How To Get Fat Without Really Trying

The government is forcing us to eat junk food and get fat

Poor people in America are fat? Do you realize what a strange statement it is for a country to have a major obesity problem among its poorest citizens? In an article this week (April 22) in the New York Times by Michael Pollan, Knight Professor of Journalism at Berkeley, the blame is placed squarely on the Farm Bill for this problem with the author stating the most reliable predictor of obesity is a person's wealth. This professor is amazingly out of touch and elitist to surmise that poor people are fat because of the subsidization of food production by the government.

Mr. Pollan goes to great lengths to infer that Twinkies are the cheapest calories in the grocery store, along with sodas (which he calls "liquid corn"). Therefore, low income Americans are forced to buy these items but are not able to purchase expensive vegetables which are healthier for them and their children. It further slams the American food system as the reason for problems in environment, immigration and as the reason for worldwide poverty. Finally, he states: "the farm bill has so many mind numbing details that legislators from non-farm states ignore the bill as a parochial piece of legislation affecting a handful of their Midwestern colleagues."

Here is the reality of the government subsidized food system: Subsidies of targeted crops cause larger production, which increases the total food and livestock feed supply so that grain products, meat and milk are affordable for everyone in America, and millions around the world to have enough to eat every day. This is the greatest accomplishment in the history of mankind! It means that no one need face hunger and deprivation, no matter what their economic status. The United States has not had a shortage of food since the 1930s. The poor have been well fed since the anti-poverty programs of the Johnson era of the 1960s.

There are case studies of the poor in the Delta region in the 1960s before food aid and in the modern era. In the first examination, almost 50 years ago, doctors and social workers found that due to lack of food the life span was shorter and serious health related conditions manifested themselves earlier than the average population. Revisited in the last five years, health professionals found that these same people are now grossly overweight with a shorter lifespan and serious health related conditions manifesting themselves earlier than the average population. The only thing that didn't change was education. This culture remained ignorant of the benefits of healthy eating habits. It was given food and other benefits in a vacuum. A child who would have shown the effects of malnutrition in the 1950s now weighs 300 pounds at age 10 and has signs of early onset diabetes and other physical problems.

A person's education level is a more accurate predictor of health because it usually determines whether they buy Twinkies or eat a balanced diet. Mr. Pollan says our farm program makes Twinkies cheap and broccoli expensive. Have you priced cakes, cookies and cereals lately? The retail cost is totally disproportionate to the price of the raw product. Vegetables are priced more in line with their farm value. By the way, how much broccoli would you eat if it was free? We are creatures who look for comfort in food and the taste of meat, potatoes, and sugar and grain products is a whole lot better than steamed vegetables. Those who understand the food pyramid know what to eat and what to feed our children. Those who don't, eat and drink what makes them feel good today, tomorrow be damned.

Worldwide hunger is caused by U.S. overproduction is an accusation in his article. More than half of the world's food aid comes from America. If we cut that off, would people be better off in a war ravaged area of Africa? He argues that the food we send bankrupts local farmers. I can buy that argument and I'd prefer that U.S. products be sold to those who can afford them and carefully directed funds be used to buy food within the region that is impoverished. The problem in most places that get food aid, though, is lack of infrastructure. A shipload of grain dumped at a rat-infested port does not mean that a single needy person gets fed. In many places the grain is sold by the military government to friendlies and denied to enemies. Our generosity, in food or money, is often a net sum zero. That doesn't mean Christian people should not help others, it means that we often can't help them because they won't let us.

Finally, Mr. Pollan heads toward a social agenda in saying that "Enlightened eaters recognize our dependence on farmers, therefore they should support a farm bill that guarantees the people who raise our food not subsidies but fair prices." We have found out the hard way those artificial prices to protect farmers are needed because treasury-draining surpluses of food that have to be dumped at an artificially low price which causes the problem that he is attempting to correct. The marketplace should be given a chance to work with the government maintaining oversight and awareness of the need for an adequate base of farm production. By his argument, we should have been better off in the 1930s than in the 1990s.

