Fast-food logos

This article from the Toronto Star illustrates a different aspect to society and health. It provides information about the studies conducted on our psychological state when we are exposed to fast-food logos. Are fast food logos associated with increasing people’s perception of the need to save time? I would believe that there is a case for this theory. People in our society are constantly finding ways to save more time to make the most of our day. There is this popular saying that arises in our society’s culture and is drilled into our minds, which is “time is money”. Therefore, fast-food logos may be a constant reminder that we have to keep moving, which can be detrimental to our health. This article does not say that seeing fast-food logos equates to a higher consumption of fast-food but it does explain how these logos make people more concerned with efficiency, which can negatively impact our enjoyment of moments/events in our lives and our health. The concern with efficiency can lead people to make unhealthier food choices but because people are exposed to many different ads, some may counter the logos and have no effect on people.

According to the article, fast-food logos affect everybody but what about those of a lower socioeconomic status where time may even determine whether they will have enough to eat for the following weeks. These people spend longer hours at work making less money; therefore, why wouldn’t they want to eat foods that can be made fast. People with that are of a lower SES may not have the time to prepare more nutritious foods anytime of the day. There are many factors explaining why people with a lower socioeconomic status experience poorer health than people with a higher socioeconomic status and this article is just another factor or proof of why poorer health may be the case. Social inequality is a huge problem and many articles are able to show hints about this problem even when it doesn’t seem to fit.

Link:

http://www.healthzone.ca/health/mindmood/article/786836--how-a-fast-food-sign-changes-your-day

Why choose margarine?

The longstanding question that does not seem to have a definite answer is still lurking in our everyday lives. Fortification of margarine was the key to promoting margarine as the healthier alternative to butter. The debate about advertising margarine fortified with beneficial omega-3 fatty acid may be a problem since these products contain plant-based omega-3s that the body cannot readily convert into EPA or DHA. This article from the Toronto Star provides an interesting debate from the past to the present about which of the two products are better. It was also to generate a large discussion about the two products as well.

More importantly, this article was able to demonstrate a larger issue than just the debate between which of the two products are better, butter and margarine. What I got from the article is how it was able to show the backlash of the whole dietetic community. Promoting foods to be healthy became so much harder especially if research contradicts each other. In one decade, the health benefits of certain nutrients may be clear but that can change as ongoing research discover findings that suggest otherwise. It may seem, as time passes, that the foods we eat may not even have the biggest effect on our health as other factors such as mentality comes into the picture. As research continues to be done and new findings emerge, the researches that have been done in the past can all be refuted. This shows that research have enormous amount of power and if it is done properly, research can ultimately make or break a nutrient/product/program.

Link:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/butter-v-margarine---which-is-better/article1511588/

Politics in food

Who has the ultimate responsibility in causing obesity? Does living into a capitalist society mean that large corporations run the way people eat and behave? Large corporations seem to define what is healthy. They have the power and the resources to do the research and put products out there that they believe will make us happy and consume their products. For example, McDonalds adding salad and yogurt to their menu, but the problem is that the products may still contain a high amount of fat. Corporations like McDonalds are also winning over their healthier counterparts such as Weight Watchers to join their side. There is this constant blame game going on in society when it comes to obesity. It all goes back to interdependence. The society and the individual have roles to play in determining what is best for their health. Individual resilience is necessary to fight the battle against obesity but it may require a supportive environment as encouragement.

It seems as though the food choices we make should not be a political issue but the fact is politics surrounds everything that we do. We will never be able to win the battle against large corporations but the government can help prevent problems by developing more programs to educate people and build the individual toughness needed to survive in a society where corporations will do anything to get their hands on our money. The government has the power to suggest limitations that corporations like McDonalds must execute. Maybe although we ought to depend on ourselves to make healthier lifestyle and food choices, it would be necessary for the government to step in offer a helping hand in encouraging the change or healthy choice that we have chosen.

Link:

http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/03/does-fighting-obesity-also-mean-fighting-corporations-so-it-seems/http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/03/does-fighting-obesity-also-mean-fighting-corporations-so-it-seems/

No meat on Mondays?

I have a vast interest in promoting healthy eating and active living. It is extremely difficult to tell people to make changes to their lifestyle. Throughout my many years of promoting healthy eating and active living, I was only successful in changing one of my friends’ unhealthy eating and inactive habits. It was not an easy process by all means. My friend refused to eat any type of vegetable and may be as close to what people would call a carnivore as can be. She also did not participate in any form of physical activity. It took me maybe three years or so to get her to change her lifestyle so that she incorporates more vegetable in her diet and participates in physical activity whenever possible. All this to say that change is hard to come by. Even though I can say that I played a large part in changing her lifestyle, it is ultimately up to her to want to change and do it in a way that is comfortable for her. Advocating for change is not easy especially when lifestyle choices are involved. It took me several years to get one person to change their lifestyle; I can imagine that health promotion programs can go for many years and not see a change at all, especially since they are working at a population-based level.

Even though I am a vegetarian, it does not mean that I attempt to convince people to become a vegetarian but for the interest in their health, I would recommend that they should eat more vegetables. From this article I found in The Toronto Star, the importance of taking small steps toward the ultimate goal is shown. It is difficult to measure the success of this program or any promotion-based program in fact, but results are seen through the events that are triggered from just a small proposal. It is difficult, if not impossible, to expect everyone to quit eating meat cold turkey; therefore, I believe that proposing small steps such as meatless Mondays is not such a bad idea. Health promotion is about taking small steps to achieve bigger goals. Health promotion allows people figure out for themselves whether or not having a meatless day once a week will be beneficial to their health and whether it will be achievable. It may not work for everyone but success is determined through the objectives proposed. Maybe just by having people contemplating about this change will be enough because that means that people are interested in the topic and discussions will arise.

