The number one killer in the United States is D iet-related chronic disease. We can't say that this is a crisis. For decades we've been telling people to eat better, a strategy that hasn't worked and never will.
The majority of calories we produce are not healthy. The availability of and access to food is one of the factors that determines our diet. Growing real food for nutrition, not cheap meat and corn and soya beans for junk food is required for a healthy population.
Humans have choices, but most of them are not good. Ultra-processed foods, also known as junk food, are the primary cause of diet related diseases. Almost no one can make a good choice every time, and a lot of us can't make good choices at all.
Most junk food is actually made from plants, and the future of food, especially when you add environmental factors, is plant-centered but minimally processed, in diet that resembles those eaten. We need to address the functioning of the food system.
Government mandates around public health, environmental protection and even literacy have improved public welfare. Efforts have been made in other areas, but not in diet.
The case for reducing the consumption of junk food is based on the fact that diet-related diseases kill 600,000 Americans each year. 100,000 people will be killed in the US next year due to Covid-19. It isn't just "sugar" or "inflammation" that causes these diseases, but a still-to-be- determined combination of factors.
Better labeling laws, taxes on the most egregious offenders, and limits on the sale of junk food on government property are some of the things we can do to reduce the consumption of junk food. In the US and overseas, all of these are being explored.
Producing 10 billion animals per year for food in the US alone has a negative effect on our health and environment. Negative effects include the use of land and resources, greenhouse gas generation, antibiotic exposure and resistance, and the environmental damage. Unprocessed food from the plant kingdom is a lot healthier than meat.
Even though few are in favor of outlawing meat, it is important to acknowledge that meat consumption in industrialized nations needs to be reduced. If we make production less damaging, we can reduce both yield and consumption.
Good moves here include limiting the barely regulated use of antibiotics in animal production; reducing monopolistic practices and supporting small farms, as well as local and regional production and consumption, and limiting the ( currently almost unregulated) emissions produced by factory farms.
Fruits and vegetables would be encouraged in order to curb meat production. Less meat and junk will be eaten if more land is used for crops other than corn and soya beans. Emphasizing subsidies to encourage the growing and sale of real foods and making sure that those food programs receiving federal dollars promote plant-forward eating could be done first.
The US land distribution has historically discriminated against farmers of color, women and queer farmers, as well as encouraging new farmers to grow good food.
Critics argue that this isn't a return to more primitive methods of farming but a recognition that a blend of modern technology and good policy would support farming that serves the world's citizens.
Behavioral incentives used to be popular with economists a decade ago. Rules around production and consumption are what would work, and the sooner we start implementing them, the better.
The author of Animal, Vegetable, Junk is a professor at the Mailman School of Public Health.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
