MIT: Eating Local Food Is the Key to Solving Our Obesity Epidemic
Posted by Tara Lohan at 7:45 AM on November 11, 2009.
Alternet.org
Sometimes it takes more than Michael Pollan to get through to people. New research from MIT about how locally grown foods can reduce our obesity problem is welcome news. Right now Americans are getting bigger and bigger -- between 1980 and 2006 obesity among teenagers grew from 5 to 18 percent; and 7 to 17 percent for pre-teens. These gains are contributing more to the onset of diseases like type 2 diabetes, strokes and heart problems, writes Peter Dizikes of MIT News Office.
A group of MIT researchers found that what's driving our obesity epidemic is "our national-scale system of food production and distribution, which surrounds children -- especially lower-income children -- with high-calorie products." Precisely what folks in the pro-food/local foods movement have been saying for years. And it makes sense considering the shocking figure that 90 percent of American food is processed according to the USDA, Dizikes highlights.
Thankfully the researchers didn't just stop at pointing out the obvious, they offered a solution:
America should increase its regional food consumption. Each metropolitan area, the researchers say, should obtain most of its nutrition from its own "foodshed," a term akin to "watershed" meaning the area that naturally supplies its kitchens. Moreover, in a novel suggestion, the MIT and Columbia team says these local efforts should form a larger "Integrated Regional Foodshed" system, intended to lower the price and caloric content of food by lowering distances food must travel, from the farm to the dinner table. Read More
I think there are many people out there, including Michael Pollan, that think every “foodshed” can produce enough food and a variety of foods for the people that live there. But what this article advocates would translate into my family living on a mostly all beef diet. As much as I love eating beef, I don’t want it to be the only thing I eat at every meal. I want my children to have access to fresh fruits and vegetables, many of which won’t grow in our climate and soil. To advocate for eating a local-only diet is to advocate for some people to eat an unbalanced, unhealthy diet.
3 comments:
Interesting take on things- I found your blog through Twitter.
We eat mostly beef anyway as we are 40 miles from the closest thing resembling a grocery store. So keeping fresh veggies on hand, unless we grow them, is really difficult.
Verification word: aggies- as a former resident of the lone-star state, that is just too funny right now- on an ag blog, with the word aggies as the verification word.
Troy:
New to your blog - nice work! I'm going to keep it bookmarked.
I think the idea of local is crucial. It would take time to develop, but imagine if your ranch had a bigger garden and so too did all the ranches in the area.
If that was the case, you might be able to approach a local foods perspective more readily.
The MIT study, and others, really look closely at the way long-distance shipping is shipping in the bad stuff and omitting good food that might be closer to home.
But it's a multifaceted problem. Beyond all-beef, what foods could you buy locally? Does Meade County have any farmers markets?
Again, nice work on the blog. Keep it up and I'll keep reading.
J
Jarret,
If all of the ranches had bigger gardens, we'd be farming not ranching. Soil type and climate dictate how the land should be used. Part of the reason we had the Dust Bowl Days was because there was ground that was trying to be farmed that never should have.
Meade County doesn't have any farmers markets that I am aware of. In addition to that, I'm not sure how most people would be able to run their ranches if they had to be at a farmer's market everyday.
Even if there was a local farmer's market, we obviously don't grow many fruits in our neck of the woods. It's important to me that my children have access to this important food group.
Thanks for stopping by my blog.
Post a Comment