Posts Tagged by food environment
Out With the Pyramid, In With the Plate: USDA’s New Food Guide
| June 3, 2011 | Posted by Lauren under Nutrition |
Remember way back when this used to be a running and a public health blog? I know, the memories are fading for me too. Although it may not have seemed like it over the past few months, I assure you the public health nerd in me is still alive and well. So if you come here to read my rambles about all things running, stay tuned for my next post. Because today I want to talk about something a little different…
In case you missed it, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has done away with the traditional food pyramid. And in its place, a new icon has been released. Yesterday, Michelle Obama and the USDA revealed a new food guide that’s based on something a little easier for most of us to understand – a plate. (To read the press release, click here.)
This new graphic, which was released along with the website ChooseMyPlate.gov, is meant to be a “new generation icon with the intent to prompt consumers to think about building a healthy plate at meal times.” The plate is the prompt; if you want more information, you are encouraged to visit the Choose My Plate website, which has basic recommendations (including to “eat less” and reduce sodium and fat), examples of foods that are inlcuded in each group, and interactive tools to give Americans even more guidance in planning a healthy diet.
MyPlate is completely different than the past food pyramids. But before I talk anymore about that, let’s take a very brief tour through the food guides of the ages.
{*Please note, I am not a registered dietician. I work in the field of public health. So when I discuss these food guides, it is from a public health perspective.*}
The USDA Food Pyramids Past
Remember this guide from the 90s? This 1992 pyramid is the one I grew up with:
Although the original pyramid tried to clearly show us how much we should eat from each food group, it was thrown out and revamped in 2005 because of all the criticism it received. Apparently the food industry didn’t really like the fact that people were being told to eat less meat and dairy than grains, fruits, and vegetables (It doesn’t matter that doing so is actually the healthier choice, because we all know that the food industry always has our best interests at heart…{please note the dripping sarcasm}) But even beyond that, nutritionists also voiced concern because the pyramid encouraged Americans to eat too many grains.
So in 2005, USDA released MyPyramid – a new graphic that was supposed to be an improvement. But this one didn’t stick around nearly as long as the first. And I can’t really say I’m surprised. Does anyone really know what this means?
It made the food industry happy, and apparently tried to show the “whole” picture by throwing in a little stick figure being active. But I’ll be honest – when I looked at that little guy walking up the stairs, my mind never jumped to “physical activity is important!” Instead I always wondered what the heck stairs had to do with the food groups…and why this was all still in the shape of a pyramid anyway. Were we supposed to eat less food when we got to the top of the stairs??
Personally, I think this version was worse than the original. Even though it made some adjustments to the recommendations, the whole thing was just way too complicated.
MyPlate
It seems like the federal government has taken all those criticisms to heart. This new version is incredibly simple. It is meant to convey information quickly, in a way that most people can relate to and understand. Instead of giving foods a hierarchy or breaking them down into a specific number of recommended servings, it just simply shows you – this is what a balanced plate should look like.
The graphic is based on the 2010 Dietary Guidelines that were released in January, which encouraged us to eat less salt and fat, and more produce.
Major Differences in Recommendations
- Fruit and vegetables make up half of the plate
- This is a huge increase from previous recommendations
- The “Meat & Beans” group has been changed to just “Protein”
- Meat isn’t even named on the pyramid. This shows an understanding that there are more ways to get protein than just by eating meat. The new guidelines even reflect the various forms of soy protein that are available and encourage Americans to eat lean meats only.
- Protein is clearly recommended to be a smaller portion of the overall diet
- Hopefully this will encourage a change in the standard American diet. It would be great if the standard meal shifts from a huge piece of meat and a small side of vegetables to the opposite – a huge plate of produce with a small side of meat (or other protein).
- “Milk & Cheese” has been changed to “Dairy,” and it’s shown on the side of the plate
- The new graphic shows dairy as a side, which seems to de-emphasize it.
Overall Thoughts
Overall, I think the new MyPlate icon is a huge improvement over the previous food pyramids. It un-complicates things and serves as an easy visual reminder for the average family. Once you know what the colors mean, you don’t even need to be able to read to understand it. Kids can follow the colors to build their plate. The campaign as a whole also emphasizes choice – Choose My Plate gives recommendations and guidelines, with the overall goal to make “the healthy choice the easy choice” (this is a phrase you hear a lot in the public health world).
