Debate the hottest political topics, poll the public opinion, post your own opinion polls and find out what others think!
You can even post your own public opinion polls using our poll builder and find out what others think on the issues that matter to you!
The August 15 issue of the New Yorker includes a story about eating bugs and all the great things entomophagy (bug-eating) could do for the world. Many readers probably reacted like me at first glance, with disgust. (Although the photograph included in the opening pages of the article is kind of adorable -- the image is attached here.) However, start reading and the pro-bug argument begins piling up: honey is the vomit of a bee, and we eat that with pleasure. Eighty per cent of the world includes insects on the menu -- that puts us squeamish North Americans in the minority, with our taboo against insect eating."From an ecological perspective, insects have a lot to recommend them," the article reads. Considering the heavy ecological toll that meat production has cost us thus far, we can only imagine how much worse it will get with increasing population and demands to feed that population. Factory farms producing beef and pork consume massive amounts of water and produce massive amounts of waste. Bugs are "are about four times as efficient at converting feed to meat as are cattle." Insects are an excellent alternative to our current protein sources.The article also draws on examples of formerly taboo foods being marketed in such a way that they gained popularity, as with sushi. To refute the concept that bugs are dirty, the experts quoted point out that some vegetarian bugs have much cleaner diets than things we currently eat, bottom feeders like lobster and crab. There are lots of great arguments found in this article, and I'm persuaded that bugs may be the future of food -- but not persuaded enough to bake myself some chocolate chip and cricket cookies. What do you think? Would you eat bugs?
In the United States, it's much cheaper to buy a meal heavy in fats, salt and sugar like a fast-food burger, fries and soda than it is to buy a meal of whole foods, including fresh vegetables, whole grains and healthier meats like fish. The ubiquity of cheap, poor quality, low nutrition food has led to health problems, medical costs and a lower quality of life for many Americans. Although the government has encouraged healthier choices by providing educational resources and reformulating the food pyramid into a more intuitive "plate" graphic, these efforts neglect to address the economic factors of unhealthy eating. Lower-income Americans are unable to buy and eat more nutritious whole food because of its cost.To address this problem, food journalists have proposed a tax on processed food and a subsidy on nutritious food. A New York Times article from last month explains that food companies are in it for the profit, not the health of their customers. If the government intervened with a tax and tipped the scales so that processed food was less profitable, food companies would follow the money and increase the quality of their products. The income from taxed soda and chips could go toward decreasing the cost of fresh greens, fruit and legumes. This isn't a radical idea. The reason heavily processed foods like soda and French fries are so cheap is because the government subsidizes farming of corn and soy, the sources of almost all added sugar and fat. The process could, in theory, be reversed. States, cities and even the federal government are already considering a tax on soda, party for its public health benefits and partly for the revenue, and it seems just a matter of time before those go into action.However, even if the political will were there, it may not solve all our problems. Studies have shown that year-to-year food prices won't change obesity rates, and taxation only goes so far toward changing behavior -- to bust Big Tobacco, the government not only taxed cigarettes but restricted advertising. Grist food writer Tom Laskawy brings up these points in a response to the NYT piece, and concludes, "The only thing more frustrating than the limited effect such a program might have is the utter political impossibility of enacting it."Do you think a low-quality food tax would benefit public health? Would legislation like this get enacted, given the chance?
