These days you can’t go anywhere without someone or something telling you what you should or shouldn’t eat, or how much or when you should eat, or how your food should be prepared. I’m really sick of it all.
Menus everywhere — from fast food restaurants to upscale joints — are lousy with healthy choice options. We’re told that our foods are cooked with canola oil, that we can substitute Egg Beaters for the real thing and that we can order brown rice instead of white.
Don’t worry about some nefarious governmental agency butting into our lives; be perturbed by “The Food Police.” They are everywhere. The Food Police are a loosely knit group of know-it-alls who have been brought tighter together by some activist groups and their lawyers, and a handful of governmental no-goodniks.
They’ve been working behind the scenes to ramp up the concern over obesity. We’ve been told that obesity is the number one cause of preventable death, and is more dangerous than tobacco. In 2001, then-U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher said that obesity would cause as many preventable deaths as cigarettes and we started hearing that 300,000 people per year die from fat-related causes. There’s never really any indication of how the “experts” arrived at this number.
In March of this year U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona said obesity is “the terror within,” is as much of a threat as “weapons of mass destruction,” and that obesity would “dwarf 9/11.”
Mr. Surgeon General sir, A) take off that ridiculous uniform and, B) shut it.
Here’s a quick aside. It’s been bad enough over the past few years to have people invoke the image of Hitler and the Nazis every time someone wants to demonize a person or a group, thereby cheapening the struggle of those who fought the Nazis while minimizing the horrors that they perpetrated. And while we’re on the subject, why don’t these people raise the specter of Mussolini when demonizing their targets? Hitler modeled much of his plan on what Il Duce did in Italy. Benito deserves to get some play in this area.
Now I guess 9/11 will be cheapened in this same way thanks to those who have some kind of fear-based agenda. It’s disgusting that the U.S. Surgeon General – who wears Merrill Stubing’s old uniform and who is as relevant as the human appendix – would compare terrorist attacks and an act of war against innocent civilians to the fact that we have a bunch of lazy and overweight people in this country.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Lisa McKay
Sal, I don't think I've seen this much common sense (and hilarity) in one place in a long time. Thanks!
2 - Amita
Excellent take on this. I think the middle way is the best way to approach everything, though I personally do not eat meat. Still I have found that the occasional indulgence is ok as long as the regular diet is healthy and balanced.
As for what to feed kids, I don't have any myself to practice on, but I did teach Montessori School at one time and we gave them snacks of crackers and cheese. They liked that and juice boxes too. All of them have survived too and none were even vaguely roly-poly.
3 - Victor Lana
Sal, this piece is way too intelligent for the lawyers and doctors, so we can forget about them understanding what you've written. Also, like the woman who sued McDonald's because SHE spilled hot coffee on herself, we have to focus on the real culprits in this situation.
My grandmother is long gone, but she had a very nice saying: "Everything is good in moderation." I've never forgotten those words, and I feel this post is written in the same spirit.
Thanks for an enjoyable read!
4 - Purple Tigress
According to the Yahoo! dictionary a foodie is: A person who has an ardent or refined interest in food; a gourmet: "in the culinary fast lane, where surprises are expected and foodies beg to be thrilled" (Boston Globe).
I sort of think that instead of foodie it would be more appropriate to use food nazi as a parallel to the term femi-nazi.
Otherwise, I found this intelligent and yet probably to far above the head of my low-carb diet nazi acquaintances.
5 - sal m
ah in my own little world i've always used "foodie" and "food nut" interchangably...i probably need to get out more....
6 - Purple Tigress
I'm not saying that I don't think some foodies are nuts. People who spend too much time discussing the merits of virgin olive oil and extra virgin olive oil or buy a small $100 bottle of balsamic vinegar are not sane people in my little world.
And the $50-$100 cheesecake I saw online that has gold leaf...not sure if that's really necessary for my life experience.
I'm picky, but not THAT picky. It's all relative.
7 - Orchid
I agree with everything you say and it's quite logical. However, this statement seems pretty disingenuous: "I don't live to exercise, I exercise because it's necessary and it is a little bit fun."
The little bio about you says you're a certified personal coach and weightlifting coach (among other things). I think that fitness is your business and to say "I don't live to exericise" makes it sound like exercise is not very important to you. You make a living with exercise and probably have the opportunity to exercise more each day than people involved in less active professions. At least be honest about this.
8 - sal m
orchid:
You're being quite presumptuous...You know nothing about me, have no idea as to what my routine is and your assumptions are 100% incorrect.
