Advocacy? Activisim? Teaching?

As a professor, I'm sometimes caught in the bind of what I *want* to say and what I *should* say. In general, I'm very, very careful. I don't reveal my political opinions (though most people could probably guess them pretty easily); I make sure my lectures stick to facts published in peer-reviewed articles or books. When discussing something that could be construed as controversial, I make sure I present both sides, even when I think the "other side" is basically out to lunch. I make sure my students always understand that most social issues have two sides, and (gasp!) even academics cannot always settle the debates.

So, when I decided, for my Sociology of Health and Medicine class, that I would present scientific evidence of the benefits of a plant-based diet, I did so nervously. Would the students be able to take the information and assimilate it into our typical sociological discussions of economic class, justice, socialization or help-seeking? Would they see it as relevant to a medical sociology class, or would I risk being seen as someone using class time to promote a personal interest?

I've assigned, for this week (the theme of which is the sociological study of lifestyles), to have students read research on vegetarianism, as well as excerpts from The China Study, a book about the largest epidemiological study ever undertaken. I did this in conjunction with the chapter in their textbook on healthy lifestyles; the chapter emphasized the (duh!) obvious needs for people to exercise, drink in moderation and refrain from drugs and cigarettes, as well as the age, education level, class, gender and race differences in those practices.

I didn't know when I assigned these readings if I'd look like a radical or not. Sure, this is Eugene and there are plenty of vegetarians and vegans here, but we're still very much a minority, and in general even sociologists (known for their radicalism among all academic departments) don't discuss diet. Sure, organics is big here, as is the trend to "know your farmer" and buy locally. In fact, it's probably easier here in this part of Oregon to meet the following criteria -- vegan or vegetarian, organic AND local -- than in practically any other part of the country.

But this is a sociology class and not an open pulpit for advocacy; I refrained from lecturing myself because I simply wanted to present the EVIDENCE and see if they would connect the issues we've been discussing all term (access to health and health care, disparities in health outcomes and help-seeking behaviors, economic class and health) to the medical research on vegetarian/vegan diets and health.

They did. Very well, in fact. A 65-page powerpoint presentation. They presented much more evidence that I would have, had I lectured myself. Their presentation was so long, however, that the class never got the chance to discuss the social, cultural, economic and political implications of vegetarianism or veganism, something I had hoped they would get to do.

So, today, before I lectured about Parson's conception of the sick role, I asked them if they wanted to talk about the students' presentation. They did. I asked if there were criticisms they had of the material. I got some interesting responses, ranging from, "Gosh, I tried to go vegan once but it's so hard and I couldn't get enough protein and craved meat all the time," to "Well, some meat is better than other meat; my Dad used to raise our meat or hunt it; I wasn't brought up eating meat from the grocery store."

Other criticisms were veganism can get to be expensive (yes, indeed, it can) and that it takes a long time to retrain yourself to shop, cook, and eat differently (I also agree). Still another critique was that cheap food like meat and dairy is subsidized by the government, which explains both why information about their poor products is not widely disseminated, as well as why people continue to buy it.

Another thoughtful student said that in many parts of the country, it might be stigmatizing NOT to eat meat and dairy; that in places like Eugene, it's almost cool, but it's unlikely to be perceived that way everywhere. Stigma. A key sociological concept. Love it.

Still another comment was that cattle in particular are almost symbolic of the pioneer spirit and the West. You'd almost think that last argument was for the point of NOT eating beef, but the point the student was trying to make was that giving up beef might feel, for some people, like giving up their heritage. I hadn't thought of it in exactly those terms, but as the great-great-granddaughter of a pioneer who got here from Iowa via a couple of oxen, I have to say I agree. Cattle are symbolic of the West and as long as factory farmers portray a bunch of "happy cows," most of us aren't going to question whether or not we should be eating them. Heritage, imagined communities, clever marketing -- all sociological topics. Love that too.

Vegans would of course have a FIELD DAY with these responses and would in particular jump all over the guy who said it's hard to get enough protein and the girl who said eating meat you hunt is better for you than eating meat you buy in the store.

I, however, find these responses very honest and, for the most part, true. As a class we ended up talking about the theoretical range of "good" (factory farming = very bad; grass-fed, free-range = better but more expensive; vegetarian/vegan = arguably even better, based on knowledge of Dr. Campbell's studies). We also discussed who is likely to know this information and who is likely to be able to act on it. (Same answer for virtually all health-related issues discussed this term: those with more money.)

Finally, we also discussed the social problems inherent in dealing with information that severely challenges long-held assumptions. EVEN ARMED WITH EVIDENCE FROM WELL-DONE STUDIES, people resist changing their diets. The cultural pulls of what you think you already know and affordability -- sociologists call these "socialization" and "economics" -- are strong deterrents against change.

Does milk "do a body good"? Is beef "what's for dinner"? Did you, your parents, your grandparents and pretty much everybody you've ever known drink milk and eat beef (or chicken or pork or fish or lamb)? If the answer is "yes," well, then, it's gonna be pretty hard to convince you that maybe you should not. Socialization is a powerful tool.

