Eating ‘Real’ & Eating Local

For my last and final blog posting, I want to discuss a very interesting video a friend of mine had posted on their Facebook profile several weeks ago. Produced by Hellmann’s Mayonnaise, this commercial was designed to address the issue of food security in Canada and ways of supporting Canadian agriculture. For those of you who haven’t seen the video, it is available for your viewing here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUKSX-zBThg. (For those of you who have, try watching it again and this time, pay special attention to new messages you didn't catch the first time. Don’t be shy. I’ve watched it 3 or 4 times already.)

There are several characteristics about this clip that I find makes it an excellent presentation on food security (even if it is a mayonnaise commercial). First and foremost, I am impressed at the way in which the video has been designed. The opening scene begins with shot of a standard dinner table, filled to the brim with food; however, as the narrator progresses into the presentation, the foods take on different forms and are animated accordingly in very clever ways. The presentation also relies very heavily on factual information, which is also communicated through the narrator. Although statistics can be dry in nature and are sometimes overused, I think that the way in which they were paired with food animations was well done. Some of the most interesting points I noted while watching the video included that:

- “We import more than 53% of our vegetables...almost all fruits”

- “Imports rose 160% while the population grew only 15%”

- “Ontario imports 4 billion more than it exports”

- “And for every pear we export, we import 700”

These statistics, in my opinion, are not something we should be proud of as they go to show how poorly agriculture in Canada is being managed and promoted. Why, for example, would Ontario import 4 billion dollars more than they export, despite having the nationally renowned ‘fruit belt’ in the Niagara area? Or why is the import to export ratio so high for pears? 700: 1? That’s ridiculous.

But what I enjoyed most about this video was the overall question that it posed to the audience: “Do you know where your food comes from?”. I may not be a hippie or a tree-hugging activist but I still thinking that asking this question is of great value. Why, you ask? Maybe it’s because of my culture. Being born into an Italian family automatically guarantees an introduction to your own modified version of the ‘local food diet’. I was, and still am, fortunate enough to have a large garden in our backyard each summer, growing tomatoes (of course), basil, parsley, Swiss chard, green beans, zucchini, and sometimes peppers. Not only do I feel completely comfortable eating these foods without having to worry about pesticides, but the taste of the vegetables themselves is unbelievable. This is something I cannot say about current food imports available in grocery stores. Foods flown in from different regions of the world always make me wonder: “Where is this from? How long did it take to ship here? And is it even ripe yet?”

I think one of the main dangers of neglecting domestic agriculture practices is that it forces a country to rely on imported foods from other countries. In short, you put yourself at the mercy of others' agri-food practices. For example, Canada has a strict ban on the use of DDT in agriculture; it tracks any possible use of this substance very carefully. In other countries, however, guidelines may be more lax and standards may be overlooked. What does this mean for Canada? Essentially, it means we have put ourselves in a position of weakness, where we have not only made our food more expensive (due to freight/transport costs), but also more toxic. The only solution to this problem is seen is to begin eating ‘closer to home’.

As reiterated in the commercial, it is our responsibilities as food consumers to help fuel money back into our economy and farms by purchasing local. Choose Canadian products wherever possible, and make an active effort to seek out Canadian companies. Maybe this is the wake up call we needed, reminding us that it’s about time we got back in touch with our food.

Scared For My Profession

The emergence of family health teams in the Canadian medical system has been a rather recent occurrence. Initiated by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, a family health team has been defined as an interdisciplinary panel of professionals that have been brought together to share knowledge and resources during the patient care process. (Source: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/transformation/fht/fht_progress.html) It is a very simple concept, which is why it is difficult for some (including myself) to understand why it has taken this long to come into practice. Nonetheless, more and more family health teams are sprouting up provincially.

Since I have had no exposure to family teams whatsoever, I decided to do a little research for myself. While perusing the Ministry’s website on the topic, it appeared to me that family health teams were being touted as one of the most revolutionary changes in medicare today. The language used in the site included phrases that clearly would trigger emotional responses from the reader, such as: “patient-centered, primary care”, “better access to care”, and “state-of-the art technology”. Despite the overall positive message I perceived from the site, I still hold my reservations about family health teams because of negative feedback I have received from dietitians in the field.

