Eat your veggies! (Michael Pollan interview excerpts)

I just read an interview with Michael Pollan in last month's Mother Jones (better late than never!) and thought it was so great, sharing some of his insights here.

This is also BLOGGING AGAINST DISABLISM DAY, which I forgot all about. Then I thought, you know, this fits perfectly. People are getting sicker and sicker because our food is GROSS. Profits before people is always on topic regarding disability and health care.

Some excerpts:

Michael Pollan: [Our] food system is implicated in climate change. I don't think that has really been on people's radar until very recently. Al Gore didn't talk about it at all; 25 to 33 percent of climate change gases can be traced to the food system. I was also surprised that those diseases that we take for granted as what will kill us—heart disease, cancer, diabetes—were virtually unknown 150 years ago, before we began eating this way.

...

MJ: When you first wrote the mantra "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants," did you have any idea what kind of reaction you'd get?

MP: Well, I studied my poetry in school, and I knew there was something about the way it sounded that made it easy to remember. After writing The Omnivore's Dilemma I wanted to write a book that got past the choir, that got to people who didn't care about how their food was grown, but who did care about their health. I wanted to make it almost billboard simple. It started out as just "Eat food." But then I realized, Eh, not quite good enough. You've got to deal with the quantity issue. And then plants; the more you looked, the more you realized that the shortage of plants in our diet could explain a lot. Not that I'm against meat eating. I think we're eating too much. That's why I said "mostly plants."

...

When Obama announced his pick for agriculture secretary I was disappointed, and I said so in some interviews. I got calls from very prominent activists saying, "You should really keep your powder dry because we want to have access to this guy." Who is this "we"? I felt like Tonto. And I realized that if you are an activist, you do respond tactically. But as a writer you have a pact with your readers that you'll be really straight with them.

...

MJ: So what do you think of Iowa governor Tom Vilsack heading Agriculture?

MP: There's reason to be very concerned. He oversaw a tremendous expansion of feedlot agriculture and confinement hog production, ruining the Iowa countryside, ruining the lives of many farmers. He helped gut local control over the siting decisions. He has also been very friendly toward Monsanto and genetically modified products and was named governor of the year by bio, the big biotech trade organization. But people I respect say that he will listen to food activists and is interested in helping Iowa to feed itself. It's a food desert, weirdly enough. All the raw material leaves the state and comes back in processed form. Putting the most positive spin I can on it: He's no longer governor of Iowa, and I'm hoping that as a politician, when he senses where the wind is moving, he'll move with it.

MJ: How much of our current agricultural policy can we lay at the feet of the Iowa caucuses?

MP: You can't be elected president without passing though Iowa and bowing down before corn-based ethanol, before agricultural subsidies. I mean, even McCain was a critic of ethanol, but when he got to Iowa he was singing a different tune. But this time around the candidates learned there is a progressive farm lobby. Iowa came close to electing a woman organic farmer as its agriculture secretary—until the Iowa Farm Bureau came after her. And Obama said he saw the importance of local control. That idea that there is a monolithic farm bloc—I wouldn't say it's starting to crumble, but there are interesting cracks. The challenge for the food reform movement is to make those cracks bigger.

...

MJ: The food activism community is criticized as being elitist, blind to the issues of cost. How do we democratize better quality?

MP: It is the important question. One of the problems is that the government supports unhealthy food and does very little to support healthy food. I mean, we subsidize high fructose corn syrup. We subsidize hydrogenated corn oil. We do not subsidize organic food. We subsidize four crops that are the building blocks of fast food. And you also have to work on access. We have food deserts in our cities. We know that the distance you live from a supplier of fresh produce is one of the best predictors of your health. And in the inner city, people don't have grocery stores. So we have to figure out a way of getting supermarkets and farmers markets into the inner cities.

MJ: By mandates?

MP: When we give people on the WIC [Women, Infants, and Children] program or food stamps farmers market vouchers, lo and behold, the farmers markets show up in those neighborhoods. That said, one of the best things that Obama could do would be build 12-month farmers markets, especially in inner cities, those beautiful glass buildings you see in Barcelona or Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia. It would drive economic development and local agriculture.

The other way that you democratize the food movement is pay enough for the school lunch system to buy local food, fresh food, because right now it's all frozen and processed. You will improve the health of the students and the local economy. Supposedly it would take about a dollar per student per day.

MJ: Does WIC still specify that you buy dairy?

