I apologize for ignoring this blog for so long. Since October, I've starting writing my dissertation, and most of my writing energy is taken up there.
I do, however, want to weigh in on the creation of a new food policy council, a process which I have observed rigorously and hopefully played a minor role. The food policy council is a great idea and I sincerely hope for its success. FPCs tend to run the gambit from completely independent of any government entity to completely run by departments of health. The BJFPC is a public-private partnership, which bodes well for both independent thinking and actually influencing policy, provided it doesn't devolve into gridlock.
As the agenda is not set, I wanted to provide some directions for the food policy council to take in hopes to that it will contribute to a more robust, diverse discussion of the food system in Jefferson County.
1. While the food policy council pulls from a diverse cross section of the food system, it lacks racial and class diversity. Only 5 of the 21 members are people of color and all of the members are professionals - it lacks representation from the working class. Because of this, the council will be significantly limited in perspective. To rectify this, the council must develop a strong relationship with the neighborhood associations in Birmingham and with black church leaders throughout the region. It also must adopt anti-racism as a stated goal.
2. The largest problem facing urban farms and community gardens in the region is lack of funding. Few national foundations fund urban agriculture programs, and local funding is a very small with many feeding at the trough. The council must devise programs that can be passed by local municipalities that will help fund these struggling farms. Most of these farms and gardens are trying to provide green jobs in areas that have little employment opportunity, which can be an important selling point to local politicians.
3. One way to fund such a program would be the creation of a soda tax. A rough estimate of revenues from a one cent soda tax in Jefferson County is 25 million dollars. This would be more than enough to fund urban agriculture and recycling, both dire needs in the region. Developing robust ties to low-income and communities of color would be even more imperative, given that pushing a soda tax would be initially unpopular.
And here are the things that it should not do:
1. The focus on health falls on deaf ears for many in the region. I have critiqued the discussion of obesity in a previous blog and I believe this to be a highly depoliticized and extremely problematic approach to the food movement. Everyday people in Jefferson County's communities are focused on getting grocery stores and creating employment, not on issues that demean their body-type and lifestyle. The obesity discussion is unfortunately highly evangelical.
2. The BJFPC should also avoid solely focusing on creating profitable markets for rural farmers, though this is important. Jefferson County is largely an urban county and the BJFPC should reflect the needs of an urban county. While delivering fresh, healthy food is important, job creation is more important. The fastest way to get someone to eat better is to give them a job or a better job.
3. And please, please abandon any discussion of food labeling. It costs money, has virtually no effect, and shows a very rudimentary view on how to change behaviors.
I sincerely hope that my suggestions don't fall on deaf ears, and I wish the BJFPC the best of success in the future.
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health. Show all posts
Monday, January 30, 2012
Monday, June 6, 2011
Why Health is Really a Stand-in for Class
Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu reveals in his seminal text Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste that lifestyle is a function of an individual's position in society. In "America's Fittest Cities," Atlantic blogger Richard Florida shows how those lifestyles are a function of uneven economic development in the US. In the rankings of the fittest Americans, "fitness" tracts roughly onto the division of labor between American cities.
Working class, poorer cities are "unfit," while wealthy cities with heavy knowledge industries are "fit." The lifestyle dubbed healthy by the CDC and others is the lifestyle most appropriate to the labor market best characterized as post-industrial, information-oriented, and "creative," while the least "fit" lifestyles are associated with heavy industry and manufacturing, remnants of an older economic paradigm.
Think of it this way: the assembly line nature of fast food is more congruent with vertically integrated heavy industry or Fordism, while farmer's markets are more in line with creative, flexible, knowledge-based industries. Foodies are more or less producing the food system of neoliberalism and flexible accumulation. In other words, the people who have the "healthiest" lifestyle are the most affluent and they use the notion of health to legitimate and generalize the culture and lifestyle associated with affluence.
Simply put, the idea of an objectively healthy lifestyle serves more to legitimate the wealthy than it does to actually address the health needs of the exploited.
As I have said in previous posts, good food is a human right, and what counts as good food or a healthy lifestyle should be determined by those living that lifestyle - not by technocrats at the Health and Human Services and the Center for Disease Control. These organizations base the assumptions of fitness for their research on the lifestyles of the elite.
For instance, the CDC's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (creepy name), on which the AFI is based, opens the exercise section with the question "During the past month, other than your regular job, did you participate in any physical activities or exercises such as running, calisthenics, golf, gardening, or walking for exercise?" So the activity of an auto mechanic or construction worker during their regular job doesn't count as exercise? Obviously, the question is remarkably biased in favor of those who do sedentary work and exercise for leisure - biased in favor of the lifestyle of the wealthy. By the very structure of the survey, a working class person cannot be as fit as an elite.
Of course, there are negative health effects to not being wealthy, such as lack of adequate food and stress, but food activists should connect these to the unevenness associated with economic development and not try to generalize one, elitist culture of health and fitness for everyone. At its root, food injustice is economic injustice. This should be the starting point.
Working class, poorer cities are "unfit," while wealthy cities with heavy knowledge industries are "fit." The lifestyle dubbed healthy by the CDC and others is the lifestyle most appropriate to the labor market best characterized as post-industrial, information-oriented, and "creative," while the least "fit" lifestyles are associated with heavy industry and manufacturing, remnants of an older economic paradigm.
Think of it this way: the assembly line nature of fast food is more congruent with vertically integrated heavy industry or Fordism, while farmer's markets are more in line with creative, flexible, knowledge-based industries. Foodies are more or less producing the food system of neoliberalism and flexible accumulation. In other words, the people who have the "healthiest" lifestyle are the most affluent and they use the notion of health to legitimate and generalize the culture and lifestyle associated with affluence.
Simply put, the idea of an objectively healthy lifestyle serves more to legitimate the wealthy than it does to actually address the health needs of the exploited.
As I have said in previous posts, good food is a human right, and what counts as good food or a healthy lifestyle should be determined by those living that lifestyle - not by technocrats at the Health and Human Services and the Center for Disease Control. These organizations base the assumptions of fitness for their research on the lifestyles of the elite.
For instance, the CDC's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (creepy name), on which the AFI is based, opens the exercise section with the question "During the past month, other than your regular job, did you participate in any physical activities or exercises such as running, calisthenics, golf, gardening, or walking for exercise?" So the activity of an auto mechanic or construction worker during their regular job doesn't count as exercise? Obviously, the question is remarkably biased in favor of those who do sedentary work and exercise for leisure - biased in favor of the lifestyle of the wealthy. By the very structure of the survey, a working class person cannot be as fit as an elite.
Of course, there are negative health effects to not being wealthy, such as lack of adequate food and stress, but food activists should connect these to the unevenness associated with economic development and not try to generalize one, elitist culture of health and fitness for everyone. At its root, food injustice is economic injustice. This should be the starting point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)