McDonald's recently announced that they will offer "improved nutrition choices" in their Happy Meals. The fries have been reduced by one ounce, and a quarter cup of apple slices come with every meal. Fat-free chocolate or 1% plain milk are available instead of soda, which is the default. A toy still comes with the meal, unless you're in San Francisco, where toys in fast-food meals have been banned unless certain nutritional requirements are met. New York City is considering a similar law. While some commentary on this announcement has claimed that McDonald's bowed to pressure from food activists, in reality a huge corporation like McDonald's will only change their model if it helps the bottom line. This slight change to Happy Meals might appease some parents, or give the company a positive image boost, or deter other cities from following San Francisco's examples by sending the message, "We're trying!" Journalists' reactions to this news has varied -- some are excited, some are skeptical, and everyone is trying to figure out if this relatively minor change is a step in the right direction.The SF Gate decides it isn't: " Aren't baby steps like these in the right direction and, therefore, deserving of support? I don't think so. McDonald's proposed changes are a reason to ask a different question: Is a better-for-you Happy Meal a good choice? Wouldn't your child be better off eating something healthy, not just slightly healthier?" Over at Grist, slight progress gets a slightly better rap: "we should acknowledge these positive changes, even if we feel they are inadequate....let's keep up the pressure on McDonald's by continuing to highlight the shortcomings of the Happy Meal." The Huffington Post sees the whole thing as a extension of McDonald's normal gameplan, to create the perception of wholesome food while selling us hormone- and additive-addled calorie bombs. "While McDonald's is making these changes and the result may be positive for the health of our kids...In the end, McDonald's is what it is: A fast food restaurant peddling fat, sugar and salt-laden foods designed to addict you to it, so you become a customer for life." At the Atlantic, two journalists offer two different opinions, one championing the change to Happy Meals ("While we may not recognize it yet, we have just witnessed a milestone in the War on Obesity...McDonald's and Walmart have raised the bar for what food companies can do to address public concerns about nutrition and obesity") the other deriding the change ("These may be steps in the right direction, but I'd call them tiny baby steps...If McDonald's were serious, it could offer a truly healthier Happy Meal as the default and back it up with marketing dollars...I'm not impressed.")These responses certainly run the gamut of possible reactions to McDonald's announcement. What do you think? Are the changes to the the Happy Meal a step in the right direction?
I bet we’ve all heard of high fructose corn syrup, though it’s a relatively recent addition to the human diet. It’s also a pretty contentious food. Arguments surrounding HFCS take on dimensions beyond “for” and “against” to reach some pretty nuanced – and confusing – points. A dizzying array of arguments can be found in the articles linked below. Some in opposition of HFCS argue that sugar, especially HFCS, will kill us, while others crusade against HFCS in particular (as opposed to sugar in general) for its negative health and environmental effects. Those in favor of the sweetener encourage us to refer to it as “corn sugar” to draw a parallel to the harmless white stuff we keep in ceramic bowls for coffee, they argue against a direct connection between HFCS and health problems, or they just like their pop and don’t pay much mind to the drama surrounding HFCS. I look out for HFCS and avoid it for the most part – not because I’m opposed to sugar or I think it has any special health risks, but because its presence is a good indicator of the processed foods I want to avoid and because I oppose the corn-heavy agriculture subsidized by our government. What do you think of this conversation surrounding HFCS? Do you find it harmless or hostile?
I bet we’ve all heard of high fructose corn syrup, though it’s a relatively recent addition to the human diet. It’s also a pretty contentious food. Arguments surrounding HFCS take on dimensions beyond “for” and “against” to reach some pretty nuanced – and confusing – points. A dizzying array of arguments can be found in the articles linked below.
Some in opposition of HFCS argue that sugar, especially HFCS, will kill us, while others crusade against HFCS in particular (as opposed to sugar in general) for its negative health and environmental effects.
Those in favor of the sweetener encourage us to refer to it as “corn sugar” to draw a parallel to the harmless white stuff we keep in ceramic bowls for coffee, they argue against a direct connection between HFCS and health problems, or they just like their pop and don’t pay much mind to the drama surrounding HFCS.
I look out for HFCS and avoid it for the most part – not because I’m opposed to sugar or I think it has any special health risks, but because its presence is a good indicator of the processed foods I want to avoid and because I oppose the corn-heavy agriculture subsidized by our government. What do you think of this conversation surrounding HFCS? Do you find it harmless or hostile?
A recent Grist article cited a chart that shows the changes in the American diet since 1970. Consumption of added fats and added sugars far outweigh calories from fruits and vegetables as of 2008. Back in 1970, according to the interactive chart, we did eat more of those additives than whole foods, but the ratio has skyrocketed since then. And the average overall calories consumed in the US have risen from 2168 every day in 1970 to 2673 in 2008.
