Comments on: Jumping on the Healthy Food Bandwagon

By: Jilly

Jilly — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:11:14 +0000

They're definitely worth more but I'm not sure that it's a good idea to make them cost more. How is that supposed to persuade people to buy them? People are getting more concerned with leading a healthy lifestyle and improving their diet and so on, there have been so many studies into the link between a good diet and cancer prevention. It doesn't strike me as fair to make it cost more to make improvements to your diet.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:34:37 +0000

You’re welcome, HDNF. Please feel free to make additional comments or share your insights with Daily Fix readers, if you’d like to. I always enjoy reading contributors’ comments and POVs.

By: health diet nutrition fitness

health diet nutrition fitness — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:17:39 +0000

Great Article. Thanks for sharing.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 04:33:31 +0000

Wow, Natalie, I took a look at your Web site. I am very impressed at the services you offer. Much needed!

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:15:35 +0000

Natalie,
I quite agree that we may all have to make some trade offs in the future in order to feed a growing global population as nutritiously as possible. Thanks to you and Neil for engaging in a meaningful conversation. You’ve both brought many good points to the fore.

By: Natalie Cornell

Natalie Cornell — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 23:45:31 +0000

You are quite correct Neil that we all do the best we can. I think that’s the upshot of what Ted was asking way back when he posed the original question!
It’s an interesting topic and one that will require some careful thought and trade offs as we move ahead.
Thanks Ted, for asking the question and to Neil for raising some of the tough implications.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 12:12:42 +0000

BTW, Natalie, I 100% agree with you on pushing the multi -nationals to push healthier foods based on traditional grains. Standardization and mono cultures are not helpful.
Second, I would say that when *possible* people should buy as local and organic as possible. We as consumers can make the extra effort to do so.
While I might sound like an advocate for GMO, I really do practice what I preach regarding local food. I walk with my backpack to the locally owned natural grocery and buy local food whenever possible.
But the truth is that buying local is not always possible. There are times of the year when eating healthy requires the help of rather large food companies.
We can all do the best we can.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 12:02:24 +0000

Natalie,
Our world is much, much more urbanized than it was. This trend continues.
Even if people ate only traditional diets, they would still not be able to grow it on their own little plot of land. We are no longer a longer so agragrian.
Therefore, we need larger farms that can grow food efficiently.
The first Green Revolution was necessary and made feeding much of the world possible in the post-war world. Were there unintended consequences? Absolutely. We all know what they are.
If we react with fear against GMO and look to only purely organic as the solution, will there be consequences? Absolutely. Again, you will need much more land to produce the same amount of food. This means more land must be put to food production, with consequences to wild habitat and to other possible uses of land.
I am not an advocate of GMO and have no affiliation with that industry at all. However, I have observed that the reaction against GMO does not have that much basis in fact but it is more of a visceral fear.
There is this dogma out there that “GMO” is ipso facto bad and that “organic” is ipso facto good.
I think GMO should be given a fair hearing with the dogma taken out of the debate. With issues as important as food, we cannot afford to take dogmatic positions. Many people have *already* made up their minds that organic agriculture is the solution and that GMO is the villain.
I am trying to keep an open mind and I hope, for our world’s sake, that we all keep an open mind. Frankly, I am not sure what the solutions will be.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:33:20 +0000

You’ve raised a number of good points, Natalie. Good discussion between you and Neil, also.
Take a look at this story from today’s NY Times concerning Monsanto’s pioneering efforts to increase future crop yields by 2030 with new seeds.
Obviously, Monsanto’s biotechnology innovations have been controversial over the past few years–for its advocacy of GMO seeds vs heirloom, biodiverse seeds for one thing. Let’s remember this is a chemical company. Yet we should, as you propose, research this more closely since their proposals are intended to increase our growing capacity. The longterm ramifications of GMOs have led to raging, ongoing debates. We have a lot to learn. And we should make a commitment to doing just that. Ideas will continue to come in, and not all of them will be embraced. Still, everything should be put on the table and the studied and dismissed if unsafe or unfeasible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/business/worldbusiness/05crop.html?em&ex=1212724800&en=13c31749831dd592&ei=5087
Thanks for your terrific input, Natalie. You’ve added a great deal to this conversation.