Regardless of the criticism of up to $25 billion per year in price supports, farm legislation is evolving toward rewarding good stewardship of the land and water and ending market distorting subsidization. This isn't going to make the American poor thin or the foreign poor fat. By 2012 we may see shortages of some crops and livestock due to industrial demands for our agricultural output. Food prices could double in the next few years due to biofuel demand. We will still have a safety net for those below the poverty line and we won't demand that they be able to understand how many servings of each level of the pyramid are necessary for a balanced diet. Twinkies will still be made by the billions and fried chicken will be a lot more popular than Brussels sprouts.

Perhaps a better pastime for a Berkeley professor would be to figure out how to fuel our economy without a military presence to keep oil flowing from countries who hate our way of life. Perhaps a dissertation on his ideal number of earthly human inhabitants who could live without damaging the environment or depleting our resources and how we should dispose of the billons of people we now have in surplus would be a better use of his time.

Editor's note: Ken Root is now celebrating his 34th year as an agricultural professional. His career has spanned from being a vocational agriculture teacher to environmental consulting to farm broadcasting.

while i do agree...it is nice to have the money, and grow up in a family that puts an emphasis on that. many families rich or poor don't take the time to make, or purchase fresh foods. there are several reasons for this other than just simply choice. furthermore, fastfoods companies put stuff in their products that make us crave their goods later on (not quite addiction but still another thing to think about). I guess what i'm saying is that it is not as simple as people just wanting to blame others for being fat.

ryan198 wrote:

while i do agree...it is nice to have the money, and grow up in a family that puts an emphasis on that. many families rich or poor don't take the time to make, or purchase fresh foods. there are several reasons for this other than just simply choice. furthermore, fastfoods companies put stuff in their products that make us crave their goods later on (not quite addiction but still another thing to think about). I guess what i'm saying is that it is not as simple as people just wanting to blame others for being fat.

It is primarily that simple. People have the power to decide what goes in their mouths. Lazy people buy prepackaged food. Some of us actually buy fresh ingredients and make healthy, nutritious food. In most cases, it is actually more cost effective to make your own healthy meal than it is to buy transfat-laden pre-packaged junk.

Fast food companies have no real power over anyone who doesn't relinquish it. Quit blaming fast food companies for creating fat people. Fat people create fat people.

jeffbr wrote:

It is primarily that simple. People have the power to decide what goes in their mouths. Lazy people buy prepackaged food. Some of us actually buy fresh ingredients and make healthy, nutritious food. In most cases, it is actually more cost effective to make your own healthy meal than it is to buy transfat-laden pre-packaged junk.

Fast food companies have no real power over anyone who doesn't relinquish it. Quit blaming fast food companies for creating fat people. Fat people create fat people.

Never spent a lot of time on steroids with illness have you jeff?

Jeanie wrote:

Never spent a lot of time on steroids with illness have you jeff?

I haven't. Of course there are exceptions to every stereotype. I understand there are people with physical issues. But I'm guessing that most obese people in this country are not on Prednisone. I apologise if I offended anyone who is. Our own Mike McCready got a little round for awhile during a period where he was on Prednisone to treat his Chron's. But I stand by my premise that the majority of obese people in this country are obese because they're lazy about what they put into their mouths.

Jeanie wrote:

I would like to know how people can make such sweeping generalizations about a person who is fat and it's not considered discriminatory?

I love how all the "experts" around here like to come along and tell us all how f**king simple it is and how their ideas apply to everyone.

If scientists don't have all the answers what the hell makes anybody else think they know it all?

This board is full of "experts". Everyone has an opinion about everything. I don't mean to insult, but I think it is funny when someone blames the fast food industry for creating obesity. Unless they're engaging in kidnapping and forced-feeding, I think the blame is misplaced. That is what prompted my post.

I could stand to lose 15-20 pounds. I will admit a weakness for butter, cheese, and cream in my cooking. That and the empty calories I ingest through beer, wine and bourbon. It is something I recognize and could correct, but choose not to. Life is full of choices. Life is full of discriminating between that which you want to do and that which you should do. Sometimes I chose the former, sometimes the latter.

jeffbr wrote:

This board is full of "experts". Everyone has an opinion about everything. I don't mean to insult, but I think it is funny when someone blames the fast food industry for creating obesity. Unless they're engaging in kidnapping and forced-feeding, I think the blame is misplaced. That is what prompted my post.