I currently work as a receptionist for two dietitians in a private practice. The other day, I was speaking to one of them when we began discussing the future of dietetics now that family health teams have entered the scene. I had expected to hear a neutral response from my superior, as she had always maintained such an unbiased view of things. But the response I received in actuality held a more negative tone. From what I understood and with what she had told me, family health teams have actually divided the field of dietetics and pitted dietitians against each other. Those in private practice are fighting to justify their prices, while those dietitians in family health teams are guaranteed coverage and a constant source of clientele because they are instead covered by OHIP. Of course this was to be expected. Be honest with yourself: would you be willing to pay over $100 to consult with a dietitian, or just use OHIP to cover the costs? Although individuals may have valid reasons for choosing, current trends in the industry suggest patients have taken to the latter of those options. Private practice dietitians have seen large losses in both revenues and in clientele to family health teams across Ontario. What is most unfair about this situation is that not all dietitians have equal opportunity to working in family health teams. Seeing as these alliances are quite new, available employment positions are few and far between. And quite simply, when it comes down to it, one would need to be in the right place, at the right time, and know the right people. Not a very democratic system, is it? From what I myself have also heard is that paying dietitians on the OHIP scale will devalue the worth of our services, thus causing the average salary to decrease slowly over time.

Now let me make this clear before I move on: I cannot guarantee that the dietitian with whom I was speaking was fully informed on the subject. Maybe she was, maybe she wasn’t. I have absolutely no idea whether she read this information from somewhere reputable, or whether she was passing along talk from the water cooler. But for the purpose of this blog, let us assume that she is in fact correct.

One other thing that I find disheartening about the notion of family health teams is the existence of an underlying hierarchy. When I think of teams, I envision colleagues that are of equal status, working together towards a common goal. There is a sense of cohesiveness and unity that helps to keep the team together. It doesn't seem that the Ministry of Health and Long-term Care shares my vision. Note the wording in the following lines from the site:

- “Designed to give doctors support from other complementary professionals…”

- “Family Health Teams will have core health care professionals across the province, including doctors, nurse practitioners and nurses…”

- “Family Health Teams are a group approach to health care where your doctor will be able to focus on your complex medical problems but you'll have access to different health care professionals according to your needs…”

Each of these quotes reinforces the idea that the doctor is still top of the line, the leader of the pack. We as dietitians are merely here to ‘support’ the doctors. We are not considered part to be ‘core health professionals’ nor do we deal with ‘complex medical problems’; that’s the doctor’s job. When I read things like these, I feel both frustrated and infuriated. I can’t stop telling myself, “Stef, you’re an idiot. You should have just gone to med school.” I mean think about it logically: an extra four years of schooling wouldn’t be so bad, and in the end, I’d have a doctor's title, the recognition and the salary. So what’s keeping me here as a dietitian?

I would be interested in knowing more about family health teams from the perspectives of my peers. Has anyone had contact with a team or been a part of the team? What where the feelings you got from being around then? And is what I’m hearing from the field true?

Bike Lanes: Friends or Foe?

Within the past several years, the City of Toronto has tried to increase its dedication to ‘going green’ and being environmentally friendly. Part of their plans for achieving this status is to increase the number of alternate modes of transportation available to Toronto residents, such as subway lines and bike routes. Creation of bike routes, however, has become a sticky topic for individuals, businesses, and city council members in the Bloor Danforth neighbourhood. The reason for this is because of the proposed creation of 24 km of bike path in the area, which is a portion of the city’s total investment of $70 million to the Bike Network for 2009/2010. These lanes will not be limited to the downtown core, but will in fact span from east to west, paralelling the Bloor Danforth subway line. Two major critics of the plan are upcoming mayor candidates, Rocco Rossi and George Smitherman, both of which have noted that that traffic along Bloor and Danforth Ave is congested enough as it is. The addition of bike lanes will only complicate matters, and not to mention, bring about traffic safety issues. The latest update on the matter (Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/bloor-danforth-bikeway-plan-rolls-on/article1501635/) is that the City of Toronto is continuing to move forward with bike lane plans, having requested an environmental assessment of the streets in question. The city’s final decision for the paths will not be unveiled until April/May 2010, at which point both the assessment and cost will be finalized.

