Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Sick Planet: Our Obsession with Dieting Boosts the Economy But Destroys the Earth

By Stan Cox, Pluto Press. Posted May 28, 2008.


Our obsession with dieting, including the low-carb Atkins fad, may be good for our economy but it's a nightmare for the environment and our health.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Nobel Laureate Slams the Bible, Calls It "A Catalogue of Cruelties"
Mario de Queiroz

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
As Foreclosure Nightmares Increase, Will More Homeowners Pay Off Their Bankers in Violence?
Scott Thill

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Stan Cox

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Editor's Note: Below is an excerpt from chapter 4 of the new book, Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine, by one of AlterNet's favorite writers, Stan Cox and reprinted with permission of Pluto Press. The book draws the link between Western big business and environmental destruction, covering everything from energy to health care to the foods we eat. Chapter 4, "Swallowing the Earth whole," begins by looking back at an analysis of the low-carbohydrate Atkins Diet originally done by Cox and Marty Bender in 2003. They concluded that if the then-enormously popular diet regimen were adopted by all overweight people, the impact on global ecosystems and resources would be heavy. The chapter continues:

Now that Atkins has taken its bows and yielded the stage to competitors, we can look back and see that it didn't really matter whether it was a real or fake commodity. It did what commodities do, generating a lot of economic activity and using up a lot of resources. Despite scares over mad cow disease in 2004, the price of a live steer in Texas hit 84 cents per pound, up from 67 cents in 2002; turkey consumption in the state shot up 22 percent.

Delighted feedlot and poultry companies credited low-carb eating for much of the boost. The hog population of Iowa rose by 640,000. Earnings on shares of Smithfield Foods, Inc., at the time the nation's largest producer of hogs, fresh pork, and processed meats, increased more than tenfold. A couple of years later, the CEO of Tyson Foods, Inc., America's biggest meat producer, responded with a kind of nostalgia to a March, 2007 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association showing that the Atkins diet probably had achieved greater weight loss than some other popular diets: ''Atkins was good for demand then and its accolades here recently ... that's good for us and we do appreciate that the Atkins diet gets that kind of recognition."

Atkins was just one phase, if an especially newsworthy one, in the long, meandering evolution of Western dieting. In the years since Marty and I did our analysis, traditional low-carb regimens in the Atkins vein have largely given way to diet plans more focused on the "glycemic index" of carbohydrates and foods. Diet plans, diet foods, devices, drugs, treatments, organizations, and facilities come and go, but one thing never changes: the weight-reduction market never loses economic weight.

In the US alone, sales were $58 billion in 2007, and Marketdata Enterprises, Inc. predicted that they would reach $69 billion by 2010. With the low-carb boom fading, Marketdata saw continued growth in diet plans, diet-food home delivery, diet pharmaceuticals, and bariatric surgery (which drastically reduces the capacity of the stomach).

Marty and I analyzed the ecological impact of the Atkins diet in only one dimension: the nutrient composition of the food consumed. To my knowledge, the total environmental burden has not been estimated for Atkins or any other weight-loss strategy. The foods and other commodities they offer are generally heavily processed, with high packaging-to-product ratios. Anything having to do with medicine can be ecologically pricey, as we saw in Chapters 1 to 3, and health clubs and weight-loss centers have an impact as well.

All weight-loss products and services create a bigger burden than do those old-fashioned, well-proven measures that will be recommended by any nutritionist who isn't trying to sell you something: eating less, eating out rarely, cooking with food in its least-processed form, limiting consumption of animal products, drinking mainly water, avoiding between-meal snacks, and, whenever possible, walking, running or cycling instead of driving. To have all overweight people follow that and other prosaic advice for good health would avert conflict between humans and other animals; it would emphasize our reliance on natural systems; it would be more affordable for everyone regardless of income; and it would probably precipitate an economic crisis.

