Text between -o- and -o- and Referencing added.
CHAPTER 1
THE HEALTH EDUCATION PROBLEM RELATING TO FOOD
-o-
1.1 A LOT TO ANSWER
1.2 WHAT CAUSE FOR CONCERN?
1.2.1 British Nutrition Policy
1.2.2 Existing Public Knowledge of Nutrition
1.3 HEALTH EDUCATION AND FOOD
-o-
1.1 A LOT TO ANSWER
1.1.1 "Oh dear" you say; not another book telling me I can't eat and drink what I like
A book posing in its title such a large question as "Are we really what we eat?" has a lot to answer. In the physical sense, of course, we are. Most of what we eat is converted into 'muscle and blood and skin and bone' to take a line from an old song. However, it continues with 'a mind that's weak and a back that's strong' which draws you into a discussion as to whether 'you are' your mind and/or your body. more The last line the miner sang concerned owing his soul 'to the company store' and things become more complicated.
Leaving aside all sorts of issues concerning, say, the social control exerted by the company we are left with questions of the sort sung by Jean Valjean in the stage production of "Les Misérables". When he asks "Who am I?" [more although his crime was stealing bread for others] there is no mention of food and drink.
'Soul, mind and body’ and distinctions between them more could keep many a discussion alive for days without too much reference to food so why a book about body? The book is not only about body but it is not centred upon its relationship with soul and mind. Other, more everyday interests such as being overfed and 'overdrunk' come into it for the body is the shell containing the information and value systems which help decide whether you are 'presentable' to society. Since dying is both the last thing we want to do and actually do it is as well to keep it as presentable and in good running order as long as we can.
"Oh
dear" says you; not another book telling me I can't eat and drink what I
like. "Doesn't he realise that by enjoying both it is making a valuable
contribution to my overall veil-being and, he has implied, that it takes in
soul and mind as well as body." My reply is "You will be what
you eat!" At the moment you may be young, happy and in good working order but
look at others who are old, still quite happy but less healthy than they
should/could be. You come in with comments concerning the 'quantity versus
quality of life' where, early on, they made their own dietary beds and can
spend their declining years actually in them if that is their definition of
'quality'. If that means "sans teeth, sans taste" it means "sans
everything" to those who live to eat. DISTINCTION
1.1.2
But
there is more to life than waiting for death. more Improvements in the nation's diet
made at the turn of the twentieth century have given us many more who enjoy a
physically and mentally active retirement. While this book is not going to
concentrate on prolonging life through improving diet the point to be made here
is life is becoming more complicated and commercial and political influences on
the nation's diet are having a greater effect. more For example we will later look
at the idea that government nets vast incomes from the commercial gains from
drinking alcohol. The organisations interested in improving the health of the
nation can't really compete.
All
is not lost! Commercial interests now include a response to the rise in demand
for 'better' food and more information on its contents but 'better' drink lags
behind. Who, however, wants better? I won't provide details of
1
surveys etc to prove that it is those of better education, higher social class and you only have to look about you in the once again 'better' food outlets. Although all may not be lost look about you in the 'better' drink outlets. Those with better education are possibly just as prominent in the drink-casualty statistics as those without.
1.1.3 Too much information and opinion of varying kinds
Now we're getting down to it. Those with a good education will have the means to buy food which will do them more good than their drink. Those without won't have the sense to eat wisely and will 'compensate(?)' at the pub each evening. Such generalisations are all very well but need to be proved, that importance is placed upon such issues by those who sign the research-grant cheques? The answer to that is a book of this type.
In the absence, then, of the appropriate resources to pursue the hitherto unpursued I am left with pen and paper and the task of unravelling some of the complications surrounding why we eat what we eat. I am aided by too much 'information' and opinion of varying kinds and can only hope a life-long interest in food and drink will sharpen the machete cutting through the verbal undergrowth. I am not arguing that no one else has looked at the question put in the title of the book. In numerous ways everyone who has written anything on food and drink, be it a cookery book or polemic on wine appreciation is saying what he believes should be taken into the body. The problem is sorting it out into some cohesive statement.
1.1.4
"Society is composed of two great classes:
those who have more dinners than appetites
and those who have more appetites than dinners."
Sebastian Chamfort
way down the age
The differences between 'the haves' and 'the have-nots' were mentioned earlier WHERE and another problem is that this book is more likely to be read by 'the haves'. If they rise to or are in positions of influence or example it might be argued that improvements can be made. Few managing directors, however, are really interested in their works cafeteria menus and can set no examples by eating apart from the work force even if the entertaining diet is balanced. If 'the haves' reading this book include health educationalists it is hoped it will help them formulate new approaches to influencing the 'have nots' (and other ’haves') to eat better. They, after all, are the professional influencers.
