Michelle, Vegetables and Scales
Published in La Presse
(Canada) on 22 January 2011
by Marie-Claude Lortie (link to original)
(Canada) on 22 January 2011
by Marie-Claude Lortie (link to original)
Translated from
by Mandi Kimberly.
Edited by Heidi Kaufmann.
Michelle Obama is getting things moving in the United States.
Bravo.
Like the vast majority of players in the world of food and nutrition, the U.S. president’s wife merges the issues of obesity, public health and the need to diversify the American diet, three rather distinct themes that need to be treated differently.
But what she accomplishes is nonetheless remarkable. If her efforts do not help Americans lose weight and keep diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular disease rates from rising, at least they will help Americans discover fruits and vegetables.
And that's already a lot.
On Thursday we learned that Mrs. Obama had played an important role in the American giant Wal-Mart’s new five-year plan. [Wal-Mart] has decided to reduce the price of fruits and vegetables sold in its 3,500 supermarkets in the U.S., as well as reduce the amount of salt and sugar used in processed foods and eliminate trans fats.
"No family should have to choose between food that is healthier for them and food they can afford," Bill Simon, the president and CEO of Wal-Mart’s U.S. business, said Thursday.
And he is absolutely right.
Nobody should have to buy a Mr. Clean-colored drink because they can’t afford a real orange. Nobody should have to eat a hamburger potentially poisoned with E. coli and filled with additives because they can’t afford regular, quality meat, which had once seen the sky, and maybe even flowers and clouds.
Let’s just hope that Americans actually begin replacing their chemically preserved, processed foods with fresh, natural produce, thanks to these efforts.
It’s a long way to go, but let's be optimistic.
But let's also be realistic.
Price is only one factor among many that influence consumer food choices.
Culture, tastes, habits ...
Let’s also consider time, for example. Recently, an American activist against poverty reminded me that you can preach all you want to a father who has two jobs and tell him to eat more vegetables, but if he has no time to buy and cook them, nothing will change. We bet that between less expensive broccoli and a cheap ready-to-eat, equally filling frozen meal for not much more, his choice will be the same.
Thanks to Michelle Obama, the prepared dish in question may contain less sugar and less salt.
Very good.
Fewer additives? We don’t know about that. Sugar and salt play, in particular, the role of preservatives. What will we replace them with? Will we do like we have with trans fats, which have often been replaced by other saturated fats?
And then, do you really think the father will begin to lose weight?
Do you think that cheaper fruits and vegetables will make you lose weight?
Ask yourself that question.
Looking for deep and long-term commercial solutions to restore decent prices for fresh U.S. produce is a significant and commendable quest. Essential, even.
Knowing the limited food repertoire of some American families, we understand the importance of these efforts to diversify the contents of refrigerators and pantries.
But can we really make a link between cheaper vegetables and the fight against obesity?
In fact, we think we can make a whole population lose weight by applying the universal dieting philosophy. "We'll eat more vegetables, fewer chips."
But personally, when you eat french fries instead of vegetables, is it because the fries are less expensive or because you want them more than broccoli? And if you are lectured on the calorie content of french fries, does it really reduce your urge to eat them?
As brilliantly explained by American scientific journalist Gary Taubes, author of “Good Calories, Bad Calories,” a book that challenges conventional wisdom about weight and calories, public health programs about obesity are based on shaky foundations.
Basically, he says, the only solid fact they’re based on is that people consume too many calories for their needs and that is why they get fat. But that’s an obvious fact.
The real question remains unresolved, if not often unaddressed: Why do people ingest too many calories for their needs?
The price of some low-calorie products, like fruits and vegetables, is a variable. But what is its role?
America invests billions annually in all kinds of diets — powders, liquids, books, consultations with so-called experts. Americans are lavishly supporting this industry, indeed. That’s a long time they could have been investing that money in fruits and vegetables.
The imbalance between calories ingested and calories expended by Americans — this inequality that makes them expand from year to year — is a complex puzzle to which they don’t have an answer.
