Let's Move

The unflattering reputation that Americans have garnered in the minds of so many other countries- that we are fat, stupid, arrogant and ill-informed- might seem overly harsh and judgmental. But the troubling part about this critical stereotype is not the ego-blow that we suffer in the global popularity contest. I'm sure our political arrogance and militaristic bullying can take care of that. Rather, the troubling part of this stereotype is that it's kind of true, a fact which has some serious detrimental connotations for our overall well-being. The United States is currently facing a super-sized obesity epidemic; our rates of diet-related diseases are astronomical. But the most disturbing part about all of it is the fact that these unhealthy indicators are starting to become apparent earlier and earlier in life, with young children now being grossly affected by this epidemic of overweight.

In 2008, data from the CDC indicated that nearly 20% of U.S. children aged 6-11 were classified as obese. According to the Mayo Clinic, about one in three children in the United States are considered to be overweight or obese, putting them at risk for high cholesterol, high blood pressure, type-2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and early puberty. All over the country, states and cities have been struggling to cope with this massive issue by implementing various public health approaches to curb the fatty disaster, and are being faced with enormous social and financial challenges. In Kansas, researchers and parents alike are baffled by the 91% increase in girls' obesity rates over a period of only 5 years. In Ohio, the public school system is unable to allow even 30 minutes of physical activity during the school day because of a lack of funding to do so, leading to an increased risk of overweight. And in Washington, D.C., where childhood obesity levels are the highest in the nation, a measure to fund public school nutrition programs by taxing sugary beverages is being fought back by the super-sized soda lobby (Coca-Cola and company), who have already paid upwards of $5 million to block the measure.

So, it would seem that the new federal Let's Move! campaign, headed by First Lady Michelle Obama, would be coming not a moment too late. The program's goal is to target childhood obesity by providing access to affordable, healthy foods and by increasing childrens' physical activity. It would seem that Mrs. Obama, who has repeatedly invited Mcarthur Fellow and sustainable food grower Will Allen to the White house, who boldly planted an organic vegetable garden on that same immaculate lawn, and who speaks out regularly on the troubling issue of childhood obesity and nutritional health, would be a firm and committed supporter of local, sustainable food movements. However, the focus of the program so far has not been on grassroots food campaigns working to provide communities with access to healthy, organic foods. Rather, the focus of our first lady's campaign is on the big industrial food producers. That's right. Yesterday, Michelle Obama announced a partnership with industrial food giants such as Kraft, Pepsi Co, Coca-Cola, Cambell, Kellogg, Con Agra, and Sara Lee to combat the nation's obesity crisis.

These same behemoths of the food industry who regularly and exclusively distribute non-nutritious edible food-like products are now gaining recognition and praise for their pledge to reduce the caloric count of their "foods" by a rate of 1 trillion calories annually. While this is certainly a step in the right direction, its false positive blurs the reality of the obesity epidemic that we are facing. It is going to take much more than just a simple reduction in caloric content for our children to become holistically healthy. It is also vital to address issues such as food deserts, where fresh produce is not available for miles around; we must focus on funding and supporting community-based sustainable food growing projects, to empower communities' souls and enrich their bodies. We must also focus on the one determinant which inspires the very name of the program: movement. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has praised the Let's Move! commitment to physical activity, citing the importance of making our streets safe for children and adults alike to walk and bike in their neighborhoods.

It remains to be seen whether this incredibly high-profile initiative will take root at the grassroots level, and whether it will have an effect on the obesity rates in our country. Enforcing a commitment from some of the biggest criminals in childhood obesity, while a valiant effort to pierce the belly of the beast, is also serving to bolster these companies by garnishing their image in the public eye, making them seem more cuddly, and thus more marketable. Still, it seems as if the first lady's approach is quite multifaceted, accounting for various determinants of childhood obesity, and implementing a range of approaches to target this tragic issue in our society. And if her past actions hold any indication of her tenacity and commitment to food issues, then surely Mrs. Obama deserves our preliminary trust. And once the media blitz dust settles, we will see what kinds of effects the program has actually had on the wellness of our nation's children.

Operation: Lunchbox

The startling relationship between the nutrition of America's schoolchildren and the United States Military was highlighted earlier this week by the release of a report deeming school lunches a national security threat. It seems righteous enough: some high-ranking retired military officials have decided that the preeminence of insalubrious foods in the federally-funded school lunch program is detrimental to our childrens' health, and that more wholesome alternatives must be implemented in order to ensure the security of future generations. Considering that most low-income families rely on the free and reduced cost breakfasts and lunches that are provided to students in publics schools as their primary source of nutrition, it's a no-brainer that the content of such meals should provide children with the optimum nutrients to bolster their development and their ability to perform well in school. However, it would be naive to trust this seemingly well-intentioned military suggestion, as these officials are not at all concerned with the overall well-being of our nation's low-income children. Rather, they are worried that the extreme prevalence of obesity in American children is providing them with a lower yield of potential military recruits. And they are not ashamed to say so.