I could stand to lose 15-20 pounds. I will admit a weakness for butter, cheese, and cream in my cooking. That and the empty calories I ingest through beer, wine and bourbon. It is something I recognize and could correct, but choose not to. Life is full of choices. Life is full of discriminating between that which you want to do and that which you should do. Sometimes I chose the former, sometimes the latter.

Well it's interesting that our "fast food" lifestyle seems to have a direct correllation to the massive influx in morbid obesity stats wouldn't you say?

I mean lets face it butter, cheese, cream, beer and wine have been around for centuries and whilst people have always enjoyed them, there hasn't been an obesity epidemic such as the one we're experiencing now right?

I understand what you're saying. People do have choices, but it's not like half the stuff you buy at the supermarket or get at fast food restaurants is even correctly labelled these days. And because we are able to get food quickly when we are hungry, the basic premise of fast food, it's pretty easy for people to eat when they are hungry and not that easy to make good choices when you're tired, or in a hurry. I think it's a symptom of the society that we find ourselves in. Yes people need to take responsibility but so to do food manufacturers. I mean do we really need that much fat in a BIG MAC? What nutritional value does it serve? McDonald's isn't going to stop making them the way they do because they know that people won't buy them otherwise. It's cheap food made with lots of additives and flavor enhancers and it's available fast when people are vunerable, when they're hungry. And the marketing people have been plugging it as delicious for years. I mean have you looked at the difference between what you see in the picture on a menu and what is actually in your bag when you open it? If we were buying anything else that was that different between the advertising picture and the actual item, I reckon there'd be a case for arguing false advertising. People are on automatic pilot. They're so inundated with images of how things should be, what they should eat, how they should dress, how they're supposed to live, who they're suppsed to love that they don't know who they are anymore.
I'm sorry, I'll get off my soapbox, but I just have to say that it's not as simple as saying fat people are lazy or that they can choose what they eat. Half the time I'm sure none of us really know what's in the food we consume. Healthy or otherwise.

ryan198 wrote:

while i do agree...it is nice to have the money, and grow up in a family that puts an emphasis on that. many families rich or poor don't take the time to make, or purchase fresh foods. there are several reasons for this other than just simply choice. furthermore, fastfoods companies put stuff in their products that make us crave their goods later on (not quite addiction but still another thing to think about). I guess what i'm saying is that it is not as simple as people just wanting to blame others for being fat.

actually, fresh food is cheaper than packaged or fast food. Eating out always costs more than cooking at home.

godpt3 wrote:

"Our genes haven't changed since before the Stone Age - yet obesity has escalated in the last 30 years."

Yeah, that's not true. Gene mutation is not the sole responsible of how your genes influence your metabolism.

Subsidies of targeted crops cause larger production, which increases the total food and livestock feed supply so that grain products, meat and milk are affordable for everyone in America, and millions around the world to have enough to eat every day. This is the greatest accomplishment in the history of mankind! It means that no one need face hunger and deprivation, no matter what their economic status.

I wouldn't call that the greatest accomplishment. We're destroying the environment and several species, and proportion wise we have more people starving throughout the world today than 2000 years ago.

A person's education level is a more accurate predictor of health because it usually determines whether they buy Twinkies or eat a balanced diet. Mr. Pollan says our farm program makes Twinkies cheap and broccoli expensive. Have you priced cakes, cookies and cereals lately? The retail cost is totally disproportionate to the price of the raw product. Vegetables are priced more in line with their farm value. By the way, how much broccoli would you eat if it was free? We are creatures who look for comfort in food and the taste of meat, potatoes, and sugar and grain products is a whole lot better than steamed vegetables. Those who understand the food pyramid know what to eat and what to feed our children. Those who don't, eat and drink what makes them feel good today, tomorrow be damned.

