|
In the last two issues of this paper we
have peeked into aspects of the 'Western World's' problems
with food, obesity and the misuse of industrial waste as agricultural
fertilizer. This 'new' theme was first brought up in the last
article about South Pacific Kava (more commonly known as 'Kava-kava'
in Europe and the US) and the misguided decisions of many
European countries - and the US, Canada and Australia to try
and limit or prohibit its used in medicinal extract form to
combat stress. Germany was the country that began the furore,
but has turned out to be the last country to make an official
decision on it, the relevant German government health authority
(the BfArM in Bonn) only making their final decision on 14th
June (they were supposed to make it in January) and releasing
it to the press on 17th June. Their views? A blanket prohibition,
effective immediately, on the sales of all kava-based medicinal
products. Their reasons? As pointed out in the kava series,
they think it's use may be associated with liver damage -
a view which came as a shock to traditional kava drinkers
in the South Pacific, particularly those in Vanuatu who have
been drinking incredibly strong kava (i.e. stronger than any
extracts possibly available in Europe) for longer than any
nations in Europe have existed (and without liver problems
either). We went into some of the other reasons for the official
'Western' attempts to get 'kava-kava' off the market. Those
who have read the 8-part series will not be surprised to soon
hear of official attempts to ban St John's Wort (Hypericum)
in the very near future. It is a sad situation where money
may sometimes be of more importance than real concern for
people's health - and here I really mean that 'modern' governments
often tend to try and prohibit useful materials from the 'Developing
World' if these become too popular and start interfering with
profits of more expensive (and often less effective) products
of the Big Companies (unless of course the former can be controlled
by the latter) whilst still permitting other products (of
their own) that may be more harmful.
Where big money rather than health is involved,
things can move extremely rapidly. We are now back on the
topic of Big Food/ 'junk food', familiar to those who have
read this newspaper's last two issues. The decision (mentioned
in 'Thinking about Kava - with a 'K', Part Eight, Saturday
25th May 2002) in April 2002 of the US government's IRS (Internal
Revenue Service) to class 'obesity' as an 'illness' has opened
the door for potential court cases against the 'junk food'
industry in the same way that many civil action cases were
fought against the tobacco giants in the 1990s. Although the
general public in the US may not yet have realized the full
implications of the IRS's momentous decision, the Big Food/'junk
food' companies have. They have realized that their days as
'untouchable industries' in the US may be numbered, at least
in their present state, and they are hurriedly preparing to
head the enemy (i.e. the general public) off at the pass,
so to speak. That's a polite way of saying that they are now
trying to cover their asses. By the end of this month you
will begin to hear rumours of a massive publicity campaign,
organized and funded by the US 'junk food' giants, telling
us that we should eat well and get more exercise - as if we
did not already know. This campaign, code-named 'Activate',
will target children between the ages of 9 to12 and their
parents and is supported by the US's International Food Information
Council Foundation. A grand-sounding name, but readers may
be interested to know that the IFICF is said to actually be
the Big Food industry's lobby group (? a bit like having an
International Tobacco Information Council funded by the tobacco
industry?). Some say that such a campaign may end up with
pre-packed foods such as, say, chocolate biscuits and crisps,
labelled with health warnings rather like cigarette packets.
But of course minor foods like those just mentioned are not
really what the Food Industry is really worried about; they
are really worried that the public will home in on the obesity-friendly
high fat and salt, etc, content of their staple products,
which shall remain nameless. In 2001, 25% of the adult US
population visited a Big Food restaurant every day, and during
that same period Americans spent US $110 billion on 'junk
food'. What may really have panicked the Big Food industry
was a December 2001 report by the US Surgeon General, David
Satcher, stating that obesity-related health problems cost
the US a stunning US $ 117 billion per year! More than the
amount spent on 'junk food'! The Big Food industry quickly
saw the switched-off light at the end of the tunnel! Anyway,
'for whatever reasons', big companies such as McDonalds, Burger
King, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Heinz, Unilever and Monsanto (!) are
amongst the backers for the 'Activate' campaign - and for
most of those it is not difficult to understand why. To use
a culinary term, it can be called 'currying public favour'.
Those with a slightly malicious turn of
mind might actually hint that certain companies might be planning
a rapid judicious search through their archives with a view
to making sure that no untoward documents might eventually
be forced to come to light. Obesity-related lawsuits against
some of the food companies have already begun in a small way
- in the same way as the first lawsuits against the tobacco
companies - there have been four recent lawsuits, including
two against McDonalds and Pizza Hut. In the fight against
the tobacco giants, lawsuits eventually became bigger as the
revelations stoked the fires of public outrage. If the litigious
situation between the US public, the Government, the Courts
(who may, it is said, 'go it alone' if the government doesn't)
and the 'junk food' industry regarding obesity does hot up
in the same way as the 'tobacco wars', then one may find some
similar outcomes. The big tobacco companies - seemingly more
concerned with profits than health, as usual - looked for
new markets, and targeted the 'Developing World'. Europeans
in general often seem to forget about China, but companies
concerned with sales do not. What a market for everything
- a booming economy (set probably to be the world's biggest
by the end of this century, if not well before) and over a
billion potential consumers! All potential smokers and consumers
of 'junk food'.
There is already a growing obesity problem
in certain areas of China. Take dynamic Shanghai, for instance.
China's richest city. A Reuter's report from Shanghai at the
beginning of this month indicated that nearly 33% of Shanghai
children are now, according to a recent study, classed as
overweight or obese. Gosh and why China, you say, with all
that lovely non-fattening food? Well, times are changing.
For the last 20 years, China's one-child policy and booming
economy have meant - at least in wealthy Shanghai - that growing
family incomes have been lavished on the one child (especially
if a boy). The 'in thing' is also to eat at one of Shanghai's
many new 'Western' 'junk food' restaurants. So what does one
expect? So where will 'Big Food ' go if it receives heavy
legal treatment in the US (and later, probably Europe) within
this coming decade? Well, China (amongst others) of course!
One can actually see a possible situation in, say, 2010, where
'Big Food' is actually selling wholegrain bun tofu-burgers
in the US and the normal sort of 'triple-decker cheeseburgers
with all the trimmings' in China, Japan, Korea and so on and
so forth. Does that sound too far-fetched? Believe me, it
is not!
Kirk W Huffman
| |