By: Natalie Cornell

Natalie Cornell — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:07:48 +0000

Neil -
I think you raise an important issue: how to feed a rapidly growing and gentrifying world?
I am not philosophically or morally opposed to GMO, and done right, it might just be the next Green Revolution, as you point out. But I think we need to be careful and cautious about it. Remember, we got into the first Green Revolution (with heavy pesticide and fertilizer use) with every good intention to feed the world more efficiently.
The Law of Unintended Consequences looms large here, I think. Farmers have been genetically modifying crops since they started planting them. And anything that can help us feed more people healthy, nutritious food is a good thing in my book. I get very nervous, though, when the genes of other species (sometimes even animal, bacterial or viral) get grafted into a plant’s DNA. I do not believe that scientists are evil or that the companies doing this are motivated by profit at any cost, but I also believe that we often overestimate our knowledge. Before GMO can lead a new Green Revolution, I think we need to have a great deal of research, discussion and thought about what the possible consequences MIGHT be and whether they are worth the benefit.
We haven’t done this in the organic food business (thought hard about the costs and benefits) and the following has recently happened there: as more large corporate food companies get into the business (e.g. Dean Foods buying Horizon Milk) the small producers get squeezed while the quality of the milk drops. Is large factory farming, even if it meets organic standards (cows are fed organic feed, and not given antibiotics, but can be given growth hormone and live in very small pens) good for people and the environment at large?
I don’t think there are any obvious or easy answers about feeding a rapidly growing world population. Maybe GMO foods can help, maybe the efficiency of large farms is the only way to do it. But then again, maybe encouraging people to keep their more traditional diets rather than switching to the “western” diet is a better solution that doesn’t require as much GMO or factory farming.
Unfortunately, the western diet has beome a sign of affluence in developing countries. To get back to where Ted started off – perhaps pushing large multi-national food companies to create healthier foods, to cut back on the advertising pushes all over the world, and to create foods based on traditional grains rather than all wheat (millet in Africa for example) that could be sold regionally is what we all should be doing.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:36:28 +0000

Lest there be confusion, by "Green Revolution" I refer to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_revolution

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:34:38 +0000

Natalie, I do not think we disagree on the benefits of eating organic. I am committed to eating as local and organic as I can.
My point was not that we should continue the “Green Revolution” that increased yields *substantially* in the post WW II world but that organic cannot completely replace the yield gains that came from the Green Revolution.
I was suggesting that we need a second Green Revolution that involves much, much less chemicals. So where does that leave us:
1. Green Revolution. Chemicals. High Yield but ultimately hurts the land and your health.
2. Organic. Low yield so requires more land. This means less yield (food) per acre. We cannot realistically feed the world this way. Maybe it is possible if we destroy huge amounts of the remaining wild habitat but I doubt it would produce enough yield even then.
3. GMO. It is possible that we can get more yield per acre with less or ultimately zero chemicals.
If there are other options, I am not sure what they are but none of them are yet suited for feeding large numbers of people.
Absolutely, eat organic, go to farmer’s markets, grow a garden. These are all very good things.
But please do not forget that organic agriculture cannot feed the world. The math just does not work out.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:59:04 +0000