MP: Yes. We had a huge fight to get a little more produce in the WIC basket, which is heavy on cheese and milk because the dairy lobby is very powerful. So they fought and they fought and they fought, and they got a bunch of carrots in there. [Laughs.]

MJ: Specifically? Who knew: the carrot lobby?

MP: Specifically carrots. The next big lobby. But there is also money in this farm bill for fresh produce in school lunch. The price of getting the subsidies was getting the California delegation on board, and their price was $2 billion for what are called specialty crops—fresh fruit and produce grown largely in California.

MJ: Should we be trying to go as quickly as possible toward organic and local, or can the perfect be the enemy of the good?

MP: That's why I don't know if organic is the last word. It's sort of an all-or-nothing idea. People getting it partly right is very important. Getting your chickens out of those cages is important, even if you're not getting them organic feed. Those will not be organic eggs, but they will be so far superior. There are many varieties of sustainable agriculture we should support; it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. Let a thousand flowers bloom, and let's see what works. The whole problem of industrial agriculture is putting all of your eggs in one basket. We need to diversify our food chains as well as our fields so that when some of them fail, we can still eat.

...

High Fructose Corn Syrup ad targets African-Americans

Your humble narrator was drowning in domestic tasks yesterday, and began SEWING (!!!) ((((stop the presses)))) stuff that has been torn and buttonless since the beginning of time. While sewing, I sat in front of the TV watching THE REAL HOUSEWIVES OF ORANGE COUNTY. The new one, Lynne Curtin, looks fabulous. I wondered, MUST we play tennis and work out 24/7 to look like that?

I think so. ((sigh))

But interspersed with the usual gossip and catfights were commercials FOR high fructose corn syrup. By the time I saw the same commercial a dozen times, I was LIVID.



The Corn Refiners Association is assuring us that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is "fine in moderation"--and brings us this chirpy-cute commercial to drive the point home. Watching it over and over, I realized, the race of the participants and the ROLES they are playing, particularly enrages me, and I must say something about that. The OPEN RACIAL POLITICS of the commercial are fascinating, as well as infuriating.

Note that the African-American woman haughtily schools the woo-woo white woman (who reminds me of Mary Gross on the old Saturday Night Live; she used to specialize in the wide-eyed, clueless hippie routine). The white woman patronizingly blurts out to the black woman that the drink she is pouring has HFCS, and the black woman (subtly, but calmly superior) lets her know that it is JUST FINE. Then, nervous that she has been unnecessarily self-righteous with a black woman, she quickly adds, "I love that top!"

The background is very suburban American-mellow; these are two housewife-moms at a neighborhood party of some kind, with balloons everywhere and children scampering about cutely.

ARGH!

First, let's be clear that this commercial is directed at WOMEN, who buy most of the food for children and families. And most assuredly, it is directed at BLACK WOMEN, with a black woman reassuringly delivering the comforting nutritional information. This is at a time when African-Americans have the highest rates of diabetes in the USA. The American Diabetes Association has a whole page on this fact alone:

Compared to the general population, African Americans are disproportionately affected by diabetes: * 3.7 million or 14.7% of all African Americans aged 20 years or older have diabetes. * African Americans are 1.6 times more likely to have diabetes as non Hispanic whites.

And what contributes to diabetes? Guess. Consumer Reports analyzes the ad point-by point:

1) "It’s made from corn." True. High-fructose corn syrup is indeed made from corn. But you won’t get the same beneficial nutrients in it that you would from eating an ear of corn.

2) "Doesn’t have artificial ingredients." Partly true. The claim about artificial ingredients is a tricky one, since high-fructose corn syrup is processed using artificial agents. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has stated that if the final product has come in contact with synthetic agent glutaraldehyde, then it cannot be called “natural,” which they define as meaning no artificial or synthetic ingredients were added. But if the manufacturer uses the artificial agent in its production, and it does not come in contact with the corn starch, it can be considered a natural product. So its possible that some high-fructose corn syrups may be able to claim “no artificial ingredients,” according to the FDA, while others would not be permitted the phrase. It’s distinctions like these that lead Consumers Union to consider the “natural” label not meaningful.

3) "Like sugar, it’s fine in moderation." True. Most foods are fine in moderation. It’s too much or too little that causes problems. However, some would probably argue that with high-fructose corn syrup in so many products, to truly enjoy it in moderation you’d probably be better off leaving the “red juice” on the shelf.

