PAN DISCUSSION GROUP 

Home

 

******************************************************

PAN Discussion Group Wednesday September 26th 2007

Subject: Food

******************************************************

Location: 

 

Time: 7pm to 10pm - ish

Bring drinks and snacks to share 

General:

The articles are the basis for the discussion and reading them helps give us some common ground and focus for the discussion, especially where we would otherwise be ignorant of the issues. The discussions are not intended as debates or arguments, rather they should be a chance to explore ideas and issues in a constructive forum. Feel free to bring along other stuff you've read on this, related subjects or on topics the group might be interested in for future meetings.

GROUND RULES:

* Temper the urge to speak with the discipline to listen and leave space for others

* Balance the desire to teach with a passion to learn

* Hear what is said and listen for what is meant

* Marry your certainties with others' possibilities

* Reserve judgment until you can claim the understanding we seek

Any problems let me know...

 
The Articles:

****************************************************************

A general piece on slow food courtesy of Wikipedia

 

The Slow Food movement was founded by Carlo Petrini in Italy as a resistance movement to combat fast food and claims to preserve the cultural cuisine and the associated food plants and seeds, domestic animals, and farming within an ecoregion. It was the first established part of the broader Slow movement. The movement has since expanded globally to 100 countries and now has 83,000 members.

Slow Food began in Italy with the foundation of its forerunner organization, Arcigola, in 1986.^[1] The Slow Food organization spawned by the movement has expanded to include over 80,000 members in over 100 countries, every country with its own chapters. All totaled, 800 local convivia chapters exist. 360 convivia in Italy — to which the name condotta (singular) / condotte (plural) applies — are composed of 35,000 members, along with 450 other regional chapters around the world. The organizational structure is decentralized: each convivium has a leader who is responsible for promoting local artisans, local farmers, and local flavors through regional events such as Taste Workshops, wine tastings, and farmers' markets.

Objectives

The Slow Food movement incorporates a series of objectives within its mission, including:

 forming and sustaining seed banks to preserve heirloom varieties in cooperation with local food systems

developing an "ark of taste" for each ecoregion, where local culinary traditions and foods are celebrated

preserving and promoting local and traditional food products, along with their lore and preparation

organizing small-scale processing (including facilities for slaughtering and short run products)

organizing celebrations of local cuisine within regions (for example, the Feast of Fields held in some cities in Canada)

promoting "taste education"

educating consumers about the risks of fast food

educating citizens about the drawbacks of commercial agribusiness and factory farms

educating citizens about the risks of monoculture and reliance on too few genomes or varieties

developing various political programs to preserve family farms

Lobbying for the inclusion of organic farming concerns within agricultural policy

Lobbying against government funding of genetic engineering

Lobbying against the use of pesticides

Teaching gardening skills to students and prisoners

Encouraging ethical buying in local marketplaces

From time to time, Slow Food intervenes directly in market transactions; for example, Slow Food was able to preserve four varieties of native American turkey by ordering 4,000 of their eggs and commissioning their raising and slaughtering and delivery to market

Impact

It is difficult to gauge the extent of the success of the Slow Food movement, considering that the organization itself is still very young. The current grassroots nature of Slow Food is such that few people in Europe and especially the United States are aware of it.

Statistics show that Europe, and Germany in particular, is a much bigger consumer of organics than the US.^[3] Slow Food has contributed to the growing awareness of health concerns in Europe, as evidenced by this fact, but on society as a whole, Slow Food has had little effect. An example of this is the fact that tourists visit Slow Food restaurants more than locals, but Slow Food and its sister movements are still young. In an effort to spread the ideals of anti-fast food, Slow Food has targeted the youth of the nations in primary and secondary schools. Volunteers help build structural frameworks for school gardens and put on workshops to introduce the new generation to the art of farming.

Criticism

Critics of the organization have charged it with being elitist, as it discourages nominally cheaper alternative methods of growing or preparing food. Slow Food responds by claiming to be working towards local production and consumption which will exploit "best practices" of science and professions worldwide but ultimately prove cheaper due to less reliance on transport and energy and chemical and technology intensive methods.

These arguments parallel those of the anti-globalization movement, Greenpeace and green parties against global export of monocultured foodstuffs, especially GMOs. A central point related to these arguments is that transport prices are artificially low because the true cost of fuel (including the protection of shipping lanes and other military interventions around the world) are not factored into the price of goods, and are instead paid for indirectly through personal taxes.

********************************************

Some specifics from NYC

 

Slow Food in a Fast City
Finding health and supporting sustainable agriculture by embracing the sensual nature of food.

By: Sherri Brooks Vinton
November 3, 2005

Delight and enjoyment may not be the words that come to mind when you think about healthy eating. After all, so much of the discussion on eating right focuses exclusively on deprivation. But in today's era of ever expanding "don't eat" lists, foodies will be surprised to find that the pursuit of healthy eating is ultimately in the doing. If you are tired of being told what not to do, maybe you should consider joining a different conversation. Slow Food is an international organization whose mission is to preserve the pleasures of the table, the sensual, festive joy of eating, and the conviviality of sharing the experience. Through building communities around the enjoyment of organic, seasonal and locally produced food, as well as artisanal food products from around the world, the organization is creating a lifestyle of sustainability essential to the health of our culture, our environment, and ourselves.

Slow Food's focus on the pleasure of eating may lead some to dismiss the movement as a gathering of hedonists. But while Slow Food does its share of wine swilling and chocolate munching, the goal of the organization is not just good eating; it's eating for good.

Slow Food recognizes that the only way to preserve heirloom varieties of produce, heritage breeds of animals and traditional foodways is not by designing a museum to showcase such items, but to savor them. Through this enjoyment, we keep those who grow and produce these wonderful treasures in business so that future generations can have the same pleasure.

Essentially, Slow Food is a counter-movement to the lava-like creep of sameness blanketing the world's food supply and culture. Such homogenization is perpetuated in large part by the expansion of fast food restaurants whose standardized menus deny the gastronomic and social differences that are vital and necessary expressions of locality.

The Slow Food Movement

Although the Slow Food movement had been brewing for a number of years, its ideals were crystallized by the invasion of fast food culture into the heart of Italian heritage. In 1986, McDonald's set up shop in Rome's famed Piazza di Spagna. Carlo Petrini, the founder of Slow Food, was outraged by this affront to the cultural and gustatory traditions so important to his country. Petrini's symbolic opposition to one fast food location quickly grew into an international movement that is represented today in fifty countries with more than 80,000 members, 12,000 of them in the U.S.