The reason why I decided to discuss this topic in my blog is because of its relevance to the topic of ‘the built environment and otherwise’. The subject of bike path installation is one in which I remain torn. Don’t get me wrong: I am all for creating ways of improving transportation in Toronto, encouraging physical activity through cycling, and moving forward with ‘green’ initiatives. HOWEVER, I can see the disadvantages of creating bike paths in the proposed neighbourhoods. Should I ever get the chance to present my opposition the City of Toronto council, these would be top 5 reasons against installing bike paths in these circumstances.

#1 – Traffic Congestion & Safety

As a regular commuter to the downtown core, I can say with absolute certainty that traffic will only worsen should bike paths be created. Lanes in these neighbourhoods are already tight as they are, and parked cars along the sides cut into this space. Should a bike lane be included along these streets, where will the customers of surrounding businesses parks? What about residents that live in the area? More importantly, what about bike safety? In the neighbourhood I live in, many of the cyclists do not use the available bike lanes, and swerve in and out of traffic. Rarely do they signal, and it’s a miracle if they even acknowledge you as a driver. When you start putting cyclists on the street beside vehicles that are 10 times more powerful, you automatically run into issues of safety. I would even go as far as saying it would be negligent on the part of the city to put cyclists in the path of danger like that. The way I see it is that if you’re willing to add bike lanes to busy city streets, then you might as well allow cyclists to use the shoulders on freeways. Clearly, this isn’t legal practice because it’s just too dangerous. So then why can’t city counselors see the same for this issue?

#2 – Consideration of the Downtown Structure

When we talk about the built environment, we have to be aware of the infrastructure the city already has in place, and how it will be affected by new initiatives (e.g. bike lanes). Toronto’s downtown core was built many moons ago, during the days when society frowned upon women for wearing pants. The University of Toronto, for example, was only established in 1827, indicating that creation of neighbouring homes and businesses took place much earlier. Roads were designed quite simply so that people could get around easily by foot or horse. After all, the first automobile was only sold in Germany in 1888 (by Karl Benz of Mercedes Benz). Based on this history then, one could say that the design of the Bloor Danforth line has not deviated much from when it was first created. Thus, it may not ever be feasible to have bike lines because of the way this environment has been built and structured. In suburban areas with wider streets, bike lanes may be possible; but definitely not downtown.

#3 – Weather

Someone should send a friendly reminder from Mother Nature to Mayor Miller, reminding him of her obligations to cover the city in snow from about November every year until about March. We do live in Canada, and weather interruptions are inevitable. So my question then is: why would we as a city invest $70 million on bike paths that will only (if at most) be used for 8 months out of the year? And for those of you that will rebutt saying that pedalling through 30 cm of snow is realistic - please think again. This is Canada, eh? :)

# 4 – Pollution

This point is short, simple, and builds off of point #1. With increased congestion, the number of idling cars will soar, and thus contribute to pollution. Is that not the complete opposite of what the city is trying to do by adding in bike lanes? I thought we were trying to go green, and be environmentally friendly! Just when they thought they’ve finished fixing one thing, the city has inadvertently gone and broken another.

#5 – Better Use of Funds…Bike Trails Anyone?

Instead of investing money into bike paths on busy downtown streets where inattentive cyclists are likely become the hood ornament of some car, it would be better for the community to invest in bike trails. In fact, I will give credit to the city for penciling in a 30 km trail by ‘Toronto’s hydro and rail corridors’. This will not only add to green space to the community but promote healthy living a lot better than underused bike lanes on busy city streets.

Hopefully city council will give considerations to the ‘built environment and otherwise’ before proceeding and finalizing the bike lane initiatives. It will only be a month or two before the city of Toronto will know for sure.

Great Balls of Fire!

I always have enjoyed hearing about ridiculous strategies that different institutions have initiated to address child obesity. I mean, some are just flat out ridiculous. I understand that the Healthy Ontario/Healthy Ontarians plan identifies a need to “increase opportunities for physical activity and sport for children. But honestly, you should see the ideas that are out there. Take for example the misuse of bosu (a.k.a yoga) balls. Their shiny, plastic exterior, and superior ‘bounciness’ is great for use in a yoga session, in strength training exercises, and stretches. But in a classroom?