Taken in the large, the separation of people into two such groups may be all right but it won't do when the discussion deepens. All that might be done at this stage is to point out some of the main issues and, anyway, there is no intention in pursuing the differences between them. However, it is surely true many of 'the haves' haven't and some of the 'have-nots' have! The latter includes those with the desire to improve their lot including a better diet while some of 'the haves' are seldom interested in much else beyond high eating and drinking.
But this starts to draw in to the discussion things such as social class and social psychology which can come later. There are other things to talk about before clarifying some of the issues surrounding food preferences and choice including social class etc. The main event of this book is a model which is intended to summarise many dimensions relating to food choice but it has to be stressed that it is not exhaustive. It at least could be an Aunt Sally for
2
detailed research and in the meantime could help health educationalists. For the 'ordinary' reader it should provide some stimulus for action.
This
introduction began by saying WHERE that the book has a lot to answer. Even if it were
placed in hotel bedrooms with the 'Gideon Bible' and became compulsory reading
in schools, it boils down to the hard fact that we are not only what we eat but
we ourselves put the food into our own mouths. If it shows that not all on the
plate and in the glass is there because we, alone and entirely unaided,
'decided' we are really what we eat but we can't help ourselves to a better
plateful. If you make no change to your own less than perfect intake after reading this
book, it has a lot to answer for.
1 .2 WHAT CAUSE FOR CONCERN?
1.2.1
It
is possibly accepted within nutritional circles that the relevant data confirm the
general state of British health is a product of behaviour-related illnesses
(e.g. drinking too much alcohol causes cirrhosis of the liver; eating in excess
of energy expenditure causes obesity). It is suggested in this discussion that
the lack of a food and nutrition policy should be no deterrent from sound food
education. Such education should be directed at improving the low levels of
existing knowledge.
pagetop
1.2.2 British Nutrition Policy
Department of Health and Social Security report; a panoply of conflicting measures and practices exists
Various writers have commented upon the general lack of a food and nutrition policy in Britain (Burman, 1981b: 33; Collins, 1980: 610; Centre for Agricultural Strategy, 1979: 4; James, 1980: 597; Hunt reported by Miller, 1986: 117; Walker and Cannon, 1984: 45; Wright, 1981: 2).Only one source, can be quoted as having anything good to say about the nutrition policy of the government (Nicholls, 1983: 110 cites a Magee – 1946 without further information, and Hollingworth – 1974 ditto. NOT IN BIBLIO)
3
1.3 Existing Public Knowledge of Nutrition
1.3.1 The extent of the lack of public knowledge of food and nutrition has been amply demonstrated
"There is an appalling lack of public knowledge about food and nutrition. Misconceptions are widespread and confusion reigns. Few people have even the most basic concepts about food and nutrition clear in their minds. Even the basic message of variety and moderation has not really got across to the general public." Turner, 1979a: 8)
Clearly he has firm views about the situation and a month later said that "one important reason why there is so much confusion in the public mind is that we do not receive a sound basic education about food in our early school years" (Turner, 1979b: 5). Rectification of that problem is worthy of a separate book but it is not left out of considerations in this one.
The extent of the lack of public knowledge of food and nutrition has been amply demonstrated by Brown (1963). Although 27% of respondents in a later survey (British Market Research Bureau, 1969) indicated that they obtained their nutritional knowledge at school it showed that "a very small number of respondents displayed any effective specific nutritional knowledge." (Centre for Agricultural Strategy, 1979: 71). In 1980, the Radio Four Food Programme surveyed 1000 people. "Over a quarter of all young people thought that sugar was protein; 45% of men had never heard of saturated fat or its role in heart disease...only 3% (of upper income groups) knew about wheat germ." (Wright, 1981: 51).
1.3.2
The following concerns a British Nutrition Foundation conference in 1984.
"...A survey carried out on behalf of the British Nutrition Foundation, and sponsored by a number of leading food companies, tried to find out more about what people are actually eating, when and with whom they eat and some of their general views, opinions and attitudes towards food.An enormous amount of data was collected from lengthy discussions and individual and family in-depth interviews. 1531 adults and 386 children between the ages of 11 and 15 took part in the survey. ...The conference was entitled 'Attitudes to Eating.'
