Do you really want to eat
that? A closer look at our food industry.
For my end of the year essay
(in December 2005), I encouraged people to examine their diets and provided a
list of reasons why this might be a worthwhile endeavor. Given the breadth of
my focus then, the essay served as a cursory introduction to the key
considerations involved. Here I focus in much more depth on one of these
reasons—one surrounding the heavy commercialization of food. I dedicate
this time to the topic of food and diet for two reasons: (1) All of us could
benefit from a different diet (perhaps in ways that we donÕt yet realize); and,
(2) Our diets are one of the more important and far-reaching activities in
which we engage—economically, ecologically, and personally.
In my earlier essay,
reason #5 urged readers to Òreject modern forms of food commercialization.Ó
Restated in simple terms, it suggests that we donÕt buy or eat foods that are
widely advertised, heavily marketed, and widely distributed. I realize that
this may say sound absurd to many of you. Unfortunately, as absurd as it may
seem, it is sound advice and the reasons are many. In fact, its apparent
absurdity combined with its verity suggests a lack of awareness by the masses
which makes the entire subject all the more intriguing. In this vein, I hope
that this essay will provoke local farmers, food providers, and eaters to
grapple publicly with its content. For much too long, we have collectively
ignored much of what follows.
We shouldnÕt be
eating heavily commercialized foods. The reasons are numerous and include: (1)
the most widely advertised foods tend to be lacking in nutrients and full of
damaging contents; (2) the advertisements themselves are manipulative and
dangerous to our society, especially our children; (3) agribusiness has gained
a major foothold in our political system; (4) people elsewhere in the world are
following in our footsteps; and, (5) the multinational companies that are
selling these highly advertised foods are engaged in unhealthy, inhumane, and
immoral practices.
So letÕs start with
probably the most contested part of the essay. Some foods arenÕt good for human
consumption, in small quantities or in large quantities. (This may not sound
controversial to some of you, but according to Nestle (2004) and others, the
food industry has spent huge amounts of resources to ÒconvinceÓ government
agencies that no food is ÒbadÓ for us.) Our supermarkets and convenience stores
are full of these products. Food advertisements tend to center disproportionately
on these same low (non-) nutritious foods. Our schools are full of them
too—via vending machines, a la carte lines, and even Market Day products.
Soda pop, chips, cupcakes, gum, candy, and a host of other things that many of
us consume in mass quantities serve little if any good and most actually do
harm to us.
Yet,
it isnÕt just these obvious foods that should be on our ÒwatchÓ list. There are
many more that need to join it, especially in terms of ones doing harm to us.
Most packaged foods in the U.S. suffer from one of the following health
hazards: trans fat (a human
invention, not found naturally), high levels of saturated fat, and high levels
of salt or sugar. And given that all four of these substances are linked to
heart disease (directly or via high blood pressure or obesity) and considering
that heart disease is the #1 cause of death in the United States, one wonders
why we are consuming these dangerous foods and in such high quantities. It
seems that the companies that provide these foods do because we donÕt seem to
care or know better. It isnÕt that popcorn and pizza (or other packaged foods)
have to be dangerous for us. Inherently they are not. It is because the
manufacturers of food alter the foods to maximize their profits. They do this because
it is cheaper to use dangerous (often artificial) compounds than to use healthy
and natural ones. For instance, CelesteÕs frozen Vegetable Pizza contains 4.5
grams of both saturated fat and trans fat in each of its 6 ounce
single-servings. Why so much trans fat? Well, rather than using real cheese,
they use a ÒÕlow-moisture part-skim mozzarella cheese substitute,Õ which
consists of É partially hydrogenated soybean oilÓ (Liebman). Microwavable
popcorn, pot pies, fruit pies, frozen entrees, and crackers all tend to have
much more saturated fat then they need to and most have loads of trans fat as
well—something completely unnecessary yet lucrative to stock holders and
CEOs.
The clearest example
of how ridiculous the quality of our food has become is a recent comparative
study done on the nutritional content of McDonaldÕs and KFC products in various
countries where they do business. The study, which appeared in the New England
Journal of Medicine earlier this month, found that McDonaldÕs and KFC foods differ
greatly depending on which country they are served. For instance, McDonaldÕs
fries and KFC chicken generally have much higher levels of trans fat in the
United States than a host of European countries included in the investigation.