I do find it interesting, however, that the administration didn’t really address that there are other ways to get calcium, etc than by eating dairy (like they did with the protein group). Especially in light of the increasing popularity of the vegan diet. I would be interested to see how vegans feel about this.
Additionally (without going off on too much of a tangent), I think the huge issue of conflict of interest within the USDA needs to be addressed. The same agency that is giving us recommendations about what to eat also supports the very things it tells us to eat less of. There are large subsidies to farmers for things like dairy, sugar, and feed grains (for livestock). And that’s not all. Remember this New York Times article from back in November about Dairy Management - a marketing creation of USDA that teamed up with Domino’s to create new pizzas with 40% more cheese? So while telling us to eat less fat, USDA had also created a marketing group to promote it. The article is a clear example of the competing interests of money and the protection of public health that exist within the agency. And until those are removed or another agency is put in charge of the health guidelines, the health crises in this country will not be fixed.
Finally, I think it is important to call the new graphic what it is – an educational tool. Although I don’t think the administration is touting it as such, I believe it needs to be said – MyPlate is not the solution to the obesity problems in this country. Yes, it is a very useful graphic to help people make smarter food choices. But unfortunately, that graphic alone is not going to fix what years of bad habits and unhealthy environments have created. We can recommend that people do all sorts of different things. I can preach the value of a plant-based diet and regular physical activity all I want. But until we change the environment, we aren’t going to make any sort of lasting change in this country. People aren’t going to eat more fruits and vegetables because you tell them to. They will start eating more if they become affordable, and easily accessible. They will start exercising more if we make it easier and safer for them to be physically active where they live. And our health as a nation will only improve when we start subsidizing things other than corn and soybeans, when we make fresh food cheaper than fast food, and when federal agencies don’t answer to food lobbyists.
–
And with that, it’s time to get off my soapbox. Now I want to know – what do you think of MyPlate? A huge improvement, or another useless guide? Is it easy to read? And will it really guide people’s decisions when in the grocery store or when cooking meals for their families?
“We Love Vegans Too”
| February 1, 2011 | Posted by Lauren under Health News |
It’s not often that I get the chance to watch Oprah. But as “luck” would have it, yet another snow storm was raging through New England today. And while that meant slippery roads and more shoveling, it also meant that for once, I was home early enough to catch her show this afternoon. I can honestly say that I was so happy I did. Today’s episode was all about Oprah’s Vegan Challenge. In case you missed it, the basic premise was that Oprah challenged all her employees at Harpo to go vegan for an entire week. In addition to highlighting some of their experiences, the episode also talked about the meat industry, our food system, and a basic introduction to veganism. (You can watch select clips from the show on Oprah’s site.)
To avoid being redundant, I’m not going to go into a lot of detail about the show itself. But I did want to share some overall thoughts about it from the perspective of an {almost} life-long vegetarian. And I’m interested in hearing your thoughts as well.
Before I go into The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, here are a few interesting facts:
- We eat about 10 billion animals a year; 33 million of those are cows
- Heifers at the Timmerman Feeding Corp (a feed lot in CO where cows live to get fattened up before slaughter) stay there about 200 days
- The cattle gain 3+ pounds per day, and will weigh about 1200 lbs before being sent to slaughter
- Cargill is the biggest meat producer in the world — they bring in 4,500 cows per day
The Good
- I really liked that Oprah had both Michael Pollan (author of books like In Defense of Food, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, and Food Rules) and the General Manager of Cargill on the show. It made for some respectful, educational dialogue.
- The show was informational without being preachy. Along with Kathy Freston, author of The Veganist, Oprah provided some general information on veganism, and shared stories from those who are sticking with it even after the challenge has ended (along with those who aren’t). Maybe it was all in the interest of being politically correct (or avoiding a lawsuit!) but no one was really pushing the vegan lifestyle, or talking poorly about the meat industry.
- The producers focused on many of the health benefits you can achieve from eating less animal products. Even including the fact that it made many people more, shall we say, “regular.” ….though honestly, I’m not sure what these people were eating to make them so stopped up before!!
- They touched on the fact that being vegan doesn’t necessarily mean being healthy. It’s very possible to be a “junk food vegan” (or vegetarian). There are a lot of animal-free processed foods that still aren’t good for you. If you’re not really careful about eating a balanced diet, you could easily gain weight after giving up animal products.
