food now, or we can pay a lot more for our health and environmental safety later.
Bad food tastes great.
Most Americans think a Big Mac tastes better than a turkey sandwich, and the fat, sugar, salt, and infused flavors in that Big Mac are meant to keep it that way.
Why do we feed our kids soda with their lunch? Why do we choose a Whopper instead of a salad? Why do we knowingly feed ourselves and our families food that is not good for us? Why do we cling to the bold health claims on the sides of cereal boxes that we know to be untrue? Because it tastes good! And also because...
Good food takes time.
This is true on multiple levels. Good food -- pasture-raised, pesticide-free, grass-fed food -- often grows more slowly than industrially raised food. Grass fed cattle need extra months to put on weight, for example.
And good food takes time to prepare: It takes time to wash and cut carrots, to season and grill fish, to find a recipe, buy ingredients, and cook a good meal. It takes time to eat with a knife and fork.
Many of us have decided that this is time we don't have. We've prioritized our life activities, and food didn't made the cut. We've decided that food is what we eat in the car between work and soccer practice, rather than something for which we make time.
We hate to deprive ourselves.
We work hard, and we deserve a treat. Many of us have been told what to do all day at work. We've been deprived of sunlight, of a flexible schedule, of meaningful work, of exercise, of all sorts of things that make us feel good and human.
Bad food gives us the illusion of control, and it makes us feel good right away. Guilt and health concerns may come later, but right now we need a treat.
We hate to deprive our kids.
When the marketing teams hit their mark, our kids want sugar cereal, chocolate milk, ice cream, hot dogs, and chicken nuggets. But why do we give it to them when we can afford better food choices?
Time-pressed, stressed-out parents know the answer: it's hard to say no to our kids. There are all sorts of reasons for this, including:
* We don't like to fight
* We don't want to disappoint our kids
* Negotiating with kids is irritating and time-consuming
So, despite the fact that we know the food lacks nutrients -- and that we can afford much, much better -- we continue to feed our kids the junk they demand.
This doesn't make us bad parents, does it? It's not like our kids are asking for cigarettes or coffee, right? We'd definitely draw the line there. We're not feeding them things that are unsafe, are we?
Bad food is just as safe as good food.
Okay, I'll admit it: I don't believe this at all. When we consume animals raised in feedlots, we consume the antibiotics that they consumed, increasing our own resistance to antibodies. When we eat apples grown with pesticides, we consume the pesticides they are covered in. When we eat beef that has been contaminated with feces, we consume feces.
Although conclusive results are hard to come by, several studies have shown that organic food grown in rich soil contains more nutrients than food raised on industrial farms. This makes intuitive sense: good soil begets good food. And eating organic produce means we can eat the peel without ingesting bonus pesticides.
In this context, we must also consider the health and safety of our communities and our environment. Good food is produced for a fair price, and does not take more from the earth than it gives back. Good food nourishes our bodies, our minds, our communities, and our planet. Good food doesn't pretend to cost less in the short-term, and then extract its toll on our health and our land over time. Isn't it worth a couple of extra bucks?
Summing Things Up
The issues of racism and classism in our food system are compelling and infuriating. These issues need to be addressed on a daily basis by our communities and our government. But there are many other issues affecting our country's ability to promote the health of our bodies and our planet as well. Understanding why those of us who can afford good food choose not to buy and prepare it can help us understand the cultural and social roots of the problem. And then, maybe, we can start to fix it.
Selling good food for health reasons also can backfire. Not only are most of the health claims poorly supported, but it also can make good food seem like medicine.
Superior flavor really a good selling point. Sympathy for small farmers is another. In the end a more sustainable (and more enjoyable) food supply will come only if rural depopulation is reversed and the number of people involved in food production-- even as gardeners-- grows to the point where local supplies can replace junk trucked in from Florida and California.
Wish someone could give me the solutions!
The key items for me are "bad food tastes good," "I don't want to be deprived", and (the kicker) "good food takes time."
Of those three, it's easier to address the first two. If I take time for myself during the day, I crave the candy less. (What? It's okay to make a cup of tea before I answer the next ten emails? Radical!) And I do like good food...though I like bad food too.
The killer is time. *Thank you* for noting that it's not just about the actual time in the kitchen, it's about choosing recipes and shopping for the ingredients. And making sure they are all used before they go bad. Chicken breasts are so unforgiving when you've had an unexpectedly long day... if it's day 3, cook them or toss them.