Several schools across the United States and Canada have introduced the use of yoga balls into the classroom so that students can sit around and bounce their days away, while working, writing tests, etc. Supposedly, this initiative not only helps children concentrate but can be a great source of ‘physical activity’. These are the words of Janice Haberlein, the school principle Edgewater Elementary School in Maryland (U.S.A.). More of her brilliant ideas (*insert sarcasm here*) can be read in this article: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/breaking/yoga-balls-help-kids-concentrate-in-class-89342972.html. Unfortunately, she is not alone. Other schools have vouched that sitting on a exercise balls has also contributed to abdominal development, can increase physical fitness, and burn off extra calories.

Now, when I first read this article, all I could do is sit and cringe at the idea. This might have something to do that I have been raised in a family of teachers. My father was an elementary school teacher for close to 30 years. My mother, although a school secretary, works very closely with teachers. My sister is a teacher, as are two of my uncles, four of my cousins, and three of my extended family members. I think I’ve made my point clear. The implication of having this many educators in one family is that you get to know the nature of the job VERY well. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard ‘staffroom stories’ about how terrible children have been, or how their hyperactivity has drained the living daylights out of the staff. What does this have to do with yoga balls you ask? Well, think about this logically. Children have lots of energy and can barely sit still in an enclosed classroom to begin with. So why in God’s name would you give them something to bounce on?

Additionally, the notion of ‘increasing one’s physical activity’ through the use of bosu balls is a complete load of manure. Bouncing on a ball ever so slightly for an hour would be the equivalent of walking across the family room to pick up the TV remote. Wait, that’s a lie. It’s more the equivalent of walking to the cupboard to grab a bag of chips, then picking up the remote, and then surfing channels. Cynical much? I do not dispute the fact that sitting on yoga balls can increase concentration because it gives children a means of releasing their fidgety energy. But to go as far as calling it physical activity? That’s a bit of a stretch.

What I dislike so much about the use of yoga balls in the classroom is that it shifts the onus of supporting raising healthy children onto schools. Schools, in my opinion, are places where children, or any individual, go to learn. The responsibilities of teachers are to teach curriculum and ensure that knowledge is being absorbed - not to baby-sit. When it comes to the health of the child, it is the responsibility of the family and parents of said child to ensure their well-being. Unfortunately, what I believe has happened is what I like to call ‘institutional reliance’. Due to the fact that other institutions in society have crumbled or fail to be of any use to us, we have dumped our outstanding needs on the last one standing. For example, can we rely on the government to solve the childhood obesity crisis? I think not. Politicians have lost our trust through their deceit. Not to mention, constant budget cuts have reduced the subsidized programs available families. Can we rely on the church? Not really, especially since there has been a divide between religion and spirituality, and an increase in agnostic individuals. Should we turn to families then? They, of all institutions, should be the one we can rely on, can’t they? The answer, again, is unfortunately no. With a divorce rate of 50%, if not more, not all children are born into solid families and warm homes. In the end, the only institution left to hold our society together is school. And so, we dump responsibilities on them that should have never been assigned to them in the first place, like solving childhood obesity one yoga ball at a time.

Although I cannot say to whom the onus should lie for ensuring a child’s health, I do know that more emphasis must be placed on getting children active. So my suggestion would be to take those yoga balls and go do something with them OUTSIDE of the classroom. Play in the backyard. Start up a neighbourhood soccer league with other children. Have volunteers establish extra-curricular clubs, or look around for a ‘Big Brother/ Sister’ association that can arrange planned activities. There are options out there to ensure that our children are strong and healthy. I just don’t think a classroom full of yoga balls will be among them.

The future of food revealed?

On my reading week, I finally got a chance to unwind, and I did so by watching Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. There was something about this movie that provoked a little more reflection post-viewing than usual. So many scenes had triggered flashbacks to events in today’s modern world. I just kept thinking to myself, ‘Is art imitating life? Or life imitating art? This is really eerie.’ I don’t think this film intended on being such a conversation starter, or blog starter for that matter, but it has. Before I go on, here is my spoiler alert so that I don’t ruin the movie for those of you who are hoping to watch it yourself.