This is pretty tame criticism, but does make the point that this ad is pure propaganda for the industry, using a comforting set of buzzwords. A commenter at Consumer Reports, tellingly named Open Your Eyes, puts it even better:

HFCS seems to be in everything we eat without enough research. Foods that did not have HFCS before have now either been forced to up their prices or to jump on the bandwagon to compete. Now consumers were oblivious to this extra sugar intake until recently and researchers are still finding new data on its effects. According to [another commenter] fructose is easily transformed to energy without the use of insulin. Simply put: everything we eat= HFCS, High Fructose consumption=low insulin production, Low insulin=Diabetes. The name says it all "High Fructose" --so more than normal, and that is a problem. Just because it comes from corn does not make it good for you either. Soap... made from animal fat+potassium, wouldn't eat it. Glue... made from animal parts, wouldn't eat it. Play dough.. sure its non-toxic and salty but it's simply not food.

Humans evolved eating naturally occurring food and HFCS doesn't grow on trees. HFCS came from a test tube in a lab. The body has a problem with artificial because for hundreds of thousands of years it got used to natural and it came from natural. This crash course of artificial isn't going to do very well.

Another woman commented that she attempted to buy soup today and couldn't find any that DID NOT contain HFCS.

Soup? Huh?

One reason that quack Dr Atkins made such major inroads with his goofy diet, was that he correctly pointed out how much sugar (usually in the largely-hidden and/or misunderstood form of HFCS) is in EVERYTHING. Most people were unaware, for example, that this insidious form of sugar is sneaked into non-sweet prepared foods like ketchup, soups and salad dressings. One could conscientiously read the packaging-labels, and still not fully realize one was eating pure sugar, unless you understood exactly what HFCS is.

Further confusing matters is the fact that back in the day, "fructose" (by itself) was considered a healthier alternative to sucrose (pure table sugar), since it came from fruit. Thus, for many years, consumers believed HCFS was some kind of improved-sweetener. And of course, it is not: it's a way for the corn industry to turn us all into junkies, and in the process, make themselves very rich.

Just as the tobacco companies turned out propaganda in the 60s, assuring us that nicotine was FINE, JUST FINE, these commercials are the nutritional equivalent of the SAME BULLSHIT. From Newswise Science News:

Researchers have found new evidence that soft drinks sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) may contribute to the development of diabetes, particularly in children. In a laboratory study of commonly consumed carbonated beverages, the scientists found that drinks containing the syrup had high levels of reactive compounds that have been shown by others to have the potential to trigger cell and tissue damage that could cause the disease, which is at epidemic levels. They reported here today at the 234th national meeting of the American Chemical Society.

HFCS is a sweetener found in many foods and beverages, including non-diet soda pop, baked goods, and condiments. It is has become the sweetener of choice for many food manufacturers because it is considered more economical, sweeter and more easy to blend into beverages than table sugar. Some researchers have suggested that high-fructose corn syrup may contribute to an increased risk of diabetes as well as obesity, a claim which the food industry disputes. Until now, little laboratory evidence has been available on the topic.

In the current study, Chi-Tang Ho, Ph.D., conducted chemical tests among 11 different carbonated soft drinks containing HFCS. He found ‘astonishingly high’ levels of reactive carbonyls in those beverages. These undesirable and highly-reactive compounds associated with “unbound” fructose and glucose molecules are believed to cause tissue damage, says Ho, a professor of food science at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. By contrast, reactive carbonyls are not present in table sugar, whose fructose and glucose components are “bound” and chemically stable, the researcher notes. Reactive carbonyls also are elevated in the blood of individuals with diabetes and linked to the complications of that disease. Based on the study data, Ho estimates that a single can of soda contains about five times the concentration of reactive carbonyls than the concentration found in the blood of an adult person with diabetes.

And, as we have established, WHO is developing diabetes at dangerously high rates right now? African Americans.

Is it any accident that an African-American woman was chosen to deliver the Corn Refiners Association hype in this commercial? I hardly think so.

Please be aware of this industry's LIES and open manipulation of consumers as you go about your shopping... and check the labels, if you don't already. You will discover that HFCS is in everything from soup to noodle mixes. They have money to burn... or at least enough to run some expensive, carefully-targeted advertisements to defend their wanton creation of more sugar-junkies.

With all that extra coin, they don't need yours.