Could he be any more arrogant?
First of all twinkies and cookies aren't the only thing that can make you fat. Very unexpensive pre-cooked/prepared meals containing high level of fat can do that as well. The twinkies are thing you eat between these high fat meals, ensuring you do become fat. Whatever his pedantic arguments, a precooked meal is less expensive in money and/or in time than a healthy meal made from fresh stuff. That's a fact you can experience right now. And that is definitely part of the problem.
Concerning his "how much broccoli would you eat if it was free?", that is so stupid he might just have broken a record. I'll leave you to ponder on his question.

Worldwide hunger is caused by U.S. overproduction is an accusation in his article. More than half of the world's food aid comes from America. If we cut that off, would people be better off in a war ravaged area of Africa? He argues that the food we send bankrupts local farmers. I can buy that argument and I'd prefer that U.S. products be sold to those who can afford them and carefully directed funds be used to buy food within the region that is impoverished. The problem in most places that get food aid, though, is lack of infrastructure. A shipload of grain dumped at a rat-infested port does not mean that a single needy person gets fed. In many places the grain is sold by the military government to friendlies and denied to enemies. Our generosity, in food or money, is often a net sum zero. That doesn't mean Christian people should not help others, it means that we often can't help them because they won't let us.

Ok, down there it says : "Ken Root is now celebrating his 34th year as an agricultural professional". I'm not sure what kind of a professionnal he is but I'd advise him to read before writing. US overproduction is in fact a problem : all it's production is not only given, in a christian way, to those poor africans. It is also sold under market price in those countries because american farmers can afford it. Local farmers go out of business and have to rely on the christian charity he is boasting about. As for that charity, this food is generally hijacked and sold in local markets, once again ensuring some people going out of business. I'd suggest he (and you obviously for quoting him) read some stuff on the food and agriculture organisation website.

The marketplace should be given a chance to work with the government maintaining oversight and awareness of the need for an adequate base of farm production. By his argument, we should have been better off in the 1930s than in the 1990s.

Another exposure of pure stupidity. What did radically change between the 1930's and 1990's concerning agriculture thus killing his own argument? Hmm, I wonder. And he is a professionnal?

Perhaps a dissertation on his ideal number of earthly human inhabitants who could live without damaging the environment or depleting our resources and how we should dispose of the billons of people we now have in surplus would be a better use of his time.

Ok, so the best part of the article. He continously led us to banging our heads on the wall with his arrogant and ignorant arguments to lead us to this masterpiece. I have no idea who this man is but such an arrogance is depressing.
And I don't know who that man Pollan he is quoting is, but you should have quoted his article instead, it seemed better.

Juberoo wrote:

actually, fresh food is cheaper than packaged or fast food. Eating out always costs more than cooking at home.

perhaps in purchase price you are correct, but you also have to take in the economic and time impact of going somewhere to get the food, then come home and make the food. for a country that has 30% of its people living in poverty, of which 75% of those people have at least one family member working full time, going to the grocery store can take more time and effort than it would to pop across the street for a mcdonalds. I have lived in downtown Baltimore for the last 3 years and I can say that before we got a brand new grocery store put in this past January, there were zero grocery stores within 1/2 mile away (and that one had very gross produce), the next closest was around 2-4 miles away whereas there were at least 7 McDonalds, 4 starbucks, 3 KFC, numerous sandwhich shops, Dunkin Donuts and so on between here and there.

So...if you are working hours, perhaps 10-16 per day, just to barely put food on the table and pay rent you haven't seen your family all day (meaning you have 'latchkey kids' another stigmatizm in this society which driven primarily by economics) you are telling me that you would travel using public transportation b/c you those groceries are heavy, come home and cook, then get what 3 hours of sleep so you can do it all over again? The hard part for many of us on this board is to imagine living in those kind of conditions, and understanding why fast food might seem to be a better choice for many families - that way they can adhere to "family values" right?

I've been losing weight all year, and making good eating choices, but its mostly because I am writing my dissertation and am writing at home for a large portion of my time. So when I decide to break for food, I have the luxury of working out and having my lunch. Most people don't have that luxury, and, when I didn't, I barely worked out.