** SPOILER ALERT! **

The story’s main character, named Flint Lockwood, is an inventor whose creations always seem to run amok. His very first idea, spray-on shoes, worked so well that they never came off. Despite his setbacks, Flint persists in creating bigger inventions, with his latest being a machine that is able to convert water into food. In his quest to supply more power to his invention, the machine unexpectedly blasts off into the sky and remains there. Little did he know was that water from the stratosphere would enter the machine and thus allow it to rain food. All the while this is happening, Flint encounters a weather reporter named Sam Sparks, who not only plays his love interest but is his partner in crime. She helps to bring attention to the town, to Flint, and to his new invention. Sounds like a cute story doesn’t it? Well it was. But let me explain to you the topics and issues that this movie covered that have left me uneasy about our future with food.

Obesity
Worries over our current obesity crisis manifested itself into one character in particular: the town mayor. Throughout the movie, he constantly tried to turn the town into cruise destination for food, changing the town’s name to Chewandswallow Fallls. Using his political power, he requests more extravagant foods from Flint, going as far as demanding for a “pizza stuffed inside a turkey, the whole thing deep fried and covered in chocolate”. At the end of the movie, this once 4’9 tall mayor has become a morbidly obese blob of goo that requires a motorized wheelchair to move around. Think about the number of times you’ve seen someone who was morbidly obese in Toronto that they required a means of assistance to walk - whether it was a walker, cane or wheelchair. Are we going to see more individuals like this in the future?


Genetically modified foods
The topic of GMOs is essentially the crux of this entire film. Without modifying the composition of water, Flint the inventor would have never been able to make it rain food. The one scene that I thought was particularly interesting (and maybe telling of our future) is the one in which Flint explains the ‘dangeometer’. Amongst his many devices in his lab, Flint also had this gauge which was responsible for letting him know the degree to which the food had mutated. When Sam, who was touring his lab, asked what would happen if the foods ever mutated, Flint’s response was “I don’t know. But don’t worry, that’ll never happen.” His responsible was so very similar to the responses we get today from researchers and government agencies regarding GMOs. The public may have outcries, requesting more information on these foods, but the government pacifies us with a measly hush. Maybe Canada should invest in a dangeometer?



Food accessibility
In the town of Chewandswallow Falls, food accessibility is not an issue. One character sticks her hand outside the window while driving, only to grab hold of a pancake. Talk about breakfast on the go! More notoriously is the restaurant called “The Roofless”. It is what it sounds like: a restaurant with no roof. Patrons just walk in, have a seat, and wait for their food to literally fall into their laps. Think about food accessibility in our day and age. You can buy food almost anywhere and at anytime. It might not rain food here but we do have 24 hours Dominion/Metro and Tim Horton locations. You don’t even need to go to the food anymore…food comes to you!! Delivery of pizza, Chinese food, takeout of any kind - it’s a little ridiculous isn’t it?

Gluttony
This, I will admit, was a HUGE theme in the movie. The landmark event that really got this theme across was the creation of Mount Leftovers. Again, it is exactly as it sounds – a huge mountain of food waste. Being that the town was overwhelmed with leftovers in the street, Flint invented a machine called the ‘out-of-sighter’. Resembling a zamboni, this device used a dust pan to collect foods from the street and load them into a catapult, where they were then launched out of the city. As the food began to pile up, Mount Leftovers was born. In our modern day, we do almost exactly the same thing. Think of the Michigan garbage controversy. How much trash are we producing that we need to ‘catapult it’ out of our country and into Michigan landfills?

Impact on the food industry
I am a very detail-oriented person, so while watching this movie I started to notice the little things, like how the food industry began to change after the introduction of Flint’s invention. Stores, that once sold sardines and only sardines, now changed to meet the needs of the new market. The gas station became an ‘Anti-Gas Tablet’ store. Another sold mouth funnels and bibs, so that people could eat as much as possible and as quickly as possible. Flint’s father, who owned a sardine store of his own, was forced to go out of business, regretfully telling his son, “Techno food is too complicated for an older fisherman like me…” Does this change not sound oddly familiar? (Think smaller, local farms going out of business)

I feel that there were a lot of parts in this movie that were a satire of current issues in the food industry. But maybe this innocent children’s movie holds a much deeper message about the future of food that lies ahead.