- Overall, there was a big emphasis on just being aware of where your food comes from. Lisa Ling went into a slaughterhouse and yet still eats meat. But now at least she has an appreciation of how that meat gets to her table. I think that’s a very important lesson for all of us.
The Bad
- Besides the fact that the entire episode seemed to be sponsored by Kashi, there also seemed to be a huge push for meat substitutes. Now don’t get me wrong, I really like fake meats. Believe me — I used to live off of those things! But as with any highly processed foods, eating too much of them is not good for you. Plus, they are expensive! Those Gardein products that were highlighted on the show cost around $5 a package — and they only serve one or two people. Instead of focusing on how you could replace a real meat with a fake one, I wish the show had talked more about how you can make delicious, protein-rich meals with just vegetables, nuts, legumes, whole grains, etc.
- Similarly, there wasn’t a big focus on eating more fresh fruits and vegetables. Yes, I realized how important it is to show consumers that you can find a substitute for any animal-based product you want. I appreciate the educational aspect of that. But the reality is that the majority of people in the US do not eat enough fruits and vegetables. And one of the great parts about giving up meat is that it encourages you to find new, creative ways to incorporate produce into your everyday meals!
- I’m sorry, but there’s no such thing as “vegan-ish.” You either eat a vegan, or you don’t. (Confused? See this post.) I’m not trying to be a stickler here. But let’s be real about it. You can say you don’t eat red meat, or are trying to eat more plant-based foods, or even that you limit animal products. But the truth is, if you eat any meat, dairy, etc, you’re technically not vegan.
- Veganism shouldn’t be presented as a “diet.” It’s a way of life. If you choose to eat vegan, that’s your lifestyle. Just as if you choose to eat meat.
The Ugly
If you watch at least one part of the episode, I highly suggest you watch the clip where Lisa Ling goes into a slaughterhouse. Yes, it is a little graphic, and yes, you may find it disturbing. But as Michael Pollan says, it is important to at least be aware of where your food comes from. This is a completely un-glamorized view of what goes on — a straight-forward, matter of fact tour where the general manager explains the steps and the reasons behind them. For me, that view alone would be enough to stop eating meat (if I hadn’t already). But, I know that’s not true of everyone. Like I said before, Lisa Ling reports she is still eating it.
Anyway, at the end of the show, Michael Pollan (who is not in support of a completely vegetarian/vegan lifestyle I should add) talks a little about responsible farming. He is a huge proponent of free range farms, where the animals have a supposedly “happy” life….and “one bad day.” I have to admit I take some issue with this. It’s really easy to love the idea of a wonderful place where happy cows and chickens are allowed to wander about eating as they please instead of being cooped up in a pen all day. And I’m sure that is a much nicer experience for them. BUT (and this is a big but), if these animals are ultimately being raised for human consumption, does any of that really matter? Sure, it may be easier for us to swallow, but honestly — if a cow is born into the world with the sole purpose of being fattened up to become someone’s dinner, does it make that much of a difference how happy his life was?**
Finally, one of the last remarks made by the General Manager of Cargill was “We love vegans too!” Now seriously…as much as I appreciate the fact that they allowed the Oprah show into the slaughterhouse with their cameras, I found this statement a little hard to believe. Do you really love vegans Cargill?? Because if the whole world were vegan, something tells me you wouldn’t be all that excited about it.
–
Overall, I thought the episode was a good one. I love that Oprah brought information about veganism and the food industry to a mainstream audience. And now I’m very interested to hear your thoughts.
What did you think of the show in general? It’s portrayal of veganism? And do you think the whole emphasis on the slaughterhouse “respecting the animal” and “showing it dignity” is true or a bunch of media-hogwash?
**(I realize that eating meat is probably going to be a part of our normal culture forever — it’s a bit unrealistic to expect everyone to take up a plant-based diet. And of course I’m not advocating for animals to be mistreated since they’re going to be eaten anyway. So it’s important that the industry change and adopt humane standards for the livestock they’re raising. But, this is still something that I admittedly struggle with.)
The Pricing Paradox
| November 22, 2010 | Posted by Lauren under Health News |
I eat a lot of vegetables. Not just because I’m a vegetarian and know they’re good for me, but also because I genuinely like them. When grocery shopping, I try to buy mostly fresh produce, whole grains, and individual ingredients, while avoiding (most) packaged foods.
But eating this way isn’t always easy, and it sure isn’t cheap. I know I’m not the only one that feels this way. People are short on time, short on money and short on resources. To make matters worse, the environment we live in isn’t very supportive of our health.
