DNA, SOCIAL ENERGY, AND FAST FOOD
In a real sense all life is interrelated. All men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be, and you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. . . . This is the inter-related structure of reality.
—MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.
Transforming the health of the nation will require a multifaceted effort. Our genes are programmed to protect us and allow us to flourish. These protections are hard-wired and yet unfortunately can be completely undermined by our unnatural, processed food diet. And this is exactly what is happening. In addition, humans are social creatures, and we are learning more and more about how our interactions affect our decisions and behaviors. In the following pages, we explore the vicious cycle that shows how the wrong food choices undermine our genetic tendencies and behaviors and in turn make it that much more difficult for us to break away from bad dietary and social choices. Understanding the complexities of these issues is the first step in creating the necessary change.
Be forewarned, the consequences of fast food consumption may be more ominous on our children and grandchildren. Evidence is accumulating that an unhealthful diet, excess body weight, and especially overeating protein create adverse consequences that are imprinted on genes and passed on to future generations.1 For instance, researchers examined the grandchildren of people born in Överkalix parish in northernmost Sweden where few plant crops grow. They also examined historical records of harvests, food prices, and other data to determine food availability. The main crops grown in this subarctic region are barley and oats, which were used primarily as animal feed. In 1905, residents ate lots of meat because they did not have access to imported fruits and vegetables. After years of good harvests, when food was abundant, they ate more meat; after periods when food was scarce, meat consumption declined.
Amazingly, the diet had health effects on three generations. Researchers compared people who had lived through periods when there was an overabundance of meat with those who lived through periods when food was scarce. They found that people who ate lots of meat in their childhoods produced children and grandchildren who were significantly more likely to develop cardiovascular disease as adults. Likewise, meat-deprived grandparents had grandchildren who lived considerably longer. Those people who ate the most meat produced children and grandchildren whose life spans were cut decades short.
The lives of these people were not shortened by junk food, but by genes that were altered by the excessive consumption of animal proteins. They passed those genetic alterations (called epigenetic modification) on to their offspring and their offspring’s offspring. At first glance, it doesn’t make sense that children whose grandparents had better access to food would have their lives cut short, while those whose grandparents struggled to get enough would live longer. It doesn’t make sense until you view it from the perspective of systems, which enables us to see how the parts of a system fit together to form a whole.
Predators and their prey coexist in a circle of interdependence; what happens to one, affects the other. Nature allots a certain amount of each prey to each predator because if predators ate too many of their prey, they would exhaust their food supply and could eat themselves and their prey into extinction. The size of predator populations are closely linked to the population size of their prey. For instance, the number of Canadian lynxes in a given area is directly related to the number of hares. Canadian lynxes exist in a subarctic environment where there are few other prey species. They eat snowshoe hare and little else. Snowshoe hare cope with the seasonal absence of vegetation by eating bark, which enables them to survive harsh northern winters. Every ten years, the population of snowshoe hare explodes, which always follows a period of decline of the lynx.2 This decline of the lynx always occurs after a period of plenty caused by increased populations of the hare.
By examining a large number of these relationships, researchers found that if a predator eats more than its allotment, its life is shortened from excess consumption.3 When too many hares are consumed, too few will remain to replenish their numbers; that is, there are fewer prey animals (hares) to produce offspring when too many are eaten. Nature protects against extinction. Too much protein changes the DNA of the predators, and their lives and the lives of their young are shortened, which in turn curtails the eating of more hares in the future, assuring that enough hares survive into the future.
The lynx population doesn’t immediately recover; the reduced life span remains lower for two generations, which gives the hare population a chance to replenish itself. If the lynxes recovered too quickly, they would prevent the hares from replenishing their numbers. They could eat themselves into extinction. The altered expression of lynx genes caused by the excessive consumption of snowshoe hare is passed on to the lynx’s offspring and their offspring’s young, resulting in the shortened life spans. This example shows that nature maintains ecological equilibrium by diet-induced DNA changes that alter the expression of predator DNA in response to how much food the predator eats. This evidence for the evolutionarily conserved nature of protein-mediated longevity is extremely strong, ranging from invertebrates to humans.4
Natural law is enforced within the DNA of the predator. It penalizes the individual and its offspring so that it may ensure the survival of the collective. This same law applies to other mammals, including humans. When too much is available to eat, many people will simply eat too much. We don’t normally see ourselves as predators because we buy our meat neatly packaged from the grocery store. However, if we eat meat, we are predators; our genes don’t care where the meat comes from. Excessive meat consumption shortens human life span, too. And that shortened life span may be passed on to future generations.