The students seemed to enjoy the discussion of diet, cultural norms, socialization, poverty, government subsidization, and health. Because this is a sociology class, we completely stayed away from the vegan philosophical arguments that it's never OK to eat or wear ANY animal products. I also did not bring up issues of environmental sustainability or a critique of factory farming or an animal rights' perspective. I kept the focus on health and health information and on how such information can be resisted for social, economic and cultural reasons.

Was I doing advocacy? Kinda. Activism? Not really. Teaching. You bet.

Overwhelmed

It's overwhelming to change one's diet. For me, it's not so much the cultural baggage of what I'm used to eating -- though that is no small hurdle -- but rather the overwhelming -- and often contradictory -- amount of information out there about what is wrong with our food system and how easy it is to eat foods that make us sick, or at least predispose us to developing illnesses in the future. We should be OUTRAGED at how our foods are made and at the (we hope) unintended consequences that result from that. And I'm not just talking about meat and dairy, though that's part of the story here.

After I eliminated almost all dairy and all meat from my diet eight months ago, I started getting back up to speed on some older health concerns, specifically the amount of CORN in our diet (not by intent, but due to the structure of the American food "system"), and the presence of genetically modified foods (GMOs). Do you know how much work it is to make sure corn syrup or maltodextrin or any of the dozens of corn products are NOT in your food? (By the way, they're indirectly in your meat too, because that's what factory farmers -- 99% of the meat sold in the US comes from factory farms -- feed their animals.) Do you know how hard it is to make sure that the soy products you buy are only made from non-GMO seeds? Or how much more it COSTS to buy foods that meet the criteria of organic, non-GMO and non-corn? It's possible to meet these criteria, but it ain't cheap or easy. It's time-consuming and adds a lovely overlay (read that in a sarcastic tone) to the family dynamic.

Recently, I read an article in the Huffington Post which suggested that gluten sensitivity may be way underdiagnosed in the US and that it may explain the proliferation of many diseases, everything from learning disabilities to fibromyalgia. Then I re-read some stuff about peanuts and peanut butter in The China Study and remembered that aflatoxin in commonly found in peanuts (and corn, it turns out). The best peanuts are packaged for eating; the moldy ones generally end up in peanut butter. Aflatoxin, by the way, is a known carcinogen and is impressively linked in studies to liver cancer. And I LOVE peanut butter and my kids do, too. Should I even be eating it or letting them eat it? After re-reading that study, I think not. Really. NOT. I'm not even sure the organic, just-peanuts-no-corn-syrup peanut butter is much better. Who's to say that the moldy peanuts aren't in organic peanut butter too??

Then there's milk and cheese. Cheese and yogurt have been the hardest things to give up as a vegan, and I have NOT found acceptable soy or rice-based alternatives. My kids still consume some dairy. Yet, the early chapters of The China Study are all about how animal protein (but, curiously, not plant protein) has been shown in several studies to prompt cancer growth. The animal protein used in these studies was casein -- the primary ingredient in cow's milk -- and the carcinogen exposure used in these studies was aflatoxin (in the form of peanut butter). If one's concern is the potential prompting of tumor growth vis a vis animal protein stimulation, then it does NOT matter whether the milk consumed is organic or not. I really don't think any of us should be eating dairy for HEALTH reasons; forget the factory farming concerns for a minute, or even the arguably "better" organic milk. The scientific evidence linking animal protein consumption to tumor stimulation is pretty solid, but curiously, not particularly well-advertised. Do you hear the pressures of the dairy industry? I do. They really just want you to believe that milk does a body good. Or prevents osteoporosis. At the very least, I think a conservative reaction to learning this information should be to cut back -- for some people, WAY back -- on dairy consumption. In a household with three kids and a cheese-loving husband, THAT is an overwhelmingly difficult goal.

My list of "forbidden" foods is growing; I don't eat dairy, fish, eggs, or meat and now I think I should avoid peanut butter, EVERYTHING with a corn product in it, and perhaps gluten too. And I think I had better re-read those labels for all the soy products I've been buying. Holy Moly. It was SO much easier being an omnivore.

In many ways, all these health warnings and news about factory farming and the food "system" come back to a simple fact: as a society, we don't cook much anymore. We grab things on the fly, or buy things that are partially prepared so that the home prep is minimal. We grow very little of our own food. Food producers know that and so have created products that fill that need, products that often need fillers or preservatives for shipping and storage purposes.

If we get ready to yell at the farmers and the "system," we have to first remember that they're likely to be willing to provide a product if there's a demand for it. They're providing what we're buying. If we want healthier food, we have to demand it. That takes action and energy, both of which go against the largely apathetic attitude of contemporary Americans. But stop being so trusting! Literally, your trust may be contributing to your poor health.

We have to change our approach to food. It should NOT be about what's fast, though many quick-to-prepare foods are also healthy. To REALLY get away from the processed, modified, potentially harmful food, we have to spend more time preparing (and growing or raising)our own, and have to accept that eating well takes time. Shortcuts can be far too costly in the long run.


As I said, it's overwhelming.