Lawyer Andy Weisbecker recently posted an opinion piece in Food Safety News in which he discusses the problem of limited access to healthy food and its contribution to the burden of obesity and diet-related disease.
The term “food desert” refers to a location-generally, a low-income neighborhood-from which residents must travel twice as far as those living in wealthier neighborhoods to reach the nearest supermarket.
As Weisbecker points out, awareness is growing that people who live in food deserts face “significant obstacles to the purchase and consumption of affordable healthy food.” It is often easier for these people to purchase meals from fast food establishments and corner stores than it is for them to shop at supermarkets or large grocery stores.
While the negative health effects of fast food are generally well understood, the obstacles created by small local grocery or convenience stores are perhaps less intuitive. These establishments often lack a selection of nutritious food and are more expensive than supermarkets and large grocery stores. Even when they do offer healthier options such as fruit, vegetables and milk, these items are often of lower quality than their counterparts in large grocery stores: a study conducted in Philadelphia found higher microbial indicator counts in these items in low-income markets than in comparable items in higher-income area markets.
Results of a year-long study conducted by the US Department of Agriculture in 2008 linked distance between dwelling and supermarket, along with poor transportation, with limited access to affordable nutritious food. According to this study, food access-related problems affect almost 6 percent of all households in the United States. This translates to an estimated 23.5 million people, including 6.5 million children, who live in low-income neighborhoods more than a mile from a supermarket. Read More >
An op-ed in the October 7th Wall Street Journal by Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent inspired me to do some fact-checking. In the article, “Coke Didn’t Make America Fat, Americans need more exercise, not another tax,” Mr. Kent defended his industry as being an easy target in the debate over obesity and its cause: “Sugar-sweetened beverages have been singled out in spite of the fact that soft drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and sweetened bottled water combined contribute 5.5% of the calories in the average American diet, according to the National Cancer Institute.”
While I’ve yet to confirm or refute Mr. Kent’s claim, his 5.5% figure seems extremely low compared to estimates from recent research. According to a 2004 study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, soft drinks alone contributed an estimated seven percent of total caloric intake in the average U.S. diet. A 2004 study out of UC Berkeley, drawing from the same data, found soft drinks were the top contributor to U.S. caloric intake at 7.1%, followed by “cake, sweet rolls, donuts and pastries” at 3.6%. Read More >
Timing could be better considering the latest warnings of sugar shortages and price spikes by U.S. food manufacturers, but at least one public health communications and marketing researcher believes a tax on high fructose corn syrup could help in the fight against America’s obesity epidemic. I caught up with Dr. R. Craig Lefebvre, a professor at George Washington University School of Public Health’s Department of Prevention and Community Health, in Atlanta this week after he took part in a panel discussion at the CDC’s National Conference on Health Communication, Marketing and Media. Dr. Lefebvre suggested that directly taxing consumers who buy sugary drinks or foods would be much more regressive than taxing manufacturers who use high fructose corn syrup. His argument: while producers may want to pass on the higher costs to their customers, market pressures may force them to come up with ways to reduce their dependence on high fructose corn syrup without raising prices. What do you think of Dr. Lefebvre’s proposal?
The perception of red meat consumption as masculine is heavily entrenched in Western culture, not unlike a weighty steel fork jabbed through a grizzled slab of tough, bloody steak. But new evidence suggests this association may originate more with monkeys and marketing than any real boost to manhood.
The role of nutritional need in motivating our dietary choices seems, at times, a vestigial remnant of earlier times. Whatever remains of this guiding principle is regularly drowned out by much louder influences: convenience, the aesthetics of packaging, or the appeal of a particular spokesperson. Even taste, texture, tradition and access to food can play a secondary role to the siren song of the Cocoa Puffs bird, or a Coca-Cola swilling Paris Hilton. The socio-cultural influences on diet choice – crafted, molded and amplified by marketing buzz and self-perpetuating social norms – elevate the qualities of some foods to a near-mythical status in the consumer mind. Paramount among these gastronomic legends are associations between red meat consumption and masculinity.
“Vegetables are for girls… If your instincts tell you a vegetarian diet isn’t manly, you’re right.” (Men’s Health, 2000)
An alarming trend will be making an appearance at many of America’s baseball parks on Opening Day this year. Along with the usual festivities synonymous with this rite of Spring-the first pitch of the season, the crack of the bat, kids sitting in the stands with glove in hand, hoping to catch a foul ball-comes the prospect of a not-so-obvious threat to our nation’s health: the compounding of our already out-of-control obesity epidemic. And the marketing geniuses behind America’s big league parks are the culprit. In their quest to fill empty seats of under performing teams, they have embraced a new tool: offering unlimited food and drink for a price. At most participating parks, fans paying an extra premium can consume unlimited hot dogs, nachos, popcorn, soda and water. (Beer and desserts are extra).
The perception of red meat consumption as masculine is heavily entrenched in Western culture, not unlike a weighty steel fork jabbed through a grizzled slab of tough, bloody steak. But new evidence suggests this association may originate more with monkeys and marketing than any real boost to manhood.