Great points, Natalie, and I thank you for making a number of important comments. This is such a huge topic, it’s impossible to cover every area that deserves to be discussed.
As I said after reading RJS’s comments this morning, lowering salt, sugar and harmful fats while increasing chemicals–and that includes artificial sweeteners–does not constitute healthier food. Nor do overprocessed and refined foods. We did say that earlier on.
I do believe that grassroots pressure has had an effect on food manufacturers. I think that pressure will continue to increase as consumers become more and more informed and question what they’re eating.
People like you offer an invaluable service, Natalie. You’re able to guide consumers through the mine field in the supermarket–helping them to understand how to read labels and packaging and make more healthful choices. For some consumers around the world, as Julia pointed out in her comments from Malaysia, access to organic foods and locally grown foods may be limited due to insufficient quantities or exorbitant prices most people can’t pay. In those cases, they have to rely on other sources for their food. Thus, I think it still wise for us to continue to push for cleaner, healthier mass marketed foods. Even as we avail ourselves of better choices if we have access to them and can afford them.
Thanks for writing, Natalie. Very much appreciated.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:43:39 +0000

Thank you, Julia, for raising some very valid concerns about food production. In populous countries like Malaysia, it’s pretty apparent that there isn’t enough food to go around, especially among the poor. This is why technology and agriculture are joining forces to continuously try to increase yield. Very simply put: more food is needed to feed an increasing world population. But at what price? I am no expert but we will have to make some hard decisions and maybe a few compromises, in order to grow more food without destroying the ecosystems that provide it. Otherwise, we’re all in trouble. We will have to decide which trade-offs we want to make. . .what we feel we can live with and what we can’t live with. While the problems we face in producing adequate food may seem daunting, I do believe we can meet these challenges if scientists come together to find solutions. And we have to–there is no other choice.
Consumers are becoming far more educated and sophisticated about nutritional issues, to your point. And that is a good thing. Food manufacturers have to know that they are under the microscope now, and respond to this by offering transparency, traceability to the mix. Otherwise, they won’t be trusted.
Thanks for adding so much to this conversation, Julia.

By: Natalie Cornell

Natalie Cornell — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:30:55 +0000

Interesting discussion all. Thanks for starting it out, Ted.
The healthy claims on the front of a package are often misleading and can be downright wrong. For example a product can say “zero trans-fats” on the front when there are actually .5 g per serving which you can only tell if you read the ingredient list and see partially hydrogentated (fill in the blank ) oil. And as many of your previous commenters have said, low fat and low sugar claims aren’t all they seem to be; many artificial sweeteners are more harmful than the sugar they replace.
It’s great that the major food companies are getting the message that healthier is better BUT the best food is that which is processed the least. I do health and nutrition counseling and one thing I do is take my clients on tours of the grocery store and teach them how to shop. Mostly I have to help them un-learn everything they think they know from ads and labels. I’m skeptical that the business model of a large multi-national food manufacturer will allow the creation of actual healthy foods. What will they do to broccoli to make it healthy that it doesn’t already have when you buy it fresh? Where can they add value?
I would disagree with Niel on one point about buying organic. I think it is an important way to prevent future illness – the fewer chemicals and the cleaner the land and water, the better. There have also been a number of studies that show that organically raised produce has more nutrients than conventionally raised produce.
As a health counselor, I follow this issue closely. The Environmental Working Group publishes a list of the 43 most common fruits and vegetables and their pesticide loads. The 12 worst foods (and those they recommed you always buy organic when you can) are peaches, apples, sweet peppers, celery, nectarines, stawberries, pears, imported grapes, spinach, lettuce and potatoes. See http://www.foodnews.org/ for more info and the complete list.
When you look at the total picture (and my clients ask me this all the time) and include the cost to the global environment of shipping organic produce across the country you might make some different choices. Farmer’s markets are a great place to get to know who grows your food. Many small farmers are not certified organic (it’s expensive) but do use the practices. You can find out by asking. I tell my clients to buy local organic first, local second and national organic third.