The study makes clear that the fast food companies could easily reduce key
hazards in their items without changing their content noticeably. Not
surprisingly, immediately after this news was released, McDonaldÕs claimed that
the differences observed are a function of local taste preferences. Apparently,
we are supposed to believe this. Do you, especially when we know that partially
hydrogenated oils (i.e., trans fats) are cheaper to produce? Denmark has banned
trans fats from their foods. When are we in the U.S. going to be so wise and
thoughtful about peopleÕs health?
Advertisements
compel us to buy products. Some donÕt believe this. Fine, so be it. Outside of
tons of research which demonstrates this unequivocally, common sense should be
sufficient to demonstrate it as fact. Billions of dollars are spent to flood
our minds with images, jingles, and associations (e.g., eat this and you will
have friends, lovers, etc.). The key food marketers donÕt get extremely rich by
making stupid economic decisions. A company now spends over $80,000 per second
to air their commercial during the Superbowl, and that doesnÕt even account for
the cost of making the commercial in the first place. The companyÕs that spend
this loot tend to be some of the most successful in the world. Hence, one can
conclude, advertising works. And unfortunately it works in insidious ways.
Kids are extremely
vulnerable members of our species. They are also very impressionable.
Advertisers know this. Thus, they bombard our airwaves with consumeristic
messages, and many of these are directed towards our children. The tobacco
industry was found to have done so (early smokers become lifelong ones), and
the food industry does so as well. What do you think all the advertising in
schools is about? What do you make of the very aggressive attempts by the
agribusiness to dictate what goes into the foods at all school lunches? (Public
schools are coerced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture—via financial
reimbursements—to use the surplus agricultural commodities). What do you
make of the fact that more children can identify Ronald McDonald from a photo
than can recognize the U.S. president or Jesus Christ?
Getting children to
become consumers of specific products early on may not seem so problematic.
Yet, research suggests that consumer behaviors learned early tend to replicate
themselves in adulthood. Thus, when kids become accustomed to eating low
nutrition foods and foods that are saturated in trans and saturated fats and
sugars, they are much more likely to continue eating these products for the
remainder of their lives. And given that incidence of childhood obesity has
doubled (for children aged 6 to 11) and tripled (for children aged 12 to 19) in
the past 25 years (American Obesity Association), it is pretty clear that we
have a serious problem on our hands. And since childhood obesity is strongly
associated with higher incidence of heart disease, high blood pressure and
stroke in adulthood, our nation better be prepared for a very, very serious
health crisis (as if we arenÕt in one already) in the next 30-40 years. So,
simply, if we want to do something about this now, we have to start with the
advertising of junk food with kids. We also need to get rid of easy access to
these foods as well. Some school systems (and even states) are doing so.
Arizona and Kentucky got rid of soda in school and nationally there is
legislation that would continue this effort. Find out more at:
www.childrenshub.org/campaign/school_food/
Not only are the
junk foods detrimentally impacting our collective health, the food industry
which promotes them so successfully is able to do so because they have gotten
their people and their platforms firmly imbedded in the political system. It is
this strong connection between the ideals of agribusiness and the laws (or lack
thereof) of our land that presents us with the dilemma we face. LetÕs look at
some of the evidence. Fed Up! is a documentary that outlines the multitude of
government officials in high ranking government positions who were once major
actors (or have since become ones) in corporations that dominate the food
industry. This revolving door between the two sectors of our society should
concern us immensely. All the way back to the early part of the 20th
Century, food executives pushed for Òeat moreÓ campaigns. Early on, when many
people in the U.S. werenÕt getting enough to eat (and suffering from the
consequent health problems), perhaps this made sense. In contemporary America,
it makes absolutely no sense, yet the government refuses to tell us to eat less
of any particular food item, opting instead (as agribusiness would have it) to
tell us to use components (such as sugar, fat, etc.) of food more sparingly.