When I was working 40 hours instead of 50, and when I was not in a relationship, I cooked. Weekends, mostly, but then there was food in the freezer for weeknights.
I get so frustrated with the experts who say, "You should cook!" It should be so easy. Historically, cooking has been done either by paid staff or by unpaid staff (wives and mothers). I am *not* saying that the working wife/mother is the downfall of civilization. But working full time and cooking good food is tough math.
When we ask other Americans to examine their diets are we scolding them or welcoming them into fold? I think Micheal Pollan has been great with the press, when he was on Oprah he admitted to having a soft spot for cookies, fries and cake. He did say that his rule for eating those "bad foods" is that they had to be prepared from scratch. He quite reasonable, warm and funny. I think he was able to connect with public.
Thank you for asking!
Website: http://members.authorsguild.net/fleckenstein/blog.htm/
And that, as they say, is that. Our short sightedness on this issue continues to baffle me daily.
Wall to wall fast food.
On the issue of deserving a "treat" though, I have to disagree. I admit to being a total food snob- I cook basically every meal although I have a full time job and a toddler. I do have a sweet tooth, but just because something is sweet, that does not make it a treat. A treat should be exactly that- a delicious morsel that surprises and delights the taste buds- not a Starbucks muffin!
Recently I ran across a comment on a Michael Pollan article entitled Pay More, Eat Less. I could not agree more. Portions don't need to be so huge. It is taste, flavor, quality, nutrition that matters, not size.
Thanks for a great article!
www.frenchpressmemos.blogspot.com
Either way, I too am a Michael Pollan devotee and though I don't think I qualify as a food snob (not a good enough cook) I am very particular. I do all the cooking and shopping. I buy organics and shop at the co-op. I've found that the co-op offers bins of certain foods/ingredients I can buy in just the portion I need so I don't spend any more money buying for my family for a week than if I bought a giant pack of something horrible at a superstore.
My wife and I have a three-yr-old as well, but my job affords me great flexibility, and I consider myself very lucky. I can start dinner while working from my home office. My kid doesn't know that dinner does not always include baby spinach or broccoli, and she may not love it (she is a kid), but she always eats it. I feel very fortunate and wish everyone could have the flexibility and access we do.
We also feel that certain things are our RIGHT - cheap food, for example, or that "emergency cheeseburger" on the way to soccer practice. As a culture, we don't like to deny ourselves anything. (Not you and I, OTHER people :-))
Why are none of the health-food gurus coming up with recipes average families will eat? Probably because they have moved to the big city and can no longer see "average" in the rear view mirror, and disastrous for the future health of America if we rely on their "expertise."
Example: What do foosditas think of ketchup? Yep. Thought so. BUT--ketchup is one of the best sources of lycopene on the planet. Not to mention kids will eat anything loaded with it. Slightly change the recipe to a non-sugar/non aspartamine sweetener and substitute potassium chloride for sodium chloride (salt) in the recipe and you have a perfectly healthy and completely familiar condiment all children want to soak their food in.
Stop trying to make people change their eating habits. Change the food to healthy alternatives which satisfy those eating habits. You aren't going to win any other way.
I also disagree about changing eating habits, though. No, it's not easy, but it can be done. I am a southerner who grew up eating the comfort foods (soul foods) like mac-n-cheese and fried chicken and biscuits, etc. I have changed my ways, though. It can be done.
But you're right, finding recipes average families will eat is absolutely necessary. We just have to make sure that the right ingredients are available for those families, which too often they are not. Ever shopped at a grocery located in a poor part of town? Then you have to convince the families to spend the time preparing those recipes. When you're poor, it's too easy to compare dollars spent at McDonald's to those needed to buy and prepare a meal at home and choose the golden arches.
So we need information, for sure, and we need to meet people where they're at in order to help them make better decisions.
I often think about the success of the Atkins Diet - I think it proves how much easier it is for us to "eliminate" than to "moderate." The problem is that eliminating is not a sustainable appro9ach to eating, and moderation is so dang hard!
The main problem, however, is: The moment you are confronted with the traditional bad version of your improved recipe, you will fall for it. There is no way you will ever fall for a hamburger or macaroni and cheese again after you have banned it from your system for many years. The thought of it will turn your stomach in revolt.
Alexa Fleckenstein M.D., physician, author.
It's easy to say that the real issue is awareness, but many of us are completely aware and still utterly unable - or unwilling - to make the change we believe in. But we've GOT to.
-Lee