The structure of the organization encourages appreciation for regional diversity. This is not top down management. Each individual Slow Food chapter, or convivium, as they are called by members, is as unique as the food products and traditions they seek to protect. Convivia design events that reflect the local bounty or highlight a food, beverage, or process that is indigenous to a particular area.

In the U.S., Slow Food convivia host wine tastings among the vineyards of Sonoma, crab feasts on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, and Apple Week here in the Big Apple. Importantly, convivia also organize Japanese tea ceremonies in Manhattan and Italian wine tastings in Chicago that allow dedicated eaters to celebrate native cuisines and products from outside their immediate food shed.

Slow Food New York City

The New York convivium (SFNYC), of which I am a member, is the largest in the United States, with nearly one thousand members. To give one a perspective of scale, consider that the average-sized convivium would easily fit into a member's backyard, or even living room. And indeed, sometimes the size of the group can seem to threaten the intimacy of the eating experience on which Slow Food hangs its hat.

Until, that is, you get us eaters together. SFNYC recently held its first annual meeting at the Brooklyn Brewery. In a city of apartment dwellers where real estate values have made many abodes "kitchen optional" SFNYC flew in the face of fashion and hosted a family style potluck. The group showed up in significant numbers bearing dishes that ranged from a favorite treat that members had picked up at Murray's Cheese Shop, to impressively gargantuan bastillas, to a wide assortment of delicious concoctions from recipes that had been passed down for generations. In that moment we were not a group large enough to fill the Brewery, we were not one thousand sophisticated foodies, we were individual eaters feeding one another. The SFNYC annual meeting, like so many Slow Food events, had the same feeling that one gets at the best house parties, where everyone gathers in the kitchen, helping out or just hanging out around the hearth‹the spontaneous conviviality that only chopping, dicing, and/or breaking bread together can breed. You certainly don't get that nurturing feeling from the drive-thru. And that's the sweet spot that Slow Food aims to protect.

Slow Tables

There is a growing community of chefs, in NYC and beyond, who are building their reputation, and their menu, around the principles of Slow Food. The flavorful and authentic results of their efforts are manna to the converted and are seductive introductions to those less familiar with the Slow Food movement.

The relationships these chefs build with their eaters are forged in no small part by the care taken not only in preparing, but also in sourcing your dinner. Rather than relying on third party distributors, the standard method of procurement, such chefs partner directly with farmers and producers. Often, they are out there visiting the farmer's markets or even the fields to bring eaters the freshest, most authentic food possible. They share the spotlight with their growers and producers by calling out the provenance of headliner ingredients. Such care reads on the plate as much as it does on the menu.

A dinner at Dan Barber's Blue Hill Restaurants in NYC or The Stone Barns Center for Agriculture, Galen Zamarra's Mas, or Colin Alevras's Tasting Room, for example, says as much about the respect the chef has for his producers and his diners as it does about his exquisite talent. And each dish is more delicious for it.

Making Time for the Slow Life

When confronted with the prospect of eating Slow, many throw up their hands in frustration and point to the ever ticking clock/stop watch that meters their days. Fine for a foodie, or for the chef, but not for me. Yes, we all lead busy lives, but time spent in pursuit of nourishment is an investment that offers impressive returns.

Take a typical grocery-shopping excursion. Option 1: The Mega Mart. You charge through 20 aisles of advertiser space that, even at a mad scurry, can take a considerable chunk of a Saturday morning. At the end of the Mega Mart race, eaters are rewarded with a boat-sized cart of out-of-season, flavorless produce, vacu-sealed meats of dubious quality, and an assortment of cheap, processed foods.

Now consider Option 2: The Local Farmer's Market. You can stroll through, chatting with fellow eaters and the growers as you go. You come away with some creative tips for using up the season's surplus zucchini, a projection of the harvest to come and a week's work of real food with real flavor, produce plucked from the field that morning, farmstead cheeses, yeasty handmade breads, even meat and eggs from area pastures.

Your Saturday morning doesn't feel "spent" but rather, enjoyed. And most importantly, you've kept dollars in your community. And because all of those dollars have gone directly to the farmer, rather than the series of middle-people it would take to get food from field to fork through the retail sector, you have helped your independent grower maintain their autonomy.

Protecting Food Diversity

When we think of the conviviality of the table, the feast and the company come to mind, but the joy extends far beyond the placemat. It goes back to the field, farm, and fishing line. After all, farm fresh eggs wouldn't be so without the farm. As food production becomes increasingly consolidated, we are in danger of losing much of this value.

According to the Slow Food Foundation for Biodiversity, 30,000 vegetable varieties from around the world have become extinct in the last century, and one more is lost every six hours. During this time, an astonishing 93% of the American food product diversity has been destroyed. The loss of these items irreversibly alters the global food culture, further narrowing the scope of flavors available to eaters.

The Ark of Taste is a program developed by Slow Food that recognizes endangered food items threatened by the ongoing push of industrialized food production. Ark items span the globe: American, European, South American, and Middle Eastern foods are all represented. The products on the Ark run the gamut from cheeses, produce, honeys, beverages, and herbs to breeds of sea and land animals.

Combined with the Presidia, the branch of Slow Food that provides practical assistance to farmers producing Ark products, these programs have saved rare and indigenous food items, such as heritage breed turkeys in the U.S., from falling by the wayside in the wake of factory farms. And they have encouraged a market strong enough to support farmers who can now rely on these products as a means to remain economically viable. Find out more about the Presidia programs and Ark products at Slowfoodfoundation.com

Getting Involved

But for all of its work, its revolutionary leaders, accomplished chefs, and dedicated growers. Slow Food could not exist without its members. At the end of every fork is the most important catalyst for changing the eater. Each time we sit down to a meal we are voting for our food future. We are answering the chef who invites us to a feast of local bounty. We are supporting our growers who, as Wendell Berry suggests, "keep agriculture in our culture." And we are nourishing each other through our commitment to flavor and community. And what could be healthier than that?

***********************************************************************************************************

What about food miles and local food….

