Obama IDs the Key to Healthcare Reform!

"When it comes to food, one of the things that we are doing is working with school districts. And the child nutrition legislation is going to be coming up. We provide an awful lot of school lunches out there and -- and reimburse local school districts for school-lunch programs. Let's figure out how can we get some fresh fruits and vegetables in the mix. Because sometimes you go into schools and -- you know what the menu is, you know? It's French fries, Tater Tots, hot dogs, pizza and -- now, that's what kids -- let's face it, that's what kids want to eat, anyway. (Laughter.)

So it's not just the schools' fault. A, that's what kids may want to eat. B, it turns out that that food's a lot cheaper, because of the distributions that we've set up. And so what we've got to do is to change how we think about, for example, getting local farmers connected to school districts, because that would benefit the farmers, delivering fresh produce, but right now they just don't have the distribution mechanisms set up. So, you know, Michelle set up that garden in the White House? One of the things that we're trying to do now is to figure out, can we get a little farmers' market -- outside of the White House -- I'm not going to have all of you all just tromping around inside -- (laughter) -- but right outside the White House -- (laughter) -- so that -- so that we can -- and -- and -- and that is a win-win situation.

One of the things that we're trying to do now is to figure out, can we get a little farmers' market -- outside of the White House -- I'm not going to have all of you all just tromping around inside -- (laughter) -- but right outside the White House -- (laughter) -- so that -- so that we can -- and -- and -- and that is a win-win situation. "  Barack Obama http://tinyurl.com/l225ab

It gives suddenly D.C. more access to good, fresh food, but it also is this enormous potential revenue-maker for local farmers in the area. And -- and that -- those kinds of connections can be made all throughout the country, and -- and has to be part of how we think about health.

Imagine a community where local farmers work with your child's school to provide nutritious, fresh, natural foods on a daily basis. Imagine your child spending days in the school garden learning biology, geometry and nutrition. Probably actually less overall cost than shipping the highly processed, sugar-laden meals they eat today. I hope he is serious about this type of legislation. Then he can make healthcare as much of a debacle as he wants to in my mind, this would change the paradigm for generations.

Michael Pollan:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/magazine/02cooking-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

"But here’s what I don’t get: How is it that we are so eager to watch other people browning beef cubes on screen but so much less eager to brown them ourselves? For the rise of Julia Child as a figure of cultural consequence — along with Alice Waters and Mario Batali and Martha Stewart and Emeril Lagasse and whoever is crowned the next Food Network star — has, paradoxically, coincided with the rise of fast food, home-meal replacements and the decline and fall of everyday home cooking.

That decline has several causes: women working outside the home; food companies persuading Americans to let them do the cooking; and advances in technology that made it easier for them to do so. Cooking is no longer obligatory, and for many people, women especially, that has been a blessing. But perhaps a mixed blessing, to judge by the culture’s continuing, if not deepening, fascination with the subject. It has been easier for us to give up cooking than it has been to give up talking about it — and watching it.

Today the average American spends a mere 27 minutes a day on food preparation (another four minutes cleaning up); that’s less than half the time that we spent cooking and cleaning up when Julia arrived on our television screens. It’s also less than half the time it takes to watch a single episode of “Top Chef” or “Chopped” or “The Next Food Network Star.” What this suggests is that a great many Americans are spending considerably more time watching images of cooking on television than they are cooking themselves — an increasingly archaic activity they will tell you they no longer have the time for."

I never thought about this. Cooking shows are incredibly popular, but no one is cooking. Its like some crazy futuristic Disney movie (see: Wall-E). We subconsiously are so craving to nourish ourselves that we fantasize via TV of cooking by others do it. Let's get rid of the middle man, especially if that middle man is some overweight loud mouth hollering at people to "Kick it up!"

Can the UK Organic Study Be Trusted?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paula-crossfield/organic-versus-convention_b_247801.html

The 50-year study that I woke up to on my alarm clock showed no nutrition advantage to organic food. Unfortunately, it looks as if the Foods Standard Agency is headed by people connected to agribusiness and grocery stores. Wouldn't these groups profit long-term if sustainable, local farming method and markets went away?

It's so sad that the first thought I had when I heard the report on NPR this morning was, "What flaw(s) did this data have?" Conflict of interest for one, shutting down the report prior to 15 relevant studies on organic foods coming out for another.

There is good data on the increased antioxidant content of organic produce, not to mention the lower levels of carcinogenic chemicals, benefits to the earth and the fact that harvest loads are largely no different.

The problem is that someone on the other side of the fence will argue about the flaws in that data. And they would be right. Several of those studies are funded by groups connected to organic growing.

So the real issue is that there is no such thing as unbiased "evidence-based" nutrition that impacts any significant change. The change in thought or philosophy based on a study or series of studies is nearly impossible. We are set in our ways and beliefs and this drives us to find fault in all conflicting data. I realize this and so try to truly change my outlook based on the studies that come out, but the truth of the matter is: If that NPR report this morning told me a 50 year study of organic food shows its better, I would have never questioned it and enjoyed my organic blueberries for breakfast with a big smile.

Really, Dr. Snyderman?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31388323/#32168581

Does this really put the gut-autism link to bed as Dr. Nancy Snyderman, who is now a TV star for MSNBC, suggests? Dr. Nancy thinks so. The way she speaks in this interview there is now no doubt that there is any connection whatsoever. Really? You are telling me that a study of 124 children puts the whole thing to bed. That the issue is constipation and they should drink more water. Maybe we should continue to just heavily medicate.

I have some issues with several points:

1. A study of 124 kids is hardly enough to convince anyone that there is no definite connection. Imagine what the conventional physician would say if there was a study done on 124 kids showing that gluten sensitivity promotes the symptoms of autism. Right away, it would dismissed as too small to prove that. Well, this is too small to prove anything.

2. How was the study done? Determining malabsorption and inflammation. By what means? Those are vague assessments at best and I doubt they were doing the type of specialty lab testing that the integrative and functional physicians use for this. And who were they compared to, 'normal' kids. I am not sure the 'normal' American child has all that great of a gut either so maybe there are no major differences in their digestive systems. In my experience, the conventional tests will show positive when a high level of disease is present, not the type of subacute, moderate levels of disease I so often see.

3. Maybe it's constipation. Yes, maybe it is, and Dr. Nancy why is that? Certainly the meds are an issue, but I am willing to bet that if you interview these kids, their constipation started long before the meds did. So how do we explain this? Digestive issues are at the heart of a lot of our societies illnesses and it appears with autism that these kids have a very difficult time with sensitivities to environmental stimuli. Allowing their digestive systems to be attacked by the common proteins in the American diet (gluten, casein), doesn't cause autism, but it certainly can have a major role in irritating their immune systems and piling on the metabolic issues already present.

I am disappointed in Dr. Snyderman reporting with such finality to the issue of a gut-autism connection based on a study of 124 kids. Yes, it may lend some insight and maybe malabsorption and inflammation have little to do with it. Maybe it's something more minor that standard testing is poor at picking up. To close the book on it, as her interview would suggest, leading Americans to manage their kids through medications alone may prove to be a dangerous direction.