14 DAY TRIAL // It has been widely commented that the bans on smoking which have been imposed within the time span of 2 months in Scotland, China and the state of Virginia, the ones enacted in England, Denmark and Uruguay, the ones proposed by the Portuguese government authorities and the ones endorsed by the French public, will have serious consequences on a wide array of people who have been struggling with this bad habit, or addiction, whatever you'd like to call it. But what the ban on smoking and cigarettes in general means is that, in order to "quench" this obsessive compulsive routine that persists even though smoking is cut, people will turn to the next best thing which is? food. Better yet, junk food. This means fat, lots of fat, lack of nutrients for the body and lots of toxins.
According to a study run by American governmental researchers two years ago, alcohol, sex, guns and cigarettes, the objectives of previous and ongoing wars, are killing a smaller percentage of the people around the world. Since the basic idea of a culture war is not winning, they searched for mortality data for the next crusade target, and what they found out is that the next big threat is junk food and its main consequence, obesity. What is more frustrating and worrisome is the fact that chances are obesity will soon surpass, in terms of mortality, tobacco, as the main cause for preventable death since tobacco will be more and more restrained. Some of the researchers tried something even more fearful like the simile with mortality rates of the Black Death or the tsunamis, or even, more cynically than ever, with events such as the 9/11 tragedy, and still couldn't find something that would conquer obesity.
But how can we fight something that in the end, tastes very good? Everyone says that we have to exercise a lot, eat less or eat responsibly, maybe even go on different allegedly healthy diets. While this seems more or less a question of personal choice, the main problem is how to impose such basic rules on a whole population or how to make people more aware of the terrible consequences of junk food. Those who support a healthy lifestyle say that rules applied to smoking restrictions can be applied to junk food as well: junk-food related advertising should be regulated, maybe even restricted, just like for cigarettes and smoking, more explicit labels should be required, junk-food sales need to be restricted while trans fats (a.k.a. partly hydrogenated oils) that are usually used in cookies, crackers, chips and the like, to extend freshness, should be banned completely from the production process. Basically the same correlations as in the crusade against smoking are highlighted: junk food leads to obesity, which in turn leads to disease, which in turn, leads to death.
Yet, somehow the "food industry" seems tougher to instigate fear and hate against since junk food is basically food that ultimately keeps us alive. Moreover, if we are to continue the paralell drawn along smoking bans, one of the main reasons why they were imposed was the prevention of secondhand smoke, and there is no such thing as secondhand obesity, if we are to move in the realm of junk food and fats. According to a survey in the US (hey, they are one of the nations with the highest obesity rate) that was run last year, 74 percent of the Americans did not agree with tobacco industry policies, but only 39 per cent of the American citizens negatively viewed fast-food industry policies. This year, the same team that ran the poll last year, found out that a higher number of Americans are accusing obesity, most of them targeting their own, admitting they are not doing enough exercise and not having enough determination to pursue sports, as compared to eating junk food.
Although this might sound discouraging for the rest of us, there are people who claim the war against junk food fat is not over, on the contrary the current situation might light the way to potential solutions to this social and cultural conflict. One coordinate, a conservative one indeed, could be the parental or, better yet, institutional supervision on the kind of food children eat. This means that both parents and the governments themselves have to cooperate in order to cut down on junk foods. Generally speaking, on a basic level parents are the ones who are entitled to judge what their children buy or eat, since kids are not informed enough to make the right food choices. Kids usually form their food preferences depending on what they see on TV, especially in advertisements: candy, fast food and cereals, especially the sugar coated ones, not to mention sodas and beverages, whose companies have contracts with elementary, and as of late, with an increasing number of high schools to sell their products there. A law that weighs down on junk food in schools has already been proposed in the US and it seems it's gaining more and more advocates
Another coordinate is to raise awareness among the adults who prefer such a culinary treat. Many claim the obesity problem is an issue created by the government but the counter argument is that obesity affects economy through disability, less productivity and less competitiveness and increases health-care costs, so the government should be interested in cutting it down. The third and final coordinate is to operate a psychological transformation, make people understand that junk food is not really food, and lower its importance for survival to the level of cigarettes. Many have already attempted that, starting with soda which has been labeled as "liquid candy", crackers which are suffering "engineering" processes, just like other synthetic products, like drugs (nice comparison eh?) that create unhealthy addictions. The final objective should be the banishment of all creepy stuff that is labeled as food, and the cultivation of respect towards nature and nutrition. Otherwise, we might as well go back to cigarettes that we can smoke at home, of course.