Stephen King from the advertising agency J. Walter Thompson, spoke on ...The British Meal. As part of the survey, those who were interviewed were asked to describe exactly what and when they had taken food and drink the day before. Their replies showed that people consumed what Stephen King described as 'meals' and 'non-meals'.
To differentiate between the two, interviewees were asked to define what they themselves considered to be a meal. The answers were varied, ranging from a selection of food that takes time to prepare, cook and eat; something that happens at a special time; a satisfying selection of food; a plateful of different and separate items; to something that is eaten with a knife and fork while sitting at a table in company with other people.
In comparison with a meal, a 'non-meal' was taken to be an eating occasion when just one type of food was consumed, such as a piece of cake, a sandwich, a biscuit, a bar of chocolate, or even just a cup of tea or coffee.
With these definitions in mind, adults and children were asked how many meals and non-meals they had eaten the day before the interview. These were the results of the questions.
4
|
How many meals did you eat yesterday? |
Adults |
Children |
How many non-meals did you eat? |
Adults |
Children |
|
1 meal |
48% |
44% |
none |
4% |
6% |
|
2 meals |
27% |
29% |
1 to 3 |
24% |
30% |
|
3 meals |
21% |
25% |
4 to 5 |
38% |
39% |
|
4 no meals at all |
4% |
3% |
6 or more |
34% |
25% |
5
The researchers were left with the impression that during the week, most evening meals were eaten from a tray in front of the television. In spite of this, many people said that they regretted what might be described as the erosion of the disciplines of eating and the gradual disappearance of traditional foods and food customs, though they did virtually nothing to turn the tide. ...
It seems that nowadays food has to fit into individuals life-styles: life no longer has to revolve around meals as it may have done in the past. ...
More than half, 53% of those interviewed, claimed to believe the statement that 'Eating between meals is bad for health', and yet ... only 4% of adults and 6% of children actually conformed to their beliefs. The average number of non-meals consumed by the sample was just over four.
During the discussion periods of the survey, people constantly referred to 'proper meals' which were usually associated with individual foods. There was very little talk of individual nutrients although there was some superficial knowledge about than. For example, most of the women interviewed could list foods containing protein, but only one quarter could link protein with body building. ..." (Nutn & Fd Sc 1984)
1.3.3 Regarding the home economics syllabus there is little indication that it has made a meaningful contribution to the nation's understanding of the significance of wise food choice
The importance of the feminine role was stressed by Turner. "The report of the joint working party of the BNF (British Nutrition Foundation), HEC (Home Economics Council) and MBS (1977) identifies five groups of people who potentially have the greatest influence on the nutrition of the rest of the community – housewives, teachers, health care workers, food manufacturers and caterers.
The media and advertising also influence people's attitude to food." (Turner, 1979b: 8). This study is later concerned with the housewife as provider of food and, to a lesser extent with food manufacturers. Caterers, unlike manufacturers, operate as very small units in the main and respond to local demand.
If 'teachers' means 'home economics teachers' we can exclude them from later discussion. "Although Nutrition has been a long-standing core component of the home economics syllabus there is little indication that it has made a meaningful contribution to the nation's understanding of the significance of wise food choice, or its effect upon health and disease patterns." (But see my views on this – 1983a: 2ff.) This leaves health care workers who are deemed to include health educationalists. The book is for them.
5
1.4 HEALTH EDUCATION AND FOOD
He also considers that there is considerable ambiguity and "It seems that any activity involving a process which might vaguely be considered 'educational' aimed at bringing about an end-state loosely described as 'healthy' can be and is called health education." This study is concerned with a similar vagueness relating to food education.
For example, the school arranges classes in nutrition, menu planning and cookery where a variety of cookery techniques are taught and yet may not see that the meal offered within the school is 'by the school, for the school' in the minds of its pupils. If the meal is based on fried foods to satisfy pupil demand it can be interpreted as being the accepted thing to do when they make their parental food decisions relating to the meals of their own children.
Here we have an activity which is centred upon food, occupies a significant proportion of the school day, is legitimated by the school and yet is not widely accepted as part of food education. For a deeper discussion of that see my 1983a paper.
There is no discrete field of study relating to food education and, like health education, it will require to draw its material from numerous sources. Williams and Farley comment that "Health education is by its very nature eclectic and ... derives its substance from, for example, the human and medical sciences, from moral and physical education, from some understanding of personal relationships and behaviour, from environmental, social and community studies, and from statistical analysis of probability related to health. ...We cannot define health education solely in terms of a body of knowledge." (Williams and Farley, 1980: 33). Perhaps it is more to do with knowledge of body and Chapter 2 next may help.
No comments:
Post a Comment