January 2015 Question 3
Question 3: The gaps between the food supply and the DGA have been relatively consistent over 40 years, although there has been some change. Why do you think the US has not been able to create a significant decrease in the gaps, even though they have been identified and continue to be monitored?
posted by Unknown @ 2:09 PM
9 comments
9 Comments:
Food corporations are more focused on profit than health impacts in many ways because that's how they remain a business. It's not always the cheapest to offer quality products and if Americans will eat junk than it will remain a problem. French fries and hamburgers should be eaten in moderation but instead are a lifestyle habit for many people due to availability and price. There is a common mentality preventing us from improving nutrition because Americans want "more bang for their buck". Why get an expensive organic salad when you could get 20 chicken nuggets for 3 dollars? Obviously, a dietitian sees why it would be better to go for a salad but many individuals do not understand the complications that can happen from this mentality. Just because food is "monitored" and won't kill you instantly doesn't mean it's safe to eat processed, empty calories all the time. Large food corporations strongly impact what American consumers buy because they can afford to advertise and make a huge profit off of selling low quality food. The obesity epidemic will remain until people decide to educate themselves and make healthy changes.
I don't think our government has been able to create significant decrease in the gap because it's not a high priority. Some politicians worry about other things (foreign conflicts the past 15 years) and sometimes forget about the struggles on the home-front. I also think that the gap hasn't been closed because it takes a coordinated effort to make even the smallest progress. The American people have to be willing to make changes and show that they, themselves, want a shift in food production. Why would the government (and/or food manufacturers) change the types of products they sell if they don't have overwhelming consumer support?
As the journal article points out, there has been an improvement in some areas of the American food supply. One example is that of seafood and plant proteins, both of which have increased in popularity in recent years. As such, the availability and accessability of those foods has increased. That's a promising sign of things to come as seafood is a great source of protein and healthy fats, while plant based proteins are a great source of low fat protein. We as future R.D.Ns should be aware of these trends and focus on educating our customers. It seems to me that if consumers demand certain foods, food producers/manufacturers/sellers (as well as the government) will make more of an effort to make it available (and also affordable).
I think the United States has not created a decrease in the gaps between the food supply and the DGA probably because of the popularity of restaurants and the availability of processed foods. Some Americans eat the majority of their meals at restaurants. Since most restaurants mainly offer foods high in fat, sodium, and sugar, and few fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, this makes it difficult for someone to meet the dietary guidelines. Also, the number of packaged foods seems to always be increasing because Americans demand convenience foods. Forty years ago there was one type of Oreo; now there are twenty different flavors of Oreos. Most people like variety and novelty and food companies supply it to meet the demand and make money.
I believe marketing also has a lot to do with the gaps. Processed foods are seen more often in commercials than healthy foods. I remember first seeing the “Cuties” clementine commercials a few years ago and I remember thinking how neat and different it was to see a commercial for fresh fruit instead of the typical junk food and fast food commercials. Fresh produce is not as exciting as shiny, packaged food, so people aren’t enticed to buy it. Unless marketing and a massive initiative for people to buy fresh, whole foods instead of processed, packaged foods is done, then there will probably be little change in the gaps in the future.
Caroline,
You brought up some excellent points! Demand really does drive market trends. Your point with the Oreo cookies is spot on...the same holds true for chips, sodas, candies and all of that. Looking at how portions have changed through the years never fails to amaze me. Forty years ago, people felt spoiled with an 8 oz. Coke, now you can get a 48 oz. (or whatever it is) Mega Buddy at a convenience store nearest you. The reason that huge soda is available is because people will buy it.
I agree that a large marketing push is needed to make a dent in the market. As is usually the case, money is the main problem with that. Fast food/processed food companies have billions in revenue and, thus, have huge marketing budgets. I love your example about the "Cuties." I really like the fact that nuts have been able to steal some spotlight recently. The pistachio commercials come to mind. A pistachio company financing a $5 million dollar Super Bowl ad is something we would not have seen ten years ago. I think we are making progress-- just at a very slow, almost glacial, pace. Let's make a difference and speed things up!
I think the gap hasn’t been closed because there hasn’t been a demand for change, so we continue to allow large corporations to control the food industry. If we work to change consumers view on food, we can change consumer demand and the food industry will have to alter their products.
Carolyn, you bring up a good point about marketing and the impact that has. Marketing has a huge influence on the decisions consumers make, and this is one thing that we can look at as we work to change people’s view on food.
I think plain and simple it is not an agricultural and government goal. People are eating and we look more at food security and food insecurity statistics before we focus on Americans meeting the DGA. It's low on the totem pole and perhaps rightfully so. Why would I care about meeting the DGA if I don't know how I'm going to pay my rent. We can only do so much. I agree that we have done a good job so far at changing consumers demands for healthy foods.
I believe that many food companies are excellent at lobbying and getting support from the government. With subsidies for corn and soybeans, many of these companies have been able to produce cheap products and make huge profits, which they can use to continue to lobby for government support. The voices of healthy, well-balanced, and nutritious foods need to be heard - whether through government intervention or through community counseling efforts. There is a lot of work to be done in our field, and the first step towards progress is fully understanding the problems and what we can do to try to fix them.
3. In agreement with Caroline and following my previous theme of environmental influences, Americans are hit with an onslaught of stimuli every day to eat, eat, eat. As a nation, we are now more aware of the detrimental effects of a poor diet; however, we are surrounded by glorified and indulgent food ads intended to make us buy more. America is built on a cheap and often nutritionally lacking food model. Ads for the simply nutritious foods like produce are by far the minority. We need to make environmental changes to support the messages about health we share with the public. Widespread environmental changes will require policy changes. A food industry focused primarily on profits is in financial control of legislation. Money will always talk in Washington; we need to find a way to cooperate with the financial powerhouses in control of our food environment.
Another problem is the lack of knowledge and skill to prepare healthy food. The "how to" is a big gap between knowing what you should do and actually being able to do it. So many people don't know how to make a vegetable taste good. We need to develop the skill set required to implement all of these recommendations to eat healthier. The idea that healthy can taste good is slowly growing. Guiding people to eat a certain way is great, but there also needs to be provision of the tools to use the information provided.
I think it's just that they're two different issues in the government's agenda. I think that the dietary guidelines are there because that's what Americans should be eating, whether or not there's enough in the supply. The food supply is in accordance to farms and corporations that control them and government subsidies, which I believe is really what needs to be shifted.
Like Arthur stated, maybe it's not as much as a priority so it's not addressed like it should be. Yes, we have people in poverty and need food security but the government probably believes the programs they already have in place are enough to at least patch some of the problem. I don't believe in that because as long as there are that many people with food insecurity, everyone is paying for it. I just believe the government needs to reprioritize and find a better solution that is sustainable.
Post a Comment
<< Home