(Page 4 of 4)
The federal government has been surprisingly gentle in its handling of the food industry, despite the well-documented deterioration of American health. The United States Department of Agriculture suggests consuming low amounts of fats, trans fats, saturated oils, and added sugars, but does not go so far as to suggest the reality that they should be totally eliminated from one’s diet. Even worse are the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, published by the U.S. government, which misleadingly state that “fats and oils are part of a healthful diet,” and that all foods—in limited quantities— can be incorporated into a “healthy diet.” Nutritionists often dispute these claims, believing that the government should move away from its “eat less” statements, which speciously suggest that fatty and caloric foods should continue to have a role in our gastronomic lives.
Another problem is the way nutritional information is made available to the US public. While the U.S. requires companies to label the content of their products throughout their chains, the producers are able to determine their own serving size and to label their product accordingly. Though a company might label “one serving” of crackers as 15 crackers, that serving might actually qualify as two or three by nutritional and governmental standards. Serving sizes need to be streamlined so that these arbitrary labels follow actual, recommended standards.
Clear labeling and disclosure of nutritional information is critical as well. In almost every restaurant, nutrition information is difficult to obtain, even in restaurant chains that sell standard products, such as The Olive Garden or Domino’s Pizza. Some restaurants claiming to make nutrition information available to customers have failed to present the information accurately. Most famously, McDonald’s has faced intense criticism for its secrecy about the fat and calorie content of its foods. Although its website (www.mcdonalds.com) claims to feature nutrition information for all of its products, it only lists the nutritional information for one product size (usually the smallest). It also fails to tally the nutritional content of its value meals. The U.S. government would do well to require that complete information be given at least on websites (if not always in restaurants) so that people can make informed choices.
Experts have also debated the value of adding a small tax to foods with low nutritional value. Similar to the taxes imposed on tobacco in order to discourage smoking, a ‘fat’ tax would try to discourage people from buying empty calories. Money generated by the initiative could be directed toward programs sponsoring physical fitness and health education. Aside from the obvious political obstcles in the way of such a tax, however, another caveat is that it could end up hurting the very people it is designed to help. If people eat unhealthy food because it is the only affordable option, would making it less affordable really ease anyone’s burden? This idea would only be successful if we could simultaneously lower the price of healthy foods; only then would we successfully shift spending habits instead of simply making spending more difficult.
Many suggest that the best way to make healthy foods more available is for the U.S. to restructure its subsidies program. In 2000, the U.S. spent $28 billion dollars on food subsidies, primarily driving down the prices of processed, energy-dense foods which use sugar and corn (which, in its ‘corn-syrup’ form, is really just more sugar). If some of these funds were diverted to help lower the price of produce or whole grains, then average Americans could more reasonably afford these healthier alternatives. If the U.S. government wants to emphasize the importance of vegetables, fruit, fish, and whole grains, it would be logical for it to fiscally support its own advice.
If only politics were that simple. A longstanding relationship between the food industry and the government, supported by sizable donations from lobbyists, exerts tremendous influence over the nation’s food policy. The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that even if we exclude contributions from tobacco companies, in 1998 food and agriculture lobbyists donated $52 million to political campaigns. To be fair, the food industry produces a large percentage of America’s GDP, and the government must of make policy with an eye to its concerns. But as the societal cost of our current food policy becomes clearer, the government must decide whether it wishes to place the interests of the food industry ahead of the health-interests of Americans.
The solutions to America’s obesity problem are every bit as complex as the causes of the epidemic. To properly confront it, our country must make a series of profound changes: some are environmental, some are social; some require government action, others require action from individuals. No one argues that people—where possible— should make the appropriate and essential modifications to their eating and exercise habits to improve both their health and the health of our nation. But we are blind if we fail to recognize the obstacles put in the way of those wishing to alter their behavior. In the case of obesity, it’s not about the obese choosing to live more healthily, it’s about the entire nation helping one another so that choices are possible for everyone.
Alexandra Suich is a Sophomore in Berkeley College.