I exercise on average 3 days per week...Most of my clients, and a lot of people who exercise regularly in general, exercise more frequently than I do. Just because I have the opportunity to exercise all of the time does not mean I do so, or that I should. I use my ability as a teacher and a coach almost every day, that doesn't mean that I exercise every day.
To claim that I am being less than honest is foolish.
9 - RedTard
Great post and a valiant effort. Long term I'm quite pessimistic about being able to fend off the food nazis but every bit of common sense now sure helps.
A couple decades ago this article could have been written about smoking with probably the same response. Those people hellbent on demonizing something are very good at what they do. Shielding the fast food industry from this frivolous crap was one of the few good things the republicans have done recently.
The trial lawyers and the food nazi supporters tested the waters with the McDonald's case. Good setup, poor minority kids who would probably get lots of sympathy. Don't think they have given up, they have just decided they need to soften us up with a few good years of propaganda first. They don't need a majority to restrict your rights, only a few people on a jury and a handful of sympathetic judges.(both of which they choose)
10 - sal m
thanks for the kind words...
for as much as i dislike smoking, if people want to do it, let them...i stopped going to places that allowed smoking or that were dominated by smokers years ago...my choice.
the problem with these movements is that everyone who is happy that smoking is being banned will be very unhappy when their habit is under attack...and it's just a matter of time until everyone's habits are subjected to regulation if this keeps up.
why not eliminate automobiles if the goal is to stop the loss of lives?
11 - Bliffle
Moderation and variety are the key. And a person needs some strenuous exercise, such as a brisk walk (not a shambling stroll, but a workout where you feel yourself striding forcefully forward and accelerate on the uphills).
12 - Nancy
As has been pointed out frequently, people used to have to work just to eat. Food prep in the Old Days was labor in and of itself. No more: now we just buy it and stuff it in, additives and all. Physically, humans were designed as sort of walking garbage pails, just like bears: they eat everything in order to be able to survive. No finicky need for just those particular bamboo leave, or these special mushrooms, etc. Unfortunately, we were also designed to scrabble like hell, physically, in order to find said comestibles, thereby working off the calories - just like the bears. Therein lies the problem: food too easily attained (and loaded with caloric additives that foods in the rough never had, such as oils & sugars), and (in the US, at least) the rise of the car & car-oriented culture which grossly diminishes physical activity. Consider that most communities outside of cities these days are designed (except for the very 'new' types) so that they are virtually unlivable if you DON'T have a car. My grandparents' little town of Hillsboro, NH was incredibly walkable: the grocery, post office, beauty parlor, barber's, doctor's, dentist's - even work, at the local plant - were all within walking distance. I remember walking from their house up past the school, to "downtown" to the movies & back, perhaps a mile & a half each way. No biggie. Where I live now, the grocery, medical services, etc. are all way beyond a casual walking distance, as is work - even if I were physically capable of walking more than 500 feet at a time. Furthermore, for some reason, I don't seem to have the TIME to walk, even if I wanted to. Somewhere in my life, taking a couple of hours to trot down to the grocery on foot, do my shopping, stop at the post office, and walk home again disappeared. If I take the car, I can do the shopping, stop at the PO, and do half a dozen other errands at the same time, plus get home in time to relax a bit. It's definitely an insidious process.
As far as food in concerned, common sense dictates that if I live on pasta or fast food, I'm going to look like a blimp, but these days it seems most people don't have any sort of common sense. They seem to need to be TOLD everything, from what to eat, to not to go traipsing around areas where dangerous conditions obtain. I have to agree, I'm sick & tired of some idiot telling me that fish is dangerous, fruit is dangerous, soda is dangerous. Yeah - IF you drink 800 cans a day. Jesus H. Christ, gimme a break! 800 CANS? A day? Who the hell drinks 800 cans of soda - or eats 8 lbs of swordfish - a day? This sort of scientific stupidity does nothing except completely blow any credibility the scientific community may have. The government, too, if they had any to begin with, which they don't.
Grandma Lana (& my own, & I suspect millions of others) were absolutely right: everything in moderation & you'll be OK. Other than that, don't worry about it. Humans were also not designed to live forever.
13 - lori
Boy, somebody sure ate his whole grain Wheaties -- what a rant!
Great, funny piece, Sal. I basically agree with you that it's our own responsibility to eat healthily and to teach our kids to do the same.
But it would be a lot easier if there were more healthy, *tasty* foods to choose from in, say the cereal aisle. I was just there this morning looking for snacks for my kids because we're going on a long drive later this week. Need something for the car. There are just soooooo many awful choices in our grocery stores and so few half-way decent to good choices. You really have to a) work hard to find decent snacks (besides fruit, which we eat) and b)pay a significant percentage more for healthier choices in the store.