Proponents of the Paleo diet are seemingly unaware of the complexity and depth of the supportive evidence. They mistakenly believe that humans will be healthier if they eat more meat because they believe that’s what Paleolithic humans ate and Paleolithic humans were healthier than people are today. However, analysis of Paleolithic skeletons has shown that few people at that time survived beyond middle age.5 In certain regions and periods when Paleolithic humans did become apex predators, eating hunted animals for most of their calories, evidence suggests that they usually died young. Of course, early humans ate what was available to eat in their local habitats and did not have one type of diet, but certainly their diet was not scientifically formulated to maximize longevity, and they ate merely to survive and reproduce.
Today’s science has uncovered more about the fascinating relationship between overconsumption of meat and shorter life span. We now know that IGF-1 production increases as we consume more animal protein and this, in turn, also shortens life spans in humans.6 Plant-eaters produce far less IGF-1 and are not subject to this life-shortening form of predatory control. We know from credible studies that as we eat more plants and fewer animal products, lifespan increases in length.7
These studies become more trustworthy and important because they include thousands of individuals followed for multiple decades, and they use the hard endpoint of death. And, as shown in the scientific studies cited in Chapter 3, plant phytochemicals do the opposite: They slow aging, strengthen immune function, and protect against cancer. Methylation damage to our DNA, which can promote aging and cancer, is cumulative and exacerbated by eating too many animal products and too much fast food.8 Further, this meat-heavy dietary approach inhibits the consumption of natural, colorful plants rich in phytochemicals necessary for optimal health.
“I said to Dr. Fuhrman, I’d rather be dead then eat vegetables, but that was before I found out there was no food at all up here.”
We are a long way from fully understanding how DNA works. Nevertheless, it is becoming increasingly obvious that DNA not only makes life possible for individuals but also preserves and safeguards life for future generations in order to protect the species. People who seek to maintain good health later in life, while consuming large amounts of meat, are waging an unwinnable battle. Those who shift from a junk food diet rich in sweets and processed carbohydrates to a meat-based diet in midlife may see some health improvements—not because meat is inherently healthy, but because junk food is fundamentally worse. The benefits of such diets are short-lived, and ultimately life span is unfavorably affected.
OUR GENETIC MATERIAL IS DYNAMICALLY MODIFIED BY ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
Positive social energy promotes good health. Social energy is a form of power derived from interaction with others. It is an invisible force that grows from encouraging social interactions that connect us to one another.9 Even though we can’t measure it directly, we can measure its effects. The absence of this vital energy is an underlying contributor to obesity, chronic disease, and many hard-to-explain problems. Social energy is not some New Age concept but rather an identifiable force that affects the activity of genes responsible for governing behavior and food preference.
The term social status applied to humans conjures images of social privilege and elitism. Social status traditionally implies position, wealth, and education. Social energy, in contrast, is built by goodwill toward others and action. Humans get status by harnessing social energy to make things happen. Social energy enables us to build organizations, start businesses, and build social circles. A growing body of research reveals how favorable or unfavorable human interactions affect the activity of our DNA. It is why more socially accomplished people live longer.
Mark Wilson, professor of psychiatry and behavioral science at the Emory University School of Medicine, has studied the connection between social interactions, behavior, and gene activity, which are all surprisingly linked to nutrition. The way we eat determines how we interact with each other and vice versa. Wilson not only revealed how this process works, but he also showed how the presence of unnatural foods corrupts the natural order and leads to behavioral mayhem.
