Are Food Guides Published in the Best Interest of Consumers?

This week's reading, The Politics of Government Dietary Advice, by Jennifer Lisa Falbe and Marion Nestle, discusses the influence the food industry has on the dietary guidelines that are published by various governments. The article focuses on the changes that have taken place in the food guidelines created by governments over time. The trends illustrate that these guidelines have become much more convoluted in an attempt to please the food groups that protest anything that portrays their food as unhealthy. This was seen in Technical Report 916, in which it was suggested that sugar consumption should be less than 10% of your daily caloric intake. Lobbying groups representing the interests of the businesses in the sugar industry fought against this guideline, saying that it was not accurate. They cited the DRI's that established the safe upper limit of daily sugar intake at 25% of calories, while also demonstrating the economic impact this would have on sugar producers. The result: the advice about sugars only says, "limit the intake of free sugars. The controversial 10% goal is not mentioned" (132). Furthermore, dietary recommendations have become more complex in order to satisfy lobbying groups; sugar consumption recommendations have gone from "avoid too much sugar" in 1980, to "choose and prepare foods and beverages with little added sugars or caloric sweeteners, such as amounts suggested by the USDA Food Guide and the DASH Eating Plan" in 2007. This is not only an issue in the U.S., as the same political influences have changed the Canadian dietary guidelines as well. In 1992, Health Canada switched from a "foundation diet" approach to a "total diet" approach, encouraging its citizens to consume more calories. This change was undoubtedly influenced by political forces and ultimately led to increased obesity in Canada. Government issued guidelines may not be offering citizens the optimal advice.

The ideas presented in this article are believable, yet it is shocking to think how much lobbyists can truly impact governmental decisions. Dietary advice is an important matter; it affects the health of a country's citizens, which is critical to the performance of a country as a whole. Yet, even with the health of the people at stake, governments allow political influences to control the decision making process. Is it beneficial to the people to make the guidelines more complex? To remove quantitative suggestions and replace them with generalizations? It is certainly not helpful to the citizens of the nation.

Is it worth sacrificing the health of your country's citizens to please the lobbyists of certain food corporations?
Can laws be made to prevent the political influence on government issued dietary guidelines?

The Impact of Eating American

In this week's reading by Sidney Mintz, titled Eating American, the questions surrounding an "American cuisine" are discussed as well as the impact of American eating habitats in the near future. Mintz decides that there is no true American cuisine, as there is an Italian cuisine or Asian cuisine. This stems from differences in our country's origins; a conglomerate of various immigrants representing differing ethnicities. Mintz describes a social pressure in America to assimilate: "That there are powerful pressures toward sameness, working particularly upon children, may be thought to increase the homogeneity of American food habits...by learning such behavior, people are becoming sociologically more alike, but it is not really clear that they are becoming more culturally alike" (26-27). He claims that Americans, as a whole, eat out a lot, and some foods, such as the hotdog and hamburger can be classified as American, but this does not constitute a cuisine. After he states that Americans lack a national cuisine, Mintz goes on to discuss American eating habits in general and the impact these habits will have in the future. Eating fast food, prepared and packaged food, diets high in salts, fats, and processed sugars, and low in fruits and vegetables, drinking more soda than tap water, and several others. These poor habits, if unchanged, will have a devastating impact on the American way of life in the next 50 years. Shortages and health issues will become a staple of American livelihood.

After reading Mintz's article, I had a very pessimistic feeling about the future of America as a result of our current eating habits. Throughout my education, I have been constantly warned about the ill effects of eating poorly and some popular eating habits among Americans. It is disturbing that the numbers have not been changing drastically over the past few decades; decades in which the message of poor eating habits has been disseminated to all Americans. It seems inevitable that the way in which most Americans act, not just in terms of food, but in general, will lead to events in the near future that will come as a shock to most people, but this will not surprise me.

Do you agree with Mintz that Americans do not have a national cuisine?
How can we take steps to avoid the grim scenario that seems to await Americans in the next 50 years?