In a hungry world like this one, to be able to adopt any formal dietary/fitness regimen for purposes of self-improvement is a luxury in itself. In his novel he Comedians, Graham Greene has the narrator, Mr. Brown, make that point to the altruistic Mr. Smith regarding Smith's failed proposal for a "vegetarian center" in Haiti:

Brown: "I don't think they are quite ripe here for vegetarianism."

Smith: "I was thinking the same, but perhaps..."

Brown: "Perhaps you must have enough cash to be carnivorous first."
Nutrition schemes make excellent commodities because they are perennially popular whatever their failure rate. (And failure is the norm; according to a National Institutes of Health panel, "In controlled settings, participants who remain in weight loss programs usually lose approximately 10% of their weight. However, one third to two thirds of the weight is regained within 1 year, and almost all is regained within 5 years.")

If they did their job well, or if people swore off them for good whenever they failed, the market would slow to a trickle. But the success of weight-loss plans isn't entirely the result of failure; their tag-team partner, the food industry, ensures a steady flow of lapsed dieters seeking a second or a fourth chance. Newly overweight customers seem to grow younger every year. It takes the ideas of entrepreneurs, an excess supply of fattening foods, and plenty of sedentary jobs and couch-potato pastimes to keep the weight-loss game going.

And it's finding new frontiers all the time. Advertisements for weight loss plans, diet foods, and fitness centers are now ubiquitous in the cities of India, a country where 25 percent of upper-income women and 30 percent of upper-income adolescents are now clinically obese even while 21 percent of urban women and 48 percent of rural women are undernourished. It's no more than one would expect in India, a country where 20 percent of the population eats 80 percent of the dietary fat. There, capitalism has been embraced with an ardor rarely seen even in the West; the front half of every Indian bookstore I've visited is stuffed with business, management, and motivational books.

The more wealth there is in a given region or social stratum, the bigger the share of commodities it can absorb. With obesity, capitalist economies are well-tuned for supplying commodities that create the problem -- rich and plentiful food, motor vehicles, TVs, computers, video games -- as well as those billed as solutions -- diet books, diet foods, gyms, and drugs -- but only to those who can afford them. Meanwhile, members of India's impoverished majority remain pleasingly lean (if they're managing to obtain a sufficient diet) or emaciated (if they're not.)

America and other Western nations -- and even some poorer ones -- have broken out of the historical pattern that says the rich shall be fat and the poor thin. Here, food, especially low-nutritional-value, fattening food, is plentiful and cheap while commodities advertised as "solving" the problem of excessive weight gain are not. In 2006, Forbes magazine surveyed the costs of ten of the most popular weight-loss plans. Not surprisingly, all of them added significantly to the dieter's weekly food bill, with the median increase pegged at 58 percent. The Jenny Craig plan was the most expensive, boosting food costs by 152 percent. Atkins was number three, with an 85 percent increase. Nutrisystem added 109 percent, Weight Watchers 78 percent. The strategy of eating low-fat sandwiches at Subway restaurants, heavily publicized on TV, was the cheapest, adding 26 percent.

But even Subway is a luxury. In the 2004 documentary Supersize Me, filmmaker Morgan Spurlock ate nothing but McDonald's food for a whole month. The most poignant scene in the film occurred on a side-trip to visit a competitor. At a Subway restaurant, Spurlock featured an eighth-grader named Victoria who had come with her mother to an event featuring company spokesperson Jared Fogle, who is widely celebrated for having lost more than 200 pounds on a Subway-based diet. Fogle told Victoria, who was immersed in her own struggle to lose weight, "The world's not going to change -- you've got to change."

When Fogle had moved on to other customers, Victoria spoke to the camera: "I guess it's kinda cool that I know somebody and can be able to listen to somebody about actually being where I am now, and it's hard because I can't afford to go there like every single day and buy a sandwich, like, two times a day, and that's what he's talking about, like that's the only solution."

All the fish in the sea

More and more, nutritional plans emphasize not food but the individual compounds into which food can be broken, like sugars, starches, proteins, fatty acids, fiber, vitamins, and antioxidants. In the food game, the sum of the parts turns out to be worth far more than the whole, so the decomposition of food has opened up whole new marketing vistas.