(AgribusinessÕs move to more processed foods is also a means to get us to eat
more because processes foods, including white rice and pasta, digest very
quickly and leave consumers of these foods with artificial hunger pains not
long afterwards; hence, overeating commences.) The Food Pyramid which is our
governmentÕs attempt to provide a guide for healthy consumption has gone
through more revisions (due to capitulations to industry) than you would ever
imagine (covered in Nestle). The current pyramid represents a sheepish backing
away from the hierarchical model issued in 1992 (which made clear that certain
food groups—such as sweets, meats, and dairy products—were to be
consumed in smaller quantities). Since this pyramid serves as the basis for
many nutritional education programs, this is an additional problem for us, one
with which agribusiness appears to be very pleased.
AgribusinessÕs
power brokers have also tweaked the legal structures such that raw food
commodities (such as, corn or soy beans) have not increased in value over time.
Most of the money we spend on food goes not to the farmers but to everyone that
comes along afterwards, letÕs call them the Òprocessors.Ó These processors
manipulate the food (often by adding unhealthy components) so that they can
sell it for more. Any product in a colorful box or tin and a catchy slogan (one
repeated ad nauseam on TV) can sell for a lot more than a raw (unprocessed)
commodity in bulk.
Additionally,
the price of food is artificially kept low because low prices do motivate many
people to buy products. (Consider that most of the time, newspaper advertisers
cajole shoppers to buy their foods by stressing price and quantity—but
not quality.) But since agribusiness thrives on economies of scale (i.e., sell
more at the maximum profit margins that the market will bear), it is important
that it shifts external costs to the consumers in not so obvious ways. They do
so buy hiding the true cost of the foods—in the form of ecological damage
via pesticides, fertilizers, acidification of soils, etc. Our government (via
our tax revenue) is responsible for dealing with these messes, not
agribusiness. When governments ignore these problems, as we have witnessed in
many instances in our country, then the humans and the surrounding life forms
pay these extra costs by suffering from a reduction in quality of life. Agribusiness
shifts the burden to us by convincing the government to subsidize large scale
farming (which provides about half of farmer income these days). Thus, a good
deal of our tax money is going to pay for industrialized food production.
Agribusiness is also immune to the impacts to our health. We pay higher medical
bills and higher medical insurance premiums when we consume their processed and
unhealthy foods. Agribusiness doesnÕt pay when we develop heart disease or
childhood diabetes, or for our medicines when we develop a host of other
chronic ailments. Once again, they are insulated from the true cost of the
product they produce. So, next time you see a great price on a processed
(non-nutritious) food item, remember that the true cost you are paying is not
the one that shows up on the register at the checkout counter. Perhaps this
will prompt you to reconsider the purchase.
Governmental
co-optation by agribusiness also expresses itself in other ways. Manufacturers
need not disclose the all the ingredients contained in their foods (due to
proprietary laws). In the U.S., they donÕt also have to report if GMOs
(genetically-modified organisms) are contained in the products (but they do in
Europe). Thus, consumers are not able to make discriminating and educated
choices about the foods they buy and eat. This is particularly troubling when
very few scientific tests have been done on GMOs, and some early studies
suggest that there may be serious problems with this form of ÒadvancedÓ
technology. A consumer is also not privy to the origin of the product.
Literally, one might be eating grapes that have been grown in a heavily
polluted part of the world and have no idea. All the above examples suggest
that regulations are much too lax which strongly suggests overly close ties
between government and industry. For more evidence of the collusion between big
business and government in the area of food, be sure to check out MatteraÕs
report which can be found on line at: www.citizen.org/documents/USDAInc.pdf
Things would be bad
enough if only the 280+ million inhabitants of our country were heavily
invested in processed and nutritionally-questionable foods. However, the other
96% of humanity is increasingly being exposed and hoodwinked into eating like
the majority of us do here in the states. The fast food industry is growing by
leaps and bounds overseas. In India, it is growing by (an enormous) 40% a year.
As of 2004, China already had 800 KFCs and 100 Pizza Huts (GS). Bottled water
consumption, a profound indicator of wasteful and inefficient consumption, is
also increasing at alarming rates throughout Asia and elsewhere. Some boast
about these trends saying they signify that people are getting richer and
desiring the ÒAmerican Way.Ó Unfortunately however, accompanying these trends
soon enough will be our obesity rates, our heart disease problems and other
chronic medical conditions.
