“Food Inc.” - How Income Levels Affect Diet and Diabetes

Diabetes and obesity therapy has always included a focus on the importance of diet and exercise, though success on this front for most people has been elusive (an oft-cited stat: two thirds of people in the US are overweight or obese, and the highest BMI segments continue to grow the fastest). At this year’s ADA, which ended Tuesday, we noticed a focus on lifestyle interventions that reaffirmed this trend (improved diets equal improved weight and glycemic control) and shared a common plea: improve your diets! However, as noted, behavioral changes have proven to be exceedingly difficult for Americans to adopt[1]. Historically, much of the blame has been placed on the patient, widely considered a consequence of their unwillingness to wean themselves off hamburgers and lumber off the sofa. We appreciate that the reality is more complex.

 Robert Kenner’s new politically charged film Food Inc., released yesterday in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, puts forward ways in which the ability to make lifestyle changes is influenced by a higher power: a highly mechanized food industry that skews the system to bad calories - unhealthy, artery-clogging, obesity and insulin resistance inducing calories.

In this documentary, author Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation) characterizes the food industry as one that promotes a diet that frequently leads to serious health problems. For example, in a powerful scene at a youth health community group (in which topics including diet and exercise are discussed), the group is asked how many of them have a relative or close family friend with diabetes. Then, how many had two … then, how many had three. Seeing how many in the room knew at least three people with diabetes hit home the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in a way that all the usual statistics do not. The implication of the movie is that the families of most people in the class cannot afford healthier foods. In a follow-up segment, Schlosser asserts that the biggest predictor of obesity is income level and contends that these poor eating habits have contributed to the epidemic levels of diabetes.

We found Food Inc. to be an informative, albeit one-sided, commentary on the traditional food industry and its health consequences. We were happy to hear the mention, although brief, of the industry’s effect on the current diabetes and obesity epidemics as we think it will raise further visibility of the problems. While we think this film has an important message, we would have liked to have seen more explicit emphasis on the far-reaching effects our eating habits have on healthcare costs. Ideally, we would like to see much more focus on solutions – perhaps government programs that could subsidize healthy foods like fruits and vegetables, and introduce taxation of soft drinks and other unhealthy foods that contribute to obesity.

- by Tony Sheng, Mark Sorrentino, Jessica Swienckowski, and Kelly Close

---

[1] Unfortunately, although we haven’t completed our review of all posters, there was really nothing that we saw that seemed incredibly likely to change adherence problems significantly

Comments

[Kelly Close]

hi Scott! oh that's a good point, sorry to be unclear, we actually are not saying one-sided as negative at all ... if it wasn't clear, i really support the film, wish we could get much more attention here toward eating well and working against obesity ! we did characterize it as one-sided to give people who hadn't seen it a sense of the approach but that wasn't negative from our view. any film where Alice Waters says "this is the film I've been waiting for!" must be great! i do wish there had been more about healthcare implications in FOOD INC, especially type 2 diabetes and obesity. we just got done doing a report showing that there are expected to be 30 mm (probably more) people with diabetes in the US in 2020 if current obesity trends continue - if they slowed, it would only be 23 million people (this doesn't include undiagnosed) - even that of course is WAY too many. anyway, for sure we're supporters of the film and we so hope that work is done to ensure people have far more access to healthy food.

[Scott]

I think the façade that the agricultural industry wishes to present is quite different from the reality. Without more movies such as this calling attention to the issue, the majority of Americans haven't a clue. For that reason alone, I believe there is no reason to criticize the film as one-sided. With more knowledge, more Americans might view organics and whole foods rather than highly-processed foods as a more cost-effective choice (provided they are even accessible, an issue that does impact lower-income Americans disproportionately), thus increasing demand. If film can be a means to bring this message to the masses, then I think the objective has been accomplished.