In general, many people know that fruits and vegetables are healthier choices than fast food. But that doesn’t change the fact that fresh produce is usually more expensive than packaged, processed foods or take-out from a fast food restaurant. How can we honestly expect people to buy more of the healthy items when they cost so much more?
One strategy that tries to fix this problem is to lower the prices of healthy foods, such as fruits and vegetables. If we could make it cost less to eat healthy, people would eat more of the good stuff, right?
(Source)
Unfortunately it isn’t that simple. A few days ago, a friend sent me an article that reminded me of a presentation about food pricing that I heard while at my UNC course last summer. The article talked about a study done at the University of Buffalo where researchers made healthy foods cheaper while keeping the prices of junk food the same. They wanted to see how that would effect food choices made by moms in a grocery store. Not surprisingly, when the prices were cheaper, moms did buy more healthy foods. But here’s the catch: the overall nutrition in their carts didn’t change. Instead of using the extra money to buy more healthy foods (or saving it), the moms actually used to it buy more junk. Not quite the result one would hope for.
So then what about doing the opposite? Will the overall effects be better if instead of lowering the cost of healthy foods, we raised the prices of the unhealthy ones? Taxing foods and beverages that have low nutritional value (like soda or fast foods) can encourage people to buy less. But, as you may have guessed, there can also be negative consequences to this. Such as the fact that it has a larger negative effect for families with lower income, and can unfortunately leave them without options if there aren’t cheaper healthy options to replace the foods they now can’t afford. Not to mention the fact that it can be difficult to know where to draw the line. How do we actually define “not nutritious?” And how do you prevent people from buying other unhealthy (not taxed) foods instead?
Well then, if neither option is perfect alone, what would happen if you raised prices of unhealthy foods while also lowering prices of the healthy ones? Sounds like a perfect solution, right? Sadly, researchers have found that this isn’t a great solution either. The subsidy isn’t enough to overcome the negative impacts of the tax.
At this point, I’m sure it must sound like it’s time to just throw up our hands in defeat. Either that, or I suddenly have no faith in my profession and everything we are trying to do.
It may not sound like it, but my goal here is not to sound defeatist. I realize that I have raised a lot of problems without actually proposing a good solution. But my point is that there really is no simple answer. We know that as a country, our health needs work. We don’t eat healthy foods, we don’t exercise enough, and rates of obesity and chronic disease continue to grow. Something needs to be done to fix the health of our nation, but the solution isn’t going to be a simple one. Just like we can’t simply tell people to eat healthier and expect them to change, we can’t just change prices and expect our problems to be solved. Behavior change is a tough thing, especially when it involves behaviors that have become deep-rooted habits. It’s going to take a lot of time and many different strategies to reverse the bad habits of our country.
But that doesn’t mean we should stop trying! And I’m interested to hear your thoughts about all this. Do you find that buying healthy foods is tough because of the price? And how do you think we can help encourage people to eat more fresh, whole foods, while also making sure these foods are affordable and easy to access?
–
Sources:
Allison Aubrey. Why Making Healthful Foods Cheaper Isn’t Enough
Shu Wen Ng. Driving a Response: Considerations for Point of Purchase, Pricing and Promotion (presentation at 2010 Obesity Prevention in Public Health Course at UNC; August 2010).
The IQ of a Twinkie
| November 12, 2010 | Posted by Lauren under Health News, Nutrition |
I’m sure by now you’ve all heard the story about the nutrition professor who ate only junk food for 10 weeks and managed to lose 27 pounds in the process. Referred to as the “twinkie diet” or the “convenience store diet,” Mark Haub ate less than 1,800 calories worth of hostess snacks per day (which amounted to about 1 twinkie every 3 hours), rounding out his diet with doritos, oreos, and, for good measure, a can of green beans or three to four celery stalks. At the end of the month, not only did he lose weight, but he also lowered his bad cholesterol (LDL) and upped the levels of good cholesterol (HDL).
(Source)
Sounds like the experiment was a huge success, right? Here is living proof that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It doesn’t matter what you eat. As long as you restrict your caloric intake and maintain a regular exercise regimen, you can eat whatever the heck you want and still lose weight. Great news for junk food enthusiasts everywhere!