By: julia

julia — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:20:18 +0000

This is an interesting topic Ted and it looks like you have had many comments.
I am a Malaysian with varied eating habits and tastes. I can eat Western and every other cuisine except the internal organs of any animal. I do prefer vegetables and fruits and fish more than meat. We have lots of health articles, health talks this and that and organic food too.
I join one organised by a qualified naturopath from US and it is a monthly talk on holistic health. One can’t help it and try to stay off everything that smacks of GMO or non-organic. But going organic in Malaysia is not cheap. It is double the price. That is those that are packaged as organic or sold in organic shops. Also the organic fruits and vegetables sold in the hypermarts are expensive.
However, we still have small little garden patches where we can growth some green leafy veg or something but it is not enough for family consumption.
When I read about sustainable food agriculture and compare it to the hungry world, I am terrified that we may really not be able to feed the starving millions. The only way to go is what we have done before, grow more, grow faster, in a shorter time and have greater yield; the GMO way. We have no choice and if we get cancer etc. etc. how do we tell a starving child or family that they will get cancer in years to come? This is ridiculous.
The world has no answer for food production for the billions. Organic is good but not for the poor and starving.
Unless, big companies do something and rethink their corporate goals based on capitalistic gains, the world will still face, in the years to come a greater increase in food prices and organic food may even triple and be out of reach of the middle class even. I am sorry that I sound so negative but I have read enough journals and many reports to know that we are in trouble as far as food production is concerned.
I have advertising as my backgound and if companies can just go “less” on hype adverts but deliver the goods so to speak, more customers will buy. So in reference to health and food, the public is now more and more discerning and companies can’t pull the wool over our eyes without getting some “butting” from us consumers!!!

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:14:17 +0000

Thanks, RJS, for raising a point that we’ve all overlooked. You’re right: just because certain foods cut back on sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, that doesn’t in and of itself make these products healthier to consume. As you point out, chemicals, preservatives, artifical colors and flavors carry their own problems. . .and these can’t be masked by adding a few vitamins or probiotics to them. Commercial food manufacturers, overall, seem to be moving in the right direction, but much more has to be done. Good catch, RJS. I like the way you think and you’re absolutely dead-on. Thanks for weighing in.

By: RJS

RJS — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:08:09 +0000

I think what we’re forgetting in all this that much of what these companies are doing are just spinning a product based on convenience, and we’re all buying into it.
I saw on a bottle of Diet Pepsi the other day some logo stating that it’s healthy. Nevermind that it’s loaded with chemicals and, in my opinion, it tastes like battery acid. But because there is no fat or sugar, it’s deemed as a healthy choice. Now, does that make Diet Coke with Vitamins even healthier?
I liken this change in the convenience food industry to the low-sugar/low-fat phases that we went through several years back. This time, it’s putting a little more of a technical spin on it, such as “probiotics” or other terms that the general public doesn’t get. But they’re scared enough to look into it. And if the box says healthy, it must be true, right?

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Thu, 29 May 2008 15:25:23 +0000

You’ve raised a very important point about the correlation of nutrition to health, Neil. You’re right. Pay more to eat more nutritious food today, and that does not necessarily have to be all organic, by the way, or pay the price in medical costs later. We’ve seen a meteoric rise in health care as a result of an explosion of obesity-related illnesses that have mushroomed in recent years. Not good.
Great stuff, Neil. Thank you.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Thu, 29 May 2008 15:21:06 +0000

You’ve raised many important points, Barbara. Many writers and news organizations have suggested that buying organic is a waste of money. Many others have pointed to an increase in cancers and other major diseases, citing increased modern exposure to pollutants and chemicals as a primary cause. In some cases, it isn’t possible to wash chemicals off produce; it runs systemically through plants. That’s why many experts advocate buying organic lettuce, grapes, cherries, etc. That may be one of the reasons some supermarkets offer more organic than commercial produce choices in some categories. Or, it might be that the commercial produce simply doesn’t meet their quality standards in some cases.
As to year-round growing in local markets, I’m sure that some growers are in a better position than others to install state-of-the-art greenhouses to do so, while others are not. Power can be generated and recycled with geothermal technology, for example. . .but I’m no expert in this area. Growers might be encouraged to look into this if they are given tax incentives or rebates by their state governments. Still, it may not be feasible for now for many farmers. Yet. Things are changing rapidly and this scenario may, as well. We’ll have to see how this unfolds. At least, we’re looking forward and working harder than ever before to come up with solutions to the problems of energy creation, consumption and growing more food in a healthier manner in the future.
Thanks for all of your input, Barbara. I appreciate it.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Thu, 29 May 2008 06:31:54 +0000