Most of these additional calories come from the added value companies insert into processed food to justify selling it at a higher price than whole food. Even the source of those added fats and sugars is profit-oriented – corn and soy increasingly dominate the agriculture in the United States, and their production is heavily subsidized by the government and encouraged by corporations who make money off these cheap sources of added value.
Grist writer Tom Philpott says in his article, “I think it's fair to say that a massive part of our diet-related health problems stem from sugar isolated from corn and fat isolated from soy.” This way of eating is unsustainable, agriculturally and physically, and increasing awareness of the machinations and consequences behind it causes some people to reevaluate the way they eat. Companies looking for profit have so infiltrated the system, though, that it’s really difficult and sometime expensive to find an alternate diet. How do you deal with information like this?
Conversations about food trigger defensiveness from many of us. I think it’s an indication of the sorry state of our country’s agriculture that we can’t talk about food – meat, in particular – without hitting friction with most other people, but I bet someone would disagree with me even about that. I’m a vegetarian in support of ethical animal husbandry, so I’m in the position of disagreeing with vegans – people I have some values in common with – who would rather no one ever raise animals for their meat and other products, under any conditions. Last Wednesday Grist's senior food and agriculture writer Tom Philpott published an article titled Introducing... the Vegan/Omnivore Alliance against Animal Factories. He suggests that "conscientious omnivores," "who think that animals have a place in our farming and our diets, but in a much different way than the prevailing manner" and "vegans, who wish to remove animals from our farms and tables altogether" have a common enemy: "industrial animal agriculture." So the two groups should team up. Enter the "Vegan/Omnivore Alliance against Animal Factory Farming (twitter hashtag: #VOAAF)."Philpott states that he’s a writer, not an organizer, and that he doesn’t mean for the organization to be anything but an idea, unless someone else wants to take up the mantle. On Friday, someone started the @VOAAF Twitter account. That feed shows the creation of a domain, a Facebook, and a call for volunteers. Will this alliance take off and become a well-known animal rights group (and perhaps lessen tension between vegans and omnivores in the process)? Do you think it’s a good concept to rally behind?
Conversations about food trigger defensiveness from many of us. I think it’s an indication of the sorry state of our country’s agriculture that we can’t talk about food – meat, in particular – without hitting friction with most other people, but I bet someone would disagree with me even about that. I’m a vegetarian in support of ethical animal husbandry, so I’m in the position of disagreeing with vegans – people I have some values in common with – who would rather no one ever raise animals for their meat and other products, under any conditions.
Last Wednesday Grist's senior food and agriculture writer Tom Philpott published an article titled Introducing... the Vegan/Omnivore Alliance against Animal Factories. He suggests that "conscientious omnivores," "who think that animals have a place in our farming and our diets, but in a much different way than the prevailing manner" and "vegans, who wish to remove animals from our farms and tables altogether" have a common enemy: "industrial animal agriculture." So the two groups should team up. Enter the "Vegan/Omnivore Alliance against Animal Factory Farming (twitter hashtag: #VOAAF)."
Philpott states that he’s a writer, not an organizer, and that he doesn’t mean for the organization to be anything but an idea, unless someone else wants to take up the mantle. On Friday, someone started the @VOAAF Twitter account. That feed shows the creation of a domain, a Facebook, and a call for volunteers. Will this alliance take off and become a well-known animal rights group (and perhaps lessen tension between vegans and omnivores in the process)? Do you think it’s a good concept to rally behind?