The
loss of family farms in the United States is well-recognized. The same trend
has been taking place in the developing world as well. This means that more and
more residents of the developing world now have no direct means to food
production. Therefore, they are more dependent on market-driven food prices.
This puts more and more of them in harms way and only one market hiccup (i.e.,
fluctuation) from an empty fridge and/or belly. It also means that the food
being produced internationally is being made with profits in mind and not with
the nutritional health of the local people. Hence, the variety of foods
available has declined and people have become dependent on foods grown
elsewhere and foods that are more heavily processed. These are disturbing
trends dictated by our culture influence.
And if these matters
werenÕt sufficient to grab our attention, consider the multitude of other ways
in which agribusiness is promoting unhealthy, inhumane, and immoral practices.
The alcohol industry claimed recently that they have done studies that prove
that their advertisements do not influence underage (here, meaning people under
21 years of age) drinking. Do you believe them? Considering how many young
people die in vehicular accidents that are caused by those who have consumed
alcohol, should we believe them? Considering how many high schoolers are into
binge drinking, should we believe them? (Do we ask a fox how the hen house is
doing?) The continued pumping of hormones, antibiotics and pesticides (via
their feed) into the animals that many of us eat, for no reason other than fast
(unnatural) growth, Òefficiency,Ó and economic bottom lines is immoral whatever
way one slices their steak. The continued blind, untested support of GMOs is
immoral and a potential crime against nature. The suing of smaller farmers on
the basis of Òintellectual propertyÓ because their fields have become
contaminated by genetic pollution blowing off of big Ag-business fields aids in
the destruction of a sustainable way of life—the family farm. Price
fixing by ADM (Manning), nicotine doping by the tobacco industry, and trans fat
saturation by the fast food industry further convince us that we are up against
some heavy and duplicitous hitters. (If there is any doubt about the unethical
behavior of modern food companies, consider that one of its biggest players
today is Phillip Morris, which captured a huge chunk of it in the wake of
numerous billion dollar lawsuit settlements due to indiscretions surrounding
its tobacco empire.) Is there any doubt left?
So
what is one to do with all this information? First, go do your own research and
find out about these things for yourself. Second, consider moving away from
processed and highly advertised foods—especially ones that show clear
signs of being bad for our health. Third, increase the amount of food that you
buy locally—farmers markets and CSAs (community supported agriculture)
are on the rise and they need supporters. Fourth, join the movement statewide
to improve our food through the help of the Illinois Stewardship Alliance (www.illinoisstewardshipalliance.org).
And most importantly, stop taking food for granted. Once more of us do this, we
will be on the course to a better future. Every day, most of us are fortunate
to put food in our mouths two to three times a day. LetÕs make this experience
not only satisfying to our palates but also to our sense of fairness, our sense
of humanity, and our desire for good health.
Additional Websites to visit:
The Eat Well Guide: www.eatwellguide.org;
Illinois Stewardship Alliance: www.illinoisstewardshipalliance.org;
Pasture Based Farming: www.eatwild.com; Slow Food Movement: www.slowfood.com
Works Cited
(FU) Fed Up!: Industrial
Agriculture, & Sustainable Alternatives (2002) Wholesome Goodness Productions, 58 min.
(GS) Good Stuff? A
Behind-the-Scenes Guide to the Things We Buy. (2004) Worldwatch Institute, 31 pp.
Liebman, Bonnie. (2006)
ÒTrans Traps.Ó Nutrition Action Health Letter. Center for Science in the Public Interest, 33(2),
10-11.
Manning, Richard. (2004) Against
the Grain: How Agriculture Has Hijacked Civilization. North Point Press, 232 pp.
Mattera, Philip. (2004) USDA
INC.: How Agribusiness has Hijacked Regulatory Policy at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 40 pp.
Nestle, Marion. (2002) Food
Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. University of California Press, 457 pp.
Peter Schwartzman (email: pschwart@knox.edu) is associate professor
and chair of the Environmental Studies Program at Knox College. He is a
climatologist with publications in the area of climate change and human
population growth. A nationally-ranked
Scrabble¨ player, he is also the founder and
maintainer of the website dedicated to peace and empowerment: www.onespower.org.
04/27/06