Social hierarchy in the animal world is purposeful. It performs an essential function that ensures the survival of entire species by systematically allocating limited resources to those responsible for producing offspring. Consequently, high-status animals pursue healthy resources, while low-status animals are biologically programmed to stay out of their way, even if it means going hungry. We live in a world where resources are sometimes limited. In the absence of an efficient means of allocating resources, life, as we know it, would have vanished long ago. If all animals competed for food equally when food was scarce, there would not be enough for any single mating pair to produce healthy offspring.
Wilson and his colleagues taught a group of monkeys how to eat junk food.10 They then housed the monkeys together in a shared environment until a social hierarchy formed. The researchers provided unlimited access to healthy monkey chow and also to high-calorie junk food. Two types of monkeys emerged out of this study: One type spent significant amounts of time socializing with and grooming other monkeys, and the second type continued to be isolated even though they were surrounded by others. Not only did each type exhibit different social behaviors; each behaved differently with food. The high-status monkeys, which exerted more social energy, only occasionally dabbled in the unhealthy fare. They consumed a predominantly high-nutrient diet and instinctively regulated their caloric intake, even in the presence of unhealthy options. In sharp contrast, the subordinated, low-status monkeys ceased to consume healthy foods and dined exclusively on junk. They lost their ability to regulate their caloric intake and became compulsive binge eaters. However, they didn’t do so openly; they waited until late at night to eat after the other monkeys went to sleep. High-status monkeys managed their stress by engaging in social interactions. The low-status monkeys under the added stress of hierarchical subordination managed theirs by self-medicating with low-nutrient, high-calorie foods. They ultimately became obese.
In a second study conducted on well-fed monkeys, Wilson and his team found they were able to manipulate status by moving monkeys from one group to another and train them to improve their behavior and social status. These researchers were able to show that manipulating social hierarchy could actually alter the expression of genes that regulated social interactions and food preferences.11 The activated genes resulted in better immune function and better health, and those primates that obtained better social positions were simply less likely to become addicted to junk food.
OUR PRIMATE-WIRED BRAINS
Humans also have genetically driven behaviors that can be modulated by our environment. Social energy is determined by how others treat us. Like monkeys, we are more likely to behave impulsively and prefer junk food when socially deprived. Furthermore, socially accepted people with a close circle of friends live longer than those who are lonely.12 The longest-lived, healthiest people in the world share some common traits; among them is having good relationships with other people. The Australian Longitudinal Study of Aging showed that people with good social relationships were 22 percent less likely to die during the following decade.13 Close contact with just children and relatives had little effect on survival; those people with the strongest network of friends and acquaintances were the most likely to live the longest.
The portfolio of studies examining this question corroborate the data: Positive social interactions with other people in our communities improves health and lengthens life span.14 Likewise, people who think of themselves as victims or feel routinely rejected have a significantly increased risk of chronic disease and are more likely to become depressed and obese.15 Social rejection causes depression to set in faster than other forms of adversity. Depressed people then instinctively seek out unhealthy foods and are more likely to gain weight as a result.16
Scientists studying primates find the same outcome. As we have seen, monkeys with higher social status receive more attention, are more social, and therefore eat a superior diet, resulting in superior immune function. Furthermore, the aforementioned experiments have demonstrated that low-status animals and animals under the stress of dominance by higher-status animals may become biologically wired to eat alone. When exposed to unnatural, unhealthy, artificially flavored Frankenfoods, they become addicted easily, avoid nutritious foods, and remain socially isolated.
Low status in the animal kingdom is not a mark of physical inferiority, nor is it a permanent condition. Primate research has demonstrated that low-status monkeys that do not socialize do not require as much nutrition as their sexually active peers. In the wild, low-status monkeys would be calorie-restricted and thin. Caloric restriction is well-established and shown to slow the aging process and extend longevity.17 Wild primates eating less food do not have worse health or survival compared with their better-fed peers, though they may be less able to produce offspring. However, this situational behavioral pattern can spontaneously change. Low-status animals are like reservists in the military who can be called into active duty when needed. A sudden increase in the availability of nutritional resources, or the death of a high-status peer, represents an opportunity to ascend. As Wilson’s research team observed, a change in status led to a change in the expression of genes that altered behavior, diet, and immune function.