The mass-produced crap is cheaper and much more plentiful. I don't think Americans will start eating healthier, balanced diets en masse until the stores reverse the percentage of crap foods to good foods.
But it's a circular problem, isn't it?
My concern for my kids is what will happen when they're older and I'm not around as much to see the food they eat. If they perceive that I've restricted their "fun" food intake, will they sneak junk food at every turn? There was a study done a few years ago about this: the kids whose parents let them eat almost no junk food binged on cookies when left with a full cookie jar and permission to eat as many as they wanted. The kids who'd been allowed to eat more treats actually didn't binge on the cookies -- they took a couple and were happy with those.
So you can say that advertisers don't control what food enters my house, but that's true only as long as I'm really in control of that. As my kids get older, they'll have more and more say in what they eat. They'll be home less and they'll have their own money. And the reality is that advertising *does* works and some people -- possibly even my perfect children -- are susceptible to its messages.
And let's not forget the PORTIONS at restaurants -- oy vey! We ate Easter dinner out, and every one of us had WAY too much food on our plates without even considering the salad and bread that came with our meals. My daughter and I shared an entree and left there stuffed -- and we brought leftovers home.
We'd have a nation of healthier eaters if we all just ate less, espeically when we eat out.
14 - sal m
good habits that are developed/taught when kids are young will give us as parents the best insurance possible that they'll continue to do the right thing when they are older...but there are never any guarantees.
look at smoking as an example....the in-school anti-smoking education is pretty intense to the point where my six year old points out every time he sees someone smoking and remarks as to how bad it is and yet kids still smoke, whether or not their parents did/do.
and the scariest thing is when they start driving.
the same goes for drugs...you can just do your best to educate your kids and hope that they do the right thing when the time comes.
with regards to eating out, eating out should be a special occasion and so big portions at a restaurant shouldn't pose a problem...eating out becomes a problem when a lot of meals are taken outside of the house...it's not the restaurant's fault if people choose to eat out all of the time...a huge portion of food when eating at a favorite restaurant shouldn't pose a problem.
15 - RedTard
If the public wanted small portions and healthy choices at the grocer they would already offer those. Instead the "People are too stupid to make their own decisions" crowd who is unfortunately more prevalent on the American left like to do things in reverse.
They'll sue to change the portions and labeling and options first, then once they make the change they'll convince us it was our own choice that did it. Once we're used to the idea of having food regulated by government then it's a free for all. I can see the seeds of the movement here.
Some people halfheartedly agree for now, but of course they must throw the disclaimers about eating out and choices at the grocer and of course, the obligatory poor little kids.
The poor little kids is where the smoking bans started, now there out to stop smoking in your home or car. Controlling your food is next.
16 - Nancy
Actually, I'd like an option in restaurants of paying half & getting a smaller portion. When I can, I order half-portions, or from the kids' menu, or I just order from the appetizers & forget the entrees, because they're 'way too big, & I don't like having to drag home bags of leftovers. I also don't like my plate being inundated with cheap carbs like potatoes or rice (which is what they make their money off of) & garnished with a forest of stupid items no one eats like parseley or artfully carved radishes with a curl of old dead carrot for color.
I do like getting decent veggies, but only if they're not canned & watery, or half-cooked & cold. Most restaurants ... I'm going to rant here. I don't know why restaurants even try to serve veggies: most of them either dish up stuff that's mush, or they try to be artsy, & serve up undercooked, cold, nasties I wouldn't serve to a vegetarian dog. There's nothing hard about cooking decent veggies, as long as they aren't kept sitting around in vats of water, but I guess that's the trick, isn't it? About the ONLY foods restaurants seem to know how to cook is potatoes & other starches, and meat. Period. Oh - and usually they can manage edible salads, but barely, if they keep the bowls refilled & fresh. If you go to an Italian place, invariably everything is drowned in some kind of tomato sauce. You'd think the entire Italian penninsula only cooked Sicilan. These days, even the Chinese food you get is full of pre-cut, semi-cooked and therefore semi-limp veggies, mostly broccoli probably because it can stand a lot of abuse before turning to greyish-green mush.
17 - lori
RedTard, I assume you're referring to me in your comments.
"If the public wanted small portions and healthy choices at the grocer they would already offer those."
I am a member of the public. I want more healthy choices at the grocer. And I want them at a cost *no higher* than the crappy choices.
Why don't grocers already offer me what I want?
