Prosperity, thy name is "nemesis"-Great food inflicted health crisis staring us!

Umpteen number of treatise emphasize the uncomfortable truth that an average a denizen, living in any part of the globe with high income, consumes a diet that is drastically different from that consumed 50 years ago. The catch here is that the quality of the diet has taken a beating with more and refined foods, low quality carbohydrates, less and less of fibers, fruits and vegetables, more of fats of lower quality, predominating the food that is consumed day in day out. The result is there for every one to see. Diseases like obesity, CVD, blood pressure, diabetes, kidney ailments, liver problems, cancer etc have become common and billions of dollars are being spent to treat them, the only beneficiary being the drug industry. Here is a telling commentary on this vicious situation in a super rich country like the US which is revealing.

"Today, novelty dominates American food. Those yellow arches are now golden arches and we are now a nation addicted to sugar, fat and drive-through windows. Food is mere fuel, and we eat more of it in our family car than at our family table. For proof, look how we — you and me — have changed our food patterns in the last 40 or so years.
• In 1960, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data, we spent 26 cents of our food dollar on restaurant meals; in 2013 it was 50 percent.
• In 1950, the standard soft-drink bottle contained 6.5 ounces; in 1960 it grew to 12 ounces and, in the 1990s, 20 ounces became the norm.
• In 1970, according to numbers in a 2011 article published by Grist, the U.S. "churned out 2,168 calories per day per person, 402 of which came from added sugar and 410 from added fat ... or, combined, about 37 percent of the total."
• In 2008, the U.S. produced 2,673 calories per day person (" ... powerful evidence that [America's] cheap food policy ... succeeded ... ") of which "added fats and sugars [grew] to 459 and 641 calories, respectively, a 35 percent jump over the 1970 level ... "
• In 2013, according to Harvard University, Americans spent "an estimated $190 billion treating obesity-related health conditions."
• Also, in 2013, U.S. organic sales (which USDA does not track) totaled an estimated $35.1 billion, an 11.5 percent increase from 2012 but still only 18.4 percent of the amount spent we spent to treat obesity-related health problems that year. 

What's it all mean, fellow foodies? According to that brief survey, most of us ate less sugar and less fat when we ate more fresh, local food at home 40 or 50 years ago than what we buy and eat (mostly) in town today. Also, most of us were skinnier and healthier (as were our parents in comparison to us today) and all of us had more neighbors and more "community" — local banks, medical care, grocery and clothing stores and the like — than almost any of us have anywhere in rural America today. In short, we had it very, very good — despite Grandma pushing the pickle beets and lima beans every chance she got. Little wonder, then, that a new food culture, a foodie culture, is taking root across the U.S. now."

Though the above study, analyzing the hard data is considered reliable, there is no cogent answer as to what can be done to redeem the world from the curse of bad food and distorted food culture which are slowly but surely making the quality of life progressively deteriorating. While many blame the industry for this sorry situation, some blame will have be apportioned to the government regulatory agencies who have allowed this situation to develop by shirking their bounden responsibility to protect the lives of the citizens. Where does the consumer come in this complex scenario? Of course it is the weak will power and weakness for tasty foods abandoning the health concerns (similar to tobacco and alcohol) on the part of the consumer that is driving this insane rush towards health catastrophe staring at them! Unless consumers, regulatory agencies, health experts and the food business get together to deal with the crisis, this sordid "death dance" will continue unabated!

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

School meals more nutritious than mom's own food? May be!

There was a time when mom's food was considered the ultimate in taste and flavor though grandma recipes still rule the roost, often recalled with nostalgia! Why is that mom's food is often ranked high in the pecking order of foods ranked in terms of acceptance? Is it sheer habit of people cultivated over long time of association with mother or some other factors are contributing to this perception? Sociologists and psychologists some how feel that mom's food served by mom herself offers some thing else besides taste and flavor and that is "love" which has no measuring scale to gauge. It is another matter that in many house holds to day cooks employed by the families do the routine of making and serving foods to the members as every one in a family is busy with their own daily chores. A recent observation by a social auditing group in to day's America reports that school lunches turned out to be more nutritious than home cooked foods brought by those children not eating the school prepared lunches. How significant is this cannot be gauged because lunch is only a part of the daily diet and what these children eat for breakfast and dinner is any body's guess. Here is a take on this interesting survey which may make little sense in countries like India.

"The study found that lunches packed in home paled in comparison to school meals. According to the study, the home-packed lunches were offering lower nutritional quality during the study. Home-packed lunches often include fat and more calories than school lunches. Adding to that, parents make meals unhealthy by packing sugary drinks and desserts. In the study, home-packed lunches were also found higher in iron and vitamin C, but it was lacking in vitamin A, fiber, protein and calcium. Public elementary and secondary schools in the US have more than 50 million children. About 60% of the children rely on school lunches while the rest of the children bring their food from home. According to the study, school lunches had about 512 calories while on the other side, home-packed lunches had approximately 608 calories. When it comes about protein, school lunches had 26 grams and home-packed lunches offered just 18 grams. School lunches included vegetables, fruits, sugar-free juice and milk, homemade food had more snacks. Home-packed food had about 880 mg of sodium while schools lunches offered 1,000 mg of sodium to the children. Connie Diekman, University nutrition director at St. Louis' Washington University, said she is not surprised with the study's result. "This study provides outcomes that are similar to other studies that show the positive benefits of school lunch", said Diekman."

School lunch becomes acceptable only when there is a variety in the offerings and nutrition is secondary to the recipients as most of them, with tradition bound eating habits, are looking for foods which meet with their sensory perception like taste, texture and flavor. Indian school lunch programs invariably are based on the ready receptivity of children to hot foods served fresh though there is no evidence to support such a theory. Such "on the site" cooking practices have inherent dangers as brought out by several food poisoning episodes reported during the last few years. One of the least appreciated facts in this confusing scenario is that one lunch in the school does not create much of an impact on the health of the child in a family if the same child goes hungry at home due to abject poverty. The consolation is that at least he gets one meal a day in which some nutrients like proteins, vitamins and minerals can be loaded. In a scenario where calorie intake itself is in jeopardy, talking about balanced nutrition may not have any bearing. With the food security act of government of India the situation may improve provided the logistics of distribution of food grains at heavily subsidized prices are worked out with least vulnerability to pilferage.  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com