Now food itself is losing its definition, as what we eat is increasingly regarded as a simple agglomeration of nutrients to be consumed in proportions prescribed largely by the sellers of the nutrients. Much of this has been prompted by a real problem: the distorted diets that have evolved in an increasingly urbanized world. Whole industries have emerged to plug the holes that industrial agriculture and food processing leave in the human diet.

In examining an especially critical need to plug one such hole, British writer George Monbiot has drawn attention to a problem that shows how difficult it can sometimes be to answer Marty's and my pragmatic -- or Kant's philosophical -- question, "What if everyone did it?" Noting that before the dawn of agriculture, people consumed approximately equal amounts of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids (two of the many kinds of fatty acids that, strung together, make up fats and oils), Monbiot cited figures showing that we now we in the West get only one-seventeenth as much omega-3 as omega-6. He then discussed studies suggesting that childhood neurological problems like dyslexia and ADD are associated with a deficiency of omega-3 fatty acids, especially in the womb.

As is well known and as Monbiot pointed out, the highest concentrations by far of omega-3s, and the highest omega-3/omega-6 ratios, are found in oily fish species. Incorporated into convenient capsules, the omega-3 fatty acids from fish might make a big difference in kids' school performance, not to mention their lives in general. Treating millions of children worldwide would be a relatively simple and effective procedure.

But, as Monbiot put it, "There is only one problem: there are not enough fish." Citing Charles Clover's 2006 book The End of the Line: How Over-fishing Is Changing the World and What We Eat Monbiot went on to list some of the many ways the human economy, using factory-style vessels and methods, has plundered and then frittered away its nutritionally priceless ocean catch, using it as fertilizer, fuel, and feed -- to nourish terrestrial livestock and even other fish. (I would add that a third of all canned fish sold in the US is for cats and dogs.)

A study of ocean ecosystems published in the journal Science made headlines in November, 2006 by predicting the global collapse of all currently exploited fish species by the year 2048. A few other researchers have quarreled with the predicted date of collapse, but few argue that exploitation of the oceans can continue at its current level for the long haul. Any attempt to reverse the growth of fishing will have to fight its way upstream against continuous growth in demand, as persistent low-carb publicity has thrown its weight behind the traditional reputation of fish as generally healthful. In recent years, medical studies have indicated many benefits of fish-eating beyond those cited by Monbiot. They have suggested, for example, that increased intake of omega-3s can alleviate heart disease and arthritis and curb the symptoms of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and Huntington's disease.

Fish are rich in the two omega-3s of greatest interest, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), but they're not the only source. An array of plant-derived foods, flax seed being the most prominent, are sources of omega-3s that the human body can break down, albeit inefficiently, to EPA and DHA. Some vegetable oils have much higher omega-3 / omega-6 ratios than do others, a quality that is considered nutritionally important. And a big shift away from factory farming could improve meat-eaters' health without any change in their daily menu. That's because meat and dairy products from grass-fed livestock and eggs from free-range chickens have much better omega-3/omega-6 ratios than do products from their feedlot- or confinement-raised counterparts.

Using knowledge like that and moving wholesale toward nutritionally and ecologically balanced food systems would go a long way toward resolving the fatty-acid imbalances that are affecting human health. To ask, "What if everybody did that?" does not raise any obvious ecological dilemmas, as long as a sufficient quantity and variety of food is produced. But that approach has spurred only minor interest.

On the other hand, treatment of the fatty-acid problem as an isolated medical condition is a "solution" with the kinds of qualities that spell success in a capitalist economy: an easily identifiable product (in this case, either a plate of fish or an oil capsule), a richly concentrated source of the product's essential ingredient that's easily mined (at least until it runs out); a simple marketing message (that the product is essential to ward off specific diseases, especially children's diseases); and an already well-established, and profitable, marketing context (the perceived need for many different nutritional supplements, each to solve a different problem). Isolating and treating fatty-acid imbalance indeed provides a lot of advantages to marketers but, as Monbiot implies, it would mean disaster if everybody did it.