But eating more fruits and vegetables while seeking that answer is an excellent idea.
Bravo.
Like the vast majority of players in the world of food and nutrition, the U.S. president’s wife merges the issues of obesity, public health and the need to diversify the American diet, three rather distinct themes that need to be treated differently.
But what she accomplishes is nonetheless remarkable. If her efforts do not help Americans lose weight and keep diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular disease rates from rising, at least they will help Americans discover fruits and vegetables.
And that's already a lot.
On Thursday we learned that Mrs. Obama had played an important role in the American giant Wal-Mart’s new five-year plan. [Wal-Mart] has decided to reduce the price of fruits and vegetables sold in its 3,500 supermarkets in the U.S., as well as reduce the amount of salt and sugar used in processed foods and eliminate trans fats.
"No family should have to choose between food that is healthier for them and food they can afford," Bill Simon, the president and CEO of Wal-Mart’s U.S. business, said Thursday.
And he is absolutely right.
Nobody should have to buy a Mr. Clean-colored drink because they can’t afford a real orange. Nobody should have to eat a hamburger potentially poisoned with E. coli and filled with additives because they can’t afford regular, quality meat, which had once seen the sky, and maybe even flowers and clouds.
Let’s just hope that Americans actually begin replacing their chemically preserved, processed foods with fresh, natural produce, thanks to these efforts.
It’s a long way to go, but let's be optimistic.
But let's also be realistic.
Price is only one factor among many that influence consumer food choices.
Culture, tastes, habits ...
Let’s also consider time, for example. Recently, an American activist against poverty reminded me that you can preach all you want to a father who has two jobs and tell him to eat more vegetables, but if he has no time to buy and cook them, nothing will change. We bet that between less expensive broccoli and a cheap ready-to-eat, equally filling frozen meal for not much more, his choice will be the same.
Thanks to Michelle Obama, the prepared dish in question may contain less sugar and less salt.
Very good.
Fewer additives? We don’t know about that. Sugar and salt play, in particular, the role of preservatives. What will we replace them with? Will we do like we have with trans fats, which have often been replaced by other saturated fats?
And then, do you really think the father will begin to lose weight?
Do you think that cheaper fruits and vegetables will make you lose weight?
Ask yourself that question.
Looking for deep and long-term commercial solutions to restore decent prices for fresh U.S. produce is a significant and commendable quest. Essential, even.
Knowing the limited food repertoire of some American families, we understand the importance of these efforts to diversify the contents of refrigerators and pantries.
But can we really make a link between cheaper vegetables and the fight against obesity?
In fact, we think we can make a whole population lose weight by applying the universal dieting philosophy. "We'll eat more vegetables, fewer chips."
But personally, when you eat french fries instead of vegetables, is it because the fries are less expensive or because you want them more than broccoli? And if you are lectured on the calorie content of french fries, does it really reduce your urge to eat them?
As brilliantly explained by American scientific journalist Gary Taubes, author of “Good Calories, Bad Calories,” a book that challenges conventional wisdom about weight and calories, public health programs about obesity are based on shaky foundations.
Basically, he says, the only solid fact they’re based on is that people consume too many calories for their needs and that is why they get fat. But that’s an obvious fact.
The real question remains unresolved, if not often unaddressed: Why do people ingest too many calories for their needs?
The price of some low-calorie products, like fruits and vegetables, is a variable. But what is its role?
America invests billions annually in all kinds of diets — powders, liquids, books, consultations with so-called experts. Americans are lavishly supporting this industry, indeed. That’s a long time they could have been investing that money in fruits and vegetables.
The imbalance between calories ingested and calories expended by Americans — this inequality that makes them expand from year to year — is a complex puzzle to which they don’t have an answer.
But eating more fruits and vegetables while seeking that answer is an excellent idea.
Previous article![]( "U.S., Crisis in Tunisia, and Democracy in Middle East")
Next article![]( "What Next for Lebanon?")