Local food

Local food (also regional food or food patriotism) is a principle of sustainability relying on consumption of food products that are locally grown, especially those with regional historic and/or cultural significance. It is part of the concept of local purchasing, a preference to buy locally produced goods and services. Those who prefer to eat local food sometimes call themselves "localvores" or "locavores". The concept is often related to the slogan Think globally, act locally, common in green politics. Pioneering and influential work in the area of local economies was done by noted economist E. F. Schumacher. Those supporting development of a local food economy consider that since food is needed by everyone, everywhere, every day, a small change in the way it is produced and marketed will have a great effect on health, the ecosystem and preservation of cultural diversity. They say shopping decisions favoring local food consumption directly affect the well-being of people, improve local economies and may be ecologically more sustainable. In general, local food is in opposition to the ideas of global free trade and hegemony. Critics argue that by convincing consumers in developed nations not to buy food produced in the third world, the local food movement damages the economy of third world nations, which often rely heavily on food exports and cash crops. Local food networks include community gardens, food co-ops, Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA), farmers' markets, and seed savers groups. The principle distinction between these systems and other agrifood systems is the spatial dimension. Local food networks have been described as "community-based agriculture" (e.g. Pimbert, et al., 2001), "direct agricultural markets" (Hinrichs, 2000), and "localist agriculture" (Hines, et al., 2000). The terms "network" and "system" are sometimes used interchangeably, but there appears to be a preference for "network". Critics also say that local food tends to be more expensive to the consumer than food bought without regard to provenance and could never provide the variety currently available (such as having summer vegetables available in winter, or having kinds of food available which can not be locally produced due to soil, climate or labor conditions). However, proponents indicate that the lower price of commodified food (which is sometimes called cheap food) is often due to a variety of governmental subsidies, including direct ones such as price supports, direct payments or tax breaks, and indirect ones such as subsidies for trucking via road infrastructure investment, and often does not take into account the true cost of the product. They further indicate that buying local food does not necessarily mean giving up all food coming from distant ecoregions, but rather favoring local foods when available.

 What defines local or regional?

The definition of "local" or "regional" is flexible and may be disputed, or modified by industry lobby groups. Some see "local" as being a very small area (typically, the size of a city and its surroundings), others suggest the ecoregion size, while others refer to the borders of their nation or state. Some proponents of "local food" consider that the term "local" has little to do with distance or with the size of a "local" area. For example, some see the American state of Texas as being "local", although it is much larger than some European countries. In this case, transporting a food product across Texas could involve a longer distance than that between northern and southern European countries. It is also argued that national borders should not be used to define what is local. For example, a cheese produced in Alsace is likely to be more "local" to German people in Frankfurt, than to French people in Marseille. The concept of "local" is also seen in terms of ecology, where food production is considered from the perspective of a basic ecological unit defined by its climate, soil, watershed, species and local agrisystems, a unit also called an ecoregion. Where local food is determined by the distance it has traveled, the wholesale distribution system can confuse the calculations. Fresh food that is grown very near to where it will be purchased, may still travel hundreds of miles through the system before arriving back at a local store. This is seen as a labelling issue by local food advocates, who suggest that, at least in the case of fresh food, consumers should be able to see exactly how far each food item has travelled. In the international wine industry, much "bulk wine" is shipped to other regions or continents, to be blended with wine from other locales. It may even be marketed quite misleadingly as a product of the bottling country. This is in direct opposition to both the concept of "local food" and the concept of terroir.

Impacts of local food systems

Transport distance (see also food miles)

A goal of a local food system might be to minimize food transport distance, known as food miles. A consumer report published in 2003 by The Guardian newspaper in the UK found that a selection of 20 fresh food items purchased from British supermarkets had travelled an average of 5,000 miles each[1]; in North America, an average fresh food transport distance of 1,000-1,500 miles is often cited. Transport costs must consider weight as well as distance. If food is processed, it may lose weight compared with unprocessed food. To the extent it is processed nearer production, less weight is transported a longer distance. If it is processed by the consumer, more weight may be transported, though the trip from production to processing can be avoided. The amount of fossil fuel consumed and CO₂ emissions released in the atmosphere of more local, unprocessed food compared with less local, processed food are thus ambiguous. This issue is addressed by the field of regional science.

Food quality

Another effect could be an increase in food quality and taste. Locally grown fresh food can be consumed almost immediately after harvest, so it may be sold fresher and usually riper (e.g. picked at peak maturity, as it would be from a home garden). Also, the need for chemical preservatives and irradiation to artificially extend shelf-life can be reduced or eliminated. One food quality argument holds that better nutrition results when people eat food grown in the ecoregion in which they live. The general theory is that regional conditions affect the composition of plants and animals, and eating local provides an optimized nutritional fit. Scientifically, this has neither been proven nor disproven.

Gastronomy

Additionally, preserving or renewing regional foodways, including unique localized production practices, indigenous knowledge, agricultural landscapes, and local/regional landraces of crops or livestock that may be rare or otherwise endangered. It is increasingly being tied to the movement to preserve farmland (farming) in areas where development pressures threaten these landscapes.

Polyculture and sustainable farming

Local economies

Local food production could strengthen local economies by protecting small farms, local jobs, and local shops, thereby increasing food security. One example of an effort in this direction is community-supported agriculture (CSA), where consumers purchase advance shares in a local farmer's annual production, and pick up their shares, usually weekly, from communal distribution points. In effect, CSA members become active participants in local farming, by providing up-front cash to finance seasonal expenses, sharing in the risks and rewards of the growing conditions, and taking part in the distribution system. Some CSA set-ups require members to contribute a certain amount of labor, in a form of cooperative venture. The popular resurgence of farmers markets in many parts of the world, including Europe and North America, contributes to local economies. They are traditional in many societies, bringing together local food and craft producers for the convenience of local consumers. Today, some urban farmers markets are large-scale enterprises, attracting tens of thousands on a market day, and vendors are not always "local". However, the majority of markets are still built around local farmers. Another at present small but notable trend is local food as part of a barter system. In localized economies, where a variety of common goods and services are provided by individuals and businesses within the immediate community (as opposed to by outlets and branches of large corporations), a direct of exchange of values is quite feasible. Some CSA projects, for example, trade services or labor for food. Particularly in the developed nations, the move away from local food to agribusiness over the last 100 years has had a profound socioeconomic effect, by redistributing populations into urban areas, and concentrating ownership of land and capital. In addition, the traditional farming skill set, which by necessity included a diverse range of knowledge and abilities required to manage a farm, has given way to new generations of specialists. When farming for local consumption was a cornerstone of local economies, the farmer was an integral, leading member of the community, a far different position from today. Support for local food is seen by some as a way to rediscover valuable community structures, values and perspectives.

History of the local food movement

The local food movement in the European Union has been hindered by EU rules requiring things produced in the EU, including food, to be marked as products of the EU, rather than as products of any particular country. The instinct of customers to buy nationally produced food in the name of patriotism was deemed to be a barrier to free trade. La Via Campesina <http://www.viacampesina.org> founded in 1993, is an international organization promoting food sovereignty, social justice and sustainable agriculture based on small and medium sized producers. La Via Campesina advocates a decentralized model where production, processing, distribution and consumption are controlled by the people the communities themselves and not by transnational corporations.