As more and more Americans apply for and receive food stamps (actually, it's called SNAP now, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), fast food restaurants, in particular fast food conglomerate Yum! Brand foods, are looking to cash in. Yum! Brand owns KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut, among others, and they're lobbying their home state of Kentucky to allow SNAP recipients to use their stamps at the company's restaurants.Generally, food stamps only apply to non-prepared food -- stuff you can get in a grocery or convenience store, but not hot meals like those served at restaurants. However, some areas of California, Arizona and Michigan have already opened up restaurants to receive SNAP dollars, using a provision from the 1970s that "allows states to allow restaurants to serve disabled, elderly and homeless people," those unable or unequipped to prepare their own food. Yum! Brand wants more states to enact this provision, so they can rake in the food stamp dollars.In a country dealing with hunger and poverty and obesity, an attempt to make fast food even more available to the most vulnerable among us sparks strong reactions. Anti-hunger advocates feel that any increase in the availability of food is a good thing. Edward Cooney of the Congressional Hunger Center asks, "Think going hungry is better [than eating fast food]? I'm solidly behind what Yum! is doing." Coalition for the Homeless, too, says that for people who don't live near a grocery store and can't afford a restaurant, "this would allow people to get a reduced price meal at a small deli or a restaurant, and that does include fast-food restaurants," and they see that as a good thing. Public health advocates oppose the idea of food stamps going to fast food restaurants, just as they oppose fast food's current domination of the market among poor individuals who look to fast food for the cheapest, most plentiful calories. "It's preposterous that a company like Yum! Brands would even be considered for inclusion in a program meant for supplemental nutrition," said a spokeswoman for Yale's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. A Grist food writer says, "I'm not crazy about the idea of expanding access to highly processed fast food to the elderly, disabled, or homeless poor," but concedes, "In many poor neighborhoods, fast food is the only restaurant game in town. That's the fundamental problem, of course."A writer at Seattle PI looks for a compromise between these positions, stating, "If government can afford to subsidize big industries – and let’s face it, allowing fast food places to accept food stamps is ultimately a subsidy program for the corporations who own them – it can also show some support for small produce farms. Our taxes would be well spent by keeping healthy nutrition affordable for everyone."What do you think? Would food stamps at restaurants help or harm the hungry? Or can we find a compromise here?
On June 2 the United States Department of Agriculture released a new food guide, akin to the classic Food Pyramid, this time called a Food Plate. The new graphic emphasizes portion control, although the size of the plate is not specified. It encourages lots of vegetables, which critics like. The web site contains further information, including sensible advice about eating less and avoiding fat and sodium. I think the information sections – including the info on protein, which encourages plant-based proteins – are a great step in the right direction.This new design does away with the exercise message of the pervious pyramid. The guidelines do not discourage processed foods or encourage whole foods, although SF Gate says, “Let's give USDA credit for going as far as it could without directly confronting the processed-food and soft-drink industries.” The plate shape doesn’t provide information about how much of each group to eat in a day, or how to eat meals that aren’t served in that arrangement. It’s not perfect, but we can’t expect perfection. Do you think the Food Plate will help guide Americans to make better choices in their diet?
October is Vegetarian Awareness Month, according to the North American Vegetarian Society. October 1st was World Vegetarian Day, or Hug a Vegetarian Day if you ask PETA. NAVS says of the month-long celebration of meat-free diets, "For those new to vegetarianism, it serves as an enticement to give meatless fare a try (even for a day) and learn about its many benefits. And, of course, it's the perfect occasion for vegetarians and those already moving towards plant-based diets to celebrate their healthy, compassionate food choices."There are many reasons that vegetarians and flexitarians (people who eat meat only occasionally, like once a week) choose a meat-free diet. Plant-based diets are often healthier and people who avoid meat generally weight less than those who don't. Some people have ethical objections to either factory farming or any kind of killing for food. Others choose not to eat meat to have a positive impact on the environment -- some experts, including advisors to the UN, have said that avoiding meat is one of the most effective ways to reduce your climate change impact. Of course, that's disputable -- Fox News disputes it, at least.But most of us can agree that eating less meat is probably a good thing. The best part? You don't have to go full-on PETA-style vegan to embrace the message of Vegetarian Awareness Month. Cut meat out of your diet one day each week in October, and you'll have a positive impact in addition to trying something new and personally benifical. Plus, you'll be in good company.Will you choose meat-free options during Vegetarian Awareness Month?
Larry King
March Madness
Natasha Fame Leslie
Ryan Seacrest
Sanu Dellafiore
John Armstrong
Fred Hanna
Georgia Hester