The chapter goes on to consider the ecological impact four commodities that have been sold explicitly as means of achieving a longer, healthier, happier life: green tea, shark cartilage, Hoodia, and bottled water. To find out more about Sick Planet, visit the website.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: corporations, food, dieting, medicine, atkins, sick planet, diets

Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kansas. Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine is his first book.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Well I'm Happy as a CLAM I just wasted my time....
Posted by: Turiye on May 28, 2008 12:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...reading the novelists excerpt, FOOD POLICE out in force. Not to mention this author has ignored the most atrocious aspect of dieting.
We have girls saying they are fat by age 10, then want to start a diet. We have grown women weighing in at a WHOPPING 89 lbs..They resemble heroin addicts it is horrid.
It is only in America where women look like 12 year old boys and American men like it! Their periods are irregular or non-existant, their body images are distorted and clothes come in sizes that were non-existant 10 years ago.
Alternet, please one day a Tory article, indeed, now a FOOD POLICE article.
Enough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

yawn....
Posted by: Moira61 on May 28, 2008 3:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
wow...that was fascinating...I'm going back to bed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's use Argentina as an example...
Posted by: xvictor on May 28, 2008 5:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a country rich in resources. It has a well-educated population. There is so much potential that country has not utilized. Yet, it's just barely above third world status. A reason, perhaps: it is the greatest consumer of red meat in the world, even more than the United States. Its consumption must have a dumb down effect on their mental faculties. This is also a nation that has the highest number of psychologists per capita.

The BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) are slowing but surely overtaking the United States in many areas: industrial, economy, technology. As a country, we consume more red meat than those countries put together.

Since the 1980s, Japan had boosted its red meat consumption significantly. In the 1980s, Japan suffered real estate losses in their country and in the USA. It's also in fierce competition with South Korea in the business and industrial sectors.

So think about it. Not only is excessive red meat consumption an obvious hazard to the body, it also dulls the mind and slides the country towards economic oblivion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most food-related illnesses are caused by
Posted by: Last Chance on May 28, 2008 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
eating too much commercially processed foods that are calory rich and vitamin poor. But if instead, families choose to eat from their own gardens, their own chickens and their own orchards, and shun the commercial foods that are chemicalized for a long shelf life, those people will have a much better chance to live long and healthy lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Biggest Losers
Posted by: grn1 on May 28, 2008 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So they decided to make a show about it. People starving here and in other countries and we sit by and watch fat people suffer on tv. We need more than the food police we need psychological evaluation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Biggest Losers Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: Biggest Losers Posted by: Turiye
Fishy Story
Posted by: ciccio on May 28, 2008 9:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The authors remark about the historic change of omega3-6 ratio reminds me of reading an 18th century employment contract for an English servant where it was specified that he would not have to eat salmon more than two times a week. The luxury food in those days was herring. Those who have read Dickins' Pickwick Papers may remember the
epic struggle to put a cod in the boot of the coach. I personally think that the extinction of deep seafishing in 2048 is a very optimistic hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lord protect us...
Posted by: leafsong1 on May 28, 2008 9:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
from the fury of the northmen and from fatty acid imbalance...
Yet another article that wants to save the world from starvation without reducing the number of new mouths to feed. Tell the starving children that it's all because of the difference between omega-3 and omega-6; that will fix things.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Super-Size This!
Posted by: JohnJlws on May 28, 2008 10:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We’re a nation eating ourselves to death. When I changed the way I eat I was borderline obese. I quickly lost 40 pounds, down to below my high school weight of 30 years before. My doc had me stop my hypertension meds as I was periodically passing out. I lost this weight by sensibly, and greatly, reducing carbohydrates. I can’t say this was strictly Atkins, but his approach saved my life and greatly improved my health.

Our country is killing itself as we turn ourselves into giant-sized people. And it’s no more “Atkins’” fault than it is “fast food.” It’s a propensity we have to take things to extremes. Why the hell doesn’t anyone take responsibility for anything anymore? We’re fat, and except for a very few with medical problems, it’s because of what we stuff into our mouths.