Criticism of the local food movement

 

So is ‘Don’t panic its organic” really true…

 

Organic Food Has 'Significantly Higher' Contamination, Study Finds
By Marc Morano  CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer June 14, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - A new study on food safety reveals that organic produce may contain a significantly higher risk of fecal contamination than conventionally grown produce.

A recent comparative analysis of organic produce versus conventional produce from the University of Minnesota shows that the organically grown produce had 9.7 percent positive samples for the presence of generic E. coli bacteria versus only 1.6 percent for conventional produce on farms in Minnesota.

The study, which was published in May in the Journal of Food Protection, concluded, "the observation that the prevalence of E. coli was significantly higher in organic produce supports the idea that organic produce is more susceptible to fecal contamination."

In addition, the study found the food-borne disease pathogen salmonella only on the organic produce samples. There was no evidence found of the deadly strain of bacteria, E. coli O157:H7, in either type of produce tested. The study looked at fruits and vegetables at the "preharvest" stage, not at the retail store level.

The principle investigator of the University of Minnesota study, Francisco Diez-Gonzalez, told CNSNews.com that "organic agriculture was more susceptible to carry fecal indicators."

"In many ways it is confirming what is believed, indeed, if you are using animal manure for fertilizer, the chances that you are going to get fecal bacteria on the product are greater," Diez-Gonzalez said.

The higher incidences of fecal contamination in organic foods were linked to heavy reliance on composted animal manure for fertilizer. While conventionally grown produce may use some manure, it chiefly relies on chemical fertilizers. Past research has shown that Animal manure is the principal source of pathogens such as salmonella, campylobacter, and E. coli 0157:H7

But Diez-Gonzalez cautioned that his study does not show organic produce to be a higher risk food choice. "What the data is telling organic agriculture is there is some room for improvement," Diez-Gonzalez said.

"I don't think we need to be more concerned about organic vegetables. Based on the epidemiological evidence, we can say that both organic and conventional vegetables would pose the same [food borne pathogen] risk for consumers," he added.

But Diez-Gonzalez did acknowledge that a higher presence of generic E. coli could mean higher risk for deadly pathogens."We use E. coli as indicator that the potential could be there [for food borne pathogens]," Diez-Gonzalez explained.

Asked about how consumers -- who buy organic food for health reasons -- will react to his study showing higher fecal contamination, Diez-Gonzalez responded, "The consumer perception may not be very favorable and that is a potential consequence."

'Facade is crumbling'

Alex Avery, director of research and education at the free-market Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues, says the latest scientific study confirms years of research that organic produce may pose a higher risk for food-borne illness.

"Organic food activists, which include many activist researchers entrenched in liberal university halls, have claimed organic food superiority for years in their efforts to mold society and scare consumers into buying their politically correct fare. Now their farcical facade is crumbling," Avery told CNSNews.com.

Avery was particularly concerned about a possibly elevated risk for pathogens such as salmonella and the deadly E. coli O157:H7 in organic produce. E. coli O157:H7 can attack the kidneys and liver, causing severe internal damage and even death, especially among the elderly and young children.

Avery called the risk of contracting salmonella from organic food a "crap shoot," with the pay off being "diarrhea, typhoid fever, and Reiter's Syndrome that causes joint pain and painful urination that can last for years after the initial salmonella infection."

The University of Minnesota study found salmonella in one sample of organic lettuce and one sample of organic green peppers. The researchers collected 476 Minnesota produce samples from 32 organic farms and 129 samples from eight conventional farms. The produce analyzed included unwashed tomatoes, lettuce, green peppers, cucumbers, broccoli, apples, and strawberries.

The study reported that "an increasing number of gastrointestinal disease outbreaks have been linked to the consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables," accounting for a total of 148 outbreaks between 1990 and 2001.

The study found organic lettuce had the highest rate of fecal contamination, with a rate of over 22 percent. And Avery says consumers can't assume they can simply "wash off" the fecal matter from the lettuce.

"Past research shows that E. coli 0157 can enter into the lettuce through the roots and be inside the lettuce, meaning you can't wash it off," Avery said.

Organic: 'Most especially at risk'

The controversy over the safety of organic food began in 1997, when Robert Tauxe, chief of the food-borne illness division of the Centers for Disease Control, addressed pathogens that thrive in manure. Tauxe was quoted in the Journal of the American Medical Association as saying, "Organic means a food was grown in animal manure."

The article in the 1997 Journal of the American Medical Association implicated "organically grown, unprocessed foods produced without... pesticides or preservatives" as an increasing source of food-borne illness.

The nationally syndicated television news program American Investigator also quoted the Food and Drug Administration's Virlie Walker as warning Americans that, "Most especially at risk [for food borne pathogens] are your organic products because they could be fertilized with manure."

Walker, the spokesperson for the FDA's Denver district, told the news program in June 1998, "We do encourage folks to pay special attention to cleaning their organic products."

In 2000, ABC's John Stossel, followed up with a similar television report on 20/20 about the potential bacterial dangers of organic produce.

Diez-Gonzalez believes his findings of increased fecal contamination in organic food will not surprise consumers "if they have been following the media [reports]."

"Most likely, [our study] is going to serve to prove that some in media were right in terms of the E. coli, the fecal contamination, but not in terms of pathogens," Diez-Gonzalez said.

'Lightening rod for public officials'

Avery sees the issue of organic food politics as being too hot to handle for most food regulators.

"Organic food production has become a lightening rod for public officials. The CDC does not want to touch this with a ten foot pole," Avery said.

Referring to the CDC's Tauxe -- and his comments about organic food in 1997 -- Avery said the organic lobby "went ballistic and inundated the CDC with phone calls."

"This research continues to raise the red flags that have been raised in the past by credible food safety experts like Tauxe at the CDC. How many red flags have to be raised in order to get stricter manure regulations?" Avery asked.

Avery also believes that the driving force behind organic produce, the fear of chemical pesticides, is completely unwarranted.

"The National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, found in 1999 that the cancer risk from pesticide residue is theoretically lower than the risk from naturally occurring carcinogens. Both types are too low to be appreciable cancer risks," Avery explained.

"We are still looking for the first cancer death victim from pesticide residues. But we have several examples of children killed by pathogenic bacteria on organic produce," he added.

 

********************************************************************************************

How is are GMO foods affecting what we eat ?

 

Food with 0.9% GM still organic, say farm ministers

James Meikle  The Guardian   Wednesday June 13 2007

 

Organic foods can be labelled "GM-free" even if they contain up to 0.9% genetically modified content, European agriculture ministers decided yesterday.

