I posted the following on a forum at http://jimharold.net–which, by the way, I highly recommend as both an entertaining and thought-provoking website & podcast. The subject was the documentary Fathead, by Tom Naughton (http://www.fathead-movie.com/), which argues that a diet high in protein & fat is actually healthy. Nevertheless, I found that I had a few problems with Naughton’s tone. Here’s my original post:
__________________________________
A good interview, and I will certainly check out the video.
That said, I’ve gotten to an age where I’ve had to acknowledge the extent to which I’ve been far too trusting of people who argue from positions of certainty. Several of Mr. Naughton’s comments raised flags, such as referring to a “radical” vegetarian agenda (“radical” is, in my experience, most often applied to social progressive whose beliefs challenge the status quo), George McGovern (a favorite target of political conservatives until Jimmy Carter) having been the driving force behind the FDA’s low-fat initiative, and his use of the term “personal responsibility,” which has been used by economic conservatives to excuse all sorts of corporate wrong-doings (hey, you chose to eat unhealthy food and live an unhealthy lifestyle). I hope that this is a combination of an unfortunate choice of words and my own sensitivity after having been attacked (many times viciously) by social & political conservatives.
I DID take a look at fathead-movie.com, and was pleased to see the extent to which Naughton challenges the cozy relationship between the government and big-agra. I also appreciate the references he’s given to support the legitimate science behind his arguments. He has important points to make about low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets that are worth serious discussion.
He loses me again, however, in his questioning the idea that there is a place for the government in helping citizens manage their health. I’ve no problem with the idea that our government–liberal, conservative, bureaucratic–screws things up, often times to the detriment of the very people it is supposed to serve. And I agree that these cases incidents seem to come from taking biased & ideology-based positions. If the FDA, CDC, & other three-letter agencies have adopted the “liberal” positions that he & many of his commentators argue take away our individual freedoms, these same groups have also taken “conservative” positions that favor the bottom lines of corporate interests & the business world’s manipulation of information over the good of the American citizenry. The question then becomes, where does a member of this society turn in order to find unbiased information (such as that which Naughton purports to champion)? Do we expect each individual to spend the time surfing the internet & weeding through the mountains of information to reach informed conclusions? Do we turn to the corporate world that cares only about profits? Do we turn the “radical” organizations pushing this or that narrow & ideology-based belief? The answer seems to me to hold public, governmental agencies accountable for acting in the public interest rather than saying they have no place in the discussion.
Personal responsibility is a noble ideal, but in a society as complex as ours one cannot simply dismiss something like obesity as a lack of personal responsibility; this seems to be a case of preferring to blame the victim. The reality is that many Americans live on marginal incomes, are two paychecks away from bankruptcy, and struggle to stretch their earnings in an economy where real earnings for working & middle-class Americans has not changed in 30 years. Compare the cost of foods that are high in sugars and carbs to the cost of those high in proteins and it’s no wonder huge swaths of the population consume these foods. And, yes, people can eat less. But we have to also consider that many of these foods create those “feel-good” sensations based in biology that we developed to put ON fat to avoid starving to death in times of famine. Then we have to add in the subtle but constant pressure through the various meda from those corporate interests that want us to consume these products, remember that most of advertising works on the unconscious mind, not the conscious. Naugthon seems to deride the notion of corporate responsibility; given the economic power these corporations have, and the success they’ve had in having themselves declared as having the same rights as individuals, his dismissiveness seems more an act of corporate favoritism than supportive of individual freedom. After all, look at how hard the food industry has fought against having to declare what their products actually contain. Do we really think that an individual can exercise her or his responsibilities in the face of the profits-above-all mentality?
I guess it comes down to my feeling that the very serious and valid points Naughton makes are undercut by the manner in which he presents them. I’m willing to admit that I’ve been led astray in the past by people whose facts got intermingled with ideology. Seeing ideology peeking through his work…well, fool me once, etc.