I think anyone who wants to be the diet police and point to “a diet” that never reached any grand level of support as “the planet’s problem” and tell people to “eliminate red meat” should clean their own house first.

For example, how much energy did it take producing this book? How much travel promoting it? Why didn’t the authors simply put it on the internet where limited natural resources would have been consumed producing it?

And, if we want to “save the planet,” let’s quit flying and driving. That’s all it would take; we need neither to survive. No person must drive to live.

We don’t need “paper or plastic.” Or water for our lawns. Each family must grow some of their own food and yards and gardens I see in my neighborhood should be replanted with corn, okra, asparagus, and spinach. Showers will Auto Shut Off after a certain point and baths are banned as they take more water than the ASO shower. There’s no reason to wash that car we won’t be driving. Absolutely, positively no reason for T.V. If anything it’s more detrimental to the environment than nuclear waste simply because of volume and they only rot people’s brains. Militaries, huge natural resources wasters, are banned. And when did it become necessary to have a cell phone? Everyday I go to work I wear a suit and tie. Thanks to global warming, it’s 109 degrees out and I have on a jacket. And I have yet to see anyone dead in the street because he failed to wear a tie. One year I missed the Super Bowl, completely! And, the next morning I woke up. The point is “I woke up;” I somehow survived without it. I haven’t tried it, but I bet we survive without the Master’s, Indy 500, Wimbledon, Kentucky Derby, or any of this other resource wasting nonsense. All families must be no bigger than four total, including remarriages. And why can’t the newspaper I read be produced only electronically? All regions of the world must only grow indigent plants; others consume too much energy. No perfume, antiperspirant, furniture polish, toilet bowl cleaner, carpet freshener or those goofy ass things we plug in the wall that make our homes smell like French whorehouses. Let’s eliminate all articles of convenience and then start on things we need to survive. I think there are populations, maybe Tibetan monks, who use less oxygen. Perhaps there’s some training they can provide to teach us how to conserve oxygen before the Chinese exterminate them. We don’t need all these restaurants and they have to be super-big wasters of natural resources By taking the measures I outline in the preceding, we will extend our fresh water by several generations. But, we must march to the sea and begin mining her salt as the Mahatma did, the byproduct being salt-free water.

And the reason the planet is in peril and we all look like the Pillsbury Doughboy is some combination of “Atkins,” “Omega-3 and Omega-6” and “eating red meat.” This article shouldn’t be under “Health.” It should be under science fiction. Ridiculous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ummm...
Posted by: TaliaB on May 28, 2008 11:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this book raises some of the same issues as Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food (link to ebooks version)... but in a much more depressing way. Don't know if I want to read this...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Atkins and Omega 3's
Posted by: mrxls on May 28, 2008 12:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What Atkins got right was the need for protein relative to carbohydrates. What he got terribly wrong (which is why he died at 73 and no autopsy information has ever been made public) is that the quality of fats doesn't matter.

There is no quality difference between animal and vegetable protein. You can get just as buff on veggies as meat. Meat is a bit easier because the protein is concentrated and all the essential amino acids are there in one food. Veggies have ecological, political, moral etc etc advantages.

Unfortunately it is not true that there is an equivalence between fish and veg oils. The author gives a nod to the difficulty of converting flax omega 3's into what our bodies need, EPA and its metabolite DHA, but doesn't quantify the difference. Bascially about 4% of the population is capable of this conversion. For the rest of us - forget it. No amount of flax oil is going to provide those vitally essential nutrients. The reason the FDA won't approve flax oil as a nutrient in baby formulas nor will allow a health claim for its benefits isn't pressure from some industry group but that there is overwhelming science against it.

I'm a long time vegetarian who has used flax oil for many years. When I finally got tested for vitamin D, EPA and DHA I was woefully low. The odds were 25-1 against me so that's not surprising.