The post about the cost of organic versus saving the money for medical costs and that being more rational, seems absurd to me. Quality of life and preventing illness is much better than avoiding buy organic and then treating illness that might result from chemicals in food. That is spurious thinking.
I am not suggesting you were advocating that idea but simply stating that I think that if you can afford to buy as organic and local as possible, it is good for your health in a preventative sense.
Barbara, I do agree that some hard thinking, research, and decision making is needed on sustainability. The first “Green Revolution” has run its course and it is time for change. This process that has started but, in the early stages, it can go in many possible directions.

By: Barbara Phillips Long

Barbara Phillips Long — Thu, 29 May 2008 02:52:14 +0000

Some time ago I read a post and comments about the cost of organic food. I did a search but wasn’t able to find it — the writer contended that the extra paid for organic food is wasted. He (or she) recommended buying regular produce, eating a generally healthy diet, and investing the money saved by not buying organic food. His contention was that the odds of health consequences from regular produce were favorable and the odds of having enough money for medical problems were better if the “organic premium” was invested instead of spent.
What hasn’t been mentioned in the comments here about organic foods is that sometimes merchants only offer organic products in some categories. The supermarkets near me don’t offer a choice between organic and regular produce in many categories.
Neil — Pesticide use may face another challenge soon. Several of the articles I have read about colony collapse disorder in bees are suggesting that pesticides may be implicated in the loss of honey bee colonies.
At the same time, I am becoming more cautious about GMO. Cross-fertilization by modern corn is affecting the native varieties of corn in Mexico, for instance. I would prefer to see more research on sustainable agriculture and innovative plant management along with basic, accessible technology to provide more food worldwide. The book “1491″ by Charles Mann has some interesting observations about the history of agriculture.
Ted — I wonder if lack of imagination is affecting the seasonal produce business. I read about the amount of heat that server farms throw off and wonder why that energy isn’t used for greenhouses or office heating or hot water production in New Jersey or Pennsylvania (where I live) and other four-season states.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Wed, 28 May 2008 20:10:41 +0000

To be frank, if we do not want to use chemicals, we may have no choice but to go with GMO if we want enough food.
If given a choice, I would take GMO over pesticides and fertilizers and there may come a day when that stark choice is presented.
Of course, personally, I will continue to buy as local and organic as possible. There is much to be said for buying food from close to home for many reasons.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Wed, 28 May 2008 17:42:35 +0000

Excellent, Neil. You are very well informed on this issue and dead on in your comments. Thank you for taking the time to add significantly to the issues surrounding organic farming.
The pros and cons of GMOs have created raging debates in the past and they will continue to do so. As you point out, we will need to increase yields to feed a growing global population and the solutions are complicated with many implications.
We may have to adopt some measures in future where compromises are made. Let’s hope we think these issues through and do the best we can to be better stewards of our land and still meet the global demand for food.
Thanks, Neil, for sharing so much great information with DF readers. Much appreciated.