Not so much. The problem with this situation is not the fact that he lost weight and improved his cholesterol by eating crap. The guy supposedly ate around 2,600 calories a day before starting the experiment (FDA recommends 2,000 for the average adult). Which means that he cut his calorie intake by at least 800 calories a day for 10 weeks. On top of that, he reports maintaining a regular exercise regimen, so was burning off a good chunk of those calories everyday. Basic math and science says that when calories in are less than calories out, weight loss will result. No big mystery there.
No, the problem with this situation is the message that it sends. Not only is Haub a professor of nutrition, but he conducted an experiment that basically perpetuates the warped thinking of our culture. Thinking that equates weight with health and glorifies extreme diets as a means to a weight loss end. In a society obsessed with quick fixes and easy solutions, what could be a better way to lose weight than eating sugar to your heart’s content?
Frankly the entire thing makes me sad. Regardless of Haub’s original intentions for this experiment, the reality is that the media is having a field day with it. Special interest groups are using this as fuel to their fires of opposition against public health officials (those evil people) who want to tax soda, ban junk food in schools, and do whatever they can to “control” the foods that people eat. Because really, why do all that when we have living proof that you can eat whatever you want in moderation? When even Twinkies, the epitome of all junk food, can help a person lose weight?
Ever since the results of this little experiment have been announced, I’ve seen things popping up all over the media that focus only on the fact that a man has lost weight by eating twinkies alone. Articles and tv personalities that bash public health efforts to regulate food in schools and help encourage more access to healthy food options.
Rush Limbaugh has been pretty vocal about his diet advice — and feelings about Michelle Obama
Articles such as this one in the Boston Herald that proclaim: Obesity Not by Twinkies Alone.
**It should be noted that this article was written by someone from the Center for Consumer Freedom, a coalition supported by restaurants & food companies.**
The article states:
“But in their extremes, they both prove the same point: Taking responsibility by watching what you eat and exercising is the best way to keep your weight down.
But responsibility is anathema to the cadre of public health busybodies, like the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which has convinced legislators that food, not lack of self control or exercise, is responsible for obesity.”
And
”But no matter what food they’re in, calories are just energy. Weight gain or loss is due to an imbalance between calories in and calories out. And more and more evidence is pointing to increasingly sedentary lifestyles as a big, fat reason our waistlines have expanded.”
And finally concludes:
“The next time anti-food activists propose we limit or ban foods for the public good, we should remind them that there are no good or bad foods, but there are fat-headed notions of how to fight obesity.”
The obesity epidemic in America is no joke. More than 1/3 of US adults and 17% of children are obese (source). Obviously we need to find ways to help Americans lose weight in a safe and effective manner in order to improve the health and wellbeing of our nation. But to suggest that simply losing the pounds in whatever way possible automatically makes a person healthier is ludicrous. Weight is not the only indicator of health — obesity is a health risk because of all the conditions that are associated with it. Filling your body with sugar and processed chemicals may help you lose the pounds, but will it really result in good health over the long term?
Eating well is about more than just weight loss. When you eat well, you are fueling your body; giving it energy to enjoy all the many great things in life. An extreme diet may help you quickly lose weight, but what about other indicators of health? Diabetes and cancer, cavities and vitamin deficiencies. Or even the unknown long-term effects of loading your body entirely with chemicals for months? (To see a cool photography project that deconstructs the Twinkie into all its 37+ individual ingredients, click here).
Furthermore, there are many Americans that live in food deserts — places that don’t have affordable fresh whole foods like fruits, veggies, whole grains, etc. Like Haub, they could live on the twinkie diet, and maybe even lose weight doing it. But unlike Haub, they don’t have the option to just drop the diet after a few months when they get sick of all the junk. The reality is that these individuals face a lifetime of poor access to nutritional foods. What sort of effect will this have on them over the course of many decades? And don’t we, as a nation — as fellow people — have a responsibility to do everything that we can to ensure that everyone has an equal chance to buy fresh foods for themselves and their families?
I think so. Personally, I’m thankful for Michelle Obama and other efforts to help improve access to healthy foods for all people. Because it’s my hope that one day I will live in a nation where every person has a fair chance to eat healthy foods and live an active life.
“It’s the environment, stupid.”
| August 28, 2010 | Posted by Lauren under Health News |
Okay, so I realize that starting off a post by calling you stupid isn’t exactly the best way to gain readers. But we all know I don’t really mean you. So just hear me out. And I promise I won’t call you stupid again!