For the sake of the fish in the ocean I do hope some other source of EPA / DHA can be developed that comes from a terrestrial source. For now, unfortunately, if you want to be in optimal health most likely you need at least some non-veg dietary input.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Agree 100% Posted by: frantaylor
» RE: Atkins and Omega 3's Posted by: JohnJlws
» RE: Atkins and Omega 3's Posted by: mrxls
» RE: Atkins and Omega 3's Posted by: wireup
» RE: Atkins and Omega 3's Posted by: mrxls
Fish of a different color
Posted by: GPFrank on May 28, 2008 8:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think I see a red herring here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sick Planet or Sick People?
Posted by: Erik1968 on May 28, 2008 11:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I’m willing to give Stan Cox the benefit of the doubt that this chapter is incomplete and missing a lot of…well, facts. Specifically, there are lots of assertions made in this article, but not much to back it up other than conventional wisdom, or “common sense,” in the vernacular. Of course the whole reason I read Alternet is that I don’t trust “common sense” answers. I don’t think low taxes are always better, or balanced budgets. I’m not afraid of terrorists; I never believed Saddam had the WMDs, etc, etc. So, pardon my skepticism.

Cox’s chapter begins with a curious attack on the diet industry, as though dieting was simply a commodity that had been crated to fool us. And maybe that’s true; maybe being overweight isn’t so bad for us. But Cox doesn’t suggest that at all. He’s VERY worried that obesity will lead to diabetes, as well as other health problems, and I believe him.

But if we expand “diet” commoditization to “health food,” it paints a different picture, doesn’t it? Suddenly all those boxed and jarred organic/healthy/omega-3 laden commodities are thrown on the pile. And of course, they must be, for as Adorno and Horkheimer taught us nearly sixty years ago, there is no outside of commoditization. Everything becomes a product, even local produce, even anti-Bush bumper stickers, even Cox’s book itself. Capitalism has no end, I’m afraid. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, as the saying goes.

Atkins WAS good for demand of meat. And certainly, many people who did Atkins bought lots of packaged Atkins food items. But was Atkins any worse than a vegan or organic diet, in these terms? I’ve done Atkins, and I must say I bought less processed food on that diet than at any point in my life. Goodbye Veggie Booty, hello pork chops. Goodbye Bearitos, hello, eggs. Goodbye, Kashi, hello, heavy cream.

We’re expected to accept the “common sense” that meat is bad for the planet and grains are good. I have no idea if that is true (from this article anyway). But I do believe that grains are bad for people, especially when refined. Anyone who has read Gary Taubes’ “Good Calories, Bad Calories” has seen the evidence that excess intake of sugar and grains lead not just to obesity, but to diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. These are the “diseases of civilization,” after all. And they follow not meat, but sugar.

Cox repeats the “common sense” mantra that all people have to do is eat less and exercise. This, despite ample evidence to the contrary. We all know people who eat plenty and never get fat. We all know people who exercise like crazy and stay chubby. It’s a lie, and I believe that Cox knows it. But as I said, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he’s never read the literature on the subject.

But then again, he SPECIFICALLY cites evidence that for diets, “failure is the norm.” Why is that? Couldn’t it be weight loss is not simply a matter of put less gas in the tank or use more gas?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sick Planet or People pt 2
Posted by: Erik1968 on May 28, 2008 11:24 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My blood really didn’t start boiling until I got to Cox’s paragraphs about India:

“The more wealth there is in a given region or social stratum, the bigger the share of commodities it can absorb. With obesity, capitalist economies are well-tuned for supplying commodities that create the problem -- rich and plentiful food, motor vehicles, TVs, computers, video games -- as well as those billed as solutions -- diet books, diet foods, gyms, and drugs -- but only to those who can afford them. Meanwhile, members of India's impoverished majority remain pleasingly lean (if they're managing to obtain a sufficient diet) or emaciated (if they're not.)”

This is just a lie. I’m sorry. India’s poor are not “pleasingly lean.” They are fat. I’ll cite a 2005 article from the Observer by Amelia Gentleman that states, “Seventy-six per cent of women in the capital, New Delhi, are suffering from abdominal obesity, according to a survey by the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences.” India’s impoverished majority are fat. They’re getting fat on sugar and white rice, not meat. Cox tells a nice “common sense” story. It rings true. But, it isn’t true.