According to the report, twenty-seven percent of potential young recruits (aged 17-24) are overweight and deemed "too fat to fight." They are calling it Mission: Readiness, as if as soon as the weight problem is solved, American youth will be ready and waiting to commit themselves to a life where their worth is determined by their ability to fight. But this is not a military problem, it is a public health crisis that is fueled by an insufficient and profit-driven food system that plays on the susceptability of many Americans by providing them with cheap, preservative-laden, hormone infused, sugar-charged items that somehow pass as real food. And as a growing number of our children are subject to poor diets and diet-related illnesses, the menus in most schools continue to offer foods which are too high in saturated fat and cholestoral and too low in nutrient and fiber rich foods, like fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.

The group of retired officials are urging congress to reshape the lunch program by removing junk food and high calorie beverages from schools. If the suggestions of these military officials are heard (which is a great possibility considering the presence of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vislak with the group on Capitol Hill this past Tuesday, and the history of military influence on school lunches), then the hope for reshaping American childrens' diet will be recharged, but with a sinister twist. The message being sent here is clear: the government only cares about the well-being of our children when we think of them as no more than future fighting and killing machines. But if our nation's children are not predisposed to being soldiers, then I suppose... let them eat cake.

Pouring on the Pounds

No one can deny the New York City government's dedication to public health goals. Seven years ago, Mayor Michael Bloomberg caused a tidal wave of reaction when he decided to battle against the city's smoking culture. It started with a ban on smoking inside public areas such as bars and restaurants, a measure which now may be expanded to include some outdoor public areas as well. The offensive was then compounded upon by a hefty tax applied to all purchases of tobacco products in NYC. Although the unconventional taxation and social exile still brings furrows to the brows of many of NYC's smokers, there is no denying the positive impact of the counter-cigarette campaign, as at the time of its inception, help was offered by the city to any smoker willing to try and fight their addiction.

Now, Bloomberg is launching yet another public health battle. Along with Health Commissioner Thomas Farley, the mayor has released target health goals for 2012 which include a strategic health agenda to preemptively target preventable sickness and death, including lung disease and cancer, HIV, and heart disease. Recognizing that poor diet is directly related to poorer health, the city has released its newest campaign- against sugary beverages. The ads that are being run throughout the five boroughs feature the title "Are you Pouring on the Pounds?" and are accompanied by gag-inducing images featuring soda, sports drinks and other sugary beverages pouring greasy, fatty deposits into a glass.

Although the ads are somewhat sensationalized, they represent exactly the kind of shock doctrine which might just result in behavior change. As obesity and diabetes levels soar in the United States, at least one city is fighting back against one of the biggest adversaries to our health: high fructose corn syrup, found in most sodas and juice "drinks."

Is it enough, though? Some are suggesting that besides a media campaign, an economic extension should be included in the strategy to combat these sugary devils. Much like the formidable taxes placed against tobacco products, they think that taxing another harmful product would be a wise means of aiding public health goals, with a very opportunistic economic advantage tagging along right behind. It could be just what we need in these hard economic times. Then again, we have to wonder who this tax will effect. Like the smoking tax, a tax on sugary beverages would hit those of lower economic standing hardest, as their mobility to find alternatives is limited, and their budget for food products is more humble. As one friend put it, a 12 cent tax on a can of soda won't bother a guy who pays $3.50 for a latte each morning. And as Professor Edward L. Glaeser put it in the New York Times, comparing ads to taxes: "Both approaches try to reduce soda consumption by making it less pleasant to drink soda. One approach hits you in the wallet; the other hits you in the stomach."

Either way, the incentive for increasing public health is a legitimate one. As of yet no taxes have been imposed, but a sense of awareness about our bodies certainly has. The 'ick factor' of the city's newest ads are effective in their ability to inflict a sense of responsibility in our minds, so that maybe next time we will choose that water or that healthier option of drink. Basically, if it grosses you out, that means that it's working!

Bacon as a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

READ THIS ARTICLE! It was written by Arun Gupta for the Indypendent, and is an impressive chronicle of all of the processes and consequences surrounding America's addiction to bacon. It comprehensively touches upon such exigent topics as factory farming, COFAs, swine flu and other infectious diseases, nutritional health, the fast food industry and our larger food system, and ties them all together as they are inextricably linked both to each other and to our well-being. I have yet to see a better account of the meatrix that we live in, or a better explanation of why bacon's prevalence in our society indeed makes it a weapon of mass destruction.

Find it here ~> http://www.indypendent.org/2009/07/23/bacon-as-weapon/