The decision provoked outcry among environmental campaigners and supporters of organic farming, who said it would lead to "genetic contamination".

The ministers' meeting in Luxembourg supported commission arguments that setting a lower limit of 0.1% , the lowest level at which GM organisms could be scientifically detected, would place standards which would make organic produce too expensive for farmers.

The higher ceiling was sufficient for "accidental or technically unavoidable" presence of approved GMOs. The agriculture commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel said: "It can be very tempting to say 'zero tolerance'. but that wouldn't work in real life. To avoid accidental contamination, it would be so expensive to produce organic products that it would damage the market completely; it would simply kill the sector." The labelling agreement would, she said, give consumers "assurances of precisely what they are buying".

Helen Holder, of Friends of the Earth Europe, warned that traces of GM in organic food would quickly become "acceptable" to the authorities, and "organic farmers will find it increasingly difficult to keep their crops GM-free".

Marco Contieri, of Greenpeace, said: "The lax attitude taken by the European commission and some member states disregards the preferences of European consumers and may put the whole organic sector at risk."

He said: "In practice, low levels of GM material could start slipping into all organic food."

Some agriculture ministers too are uneasy. Josef Proell, of Austria, said: "It is clear this [threshold] is not a licence to contaminate. Any contamination would have to be involuntary and unavoidable. We cannot simply go on raising the threshold and pretend we are on a path to organic farming."

There are already concerns about arrangements if GM crops are cleared to be grown commercially in Britain over the next few years. The government has made clear it believes consumers will have to put up with some cross-contamination. But groups like the Soil Association in the UK argue that GM technology is "past its sell-by date" and consumers have rejected the idea of GM food.

 

Melamine,  anyone?

 

China Quietly Muscles In on the Organic Food Market

BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun July 18, 2007
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/58606

Consumers turning to organic food in the wake of warnings about antifreeze-laden toothpaste, poisoned pet food, and antibiotic-laced fish may be in for a surprise. The same country blamed for those scares, China, is quietly muscling in on the organic market.

 

Upscale grocery chains like Trader Joe's and Whole Foods now import popular organic snacks such as edamame and canned staples such as kidney beans from China. That has made some buyers looking for pristine, all-natural food a bit skittish.

"A couple of months ago I was just eating some edamame from Trader Joe's because my nutritionist said they were a great source of protein," a science textbook writer from Los Angeles, Stephanie Anagnoson, said. "My husband noticed they were made in China and packed in China, and we both thought that was kind of bizarre. … It was at the same time that everyone began noticing that things coming from China are not necessarily what they seem."

 

Ms. Anagnoson said she doubts that produce grown in China is truly organic, regardless of the label. "It's really hard to grow something organic in a country that really abuses pesticides and where DDT is used," she said.

Organic produce imported from China carries the U.S. Department of Agriculture's organic logo and is certified by private firms authorized to approve use of the label. However, consumers who view that as a guarantee that the produce is pesticide-free are mistaken. The federal rules establishing the organic certification do not include routine testing for pesticide contamination.

"I think that is a weak part of the standards," a food-safety scientist at Consumers Union in Yonkers, Urvashi Rangan, said. An official with an American nonprofit group that certifies Chinese farms as organic, Jeff See, confirmed that testing is not required to get approval to use the logo.

 

"It's not a regular practice as part of the certification process," Mr. See, the executive director of the Nebraska-based Organic Crop Improvement Association, said. He said he appreciates Americans' concerns that organics from China may not really be organic.

"I understand the questions. It is also a concern for us," Mr. See said. "With China, we've made an extra push here within the last year, even before a lot of this came into public attention. We wanted to make sure what is happening there is represented truly."

A Chinese government report indicates that the organic industry's domestic and export sales more than tripled between 2003 and 2005. About $136 million worth of organic products was shipped overseas in 2005, the report said.

Mr. See said his group has two full-time employees in China who oversee organic certifications for about 250 growers and food processors. The process relies primarily on paperwork audits and on-site inspections looking for unapproved chemicals. All producers are visited at least once a year. "We don't have inspectors in the field 100% of the time," he said. "They do quite a few verification inspections unannounced where they have maybe a day's warning at most. … They're pretty thorough."

Some organic advocates doubt whether a yearly inspection, an occasional checkup, and no regular pesticide testing is a regime that ensures the detailed organic rules are being followed, especially in a chaotic, developing country like China. "With the troubles with conventional production over there, there's enough red flags raised" to prompt questions, the author of "Organic Inc.," Samuel Fromartz, said. "It's the Wild West out there."

Produce exposed to pesticides or other toxins can wind up on the market as organic through fraud, error, or environmental contamination, all of which are arguably more likely in the Third World.

 

China is renowned for counterfeit consumer goods and mislabeled commodities. An industrial chemical mislabeled as wheat gluten, melamine, is believed to have led to a huge recall of tainted pet food earlier this year and the reported deaths of hundreds of animals. In a country where goods ranging from Prada handbags to Duracell batteries are regularly faked, ensuring that a shipment of soybeans came from an organic field and not a chemical-treated one would seem quite a challenge.

"Fraudulent products can be found everywhere in China," an Agriculture Department report on organics noted last year. "Most of the [Chinese] consumers interviewed said they didn't buy and would not buy organic because they don't trust labels or certifications." Still, organic produce typically sells in China for three to five times the price of conventional produce, the report found. That differential increases the incentive for fraud.

 

In addition, while a farmer in America or Europe can be fairly confident that a fertilizer or pesticide he buys is what it purports to be, even a well-intentioned Chinese farmer cannot be so sure. A weed-killer billed as all natural might be a potent chemical. There are also the problems of groundwater contamination and toxic runoff from neighboring farms. Neither would turn up in a paperwork audit and both might be hard for an inspector to assess without lab testing.

When it issued the organic rules in 2000, the Agriculture Department considered requiring regular testing for pesticides. However, Mr. Fromartz said organic growers from California complained that the tests could show pesticide residues that were the product of drift from nonorganic farms.

 

" You can't avoid drift," a spokeswoman for California Certified Organic Farmers, Viella Shipley, said. An organic farmer in Santa Cruz, Calif., is suing over pesticide that allegedly traveled in a fog bank after being applied at a neighboring farm, she noted.

The drift issue also could be more serious abroad, where conventional farming can include the use of pesticides not approved by American authorities. The Agriculture Department's rules declare that organic certifiers "may require preharvest or postharvest testing … when there is reason to believe that the agricultural input or product has come into contact with a prohibited substance or has been produced using excluded methods." The federal government's testing of produce sold in America, whether imported or domestic, is done by the Food and Drug Administration. In that process, the organic designation is not considered.