Link:
http://www.thestar.com/living/food/article/783699--it-s-a-no-meat-and-potatoes-initiative

Salt: good to eat?

The popular topic nowadays and in fact it’s been lingering around for many years now is the amount of salt people consume. It is not enough to cut down on salt when cooking because even so, people are consuming way too much salt from all the processed foods that contain a large amount of salt. Restaurants also use a large amount of salt and implementations might be required to decrease the amount that they are allowed to use. This takes us back to the notion of responsibility. Is it ultimately the individual or the society that needs to take responsibility? More often than not, it is both and the interaction between them that can deliver success to our countries’ health.

A thought just came to mind, that instead of reducing the salt intake, would it be easier if people consume that the same and just exercise. The research that I have done on sodium shows that people who exercise and sweat more would need to increase their sodium intake. There should be a right balance between choosing the foods we eat and maintaining our health. We want to promote health but is it the right way to go about that telling people to reduce their salt intake? Is there not a simpler way that doesn’t require people to cut back? The answer is not always what people want to hear. If everyone was able to participate in physical activity and maintain good health by still eating the foods they eat, it would be a perfect world. We should not just look at the negative sides of health and look for a way to make it positive.

Link: http://www.healthzone.ca/health/dietfitness/article/752848--canadians-eat-50-percent-too-much-salt

Happier Canadians with happier hearts

As a student stress comes naturally. Everyone experience stress in one way or another. It is not until watching the Olympics that I realize how easy stress can come about and how stress can affect the way we behave, the foods we choose to eat and the mood we are in. What I ponder is whether or not a person can experience something that can be good and bad to the person’s health within minutes apart. When I was watching the hockey game with such a tight score, I was stressed out and worried but when Team Canada scores I instantaneously became extremely relieved and happy. Would a person be less stressed about the game if they participate in physical activity on a consistent basis? I came by an article from the Toronto Star about how people that are happier live a healthier lifestyle. It is very easy to tell someone to be happier but if they are in a situation where they do not know if they can afford their next meal or their place to live, it becomes an extremely different story. Watching an intense game causes stress at that moment but when it is over, everything goes back to normal. Of course, if we have lost, I would have been unhappy for a while but in the end, it’s just a game and I would move on living my happy life. What if a person’s life is this constant game, which consists of unpredictability and stress day in and day out? It is easy to tell people to live happier lives but a lot of factors would come into play. We would have to look into their social determinants of health and figure out the true definition of happiness. In the end, studies can show that happiness equates to a healthier lifestyle but more importantly we need to figure a way to help those who are in situations that lead to stress and unhappiness.

Link: http://www.healthzone.ca/health/yourhealth/article/767170--happy-canadians-have-healthier-hearts-study-finds

Special diet allowance?

I came across an article from the Toronto star. In this article, it touches on the ongoing debate about where to allocate budget within the healthcare system. The special diet allowance has increased and this allowance is given to people on welfare to help them manage their medical conditions. The ultimate beneficiary of this allowance is three people. It all goes back to who gets the biggest piece of the pie. People with certain diseases are complaining about how the medical conditions are not funded equally. What disease should get the biggest cut of the budget? What types of diseases deserve the most attention? This article is one of many that show how divided Canada is about money allocation and it speaks to priority groups. The focus has always been high risk groups, but does that mean that the other group of people are overlooked? What determines how much more money a person should receive for their type of disease? This article shows the increasing trend of the downstream strategy of spending our budget as well. We look to fix the immediate problem but rarely ever do we look to put money towards prevention. As taxpayers, we need to see the biggest bang for our buck. Treatment is our top priority but is it the best approach towards this situation.

Link: http://www.healthzone.ca/health/dietfitness/diet/article/772451--province-told-to-boost-special-diet-allowance

Good health, expensive milk?

As it seems nowadays, good health is harder and harder to come by and unaffordable even. Aside from all the money the government and taxpayers spend on healthcare, it seems as though organic, holistic foods are foods that are considered healthy foods. The problem is that these foods often cost more than many people are willing to pay for. Is it worth getting that one organic product and sacrificing two or more products that will probably equal the price of that one product? That would not be a problem for people with a higher socioeconomic status, but for those people with a lower socioeconomic status, the price difference can mean the world. Money is one of the biggest determinants of food choices. There are an increasing number of products that are organic and considered to be the more optimal products, but these products come with a higher cost that not everyone can afford.

The article I came across from the Toronto Star talks about keeping cows healthy in order to ensure that the milk is of top quality. The ultimate question proposed here is whether people are willing to pay more for milk or yogurt that comes from a healthier cow. With biosecurity practies imposed, would the product be of a higher quality? With a price increase of milk too, would this mean that more segregation between the higher and lower socioeconomic class would result. The content in this article illustrates the social inequality on health in this country. We should have a dividing line on what can be done with the foods we eat. Would we be implementing the biosecurity practices just to gain more profit or because we know that it will certainly boost the health of Canadians?

Link: http://www.healthzone.ca/health/newsfeatures/article/767215--is-the-milk-of-healthier-cow-worth-more-cash