|
Last week's final article in the rather
extended series on South Pacific kava and the way the 'West'
has seemingly gone about refusing its benefits brought us
to finally look at some of the 'Western world's' real major
health problems (in looking at the US) - alcohol, tobacco,
lifestyles and … obesity. Where the US leads, it seems
that Western Europe may unfortunately follow, and that may
sadly lead large numbers of young Europeans to a rather bloated
existence and possible premature health problems. I am not
talking here about drug abuse, or anything like that, I suppose
I am talking about what might be termed 'food abuse' - either
abusing food or being abused by it. Again, here I am not talking
about fresh, good, normal clean farm produce, 'home food':
I am talking about the massive fast food companies that supply
what so many people call 'Junk Food', rightly or wrongly.
As these companies can sometimes be rather 'overzealous' in
protecting their image (anyone who has seen the fascinating
two-hour documentary film "McLibel' - made, I think,
by the superbly-named 'One-Off Productions' film company -
will possibly guess what I'm getting at), I will not name
them in this article, but just refer to them as Big Food.
Most people in the US and Western Europe would probably know
what is meant by that term, although one must admit that most
of Eivissa/Ibiza's rural peasant population would not, in
spite of the fact that Big Food representatives opened branches
of their famous food/restaurant chains, to great publicity,
in Vila (Ibiza town) several years ago. There was, of course,
much local debate as to whether the island really needed such
a massive injection of extra calories, but things came to
pass as they did. World travellers may know that in Byron
Bay, the 'Ibiza of the South Pacific' (Ibiza's counterpart
down on the easternmost point of Australia), and the Big Food
representatives are - at least so far - prohibited from opening
outlets. Residents of the San Antonio area here on Eivissa/Ibiza
may well remember the 7,000 signatures of local residents
(in an area of only 13,000 residents) on a petition to the
'batlle' (Mayor) last summer pleading for stricter control
of tourism hooliganism, drug dealing and rubbish problems
during the tourism season. Photographs taken early one morning
during the height of the tourism season in San Antonio to
go with this petition highlighted the major refuse problems
in the town - and it was noted that a significantly high percentage
of the rubbish consisted of food and beverage containers/wrappings
from San Antonio's Big Food (and Smaller Food!) retailers.
We pointed out last week the problems of
obesity in the US and noted that in April the 'US tax authority'/officially
recognized obesity as a 'disease', thereby allowing 'obesity
sufferers' to claim medical benefits. This 'tax authority'
is the famous IRS, the Internal Revenue Service, an institution
that seems to be feared by many Americans - some call it a
'state within a state'. Well, whatever the case, the IRS here
seems to have made a move with profound implications. Its
April decision, which can link weight loss with tax reductions,
seems to have opened the door for a possible long-running
battle between certain public health groups and the Big Food
producers that some accuse of being responsible for the massive
rise in the number of obese persons in the US within recent
decades. Although a non-energetic lifestyle may certainly
assist in this growth (some say 60% of the adult US population
are now overweight), there are thought to be other factors
involved in the 300% increase in child obesity there in the
last three decades. Some point the finger at Big Food (and
Big Drinks). The recent IRS decision is critical and it is
beginning to be said in some sectors in the US this month
that the fight against 'Big Food/Big Drinks' may become as
hot as the struggles in the 1990s against the big tobacco
companies. What begins in the US could possibly spread to
Western Europe.
Of course, anyone who has visited the US
realizes that restaurants and fast food outlets serve much
bigger helpings than is normal in Europe. But there does seem
to be something slightly different about the quality of much
of the food in the US (I'm not necessarily talking about 'Big
Food' here) for those used to diets in Europe. Much US foods
seem so processed that, exaggeration accepted, in closing
ones eyes whilst eating one might jokingly say it is sometimes
difficult to tell the taste/texture difference between a steak
and a lettuce. At another level, one of the US's 'gifts to
the world', Big Food/Big Drinks, seems to have suddenly and
rather recently fallen out of favour in its own homeland.
One of the first major publications available to the public
that may have begun this change in opinion, or reflected it,
was Naomi Klein's biting analysis "No Logo", published
in 2000, that dealt with the new fad of brand names (in clothes,
sports gear, computers, food, drinks, etc) and the implications
of a state of affairs where these products are often now all
seen as 'fashion accessories'. The name - logo - is more important
than the actual product and the quality of the product is
sometimes rather irrelevant, at least to the 'uneducated-educated'
masses. So-called 'Junk Food' and certain soft drinks (no
names, but you can guess) are advertised in such a way to
be seen as part of a certain lifestyle, what is actually in
them is almost irrelevant.
Over the last decade in the US, Big Food
and Big Drinks have moved into the education arena, by moving
into school cafeterias and school restaurants, by creating
sponsorship deals with many schools, colleges and universities
and by (in certain instances) trying to promote a concept
whereby 'such-and-such a school is a such-and-such food/drink
supporter'. This may eventually prove to have been these 'industries'
biggest mistake, by finally arousing the concern and ire of
parents. Texas and California (the biggest states in the US)
are at this moment preparing to consider the Obesity Prevention
and Treatment Bill and are believed also to be considering
the banning of certain snacks and soft drinks from school
cafeterias. A spokesman for the American Obesity Association
has indicated that one is now seeing the problem of obesity
changing from being purely an individual concern to one of
policy. What has made this possible is the recent IRS decision.
As the now massive marketing of such types of food to children
of school age in the US seems to have reached a 'critical
mass', health associations and the general public seem to
have finally woken up to the fact that this trend may be the
most important single factor in the future health of the nation.
The IRS decision has given the public a tool with which to
fight back which may eventually negate the influence that
Big Food/Big Drinks are said to have in Washington.
Many people seem to forget that, in spite
of all our modern trappings - clothes, cars, computers, etc
- we are, as humans, still 'tribal peoples' with slightly
more material possessions than those living in the jungles
and mountains of, say, Papua New Guinea. Our bodily requirements
are still those of our ancestors of, say, 40,000 years ago.
Our dietary needs have not changed - but maybe the quantity
or quality of our food has. In almost all of the nearly 100
different traditionally-oriented societies (‘tribes'
some might call them) that I have had the honour of visiting,
working with or living with around the world since the 1960s
there is a rather interesting nutritional factor that stands
out: in almost none of them does animal protein/fats make
up more than 15% of the normal diet. Very few of them consume
much of what we call 'sugar'. Salt intake is very low. Some
societies I know had almost no salt at all - one using a salt
substitute from a tree. Of course some of these diets could
do with a bit of expansion and variation, but not to the extent
of, e.g., certain sectors of the US (or, to a lesser extent,
Western Europe) where animal proteins/fats are sometimes said
to reach levels as high as 40% of diet, and where sweetening
and salt additives rise to levels that would be unheard of
in most of the world's societies. The human body is probably
not actually constructed to be able to cope in the long term
with such massive levels of these types of ‘nutrients';
it is much too rich a mixture. It's a bit like having an old
red Cady mobylette, the one so popular with Ibizencan peasants:
these almost never break down (one of the reasons they are
no longer made!) and are 'works of art'. Made to run perfectly
almost forever on a mixture of petrol and 2% oil, everyone
knows what happens if you start increasing the percentage
of oil mixed in. 'Richer' is not necessarily 'better': the
machine will chug along but gradually begin to cough and sputter
and then just gradually comes to a grinding halt. Could certain
types of foods do the same to US and Western European youth?
Maybe. Possibly. Probably. OK for a snack, but not for a regular
diet, some say. Have I been careful enough in this article?
I hope so.
Kirk W Huffman
| |