Oh wait, because the stupid people -- and yes, they ARE stupid -- who want to eat CRAP for food far outnumber people like ME, who want simple, plentiful, affordable choices at the neighborhood market and not at some snooty, high-priced specialty store.
And, P.S., if you don't think the government already regulates and controls our food, then you're not paying attention.
18 - lori
Nancy, you make a good point about ordering an appetizer or from the kids menu. The problem is that those menus are often (but not always) stacked with fried foods.
19 - sal m
if the problem is what kind of foods are offered at a given restauarant, then you are clearly at the wrong kind of restaurant.
if we're talking about eating something "less bad" there are always choices even at the worst places.
if you're always at restaurants that have a lot of fried foods on the menu then you've got some problems!
20 - lori
The problem I have is that family-friendly restaurants tend to offer choices like hot dogs, chicken fingers, pizza, and mac-n-cheese on the kids menu, no matter how varied the adult menus are. That's a fact.
We don't eat out much. One reason is cost, but the other is that chains are the only suitable places for families around here, and their food is usually pretty bad. Even the Chinese restaurants near us are greasy!
21 - Bliffle
One must make an effort to defeat the advertising burden that is laid upon us all. When we eat 'bad' food it is not because we intrinsically desire so much salt and grease, but rather because advertising has convinced us that it is good. Advertising has convinced us that the smell of frying chicken is pleasant and promises a good meal. Advertising has convinced us that a slab of ground beef with mayonnaise dripping over it and wrapped in a bleached white bread bun is tasty and nutritional.
Remember, the best psychologists in the US are NOT at the local schools trying to solve juvenile delinquency and end teenage pregnancy. They are on Madison avenue studying the best reports on human psychology and contriving the best sales pitches for pushing meal products. And they can PROVE their effectiveness with numbers and dollars. They employ the best statisticians in America to collect the data that unambiguously shows the direct causal link between their recommendations and campaigns and the sales charts of food suppliers. That's why those psychologists have Armani suits, ankle-deep carpets and acre-sized mahogany desks in their glamorous offices overlooking Manhattan.
Some might find this immoral: the hawking of worthless and dangerous products to compliant and ad-drugged US citizens. I don't. As any tyro Republican will tell you, the purpose of any company is to return the largest possible profit to the companies shareholders. They are bound only by the legal code. (Sometimes it amazes me that the same person who advances the 'maximize profits' rationale should then also claim that those people can be trusted, that they are people of high moral character who would not foist bad stuff on us)
Our job, then, is to be effective consumers, forcing our judgement on suppliers by our Free Market choices.
So, make better choices. What could be simpler?
22 - sal m
that folks is a great example of politcally-based conspiratorial psycho-babble. for instance....
IT WAS WRITTEN:
"Remember, the best psychologists in the US are NOT at the local schools trying to solve juvenile delinquency and end teenage pregnancy. They are on Madison avenue studying the best reports on human psychology and contriving the best sales pitches for pushing meal products."
Wait a minute here, if the best psychologists are NOT at schools and universities furthering the study of psychology who is conducting the best reports on human psychology? are the people on Madison avenue studying the studies the same people who have done the studies? or are psycholgy's finest relying on studies done by inferior psycholgists?
also since republicans are to blame, does this behavior - the rampant manipulating of our wills and desires by the evil advertising execs - take a hiatus during democratic administrations? if ross perot or ralph nader were to take control, where would they fall, on the side of the Madison Avenue head shrinks or on the side of reestablishing free will?
and finally, if these all knowing psychologists are so fantastic, why haven't the been gobbled up by the networks so that they can convince people to watch the crap on cbs, nbc, abc? does fox have them all??
23 - Nancy
Someone with an evil mind might take an opinion recently voiced on another thread about marketing and therefore draw the conclusion that Republicans & Madison Ave marketers are both evil minions of Hell. ;)
24 - Dave Nalle
Wait a second. Grocers DO offer you what you want. The single biggest phenomenon in grocery marketing today is the Whole Foods Market chain and their very effective presentation of stores which offer excellent, relatively healthy products, with an emphasis on all the natural and organic products but produced in products which are very tasty. Whole Foods and its imitators are springing up in every major city, and they are offering a real alternative to the mass-produced crap you'll find at your local Safeway, as well as putting some pressure on more traditional stores to offer more natural foods and more healthy variety.
Dave
25 - sal m
and this heathly choice type of grocer has become big business as people are way more concious now of the need to eat better food...and not just in cities, as there are two whole foods stores within 15 minutes from where i'm sitting...and regular supermarkets are including more and more organic foods as well.