"It's not a food safety program. It's a marketing program," an Agriculture Department spokeswoman, Joan Shaffer, said.

 

An FDA study done in 2003 found that imported produce was about three times as likely to violate limits for pesticide residue. However, it was also more likely than American produce to be free of pesticides altogether. The results suggest that foreign farmers are more likely to use pesticides recklessly, but that many do not use them at all.

Retailers conduct pesticide tests, but they are not forthcoming about the results.

"Based on out own visits and independent tests/audits, we are confident that our vendors in other countries meet if not exceed the standards established for suppliers in the United States," a spokeswoman for Trader Joe's, Alison Mochizuki, said in an e-mail.

A Whole Foods spokeswoman, Ashley Hawkins, said her chain is trying to purchase more produce locally, but cannot get enough. "Our primary challenge at this time is that the demand of fresh fruits and vegetables — especially in organic form — is far outpacing the U.S.-grown supply," she said. "Our team of buyers and auditors personally visit all farms and facilities."

 

A federal law mandating country-of-origin labeling produce and some meats has been repeatedly delayed, but Trader Joe's and Whole Foods voluntarily label most of their products.

And when you have food, especially cheap food ,  you tend to get …..

 

Fat Is The New Normal, FSU Researcher Says - Changing Perceptions Of Body Weight Feed Rise In Obesity

07 Aug 2007   

American women have gotten fatter as it has become more socially acceptable to carry a few extra pounds, according to a new study. Florida State University Assistant Professor of Economics Frank Heiland and Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Economist Mary Burke are the co-authors of a paper published in the academic journal Economic Inquiry that argues that the ballooning weight of the population has fed even more collective weight gain as our perception of what is considered a normal body size has changed.

    "This is a social force that we are trying to document because the rise in obesity has occurred so rapidly over the past 30 years," said Heiland, who also is affiliated with FSU's Center for Demography and Population Health. "Medically speaking, most agree that this trend is a dangerous one because of its connection to diabetes, cancer and other diseases. But psychologically, it may provide relief to know that you are not the only one packing on the pounds."

    The paper, "Social Dynamics of Obesity," is the first to provide a mathematical model of the impact of economic, biological and social factors on aggregate body weight distribution. It also is one of the first studies to suggest that weight norms may change and are not set standards based on beauty or medical ideals.

    Many economists believe that people eat more -- and thus gain weight -- when food prices drop, but that's just part of the story behind the nation's dramatic weight gain since the late 1970s, according to the researchers. The full price of a calorie has dropped by about 36 percent relative to the price of consumer goods since 1977, but prices leveled off in the mid-1990s. And yet American women continued to get bigger.

Heiland and Burke's "social multiplier" theory offers a potential reason why: As Americans continue to super-size their value meals, the average weight of the population increases and people slowly adjust their perceptions of appropriate body weight. Given that these changes in perception may come about gradually, Heiland and Burke suggest the nation's battle of the bulge may extend into the future.

Heiland and Burke studied body weights among American women in the 30- to 60-year-old age bracket from 1976 to 2000. Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, they found that the weight of the average woman increased by 20 pounds, or 13.5 percent, during that period. There was disproportionate growth among the most obese women as the 99th percentile weight increased a hefty 18.2 percent, from 258 to 305 pounds.

The researchers also looked at self-reports of women's real weights and desired weights. In 1994, the average woman said she weighed 147 pounds but wanted to weigh 132 pounds. By 2002, the average woman weighed 153 pounds but wanted the scales to register 135 pounds, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

The fact that even the desired weight of women has increased suggests there is less social pressure to lose weight, Heiland said, citing a previous study that 87 percent of Americans, including 48 percent of obese Americans, believe that their body weight falls in the "socially acceptable" range.

While it seems thinness is increasingly idealized in popular culture -- images of waif-like models and stick-thin celebrities are everywhere -- there is a gap between the cultural imagery and the weights that most people consider acceptable for themselves and others, according to Heiland.

Biological forces also play a role in the rise of obesity. An additional pound of body weight is more likely to be fat, which does not metabolize calories nearly as well as muscle tissue, Heiland explained. Therefore, any increase in calorie consumption -- say, one more cookie each day -- leads to greater weight gain among an initially heavier person.

The researchers focused this study on women partly because their weight gains have been so dramatic, Heiland said, citing a whopper of a statistic: 33.2 percent of American women over age 20 are classified as obese, according to 2001-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data. However, men also have become heavier, and the researchers believe the same economic, social and biological forces are to blame.

Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/78923.php

**************************************************************

More fat ……

 

Big Fat Globalisation: Towards a Sociology of Obesity

Matt Qvortrup, The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen

 

There are some human phenomena, which seem to be the result of individual actions and personal decisions. Yet, these phenomena are often - on closer inspection – as much a result of social factors as of psychological ones.

 

In 1897, Emile Durkheim (1997) showed that the suicide – perhaps the most personal of all decisions – could be analysed through the conceptual lenses of sociology.

 

Obesity, much like suicide, is often regarded as a personal problem; result of an inability to control ones desires in front of the fridge. Obesity does have a psychological, and, indeed, a medical, dimension, yet like the suicide, this growing phenomenon also has a social dimension. This paper is an attempt to do the same for obesity as Emile Durkheim did to the study of suicide; to analyse it in the light of the theories of sociology.

 

Obesity and Social Science

Interest in the social aspects of obesity is nothing new. Jeffrey Sobal has written extensively about the social and psychological consequences of obesity , including the stigmatisation and discrimination of obese and even overweight individuals (Sobal 2004).

 

Scholars with a more anthropological twist have written about the different social perceptions of obesity, e.g. the positive view of fatness among some indigenous peoples (Swinburne et al. 1996). In an article entitled, “An anthropological Perspective on Obesity “ (Brown and Konner 1987), the authors found that “cross cultural data about body preferences for women reveal that over 80% of cultures for which shape preference data are available, people prefer a plump shape” (cited in Sobal 2004, 383).

 

That these ideals are embedded in their respective cultures is perhaps best evidenced by the small statuette Venus of Willendorf, by common archaeological consent the oldest known work of art. Stone age man evidently preferred a big girl complete with multiple love-handles, someone who could both carry and nurture his offspring under the harsh conditions of the Palaeolithic world.

 

Other examples of the cultural acceptance of large people obese Buddha statues in the Far East and rituals of prenuptial fattening in many cultures, where fatness is seen as sexually attractive (Brink 1989).

 

That fat has often been a symbol of status is not merely an anthropological observation. In the 19^th Century, in Britain, according to Williams and Germov, “a large, curved, body…connoted fertility, wealth and high status. While poor women were occupied with physical work, the voluptuous women of the middle classes were often viewed as objects of art, luxury, status, virtue and beauty” (Williams and Germov 2004, 342). “Fatness”, they go on, “was linked to emotional stability, strength (stored energy), good health, and refinement to leisure” (Ibid).

 

These observations are worth bearing in mind when we discuss obesity. Obesity is – to a certain extend – a social construct. But obesity is also more than this. As an increasing medical problem, obesity is not merely a condition that can be – or should be – analysed in the light of perception and aesthetics. Obesity is also a product of biological, psychological, and social conditions.

 

While not ignoring the importance of the former two factors, this paper presents an account of the latter. While correlations between obesity and social and economic background variables have been reported (Flegal et al. 2000), sociological analyses have thus far not addressed the question of the social aetiology of obesity. This paper seeks to present a first step towards remedying this.

 

The Obesity Debate

‘Why are we so fat?’ asked American magazine The National Geographic in a feature article in the summer of 2004 (National Geographic 2004). The use of the collective noun ‘we’ seemed particularly warranted as recent statistics show that more than 65 percent of us (the British) are overweight. (defined as having a Body-Mass Index of 25 or above). Still more alarming; 20 percent of us are clinically obese (defined as having a Body-Mass Index of 30 or above).(House of Commons Select Committee on Health 2004).

 

Britain is not alone in this. In America the figure is even higher; 30 per cent of the Americans are obese (US Department of Health and Social Services 2000). According to a recent study of obesity in the USA, diet related illnesses are responsible for four out of the ten leading causes of death. (Bush and Williams 1999, 135).

 

These figures matter for more than psychological and aesthetic reasons. It is estimated that more than 30.000 deaths per year in the UK are attributed to obesity or obesity related illnesses (House of Commons Select Committee on Health 2004, 6). In the colourful words of one medical expert: “this is an epidemic…the likes of which we have not had before in chronic disease…[obesity is] making HIV look, economically, like a bad case of the flu” (William Dietz quoted in Greitser 2000, 42). Add to this that close to ten percent of the total NHS budget is allocated to obesity and related illnesses, and it is difficult to dispute that obesity is a major health concern as well as a major socio-political problem.

 

Facts^[1] such as these more than justify the Chief Medical Officer’s conclusion that obesity is “a health time bomb” that needs diffusion (Chief Medical Officer quoted in HC Select Committee on Health 2004, 8).

But public health is not just about diagnosing and treating conditions, it is also about understanding causes, the identification of which will enable us to take the appropriate prophylactic measures to combat the epidemic.

Yet, there is far from agreement on what these causes are. The explanations for the obesity epidemic cited in the popular press, e.g. in The National Geographic and in Newsweek (2004) were all biological in origin and medical in consequence.

 

Quoting the work of medical geneticist Rudolph Leibel, The National Geographic concluded that obesity was down to genetics. “Our overeating”, the magazine quoted Leibel as saying, “is not the wilful result of deranged upbringing. It is genes talking” (National Geographic 2004, 62).

 

This biochemical reductionism is not new – though the underlying science has changed. As far back as 1924, the editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association editorialised that ‘obesity’ was purely the result of ‘malfunctions in normal metabolic processes’ (Editorial: The Journal of the American Medical Association 1924, 1003).

 

Contrary to the impression left by features such as those in Newsweek, the National Geographic and the octogenarian editorial, the picture is a good deal more complex than that. This is increasingly recognised within medicine. A report from the American Institute of Medicine is an example of a critique of the geneticist view: “there has been no real change in the gene pool during this period of increasing obesity. The root problem, therefore must lie in the powerful social and cultural forces that promote an energy-rich diet and a sedentary lifestyle” (Institute of Medicine 1995, 152).

 

There is evidence to support the veracity of the hypothesis that social and cultural forces play a role (Flegal et al. 2000, 6).

 

What is striking about the obesity epidemic is the extent to which it reflects social class conditions. To cite but one example; the Health Survey for England has shown that in 2001, 14 percent of women in professional groups were obese, while 28 percent of women from unskilled manual occupations were categorised as such (House of Commons Select Committee on Health 2004, 16). 

 

Similar examples are legion. As a study concluded; “the largest rates of obesity occur among population groups with the highest poverty rates and the least education” (Drewnowski and Specter 2004, 6).

 

This correlation between poverty and obesity is likely to be the result of underlying social factors. It is not that there is an automatic relationship between poverty and obesity. This relationship is a new phenomenon, which, consequently, needs to be analysed in the light of recent social, political and economic developments.

 

As Ulrich Beck has observed; ‘the struggle for one’s ‘daily bread’ has lost its urgency as the cardinal problem overshadowing everything else…for many people the problems of ‘overweight’ take the place of hunger’ (Bech 1997, 21). The interesting question from a sociological point of view – as well as from a medical one – is why.

 

 

Globalisation and Obesity: Towards a Pattern

It is difficult to dispute that obesity is a social condition, which adversely affects those in low paid/short term jobs. Needless to say, obesity does have a significant biomedical component; what happens inside the body after you have munched your Big Mac obviously requires a physiological/biochemical explanation.

However, it is (from a sociological and public health point of view) equally important to determine the factors which lead you to eat the Big Mac  in the first place. What we endeavour to answer is the social aetiology of obesity; the social causes, which lead to weight gain.

 

The aforementioned research findings strongly indicate that weight problems and poverty are highly statistically correlated. As a oft-cited study said: “diet affects the health of socially disadvantaged people from cradle to grave” (James, Nelson, Ralph, and Leather 1999, 1545).

 

Of course a quote does not establish a fact, nor does a statistical association. The question is what lies behind these correlations?

 

Some could – with some justification – argue that these class differences merely reflect and reconfirm the existence of serious inequalities in health - as reported in the Black Report in the early 1980s (Working Group on Inequalities in Health 1982).

 

What has hitherto been missing from the literature on obesity – as well as that on health in general – has been more ambitious theoretical explanations linking medical conditions  – in this case obesity – to more general sociological discourses and theoretical trends (such as modernisation and globalisation).

 

One obvious – yet overlooked – hypothesis is that societal changes from a traditional industrial society to a globalised (deregulated) economy has created new patterns of life and work, which have had adverse effects on food consumption, exercise, and hence has contributed to the increase in the growth of the obesity epidemic.

 

According to this hypothesis, the advent of a neo-liberal economic regime has had – and continues to have - profound consequences for working patterns – especially for those in low paid/insecure jobs. This hypothesis is, in fact,  consistent with observations made by sociologists such as Anthony Giddens who have observed that  “one of the ways globalisation has affected family life in Britain is by increasing the amount of time that people spend each week at work” (Giddens 2004, 62).

