The numerous signs around campus caught my attention. These signs told me that a nutrition panel was to be convened in the Bridge of 
Learning.
Having run a campaign for public office with childhood obesity as my main concern and having done extensive research in this area, I have significant interest in the topic of nutrition.
I made sure to attend the panel in hopes of hearing professionals in the field discuss what they are doing to make progress in making our country and communities healthier. Instead, I sat through an hour and a half of ignorant dialogue complete with offensive commentary on the state of nutrition in America.
There were four panelists: A dietician/professor, two employees from Whole Foods, and a participant in the Empathy Experiment. While the dietician made reasonable points about obesity and the causes and practical solutions to the problems people across the country face, the rest of the panel was not quite so educational or inspiring.
The questions posed to the panelists were biased to the point of being deceitful. One question started out by saying something along the lines of, “It is well known that processed food causes various illnesses and diseases.”
This is patently untrue. There are unhealthy processed foods that, if consumed beyond what is appropriate, could lead to poor nutrition and health issues. But there are also plenty of healthy processed foods that enable hundreds of millions of people around the world to eat and not go hungry, all while living a healthy life.
But the friendly women from Whole Foods wanted everyone to know that if they preferred “natural, organic” food, they could shop at their market.
How convenient! What these marketers failed to mention is that there is no definition, in law, about what makes one food “natural” and another “unnatural.”
In the European Union and other nations, there are requirements foods must meet in order for the companies selling them to be able to label them as natural and organic. The United States, while having requirements for organic foods, has no such laws regarding natural foods.
This means that any company using the term natural to promote their food is simply appealing to feelings of consumers to encourage them to buy their products over another company’s food.
The discussion soon turned to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The question presented to the panel said that GMOs caused various health problems such as kidney and heart disease.
This borders on lying. I would encourage anybody interested in this area to speak with professors in the biology department, one of which is leading a group of students who are doing research in this exact area.
Do you know what they find and what numerous studies have shown? Not only are there zero negative effects of GMOs on humans, but many foods that companies in the United States label as natural actually contain GMOs.
In what must be some kind of miscommunication on their part, the people from Whole Foods were saying how terrible GMOs are while their company, as of last year, no longer opposes the use of genetically modified crops in the market.
Even stranger, many of the labeling laws that panelists from Whole Foods apparently support make exceptions for foods that are for immediate consumption, such as food served in a restaurant (see the ballot initiative in California). This contradiction makes their opposition on the basis of health safety rather hypocritical.
Their explanation for the causes of obesity and malnutrition in American was offensive. They suggested that people eat unhealthy because they do not take the time to find the healthy foods at the grocery and take the food home to cook.
The large majority of those who are overweight and obese and have other health issues are low income. They do not have the time or the money to spend at the grocery store looking and paying for the healthy food.
They’re lucky if they have transportation to get out of the food desert they’re probably living in to go and have an opportunity to have healthier options.
It’s not lack of will that’s the problem; it’s lack of resources. I’ve served too many people at a food shelter to know that they don’t really have much of a choice when it comes to what they eat.
In what became something of a farce, the panelists from Whole Foods began to make a case for animal ethics. There are legitimate arguments to be made for treating animals with dignity and respect, and I refer readers to Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University. He argues for animal ethics based on the amount of suffering they endure.
This was not the argument given by one of the Whole Foods employees. She said, and I quote, “I think I would enjoy my steak more if I knew the cow had been happy.” She also suggested we form relationships with the animals we are going to kill, cut up and enjoy with a side of green beans and potatoes.
In order to justify our consumption of animals from an animal ethics standpoint, we should not be naming the animals and treating them as equals. Rather, as Singer says, we should provide equal consideration. There are horrors in the meat industry to be sure. But the “solutions” discussed by the panel were comical, if not disappointing.
Lastly, the most unbelievable statements came from the student panelist.
He used uninformative sound bites, such as “Large corporations are just bad.” Had he taken notice of whom he was sitting next to, he would have seen one of the largest food distributors in the country. Are there large corporations that are “bad?” Sure. Nestlé is one, in my opinion.
But are there good ones? Absolutely. But we need to move beyond these deceitful generalizations and superficial solutions and enter into a real dialogue.
This campus deserves more than an hour and a half long commercial for Whole Foods. What our campus and the country needs is motivation, through shared experiences, to encourage future leaders to work towards practical and lasting solutions.
