The Politics of Fat

[Guest guest]

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16343

 

The Politics of Fat

 

Michael Stephens, PopMatters

July 8, 2003Viewed on July 8, 2003

 

Anti-tobacco lawyer John Banzhaf is presently building more solid test cases

against food corporations for knowingly selling products that are injurious to

consumers' health. Banzhaf will send a letter to McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger

King, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken this month, demanding that

they label their food as containing substances that may be as addictive as

nicotine.

 

At the same time, there is talk of imposing a " fat tax " and/or forcing

manufacturers to put health warnings on certain foods, similar to the warnings

on tobacco products. McDonalds is apparently feeling the pressure. They have

recently issued a request to their meat suppliers to reduce the quantity of

antibiotics in their meat, perhaps a pre-emptive measure, intended to

demonstrate concern about the health impact of their products in case of future

lawsuits.

 

Many issues are bundled in the politics of fat: government responsibility versus

individual responsibility; free enterprise versus government regulation;

industrial profit versus public health. A fair debate is made more difficult

because the media, influenced by the enormous revenue from fast food

corporations, typically treat the issue in a derisory fashion: It's all about

greedy lawyers, a sue-happy culture and irresponsible consumers. Yet there is

more to the fat issue than is suggested by these pre-digested media reductions.

 

Because it affects people on so many levels, fat is moving to the center-stage

of American politics. First there is the issue of health. 36% of Americans are

overweight and about two thirds of these are obese. Obesity greatly increases

the individual's risk of developing diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and other

chronic diseases. Diet is so important to health that 80% of heart disease and

cancer could be eliminated by simple changes in our eating habits, such as

reducing meat consumption and increasing fresh fruit and vegetable consumption.

Yet, despite these known facts, in 1996 only 22.7% of American adults ate the

recommended five servings a day of fruit and vegetables.

 

The economic consequences of fat in the American diet are equally dramatic. The

medical costs of obesity were conservatively estimated at $51.6 billion in 1994.

By now this figure would at least have doubled. More recent studies show that

obesity is associated with higher costs for chronic health problems than either

smoking or drinking. Only aging is associated with higher medical costs. Heart

disease, the number one killer in America, is closely linked to diet, and cost

over $300 billion in medical care in 2002. The medical cost of diabetes, also

directly linked to obesity, rose from $44 billion in 1997 to $91.8 billion in

2002. These figures do not include the hundreds of billions lost in American

productivity every year to fat-related health problems.

 

But food preferences are so personal and so emotionally charged that they are

highly resistant to rational arguments about change. Dietary choices are

developed from early childhood through cultural, regional, ethnic, familial and

commercial influences. To challenge these habits is, in many ways, to challenge

our very identity. Hot dogs and mustard at baseball games, turkey and gravy at

Thanksgiving, hamburgers and steaks on the grill in summertime: Our national

foods and the cultural contexts in which they are eaten are indivisible.

 

Indeed, they are more than just " choices " — they are a part of the American

identity. Shrimp and grits and collard greens and fatback are distinct,

traditional elements in southern African American culture. Individual variations

on recipes and cooking styles are still passed down through families and are

important to our familial and personal history. We are what we eat on so many

interwoven levels that woe betide the politician who wants to regulate the

contents of our refrigerators.

 

Yet the balance of influences on our dietary choices has changed dramatically

over the last two centuries. Two hundred years ago, people tended to stay in one

small region for most of their lives and had little or no access to the world

outside. The influences on their diet were predominantly regional and familial.

They ate the foods that were home grown, hand reared, or caught in their locale.

Fresh meat, seafood, vegetables and fruits could not be transported thousands of

miles in a few hours, so people tended only to eat locally grown, seasonal

produce and locally butchered meat. All the crops, vegetables and fruits were

organic, because chemical fertilizers and pesticides had not been invented. All

the eggs and chickens were " free range " , and growth hormones, antibiotics and

steroids were not fed to livestock, so all meat and dairy produced was chemical

free. Supermarkets, mass media, and industrial food production techniques did

not exist. Even eating in restaurants was a rare

experience for most, since the majority population lived in rural areas and the

few restaurants that existed were in cities.

 

In the 20th century, however, the forces that influenced the 18th and 19th

century American diet were radically transformed by industry, corporate

franchising, and the media. The invention of the automobile, the development of

superhighways and urbanization helped to spread fast food franchises,

supermarkets, and convenience foods. Regional, cultural, ethnic and familial

influences on diet faded as all regional and ethnic preferences were homogenized

by the universal presence of fast food franchises. Modern children's food

preferences are more powerfully influenced by television advertising than by

familial or regional influences. Moreover, modern parents, who were raised on

television, supermarket shopping, and convenience foods pass on to their

children the food preferences that they developed under these commercial

influences. Eating cereal for breakfast, for example, is a manufactured food

tradition created by industry and the media.

 

Breakfast cereals like Froot Loops, Cap'n Krunch, Cocoa Puffs, and Lucky Charms,

and many other children's foods such as Oreo Cookies, Eggo Waffles, Jif Peanut

Butter, frozen pizza, frozen french fries, and hundreds of breads and baked

goods, contain trans fats. Trans fats, or partially hydrogenated oils, increase

shelf life and are cheap, so their use is advantageous to manufacturers.

However, epidemiological evidence suggests that trans fats account for about

100,000 premature deaths from cardiological disease in the United States each

year. Some health care professionals consider trans fat consumption as serious a

health risk as smoking, and it has been argued that eating a McDonald's Happy

Meal is as damaging as smoking three cigarettes.

 

The opponents of lawsuits against the fast food industry argue that " everyone

knows " that McDonalds and Burger King sell high-fat foods and that those who eat

these foods do so by their own free choice. Yet, knowledge alone is not enough

to combat the power of life-long exposure to the media and to the omnipresence

of fast food franchises and convenience foods. Partially hydrogenated oils have

been used in American food manufacture since the 1920s -- time for several

generations of Americans to incorporate trans fats into their everyday diet and

to normalize the consumption of hundreds of foods containing trans fats.

Precisely because food preferences are formed over time and are deeply ingrained

in our lifestyle, it is difficult for people to change their dietary habits,

even when it is revealed that some ingredients in these foods are unhealthy or

dangerous.

 

What is really at stake in the politics of fat is the extent to which government

should restrict corporate and media influences on the American diet. There is no

choice for consumers when every street corner and highway is crowded with fast

food franchises and no healthy alternatives are available. There is no

possibility of informed consumer decisions, when saturation advertising entirely

overwhelms the cautionary messages of doctors and health professionals.

 

Only the food manufacturers have the resources and the media access to balance

their own marketing and distribution power with cautionary labels and

informational campaigns. Only economic pressure can force food manufacturers to

eliminate their use of trans fats and other dangerous ingredients, especially in

foods that are aggressively marketed to children.

As John Banzhaf constructs his case, instead of pursuing the unproven notion

that fast foods contain addictive ingredients, he should consider the more

insidious and pervasive power of the media and commerce to create unhealthy

dietary preferences and to eliminate real consumer freedom of choice.

 

Michael Stephens is an editor for the online culture and politics magazine

popmatters.com

 

 

 

 

© 2003 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

 

 

 

 

 

@

 

Alternative Medicine/Health-Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to:

alternative_medicine_forum-

 

Or, go to our group site at:

alternative_medicine_forum

 

 

 

SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!