In the animal kingdom, low-status animals ascend when the opportunity presents itself. Nature guards the health of both high-status and low-status individuals by providing various and overlapping ways of maintaining health and life span. Eating a nutritious diet extends life, as long as too much animal protein is not eaten; however, not only does eating fewer calories and less animal protein extend life, so does eating less frequently (intermittent fasting), thus preserving the health and life span of the lower-status animals.18
Unlike wild animals that use social function as a means of survival, humans exploit social hierarchies for personal gain. Our species has unwittingly created large numbers of disenfranchised individuals who have been thrust into a dangerous food environment, and the unintended consequence is fast food genocide.
BRAIN FUNCTION AND IMMUNE FUNCTION ARE INTERTWINED
Status differences can become biological differences. The emerging field of human social genomics studies this phenomenon. Researchers Gene Slavich and Steven Cole of UCLA point out that our genome appears to encode a wide variety of “potential biological selves,” and which “biological self” gets realized depends on the social conditions we experience over the course of our lives.19 Cole identified socially activated genes in humans that regulate immune function. People with high social energy have strong anti-inflammatory immune responses that are absent in those with low status.
The immune system benefits greatly from plant phytochemicals and intermittent fasting. Low-status animals in the wild normally consume micronutrient-dense, calorie-restricted diets, so they do not suffer from chronic inflammation, as do low-status humans. In sharp contrast, lonely people or people with primarily negative social interactions in Western countries consume too many low-nutrient calories (fast food), which transforms a mildly compromised immune response into chronic inflammation and very serious illnesses. Being low status or not having positive social connections does not make wild animals innately more susceptible to pathogens. We humans do that to ourselves by eating unhealthy foods.
Negative social energy diminishes brain function in both monkeys and people. Social energy empowers us to rise above our circumstances by enabling us to increase our status and purpose. We create this energy by being altruistic and compassionate, conversing with others, and helping others. People with this type of social energy are more likely to be healthy, accomplish things, and be financially secure because they are not satisfied with just getting by or maintaining the status quo. A favorable social environment and adequate nutritional intake are the primary determinants of higher socioeconomic potential in life.
Taste preferences and eating behavior can be manipulated and are excellent barometers of self-esteem and connectivity to others. A study has shown that socially isolated people with poor self-esteem and people exposed to toxic social environments are more likely to prefer high-fat, sugary, and salty foods that are low in fiber. People who were the least educated were found to have the strongest dislike for fruits and vegetables.20 Young children exposed to adverse social circumstances develop unhealthy food preferences long before they are old enough to use money or have gotten an education. Exposure to fast food determined these preferences and did so at an age that can destroy their educational opportunity.
We can surround our children with positive social energy; we can teach the importance of eating nutritionally superior foods. Undoubtedly, favorable social energy and the importance of eating nutrient-rich foods can be taught, and children given the opportunity to learn communication skills and good nutrition have greater opportunity for happiness and success in life.21
In modern human populations, low social status predisposes a person to seek out unhealthy processed foods, which fundamentally can alter that person’s character as well as lead to diabetes, obesity, chronic depression, and anger. The pervasive availability of these foods tips the balance and transforms low social status into a disease that affects entire communities. In our modern fast food world, children raised in socially oppressed homes, who may not have role models for correct expression of social energy, are further damaged by their disease-promoting food environment; this affects their genes and their brains, and as they age, they lose the will to climb out of the oppression they have experienced.
SOCIAL ABILITY AFFECTS GENE ACTIVITY IN HUMANS
For years, scientists operated under the erroneous assumption that the “law of the jungle” prescribed survival of the fittest and that genes determined traits independent of other factors. This idea originated from the Darwinian premise that some genes were better than others. Such concepts created an unprincipled view of the world that treated excessiveness, brutality, and selfishness as natural consequences of being superior. The idea that gene expression can be altered challenges many deeply held beliefs. Scientists dating back to Charles Davenport have viewed genes simplistically as unchanging containers of heredity that define individual traits independent of all other influences. However, scientists now know that genes operate in ways that are far more complex. Areas of human DNA that were previously thought of as “junk DNA” are now known to be important software that can direct cell function. These small areas of our DNA can be turned on or off and dramatically affect the expression and function of genes and in turn other biological functions.
