This explains quite a bit
a good guess as to why Americans are so fat... And now for one of the more conservative things I'm likely to say on this blog: Enough with the damn farm subsidies. They don't work and it appears they are also going the wrong places. Brilliant! (Unless, of course, being for farm subsidies is a big conservative talking point? But it does at least seem to go against the general gist of conservatism.)
"Bread and Circuses" has evolved into "Pork Rinds and Wrestling."
Mmmm. Pork Rinds.
Posted by: Angrier and Angrier | Dec 3, 2007 1:39:00 PM
What would you expect from a group of vegans?
The "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine" is anything but.
Posted by: JD | Dec 3, 2007 2:31:15 PM
Last time I looked, the U.S. led most industrial countries when it comes to obesity, heart disease, cancer and diabetes associated with diet. You may not agree with opinion of this PCRM group, but there are a lot of facts out their that back up what they are saying.
Posted by: Angrier and Angrier | Dec 3, 2007 2:37:07 PM
Okay, this one is easy. There is no need to draw any conclusions it is simply math. Look at the percentage of dollars put into a food type by the government. Look at the percentage of diet that is supposed to come from that food type according to that same government. We should expect to see some correlation there. There is no correlation at all, in fact there is very nearly an inverse correlation. This can't be right.
Posted by: dcl | Dec 3, 2007 2:53:43 PM
I love that it refers to "cheese, milk, pork, and beef" and then refers to "nutritious foods." I actually think this group has a very good point - if we're going to have farm subsidies, they should be balanced better. But implying that cheese, milk, pork and beef are inherently not nutritious just hurts their case. I've never met a doctor, nurse or nutritionist who said that cheese, milk, pork, and beef were per se not nutritious. In fact, low-fat milk is an incredibly nutritious food. But as always, moderation is the key.
Posted by: Anonynonynony | Dec 3, 2007 4:25:50 PM
Anon, this is not really an argument that I want to get into, but I will say that, as someone who is allergic to milk, it is certainly not nutritionally necessary in the human diet - it being designed for baby cows. By virtue of it's design it is also not digestible by all but humans of european dissent (note this being different from an allergy - I can digest the stuff just fine). There are also generally better and more efficient ways to get the nutrients provided by milk (of course many of these require the ingestion of fruits and vegetables). There are also questions of hormones and antibiotics in the stuff but that is not a question of milk per se. Suffice to say, the best thing for babies is mother's milk - breast feeding has been shown to be one of the best indicators of long term health: physical, mental, and emotional. Formula and cow's milk tend to pale in comparison and some studies have shown them to be harmful. And in terms of adult humans, cow's milk is nutritionally irrelevant assuming one is eating a solid balanced diet.
As to the meat per se argument. It is true, beef et al are good for you at the general level. At the specific level, and in terms of that which is subsidized? Not so much. It's actually quite bad for you. Especially the way cows are fed for mass consumption, it is down right dangerous. However, I will say that cows that are raised like, well cows, with grazing lands etc. it is certainly quite healthy containing more omega 3 fatty acids that salmon that is farm raised (not surprising given that farm salmon has the same diet as mass produced beef.) The net result is that which is subsidized tends to be some of the worst things for people to consume, and that which is not tends to be some of the healthiest.
But none of this has anything to do with how farm subsidies are distributed. Which is the question at hand.
Posted by: dcl | Dec 3, 2007 4:46:19 PM
Anonyetc - thank you for picking up on that teensy-weensy can't-possibly-be-considered bias ... (grin) ...
dcl - milk is a remarkably effective source of nutrition for many different people and even species ... and, in the forms of yoghurt and cheese and the other dairy-related, it is a part of our diet that can and often does contribute to that diet being balanced ... it can be a bummer when a food doesn't work for you, but it generally isn't the fault of the FOOD Mwhen that happens, now, is it ?
A&A - with your classic incisive commentary, you missed the relevance, yet again ... the industrialised west has a lot of the mortality statistics because its population is living long enough for those systems to be breaking down ... your average third-world infant who dies of malnutrition doesn't make the statistics for geriatric diabetes ... and those who blame it on the association with our diet somehow conveniently neglect to remind folk that it is that same diet that ensures we live long enough to become obese and/or diabetic and/or cardiac cases ...
Posted by: Alasdair | Dec 3, 2007 7:49:45 PM
Dude, I totally voted for Jeff Flake when I was in AZ. He has like 6 kids.
And dude, think about the mystery meats that you got in your school lunches when you talk about meat as a healthy option. We're not talking about 93% lean ground beef. We're talking about that crap that's like 50/50. I like my vegetables. More broccili!
Posted by: Becky | Dec 3, 2007 9:28:01 PM
Isn't there an antibiotic to cure "brocilli" just as there are antibiotics to kill bacilli ?
(Technically, isn't the part of broccoli that we eat called the 'inflorescence', rather than broccoli actually being a vegetable ? Just like tomato is a fruit we eat as though it were a vegetable ?)
Posted by: Alasdair | Dec 3, 2007 9:42:22 PM