Why does a salad cost more than a Big Mac?

This image was published a while ago, but I recently saw it recirculating around Facebook so I thought I would post it. Why a salad (and fresh fruits and vegetables in general) costs more than a Big Mac is because the federal farm bill arranges it that way. Federal subsidies give money to farmers who produce certain crops. As of right now, "specialty crops," which include fruits and vegetables, receive less than 1% of the subsidies. The rest, as you can see, goes to meat, dairy, corn, and soy, which end up in our school lunches, grocery stores, and fast food restaurants, for cheap:

Now, there are lots of issues going on with the farm bill. A large percentage of the corn it subsidizes goes to producing biofuels, which means less food for hungry people. The richest 5% of farmers receive the majority of subsidy payments, and 3 in 5 farmers receive nothing. Very little money goes to subsidizing organic farmers. And on and on. But the issue I most find upsetting is the lack of support for farmers that produce fruits and vegetables. This is what we need more of in our diet, and the farm bill doesn't make it easier for farmers to produce these crops.

For more information on the farm bill, see here, here, and here. And if you're so inclined, contact your representative to tell them to support more funding for the growing of fruits and vegetables. We need these healthy foods to be more ubiquitous and more affordable.

p.s. Most of the information I wrote here I learned last weekend at a conference called Everybody Eats: Cultivating Food Democracy. I went to a talk hosted by Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow's assistant. Senator Stabenow is the chairperson of the Senate agriculture committee and seems to be doing some good things to fight for funding for specialty crops. Who knows what Congress will end up doing though...

A culture of health in America

Amsterdam, where travel by bike is easy

I've been thinking a lot lately about what it means to be American. Now, I don't want to get too deep into it. I don't want to talk about patriotism and freedom and democracy and all that. Basically, I'm considering how being an American relates to living a healthy life. This particular train of thought was inspired by several insightful blog posts I've read lately, as well as discussions with family and friends over the Thanksgiving holiday. We have two close friends from Spain who have lived here for the past year. In a recent conversation we asked them to tell us some stereotypes of America that they'd heard before they moved here. I should note that, after answering, they pointed out that stereotypes are often inaccurate (as an example, they informed us that everyone in Spain doesn't fight bulls and wear red).

After "don't know anything about other countries," they said another stereotype is that Americans are fat and eat unhealthy diets. How sad, I thought! Besides ignorance, we are known around the world as being the unhealthy country. Indeed, the obesity rate is pushing 33% of all Americans. One in three people are overweight or dangerously overweight. Indeed, we subsidize the growing of corn and soy instead of healthier fruits and vegetables. And indeed, we eat a lot of fast food.

But, I said to myself, I eat healthy. My friends and family eat healthy. I don't have any close friends that are particularly overweight. But I realize that this fact is largely based on where I live and my income level. Where you live and how much money you have really makes a difference in your health in this country. For example, in this insightful article from Feministing's community blog, the author describes where she lives:

As for me, I live in Washington, DC, where wealth and means converge. Exercise is trendy, as is eating healthily. Grocery stores, co-ops, and farmer’s market, all devoted to providing high quality food products are everywhere. An affluent population is willing and able to pay more for the privilege.

Although I don't live in DC, the same set of circumstances was true in Chicago, Madison, and various other places I've lived. It was easy for me eat healthy. I was lucky enough to be taught how to cook by my family and friends. The importance of exercise has been instilled in me, and I could walk or take the bus almost everywhere. Additionally, the city was full of people who ran, biked, and played sports. You couldn't drive through the north side of Chicago without seeing dozens of runners and several yoga studios. But that's not the case in other places. As the author goes on to say,

Are these same options present in Alabama, especially in the rural areas or the inner city? Not so much. Does a tradition and corresponding cultural expectation of these sorts of beneficial practices exist? Not really. Cities are concentrations of wealth and the highly educated. There is no financial incentive for either of them to leave and spread elsewhere. Quality food is rarely found in areas of poverty. Most often, only cheaper, lower quality food is affordable and available.

In addition to quality food, there are other aspects of health that are only accessible to the wealthy: health insurance, gym memberships, time to cook meals from scratch, reduced exposure to fast food ads, the privilege of living in a safe neighborhood.

I don't have a solution for this issue that our country faces, in which where you live and how much money you have has a disproportionate effect on your health. I wish that healthy food was cheaper and available everywhere. I wish there were bike lanes and bus routes in all areas, including surburban and rural towns. I wish we were taught in school how to cook, maintain a healthy diet, and build exercise into our schedules. I wish minimum wage was higher, so people could work less and spend more time cooking. I wish kids were given more time for recess and had greener cities.

I wish that health was an expectation our country, just part of our general culture, instead of a privilege. I don't think that individuals can be blamed for their obesity or heart disease or poor eating habits, at least not entirely. Right now, living in our country makes it harder to be a healthy person, instead of easier. I hope someday that will change. I hope, however naively, that someday when people think of Americans, they will think of healthy people.

Photo credit

Health claims on unhealthy foods need to go

There's currently a debate raging right now over whether food companies should be allowed to advertise  unhealthy foods to kids. One side of the debate believes that, to fight the childhood obesity epidemic, we need to put limits on which foods can be marketed to kids (aka no commercials for foods that have high amounts of saturated fat, sugar, etc). The other side believes that food companies themselves should be responsible for deciding what they can advertise.

I've found that when I bring up this issue with others, I often get the "why should the government be involved" response. After all, they explain, childhood obesity is largely due to parents' irresponsibility. It's the parents' job to choose which foods children buy and eat. If a child has an unhealthy diet, it's the parents' fault.

I have a pretty big problem with this response (as you might have guessed). Parents are faced with dozens of decisions to make for their kids each day. Ideally, choosing healthy foods for their children should be one of the easier decisions. But instead, parents are swimming in a sea of confusing food products when they enter the grocery store, and many unhealthy foods make health claims that are pretty convincing. And now, a new study shows that these health claims (like "Cocoa Krispies supports your child's immunity") indeed do mislead parents and increase the likelihood that they'll buy these unhealthy foods for their children.

See, in my opinion, almost all parents are trying to do the best they can, and that certainly includes feeding healthy food to their children. But there is a whole mess of things that make this harder for them -- ridiculous health claims on foods that are really not good for you, lack of education and knowledge about how to purchase and prepare healthy food, terrible lunches served at school, and, in some areas, a complete lack of affordable and fresh food nearby. So, for all these reasons, parents are not the only ones at fault when it comes to childhood obesity and malnutrition. And I believe food companies need to be held responsible.

Some information on the E. coli outbreak in Germany, and whether it could happen here

There have been lots of news reports and blog posts on the recent E. coli outbreak in Germany, which was responsible for 30 deaths and more than 3,000 illnesses. E. coli outbreaks and other foodborne illnesses are a serious issue in any country that has a large, complicated food system that makes it hard to trace where your food comes from. Here are a few articles that give more details on the outbreak, its possible causes, and the best way to protect yourself from foodborne illnesses.

• Marion Nestle on Food Politics has a great Q&A article: The German E. coli outbreak
• She also posted another article at the Atlantic: Europe's E. Coli outbreak
• Civil Eats has a shorter version of the Atlantic piece: European E. coli outbreak could happen here
• Mark Bittman on the NYTimes has a long but informative article: Experts weigh in on worrisome toxin

These articles can be frightening, but it's important to remember that knowing where your food comes from will help eliminate the threat of E. coli and other contaminants. Food that is grown locally on small farms goes through less processing and travel, and is easier to trace if there is a problem.

And if you don't have time to read the articles, here is a bit of concise advice (from Bill Marler, via Mark Bittman's article) on how to protect yourself from foodborne illnesses:

“Eat simply, locally, things that you wash well, cook well and process yourself. Wash your hands and keep your kitchen clean — especially the dish rag. Keep cold things cold and hot things hot. Keep meat and unwashed vegetables away from ready to eat food. Have a glass of good red wine.

“Think about eating mass-produced raw meat and produce like you are swimming in a pool with a thousand people you don’t know. Think of eating as described above as sitting in a bath with your significant other — hopefully less risky and much more fun.”

Why we need to ban Happy Meals

So, there is a debate raging in the public health world about Happy Meals. Health advocates are trying to  ban McDonald's and other fast food restaurants from handing out toys with kids' meals, since the meals are completely unhealthy and the toy prize just makes kids want them even more. The fast food industry, on the other hand, says that the government shouldn't decide what kids eat, their parents should. (Conservatives, I should add, also strongly agree with this statement. It fits in so well with their fear of a "nanny government," and any attempts at regulating the crap that children are encouraged to eat. For a golden example of this, recall when Sarah Palin handed out cookies to school children in order to mock Michelle Obama's anti-obesity campaign.)

Honestly, at first I wasn't sure where I stood on this issue. I understand that parents are leery of elected officials deciding what their kids eat. There is something sacred and private about the meals we eat at home. But after a long time thinking about it, I now whole-heartedly agree with the public health advocates who are pushing to ban Happy Meals. Happy Meals are not something we eat in the privacy of our family kitchens. They are high-calorie, unhealthy meals that are marketed deliberately towards children on TV, billboards, stores, and other public places.

Let's take a closer look at what's offered in the Happy Meals at McDonald's. The choices for a Happy Meal are a hamburger, a cheeseburger, or chicken nuggets. They come with a soda and fries. Well, McDonald's also offers other choices for drinks (milk or apple juice) and a side (apple slices). But the default Happy Meal comes with the soda and fries, which automatically means fewer families will order the healthier option. (See this article on why it's important to make healthy meals the default at restaurants.)

Let's pretend the kid chooses the chicken nuggets meal option, with fries and chocolate milk. This means she is eating a meal that gives her 580 calories, 26 grams of fat, 710 milligrams of sodium, and 25 grams of sugar. To put this in perspective, this one small meal provides 41% of recommended daily calories, 65% of daily fat, 60% of daily sodium, and 200% of recommended daily sugar intake. In other words, way too much.

Now, I don't have an issue with children eating these meals every now and then. But for many families, especially those in food deserts that have many fast food restaurants and few healthier options, these meals are a regular part of the diet. They're cheap, they're fast, and kids love them. Happy Meals come with a toy. Seriously, what kid turns down a meal that comes with a free toy and box with a huge smile on it? As a matter of fact, what kid wouldn't beg for that meal?

There aren't two ways to look at this issue. We don't market cigarettes to kids anymore, because cigarettes are terrible for kids. Happy Meals are terrible for kids. They shouldn't be marketed towards them.

Either fast food restaurants need to step up and offer healthier meals with their free toys, or we need to ban Happy Meals altogether.

Sources: McDonald's, Los Angeles Times, Mayo Clinic 
Photo Source: Gunaxin

Why isn't obesity an election issue?

As I've mentioned multiple times before, obesity is a huge issue affecting millions of people. Fully one third of Americans are obese or overweight, and one in five elementary school children. This is a shocking statistic that should have us all running around like crazy trying to find a solution, no matter the cost. But our politicians, with the valiant exception of Michelle Obama, are basically ignoring the situation. One of my favorite bloggers, Yoni Freedhoff of Weighty Matters, wrote this excellent article that I just had to share. While he writes from a Canadian perspective, the situation in the U.S. is almost identical. Thanks to Mr. Freedhoff for his permission to reprint it. I haven't changed any words except when inserting "Americans" for "Canadians."

So here we are in [America] in the midst of an election. Promises are being made, platforms are being unveiled, and politicians are prowling the land.

So let's pretend for a moment there was this problem in [America]. A public health problem, and it was a biggie.

Let's say there was a virus out there, and for arguments sake, let's say it was killing 25,000 [Americans] a year while afflicting millions. And if that's not bad enough, lets say that this virus was a particularly nasty one, in that if it didn't kill you, it markedly increased your risk of getting a whole slew of other medical conditions. Worse yet, this virus wasn't silent. Infection with this virus was visible to the naked eye, and consequently sufferers became regular targets of societal bias. Infection also lead many to suffer with marked fatigue, and also made completing activities of daily living more challenging, with difficulty rising with degree of infection.