Social environments influence the biological expression of genes throughout the body and in specific regions of the brain.22 Compassion and acceptance create positive social energy that has favorable biological effects. Favorable human interaction alters chemicals at the cellular level, resulting in beneficial effects on behavior, food choices, and health outcomes. Humans increase their likelihood of survival by cooperating and collaborating with other humans. Our adaptable DNA “software” also enables our cells to adjust to environmental changes, but this can be positive or negative depending on both social environment and nutritional exposure.
The discovery that core traits are determined by socially regulated genes challenges some of our most basic assumptions about people. Food choices, food quality, food diversity, and food availability all interact with social forces and human-to-human interactions to affect our behavior and health. These discoveries should have fundamentally altered how we think about problems of crime, poverty, and chronic disease, but because of our ignorance, we search for solutions in all the wrong places. Author Thomas Kuhn explains why important discoveries such as this often go unnoticed. He notes that scientific advances occur in a “series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions”; in each revolution, “one conceptual world view is replaced by another.”23 Breakthrough discoveries in science are rare because even the brightest minds are often reticent to embrace new ideas that violate accepted worldviews. Max Planck, who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1918, once said, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”24 Though it’s not easy, we must be willing to change our beliefs in light of new information.
Our DNA responds to changes in the environment and to the food we consume; however, it doesn’t do so randomly. Chronic disease and poverty do not generally result from inferior genes or DNA malfunction. Rather, these are predictable responses to negative social and dietary influences that can spread like an infectious epidemic throughout a community. When humans individually or collectively experience increased psychological stresses, their genes are affected and their stress-eating behaviors and addictive tendencies are enhanced.
As discussed, species’ genetic makeup can react to stabilize the survival of interrelated species when food is plentiful and when it is scarce. However, DNA was not designed to operate in the presence of fast food or junk food in the midst of a toxic social environment. Obesity does not occur in the wild. Like any device, our DNA will not operate as intended when its environment is abused.
Hundreds of years ago, the leading causes of death were infectious diseases and malnutrition. Today, in developed countries, most people die from conditions that arise because of overeating a low-nutrient diet. The ubiquitous presence of unhealthy foods transforms entire populations, creating negative physical and social symptoms with global consequences.
Teaching and practicing empathy, compassion, and goodwill toward all, especially those who are different from our social “gang,” is an important goal of health education and is also important for a shrinking earth with a growing population that is straining our limited resources. Compassion benefits us personally and collectively. We know from a growing number of studies that people who are more hostile and uncompassionate often have a reduced ability to control food intake.25 They are also more likely to indulge in snacks, fast food, and alcohol consumption.
In clinical studies, people with eating disorders are routinely shown to be anxiety-prone, pessimistic, immature, irresponsible, hostile, and vengeful.26 The connection between diet and personality is not a random convergence. Specific eating patterns and social situations have very specific effects on behavior and perceptions. These effects from eating nutritionally compromised fast food are linked to specific compounds and structures in the brain that make people more apathetic, lonely, compulsive, and aggressive. Fast food exposure can unravel the very social fabric that holds us all together.
It doesn’t matter which comes first—social oppression, social isolation, or dangerous eating. This human-created vicious cycle of fast food and social stress creates a downward spiral of increasingly injured individuals and populations.
We must strive to understand the interaction between the social environment, our genes, and fast food. Fast food is not just altering our future health, but weakening us genetically and magnifying this damage in a frightening way in future generations. This means more unintended consequences for our children and grandchildren. This issue demands serious attention by our nation’s population, including the media, health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and politicians.
CONUNDRUMS OF HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT
Diet and social status have been intertwined in ways that are not immediately obvious. As we saw in Chapter 4, in the years following the Civil War, nutritional deficiencies from a corn-based diet made Southerners more violent. However, this by itself did not explain the systematic violence directed at the upwardly mobile, black middle class that followed—a tragedy that historians have struggled to explain. According to scholars, deliberate acts of mass violence always involve conducive environments, destructive leaders, and susceptible followers.27 Unmet needs and a negative social environment make people susceptible to committing such acts.