Cox closes with an examination of Omega-3, the oat bran of the oughts. He opens his analysis by complaining that “food itself is losing its definition.” I agree with him there wholeheartedly. We do need to eat food, not “a simple agglomeration of nutrients.” Recently I had some blood work done, and my good cholesterol was high, but my doctor was troubled by my total cholesterol. “Eat lots of flax seed oil,” she told me. “That will clear it up.” This is nonsense, and Cox is correct to ridicule the notion.

But does he? Frankly, he seems to ACCEPT the notion that we need more omega-3s lock, stock, and barrel. He just doesn’t want us to kill all the fish in the process.

Personally, and Taubes back this up, I believe people should be eating a lot of meat. Animal fat and animal protein. The stuff people ate before there was agriculture. It really looks like those two things are very, very good for human beings, and that sugar and grains are very, very bad for us. And I realize that eating meat might be bad for the planet if “everybody does it.”

Is it enough? Is it worth it to have more and more people die of diabetes and heart disease to save the earth? I don’t know. I really don’t. But Cox does nothing to enlighten us in this excerpt.

I respect Cox for looking for a way out of commoditization. I really do. But Cox seems utterly blind to the way his book is simply pushing a different capitalist agenda. If everyone ate the way he suggests, doesn’t he realize that the same corporations commoditize that, too? Has he ever been inside a Trader Joe’s or a Whole Foods or a GNC? I have no illusions that a bowl of Kashi Organic Promise is any better for the world than a bowl of Cap’n Crunch. They both come in a cardboard box and both were made in a factory and both are filled with sugar. They are identical.
Cox tries to enlighten us, but instead he simply thrusts us further into the dark.

Common sense doesn’t do any good when it’s ultimately old wives’ tales.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Carbs, Meat, And Other Lies
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on May 29, 2008 3:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Atkins diet is idiotic. Humans evolved eating carbohydrates in the form of grains. Ever hear of hunter-gatherers? What do you think they mainly gathered? It would be totally unnatural and unhealthy to eliminate whole grains from one's diet. That said, Americans eat too much carbohydrate food and eat processed carbohydrates, which is one of the problems. Overeating carbohydrates, protein, or fat will make one fat, but junk food is almost all made of processed carbohydrates, and that's what needs to be eliminated.

Lies are also being propounded about the need to eat meat. The ONLY reason humans need meat is for vitamin B-12, and it only takes a eating meat once in awhile to get the necessary amount. Eating domesticated meat is very environmentally harmful, because it is ecologically destructive to force a bunch of animals into one place, especially non-native ones like cattle and hogs, and because cattle ranching in the West is so unnatural that it's changed what used to be grasslands into deserts, among the numerous severe harms it has caused and still is causing. Bottom line is, if you care about the planet, restrict your meat eating to wild meat, such as fish, elk, and venison, don't eat a lot of it, and don't have more than one kid in order to lower human population so there's enough wild meat to go around and for many other legitimate and important reasons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RIGHT.....
Posted by: stellabloo on May 30, 2008 1:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No duh, at $10 a day Jenny Craig is $300 a month in extra bills for a lousy 1800 calories or so of tarted-up hamster feed. Where is the story? Where is the outrage? Let's just blame the overweight moms now for the problem of world hunger :(

Where is the #1 least-advertised diet fact? People encouraged to eat a variety of "good" fats - with no other restrictions - lost more weight and kept it off, than people on either a low-carb or low-fat diet.

BTW I made pizza for dinner yesterday, home-made pizza dough with a liberal (har har) dose of HEMP HEARTS (the tasty vegetarian alternate for omega-3), organic tomato sauce, yellow pepper, onion, garlic and local cheese and sausage. It was freakin awesome IMHO and still cheaper than a family meal at Mc - which we happily don't have in our rural area;.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement