We’re back in New York City again today with a good news story about the Bloomberg Administration’s efforts to bring supermarkets to poor neighborhoods around the city.

The New York Times reports, “Under a proposal the City Planning Commission unanimously approved on Wednesday, the city would offer zoning and tax incentives to spur the development of full-service grocery stores that devote a certain amount of space to fresh produce, meats, dairy and other perishables.”

This seems to be a fantastic solution to the city’s previously restrictive regulations on how big a store could be. Those regulations kept grocery stores out of certain areas because they couldn’t make a profit with such minimal square footage. It’s easy for Dwayne Reade to open a small store because they make plenty of money on prescription drugs, but the profit on produce isn’t quite as attractive.

“Under the proposed rules, a residential building with a fresh-food store could be up to 20,000 square feet larger than would normally be allowed, enabling developers to make more money by building more apartments.

Smaller stores in certain commercial and manufacturing districts would be exempt from a requirement that they provide customer parking. And in manufacturing districts, developers could build stores of up to 30,000 square feet — the current limit is 10,000 — without going through the city’s laborious and expensive land-use review process.”

Whole Foods Northeast region president Christina Minardi stays, “It’s definitely enticing for us.” The article paraphrases her comments, “She said that the chain, which has half a dozen stores in Manhattan, had been sporadically looking to open a store in Harlem, an area it might not typically move into, but where ‘an incentive might help.’”

It will be interesting to see how this will change the landscape and health of the city.

I was happy to get some good conversation going recently when I posted “Childhood Obesity = Child Abuse?” In the post, I mentioned that obesity statistics fall largely along racial and income lines, so I was hesitant about arresting parents who can’t afford to feed their children anything besides what is available at the corner store. As a result, some people accused me of leaning toward blaming the government and society, instead of asking parents to take responsibility for their children’s health.

I would like to categorically say, as I have said numerous times in the past, that the only path to freedom is personal responsibility (and Jesus, of course).

At the same time, reading this Associated Press story about a produce truck winding through the streets of Detroit reinforced my belief that it is nearly impossible for some people to access healthy food.

In 2006, I lived on in West Detroit at epicenter of the riots of 1967. When I wanted food, I got in my car, got on the highway, and drove 13 miles to the nearest grocery story in the suburbs. Sure, I could have made my way over to that great bastion of sugar addiction, the gas station, but I wanted real food. Making the drive was easy enough for me, but what if you’re a single mother on welfare who is already working two jobs and doesn’t have enough money to afford a car payment, let alone have the time (or money) to take a cab all the way into the suburbs to buy your children fresh vegetables?

I know, the short answer in personal development is take responsibility for your life, upgrade your skills, and get out of that environment as quickly as you can. But, even if you’re on the road to a better life, how can you feed your children better on that road if the options simply aren’t available to you?

The produce truck in Detroit is one way to provide that option and, as Lisa Johanon says in the story, once you make better options available, people make better choices, “We’ve seen the stereotype that urban communities won’t eat healthy, and we’re seeing that isn’t true.”

Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center has initiated a “Live Well, Work Well” program where they ditched their deep friars and started serving fruit. They’re also sprucing up the hall ways and encouraging people to take the stairs.

It’s not every day I get to report some positive news around obesity. I only hope the other hospitals around the country, particularly in Michigan, will follow suit.

I’ve been recommending and quoting Michael Pollan’s “In Defense of Food” since I read it last year. If you’ve had a conversation with me since then, you have no doubt heard the phrase, “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” This simple philosophy has helped to shape my view of the modern food landscape. I have intentionally stayed oblivious to the sort of hyper-scientific emphasis on nutrients found in food that Pollan so eloquently destroys. I cannot tell you one thing about what’s in broccoli, but I can tell you it makes me feel good, so I’m going to keep on eating it.

Nutritionism, Pollan explains, is an ideology that sees food as nothing more than a collection of nutrients. Therefore, according to this worldview, the only valid discussion we should have around food concerns its health benefits. This has brought about the advent of modern food science and is the biggest contributor to our modern health crisis. Highly processed foods loaded with sugar and High Fructose Corn Syrup can be re-engineered every other year with a sexy new “health” claim featuring the “savior nutrient” of the day. The most laughable example of this I’ve seen was a package of sugar-free cookies boasting its abundant supply of “Omega-3 Fatty Acids!”

Pollan brilliantly explains that, while food science seems to have some value, it is ultimately a very young science that has only served to make us sick. My favorite quote of the talk underlining this point was, ”As I see it, nutrition science is where surgery was in about 1,650; really interesting, really promising, but I’m not ready to get on the table. And we should not be ready to change the way we eat based on where they are right now.”

“In Defense of Food” is a very quick read, but if you still haven’t had time to read it, this presentation will serve as a great summary.

He walks on stage at 7:36 in the video.

Enjoy!

How is it possible that the people meant to oversee and regulate our food system are all former executives of the largest food corporations in America? How is it that workers who risk their lives to make your holiday ham are arrested and deported  without any repercussions for the companies who recruited them from Mexico and bused them here? And how is it that a head of broccoli is more expensive than a bag of chips!??

We need change and we need it bad.

But, even with all the disappointing facts in the film, they don’t leave you feeling like you can’t help. The greatest thing they point out is that we vote three times a day. Every meal we have is an opportunity to tell food manufacturers that we don’t want steroid injected, chemically drenched food-like substances in our supermarkets.

No, we want our food the way God created it; nutritionally dense, properly fed and grown whole foods that build the health of our nation.

Vote local. Vote Real. Vote With Every Meal…And Start Today!

Here’s a great interview of director Robert Kenner and Michael Pollan discussing the film. I can’t believe they got the Secretary of Agriculture to watch this movie!

Brian Regan has to be one of the funniest men on the planet. Here he is taking on the absurd portions found on food labels, ENJOY!

ConAgra is attempting to capitalize on American’s growing need to stay home and eat while their bank accounts shrink. However, as Kerry points out so well, just because the term “Healthy” is in the title of the brand, doesn’t make it so. Here we have another scientific calculation of what someone believes is “healthy” combined with a collection of chemicals that convince your pallet you’re eating real food.

The bottom line: If you want to be healthy, you are not going to get very in the frozen food section…No matter how much the advertisers spend to convince you to the contrary.

The Rest of the Story

I’m not sure where to start here. I understand the need for marketers to sell their products, but there is no room in the market place for blatant lies.

There is nothing “natural” about refined sugar. The process to create it is quite extensive and involves plenty of industrial machining and chemical crafting.

First, sucrose is extracted from sugar cane and sugar beets by heating them with a chemical compound known as Calcium Oxide. This creates a juice which is evaporated into 65% solids and becomes raw sugar. After that, the crystals are washed and stripped of color in beds of a carbon granule made from animal bones known as “bone char.” This produces a liquor, which is either partially evaporated into liquid sugar or dried to become the sugar you see in the store.

However, to argue which is better for you, HFCS or sugar, makes as much sense as arguing which will kill you faster, smoking cigarettes or smoking a pipe. Both are equally harmful as they both cause a spike in blood sugar, triggering an overdose of insulin, and resulting in excessive fat storage in your liver and other muscle tissue.

If you’d like a guaranteed prevention for diabetes Sugar Addiction, leave both HFCS and sugar out of your food completely.

I always find it interesting that in the midst of reporting increases in food prices the media always acts as if we have no choice but to consume the foodlike products manufactured by companies like Heinz and Kraft Foods.

Besides the ketchup I keep in the fridge for the occasional Sunday Feast, I honestly can’t remember the last time I bought any “food” these companies produce. And, speaking of produce, why doesn’t the headline read, “Prices of Fresh Produce Dropping, Customers Flocking”? As far as I can tell, that is the real story here, but the fact that people can eat healthier cheaper is simply brushed over and we are left to feel sorry for these profit raking multi-national corporations.

“Michael Mitchell, a spokesman for Kraft Foods, said that the company’s food ingredient costs this year were running $2 billion higher than in 2007, a 13 percent increase, but that the company had raised its overall prices by only 7 percent.”

Well, how egalitarian of you! I’ve got a suggestion; why don’t you raise the price of your “food” to include the cost of the health care I’m going to need in the future from consuming it.

Listen, I know I’m being harsh and I don’t mean to act as if the rise in food prices is not creating a global crisis, but I just get ercked by articles like this that present no real solutions. Instead, ethanol is blamed and that’s a wrap.

What about proposing real change? What about bringing back local food economies? What about the fact that we actually have a choice about the food we put on our plates? And what about the fact that some of those choices (the natural, whole, healthier ones) are actually dropping in price?

I guess they’re saving that story for another day.

The Rest of the Story.

Here is a synopsis.

1. Junk food makers spend billions advertising unhealthy foods to kids.
2. The studies that food producers support tend to minimize health concerns associated with their products.
3. Junk food makers donate large sums of money to professional nutrition associations.
4. More processing means more profits, but typically makes the food less healthy.
5. Less-processed foods are generally more satiating than their highly processed counterparts.
6. Many supposedly healthy replacement foods are hardly healthier than the foods they replace.
7. A health claim on the label doesn’t necessarily make a food healthy.
8. Food industry pressure has made nutritional guidelines confusing.
9. The food industry funds front groups that fight antiobesity public health initiatives.
10. The food industry works aggressively to discredit its critics.

The thing I like most about the article is his noting the conflicts of interest food marketers have about helping curb the rising health crisis they are fueling.

Regarding the so-called “wellness initiatives” several companies like PepsiCo and Coca Cola put forth Voiland explains, “Such moves by the food industry may seem to be a step in the right direction, but ultimately makers of popular junk foods have an obligation to stockholders to encourage kids to eat more—not less—of the foods that fuel their profits…”

Much like the tobacco companies before them, these guys talk a good game, but let’s be honest; it’s all about the bottom line.

The Rest of the Story.