At the close of the Civil War, poor white people in the South did not have good food, educational opportunities, or hope for a better future. Southern leaders responded by doubling down on the idea of white supremacy. This in turn gave the illusion of status to otherwise low-status people. In the animal kingdom, socially disconnected individuals stay to themselves. In sharp contrast, in human social circles socially disconnected people can sometimes rise to authoritative positions while displaying and utilizing contempt, bullying, and arrogance.
Antisocial behavior starts in childhood; school-aged bullies oppress nearly six million school children every year.28 Bullies seek status and empower themselves at the expense of others, whereas the most popular kids acquire status by engaging in more favorable cross-gender interactions.29 Research indicates that children who engage in friendships with a mixture of males and females in their peer groups lack the desire to bully others. Research confirms that these bully-resistant kids are more empathetic and more socially perceptive.30 They can effectively interact with children outside of their immediate social circles; this is the essence of social energy. But what is more fascinating is that this enhanced social energy leads to healthier eating habits, while bullying is strongly associated with unhealthy diets.31 It works both ways: Good nutrition leads to a healthy brain, which results in proper social functioning; but poor social functioning can make people susceptible to the attraction of addictive eating and poor nutrition.
Without positive social energy, effective dietary change becomes very difficult. Most Americans have a choice about what they eat, but in many impoverished communities around the country people simply don’t have a choice because healthy food options are not available.
Regional opportunity and outcomes vary not just in the United States, but worldwide. The Global School-Based Student Health Survey (GSHS) carried out among middle school students in nineteen low-or middle-income countries showed that the prevalence of bullying ranged from 7.8 percent in Tajikistan to 60.9 percent in Zambia.32 These rates mirrored the broader levels of violence in each of these cultures, which suggests one or more common causes. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the intentional homicide rate in Tajikistan in 2011 was 1.6 per 100,000; in Zambia in 2012 it was 10.7, or nearly seven times higher.33 The diets of people in Zambia and Tajikistan are very different. The Tajikistan diet consists of a variety of foods, including carrots, turnips, apricots, melons, and dried fruit.34 According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Zambians subsist predominantly on maize, a kind of corn.35
Unhealthy diets adversely affect all of our social relationships, including those between parents and children, and poor social relationships affect the quality of our diets. Parents are supposed to lead their children gently into adulthood by teaching them how to relate to, appreciate, and care for other people. However, social divisiveness and poor nutrition have weakened the potential of human culture for peace and happiness.
Researchers compared the interactions of middle-class parents and their children with those of lower-class families.36 Their interaction styles differed dramatically. In comparison to lower-class mothers, middle-class mothers were less controlling, less disapproving, and more informative. Middle-class mothers told their children what they were doing right, while lower-class mothers told their children what they were doing wrong. Researchers found that the better the diet and the more the family ate healthfully, the better the children were raised. Studies also reveal that low-income families are less likely to eat together,37 which is relevant when you consider that researchers have found that eating together as a family makes children more resilient.38 Once again, we see how the cycle of social energy and diet can work to either improve quality of life or lead to increased suffering. Unfortunately, if nothing is done to change things, poverty will continue to perpetuate poverty.
We have seen how World War II altered how people around the globe ate. Besides leading to the rise of fast food restaurants, the war also contributed to an increase in the number of women working outside of the home and this trend continued in the 1960s and 1970s. The family meal became another casualty that researchers say led to a number of problems, including the deterioration of diet quality, especially among the young, an increase in eating disorders, and a decline in family relationships.39 The family meal is an opportunity for positive social contact. Fewer family meals translates into increased antisocial behavior outside the home. For example, problematic school behaviors, early sexual activity, risk of suicide, and increased alcohol and drug consumption have been associated with kids eating alone.40 Other research reveals that families of gang members are less likely to eat together and are less likely to express positive feelings toward one another.41
A twenty-year study using data collected from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) found that social isolation radically affected food choices and health outcomes of adults too.42 People who ate alone ate fewer fruits and vegetables and were more likely to be lonely. Loneliness shortens life span, promotes obesity and diabetes, and impairs neurogenesis, the ability of the brain to grow and repair itself.43 It reduces a person’s desire to eat healthy foods or to connect socially. Such people then become drawn to unhealthy foods and negative influences, which further alters brain structures, making people compulsive, insensitive, and aggressive.