 

In addition to working longer hours, individuals are increasingly working in service sector jobs (such as call centres) with provide little opportunity for physical exercise. With ‘flexible’ working hours, individuals are likely to eat later and more likely to consume fast-food (Dalton 2004, 95).

The medical consequence of this is that they are unlikely to burn the extra calories they consume.

 

While no evidence of this has been published using UK figures, data from America confirm this trend; “Americans now spend almost half of their food dollars on food away from home – 47 percent, or $354.4 billion in 1998” (Dalton 2004, 94) .That the hurried life-style brought about by changes in labour market is – in part – responsible for this, is underlined by figures from the fast food chains reporting that ‘drive-thru’ sales now account for more than half of their total sales (Dalton 2004, 95)^[2].

 

That this has contributed to the obesity epidemic is underlined by the fact that  “away from home” foods contain  more total fat and saturated fat on a per-calorie basis than “at home food” (Dalton 2004, 94).

 

As a further consequence of the changes in working patterns – and the less free time available – individuals are less likely to engage in sport and social leisure activities – factors which have been shown to be negatively correlated with weight gain (Dalton 2004, 95).

 

Again American figures illustrate the trend. In 1991, 46 percent of high school students and 57 percent of middle school students were enrolled in  sport activities (Sallis 1993, 403). By 1999, those figures had dropped to 29 percent of high-school students and 35 percent of middle school students. On average there is a 3 percent decrease in the number of kids who take part in sporting activities on a daily basis (CDC 2000).

 

Viewed in this light is perhaps not surprising that the countries in the forefront of ‘globalisation’ (especially labour market deregulation) are also the countries with the highest incidence of obesity (See table One). Conversely, countries with less globalised economies,  have had lower – sometimes much lower – levels of obesity.

 

A few examples will suffice. In Sweden – a country that has not followed the neo-liberal reform agenda  – the number of overweight people is 39 per cent (the same figure as France – another country that has resisted neo-liberal reforms). The figure for Norway another affluent society in the same category is even lower; 25 percent (www.iotf.org). 

 

That labour market dergeulation goes hand in hand with obesity, seems to be confirmed when we contrast the obesity figures from  ‘globalised’ countries with similar figures from less globalised economies (as measured by the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom). The Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient between this measure of globalisation (admittedly a gross proxy!) and obesity rate is a Pearson’s R of -.71. In other words, the less globalised the economy, the lower the number of obese people. While this correlation is not all conclusive – and only significant at 0.37 (two-tailed), it does suggest the existence of a causal link between obesity and globalisation.

 

Table One: Index of Economic Freedom and Obesity Rates

Country           Index of Economic Freedom                    %Obese

Australia                                   1.88                                         20

France                                      2.63                                         8

Finland                                     1.95                                         13

Netherlands                              2.04                                           8

Norway                                                2.25                                           7

United Kingdom                       1.79                                         17

USA                                        1.85                                         25

Sources: The Heritage Foundation and www.iuns.com (accessed 14 August 2004)

 

While governments of the most globalised economies – such as Australia, the UK and the USA - have gone to great lengths in their efforts to deregulate the economies and give ‘the market’ a stronger role, other countries – especially those with strong corporatist traditions (See Lijphart 1999) –have adopted a different approach to globalisation.

 

In the Netherlands the government, trade unions, and employers associations have negotiated responses to globalisation, which have prevented the growing inequalities and levels of job-insecurity associated with globalisation in Australia (Bessant and Watts 2002, 306)., Britain and the USA (Giddens 2001, 69).

 

Consequently, the Dutch workers are not under the same pressures as their British and American counterparts in having to seek low paid/short term employment, with all the consequent negative implications on food consumption and lack of time for physical exercise (Freedman 2000).

 

The difference between these two ‘pure types’ of welfare capitalism is not merely of importance for the reasons identified above (food intake with little opportunity to burn calories). There is also evidence to suggest that the ‘Dutch model’ is more conducive to the formation of ‘social capital’, which in turn is negatively correlated with levels of obesity (Putnam 2000, 264).

 

Further globalisation is more than just labour market deregulation. Global liberalisation of trade under the WTO and liberalisation of the market for broadcasting are other factors to be taken into account. Globalisation is a mix of contingent factors which – when combined – create social developments.

 

One of the consequences of globalisation is a society, in which consumers both ‘enjoy’ the benefits of cheap food from around the globe, while at the same time, are  being subjected to advertisements from multinational food and beverage producers, such as McDonalds, Pepsi, Burger King, Coca Cola, and others.

 

The level of this influence can hardly be exaggerated; in one year McDonald spent in excess of 1 billion US-dollars on advertising for kids (Brownell and Horgen 2003, 60).

 

Globalisation has profoundly affected capitalist democracies, yet not all countries have responded by deregulating labour markets and unleashing market forces. In some cases, countries have (successfully) attempted to regulate the forces of globalisation, e.g.  through restrictions on media advertising (especially on TV). In the Netherlands the public broadcasters are not allowed to interrupt programmes aimed at the Under-12 year olds with advertisements. Similar restrictions have been introduced in Sweden and Norway (www.childrensprogrammes.org).

 

That such restrictions have been introduced in small countries with relatively open economies is an indication – perhaps even a proof – that the effects of globalisation are not inevitable; that political intervention has not been rendered impossible by globalisation

 

Conclusion

“There is no question that the rates of obesity and Type 2 Diabetes …follow a socioeconomic gradient, such that the burden of disease falls disproportionally on people with limited resources, racial-ethnic minorities, and the poor”. Thus wrote two dieticians recently (Drewnowski and Specter 2004, 6). Previously, scholarly studies in the social aetiology of obesity have stopped short of developing these statistically based conclusions into a more general theoretical sociological framework.

 

In this paper a case has been made for the view that obesity is – at least in part – a consequence of the recent political and economic developments commonly known as ‘globalisation’.

 

Globalisation has led some governments (e.g. in the USA, Britain and Australia) to enact and implement labour market reforms (flexible job-markets with less job-security). One of the consequences of this development has been pressures on families and individuals in low paid/temporary jobs. Through this ‘globalisation’ has created conditions, which are conducive to over-consumption of high-energy foods.

 

Forced to work longer hours, individuals have less time to prepare meals opting instead for pre-prepared fast food with a high fat content.

 

In addition to this development, the availability of cheap food from around the globe coupled with advertising from multinationals – has resulted in new pressures which have led to a growth in the consumption of energy-rich food among the poor.

 

 

That’s all folks!

 

Colin