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.
Good
eating. |