Have you ever come across an article that so perfectly expresses everything you want to say, that you wish you wrote it yourself?
That’s what happened yesterday, when I found this article in the Business section of the New York Times. Now, I know what you’re thinking – this is a health blog. Why is this girl suddenly getting so fired up about business?? Well – I’m not. Not really, anyway. But the truth is that health affects all aspects of life. And even though being healthy makes you feel better and improves your personal quality of life, it has an economic impact as well. So a healthy world full of healthy people really benefits us all.
Anyway, the article, called Fixing a World That Fosters Fat, is all about how the environment is negatively impacting our health. This is what public health has been nagging people about for years…so you can imagine how exciting it was for me to see the same message appearing in the business section of a paper.
(Source)
I would highly recommend reading the entire article. It’s only 1 page long and is really, really good. Or you could just read the summary below, complete with a little HOTR-commentary.
A World that Fosters Fat
We all know that the general health of America is not very good. Chronic disease is on the rise, mostly due to a huge increase in obesity across the nation. The simple solution to this problem? Well, eat less junk and move more, of course!
Percent of Obese Adults (BMI >=30) in the US in 1994
Percent of Obese Adults in US 15 years later (2009)
(Source)
Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Anyone who has ever worked in the field of behavior change knows that it’s pretty tough to get people to change their habits, especially if they aren’t ready to make that change. To make the issue even more complicated, we live in an environment that is not very supportive of a healthy lifestyle. We only have to make a trip to our local grocery store (if we even have one!) to see this is true. What are the most expensive things in there? The fresh organic produce, and the whole, minimally processed foods. On top of this, we work longer hours, have longer commutes, are bombarded with unhealthy advertising and cheap fast food chains, and don’t always have a safe, affordable place to exercise.
Dr. Brownell, who is the director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale says:
“Everyone knows that you shouldn’t eat junk food and you should exercise. But the environment makes it so difficult that fewer people can do these things, and then you have a public health catastrophe.”
So then, what should we do? To put it simply — we need to stop relying solely on trying to change individual behavior. You can’t expect a person to stick with new, healthy habits if you put them back into the same unhealthy environment. In order to help people make these lifestyle shifts, we need to change the culture and the environment in which they live.
This is, in essence, what the course I attended last week was all about (for more info on that, click here). Putting the emphasis on fixing the environment so that healthy choices are made easier.
It’s important to note that I am not suggesting that we as individuals don’t need to take any personal responsibility for our own health. This isn’t an excuse to throw up our hands and say, “It’s not my fault. There’s nothing I can do!” But I am recognizing that there are lots of barriers that can get in our way. And depending on the social, economic, and physical environment you are in, those barriers can be pretty intimidating.
Two Potential Fixes
Obviously it’s going to take a lot to completely change our environment. But it’s all about the small steps, right? The article suggests two big fixes that could go a long way in changing America’s habits:
1.) Equalizing food pricing. A big reason that fast food is so cheap is because of the government subsidies of corn and soybeans – two crops that are hugely relied on by the industry. Just how big of an impact do these subsidies have? According to the article, the inflation-adjusted price of a McDonald’s quarter pounder with cheese went down by 5.44% from 1997 – 2003. On the other hand, from 1997 – 2003, the inflation adjusted price of fruit and veggies rose by 17%! Getting rid of the subsidies that support unhealthy food could fix this trend.
(Source)
2.) Involving the private sector. The health problems caused by obesity and its related chronic diseases cost employers a lot of money every year. Companies can help promote healthier lifestyles (and reduce these costs), by finding ways to lower work-related stress, building on-site fitness centers, including healthy snacks/drinks in vending machines, and offering wellness programs and incentives.
(Source)
These aren’t the only things that need to be done, but they do symbolize an overall shift in our culture. A culture that needs to start valuing equal access to healthy, affordable foods and safe places to exercise and play. And a culture that puts more emphasis on the joy of cooking and exercising and less effort into finding the quick, simple solution.
—
The environment’s affect on us is a complicated one. To learn more, I would highly recommend watching the documentary Unnatural Causes, if you haven’t already. It’s a 7-part documentary put out by PBS that’s all about how the social and physical environments we live in impact our health. The entire series is pretty long (about 4 hours) but it is split up into 7 different episodes. You can learn more about each episode and see clips from the film here.
**In case you didn’t read it and now think I’m just an extremely rude person, the title of this post is a direct quote from the article.
Recent Comments