Bush, Burgers And Fries (Or: Who Gives A HHS About The WHO?)

Is Bush "pulling a Kyoto" on the World Health Organization?

The Administration, through the Wealth and Inhumane Services Department (oops, we meant theHealth and Human Services Department), has elected to oppose a world-wide effort to fight childhood obesity.

The WHO is in the final stages of preparing an initiative called the "Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health" for presentation to the May 2004 World Health Assembly. The goal of the program is an international effort to limit junk food advertising; provide for more comprehensive food labeling; promote healthier diets; and, particularly, to insure healthier meals are served in schools.

In his role as a front man for Big Oil, Big Media, Big Drugs and Big Insurance, it's no surprise that President Bush has, once again, lined-up in opposition to an international accord. This time, he's serving as running boy for Big Food.

One way Bush is trying to derail the WHO initiative is by challenging established research. Employing his special brand of "vigilante scientists," Bush's people at the HHS now claim no correlation can be made between junk food and obesity. Sinking further into science fantasy land, the HHS is even questioning the link between fruit and vegetable consumption, and the decreased risk of obesity and diabetes.

In an article at Alternet, Jonathan Rowe and Gary Ruskin (Executive Director of Commercial Alert) sketch out the Administration's fat charade.

Regarding the money trail, the article calls out a few key Bush fundraisers, including financier Henry Kravis, who has a huge investment in pumping junk food advertising into classroom through the Channel One TV network. Also mentioned are Safeway CEO Steven Burd, who is currently spearheading the vicious war with striking grocery store unions to strip them of their health benefits. Sugar king, Jose Fanjul, is also recognized. Rowe and Ruskin point out the sugar industry is heavily mobilize, given the WHO's attempt to reduce free sugar to less than 10% of total daily calories.

In the highly profitable business of waging war, the President sees fruits and vegetables as natural enemies. In defense of the corporate status quo, nothing unprocessed or unsweetened can be spared. After all, there is a nation of couch potatoes to protect.

send this cartoon to a friend!

Comments

[dsb]

It is the responsibility of the individual to eat healthy. Some people need high calorie meals in order to maintain a proper body weight, especially if you are on a work out program or exercise a lot. So high calorie, high fat foods are not inherantly bad, but they are if you abuse them.

It's time for the government to stop holding everyone's hand, it's time for them to inspire them to lead the way.

A good way to reduce obesity in this nation is to increase PE funding or legislate that kids in high school have to be able to run in a certain time.

But ultimately, the individual will have to take responsibility for eating well. The government can't convice people of this; they will either do it or they wont on their own accord.

[peterP]

I agree that ultimately responsability for eating properly rests with individuals in our society. But actually that is really not the case in most cultures. Food production and preparation are a major foundation of material culture in more traditional societies. The knowledge of proper and healthy eating is contained in the recipes and traditions of regional cuisines. In Japan, where I currently reside, people intuitively know what to eat to keep thin and healthy. It is a diet based on rice, beans in form of tofu and soy sauce, fish, and a great variety of vegatables. It is also a dynamic cuisine. New food types are creatively added to the traditional dishes. In addition, every type of food is available. On can eat Chinese, Korean, Indian, French, Italian, etc. You can even go to McDonalds if you want. But the fundamental idea about eating is not really changed. The portions of servings are reasonable. There is always a great variety of dishes comprising numerous types of foods at each meal. Actually I think this way of eating is the norm in most parts of the world. In the U.S. , I feel a combination of factors have combined to make eating well almost impossible. 1. a lack of cultural guides to eating, 2. a lack of aesthetic concern, the bigger the better, supersize-me, 3. a lack of time to prepare and eat food properly, food is something that comes in a bag, can, or box to be eaten while doing something else, 4. what tradition does not inform us about how and what to eat, TV does, the perversion of snack food culture is a phenomenon rarely seen outside of our boarders, 5. unhealthy life styles, think suburbs and cars, no walking and long car commutes not only make reasonable exercise difficult, the time consumed by driving around all day makes it impossible to prepare and eat a proper meal. The list goes on and on. I believe it is the combination of an unhealthy lifestyle, precipitated by car culture, a lack of cultural information concerning proper eating habits, and the pernicious effect of advertising on our ideas of what constitutes food, that has made eating properly almost impossible for most Americans.