Let's say too that while there was no vaccine or treatment that worked for everyone, there were both public health and medical interventions that might make a difference, if even just to combat the rising negative bias in society, as sufferers were ridiculed regularly, and even had their visible affliction leading them to lower salaries and fewer promotions. Let's also say that amazingly and shockingly, medical schools and other health care professions weren't being taught how to deal with this virus, and that the media had a bad habit of blaming those with it as being personally responsible for contracting it.

And let's say that one quarter of all [Americans] were infected.

I'm guessing that virus would be one hell of an election issue.

And yet the leaders and parties are virtually silent on obesity, a chronic relapsing disease that kills, sickens, stigmatizes, and challenges millions of [Americans]. Our medical schools don't teach our young doctors how to deal with it, and our government spends comparatively nothing on it. 

... Someone's got to stir things up! 

We need politicians to see this as a priority, and we shouldn't elect those that don't.

Friday Feature: Podcasts on health and nutrition

This week's Friday Feature focuses on podcasts that you can listen to while driving, riding the train, or exercising. I also like to listen to them while I'm cooking dinner. I try to choose carefully which podcasts I spend time listening to. There are hundreds of podcasts out there, so I try to limit my listening to programs that inspire me to live a healthier life. Here are a few of my favorites that focus on health, nutrition, and food:

Earth Eats: This podcast is usually less than ten minutes, and gives a healthy recipe using seasonal ingredients. A chef cooks the food and gives information on the process as he goes along. My favorite part is the first two minutes of the podcast, when they provide news on food politics and legislature.

Nutrition Diva: Another short podcast (from the Quick & Dirty Tips podcast series) that features one nutrition-related question each time. They're almost always questions that I'm interested in, like "Are organic vegetables healthier?" or "How much protein should you eat?" You can search the archives for topics that interest you.

NPR: Your Health: I am an NPR devotee so of course I listen to a lot of their news shows. This one is usually about a half hour, and gives multiple stories on the latest health news, everything from popular diet fads to new medical research. It's less motivational and more informative. NPR also has another program called NPR: Food, which combines weekly stories related to cooking and food politics.

Nutrition Tidbits: This is a new one for me, so I haven't incorporated it into my listening routine yet. But the topics I've downloaded all seem interesting: Are GM foods here to stay, Why do we overeat, Olive Oil 101. Along with eating advice, it also seems to feature interviews with food professionals, which are always fascinating.

Earth Eats photo taken from prx.org website.

Friday Feature: Blogs on the politics of food

So, in the tradition of many other bloggers, I've decided to choose one day a week to highlight other resources out there, including books, blogs, and organizations, that are dedicated to healthy living. I'm calling it the "Friday Feature." The amount of resources on the internet and in bookstores can be overwhelming, so I'm hoping this will help narrow it down to the particularly useful ones.

This week's Friday Feature is focused on food blogs. There is an endless number of food blogs out there, and even more cooking blogs. So, in the interest of time and space, I've chosen three essential blogs that report on food and, more specifically, on food politics. These websites are great to read if you are concerned about issues of food safety, federal funding for food programs, and nutrition research. They also feature quite a few stories of food "renegades" who are fighting to change the food system, including inspirational gardeners, lunch ladies, and politicians. Here are the blogs...

Civil Eats: If you had to choose just one website to read about food politics, I would choose this one. The blog is updated regularly, and features a whole host of writers from various organizations. The stated mission of the site is to "promote critical thought about sustainable agriculture and food systems as part of building economically and socially just communities," and I believe it does just that.


Food Politics: This website is written by Marion Nestle, a professor at NYU who has authored a whole host of books on food politics and how to choose healthy, safe foods. She's a well-known and outspoken critic of industrial agriculture, but she isn't over-the-top about it. She posts about all sorts of food news, from recent food recalls, to controversial food policies being enacted by our lawmakers.


Fed Up With Lunch: This blog is written by an anonymous Chicago public school teacher, who spent one year eating school food with her students. She photographed every meal, and blogged about the (sometimes disgusting) foods that were served. Now that the year has ended (and she has no desire to continue eating the school lunches), she writes about other issues of school food and federal funding for healthy food initiatives.