3.19.2010

the fat blame game

Watched "Super Size Me" via Netflix "Watch Instantly" last night. It fit in nicely w/ everything I learned yesterday about NSLP, FNS, and school nutrition in general. The villification of the fast-food industry (How to Make a Scary Clown Scarier!) was tempered by Morgan Spurlock's approach to the project - although it was clearly a crusade against McDonald's and the fast-food industry in general, Spurlock remained genial and retained his sense of humor, and while he did ask the important questions, he never went Michael Moore on anyone. He remained "just a guy doing an experiment" throughout.

The film:

- made me fear Chicken McNuggets and Big Macs (although in my whole life, I have never eaten a Big Mac. And now never will.)

- made me realize something I didn't know about my job: it helps me burn more calories than the average bear. Teachers constantly move about the classroom; it's rare that we sit for more than a few minutes at a time. If I taught Social Studies more often, I'd be even better off. I get really animated during Social Studies.

- did not, unfortunately, turn me off McDonald's once and for all. I hoped it would, but it didn't.

Not for money nor fame nor all the political, nutritional, educational opportunities it offered would I ever do an experiment like Spurlock's. I may duck into the golden arches anywhere from once a week to twice a day (I work less than a block from the nearest McDonald's), but even in the worst of times, my order is generally something like: "no-cheese Egg McMuffin, small iced tea" or "grilled Chicken Classic, no mayo." Still bad, considering the sodium content. You could actually kick "bad" up to "horrific" if you really examine the fries that come with. But if my picks are horrific, what would one consider the Super Sized Big Mac "Extra Value" Meal?

P.S. Yeah, they really hate me at "my" McDonald's - always asking for no this, no that, a muffin instead of a biscuit, having the nerve to order iced tea which means they have to clean the container once a month. And still, I persist. Spurlock's right, it's a disease.

The bottom line of the film of course is figuring out whose responsibility a healthy lifestyle is. Should individuals and corporations bear equal responsibility? Should corporations who hawk addictive, health-deteriorating products bear more?

My knee-jerk response is that individuals are graced with free will and all the information they need to make healthy choices. But. I was raised on home cooking; there was never a saltshaker at the dinner table; I have access to the internet; I seem to have decent genes. Not everyone has these advantages. When I was growing up, school lunches (to the best of my memory) were sometimes gross, sometimes yummy, but never the disgusting salmagundi of wilted, prepackaged, preservative-laden crap they serve kids today (I'm referring to the mainland schools whose conscientious teachers are blogging against school lunches that look like the whole thing popped out of a carnival booth or a vending machine.)

We never had an all-you-can-stomach selection of pizza, ice cream, soda (it was banned, in fact), burgers. Admin and corporate claims: We want the kids to learn how to make healthy choices, so we don't restrict what they purchase. And so - whether due to the fact that they're typical kids, or their parents are ignorant of their schooltime eating habits, or it really is the only thing put before them during the day - they end up buying a soda and a bag of chips. Where then is the learning part? As Spurlock challenged: are you following them back to the table to make sure that's not all they're eating? No, because once the food's sold, your job is done. They have their 38% DV of sodium and 40% DV of sugar (in one "meal"), and the only thing they've learned is 1) it tastes good and 2) no one cares if that's all they eat. School districts - and the federal government - need to be more conscientious about what is offered to kids. You can't leave a string of firecrackers and a lighter with a bunch of kids and call it a lesson in making good choices.

With adults it's a little stickier because, well, we're adults. True, McDonald's will kill you (if you eat it the way Spurlock ate it). However, there is no physical coercion pulling you toward the nearest red-and-yellow circus of lard and sugar. You can argue that addiction is physiological. You can also argue that everything you do is a choice. Take your $4.99 to the market and buy some kale, or take it to McDonald's and buy an extra value meal: your choice. Aggressive marketing encourages people to consume food products that contribute significantly to health problems; a balanced education encourages people not to eat three Big Macs a week and to run around the block a couple times a day.

Bottom line: The lawsuit that inspired Spurlock's experiment should have been thrown out, because no one forced the food down those girls' throats. But Spurlock's project was a good one because it's the education component. I do think it would have been more valuable if he (or some other filmmaker) showed the effects of a more realistic McDiet. I'm sure the effects of eating an extra value meal twice a week for a year (which is way more likely than eating it three times a day for 30 days straight) would have been significantly bad, and way more realistic.

Should the advertising of fast food fall under the same restrictions as the advertising of smoking? I don't think it would hurt to slap a warning label on each bucket of fries, jumbo-sized beverage cup, or multi-story burger. However, I don't think it would help greatly, either. Real education comes in the form of good parenting, vivid filmmaking, well-written books - and, unfortunately, a few graphic deaths by overburgerdose.

1 comment:

Dan said...

There's also a new show coming to ABC (I think) called Food Revolution. Same concept but taking it to the families in primetime. If you get a chance, I'm sure that'll scare you. Not as much as a zebra in a sports bra mind you, but it'll make you think.