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Wed, 28 May 2008 17:06:58 +0000

The only problem, and it is a valid one, is that organic produces less yield and therefore requires more land.
There is an argument to be made for genetically modified as the next green revolution to feed the world.
The first “Green Revolution” was the use of fertilizers and pesticides to dramatically increase yields.
The truth is we cannot feed the world using 100% organic. It is unfortunate but true.
Organic is, in a sense, a luxury of the affluent. As more land goes to organic, more and more land will be required to produce the yield that we get from fertilizers and pesticides.
GMO may be a big part of the yield/land/population dilemma but its mere discussion arouses strong emotion.
People want organic, which means no chemicals. People do not want genetically altered. The alternative? Relatively low yield per acre agriculture. That can only take you so far and you must sacrifice, as this grows, other uses for that land whether it be wildlife habitat or other human use.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Wed, 28 May 2008 15:52:03 +0000

Right, Neil. In the meantime, purchasing natural and organic foods supports farmers and processors who have committed to growing and bringing more nutritional products to market across the board. If we do that, it might encourage the turning over of farm production acreage more and more to organics. It has to be seen as lucrative for the growers to want to make a change from using chemicals to increase yield, to returning to age-old farming practices that might decrease yield but increase nutrition and safe consumption for everybody. That means they have to be able to share more in the profits, doesn’t it?

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Wed, 28 May 2008 15:42:42 +0000

I agree with Cruz and Gavin who touted farmer’s markets. They are a fantastic way to support your local farmer.
But as Ted said, you can only purchase fresh, local produce in season. That is, unless you are very lucky in where you live.
Out of season, we have to rely on food companies of some sort. Yes, support your local ones when possible but, again, unless you are very lucky, you are going to have to reach beyond the local to stay fed. That seems to be the reality as I see it.

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Wed, 28 May 2008 15:02:12 +0000

I don’t think we disagree on this, Tim. As our population has aged, and health-related concerns have risen, so has the demand for more nutritious foods. With prepared foods and overly refined foods leading to obesity and health issues, this is also a contributing factor.
Education has and will continue to be a factor, as well. As more people become better educated about nutrition, the call for natural/organic foods will continue to rise. Likewise, as we learn more about environmental issues and lean toward a wiser use of our precious agricultural resources, there will be a greater demand for these foods. As supermarkets begin to increasingly use their purchasing power and volume to private label these foods, there will be increased distribution. As you say, many elements come together to create a “perfect storm”.
Lastly, we’d love to be able to buy fresh, locally-grown food year-round. Here in New Jersey, that isn’t an option. It isn’t in most of the country. But where and when we can, it is the best way to go. No doubt about it.
Thanks for continuing the conversation, Tim.

By: Tim Jackson

Tim Jackson — Wed, 28 May 2008 14:53:28 +0000

Ted- I agree with your points totally. But remember when buying a solar panel was either A) next to impossible or B) too cost prohibitive to actually be affordable? Over the past few years, due to so many companies getting on the eco bandwagon, things like solar panels have become much more affordable and easy to locate. It is still very expensive to add solar to your home, but not like it was 20+ years ago.
As the market demand for organic foods has grown, the food companies have seen enough “critical mass” to make it worth their while. At the same time, their involvement has generated more less expensive offerings to consumers, which has added more consumers willing to go organic. It’s created a perfect storm of mutually beneficial outcomes; more profits for the food co’s and more good food offerings at a “better” price for more interested consumers.
But, as for the rest of the conversation here; buying locally grown foods is the best if that is an option you have. Here in San Diego we do have a few good options. Some of them even accept food stamps for families that might not otherwise be able to afford the luxury of fresh, safe foods. Buying local is a great way to eat better while doing good things for the planet.
All that said… I’m getting hungry!

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Wed, 28 May 2008 14:15:11 +0000

A number of us have made the point that organic/natural foods consumers have benefited immensely from lower prices and wider distribution when the supermarkets finally got into the act.
The concept of “locavores” is growing in the country. People want to purchase locally grown, fresh foods in increasing numbers. That is a growing trend and a truly “green” one. It supports local growers, doesn’t get trucked in from thousands of miles away, and a great deal of it is grown sans pesticides and chemical fertilizers. But in many parts of the country, there is a very limited season in which we can purchase locally grown foodstuffs, so most of us still have to rely on supermarkets to a large extent. That’s why we need to continue to increase the nutritious quality of our food products, regardless where we purchase it.
Thanks for adding your insights, Gavin. They are much appreciated.