Americans are more alone than ever.44 One-third have no contact with those living near them. Today, poor people of all races are increasingly concentrated in high poverty areas with less access to social resources, which is creating an environment for catastrophe.
THE POWER TO CHANGE
Fast food genocide is happening now and creating many of our nation’s problems, and the potential is there for further deterioration of subsequent generations. Only multifaceted solutions can stop it:
• Increasing positive social interactions
• Expanding educational and motivational efforts in communities
• Encouraging all ages to say “No” to fast food
• Demanding availability of and access to not just produce, but quick and easy healthy food options for everyone
All of these are necessary parts of an effective overall solution. A healthy diet will not only prevent and reverse serious chronic disease, but also enable millions to rise above adverse circumstances. There is evidence that tremendous benefits can come to those in most need.
Such evidence comes from prisons. Few places demean and debilitate people more than prisons. But multiple studies on prison populations show benefits when inmates’ nutrition, self-worth, and social interactions are constructively addressed. For example, there are efforts across the nation today to have prisoners raise organic fruits and vegetables. In California, Washington state, and the city of Philadelphia, some prisons have state-of-the-art composting systems, farms, and organic agriculture vocational programs. On both coasts, rehabilitation is literally taking root as prison yards are transforming into thriving patches of strawberries, squash, cabbage, lettuce, eggplant, and peppers. Some of the produce feeds the inmates, and the rest goes to feed the poor. Early studies of gardening programs in California prisons found that fewer than 10 percent of participants returned to prison—a dramatic improvement from the U.S. rate of more than 60 percent.45 The curriculum includes not just gardening and farming instruction, but classroom lessons on ecology, emotional intelligence, and leadership.
Even nutritional supplements have been shown to make a difference. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial in a British prison tested the association between antisocial behavior and nutritional status. Compared with the test group, prisoners given micronutrient supplements had 26 percent fewer violent incidents.46 The supplements included vitamins, minerals, and the critical omega-3 fatty acid DHA. A research team in the Netherlands replicated the study with similar results.47 These short-term studies reveal that missing micronutrients are a significant factor affecting behavior. In the long term, nutrients are best obtained from a healthy diet. But we know that without positive social interaction, people will likely have trouble adhering to a healthy lifestyle.
Another prison program produced even more dramatic results. In 1997, Terry Mooreland, the CEO of Maranatha Private Corrections, took over a five-hundred-inmate private prison in California’s San Bernardino County, where prisons had become a revolving door for career criminals.48 Inmates were given the option to enter a program called New Start where they agreed to adopt a healthy vegan diet, study religion, receive occupational training, and learn how to manage their anger. The San Bernardino recidivism rate had languished at 95 percent before Mooreland took over. During the seven years the New Start program was active, the recidivism rate fell below 2 percent. Inmates who opted for the traditional California Department of Corrections (CDC) routine continued to be fed the standard prison rations, did not participate in rehabilitative programs, and were housed in a separate unit in the prison. An astounding 85 percent of inmates agreed to room on the “vegan” side of the complex. The impact was amazing; fighting and racial strife ceased on the New Start side. On the CDC side, racial tension and gang violence, like the food, remained unchanged. The difference on the New Start side didn’t end with the food; prisoners were also taught social skills while their counterparts in the other wing were left to their own devices. Social energy in the new wing increased as inmates became more friendly. More importantly, the odds of inmates from the New Start side returning to prison were significantly reduced.
Inmates experience a lack of positive social interaction long before they enter prison. According to the Justice Policy Institute, most inmates get caught up in what’s called the school-to-prison pipeline.49 In some schools, kids are treated more punitively and suspended and expelled at rates that far exceed the national average. This type of treatment leads to further isolation and decreased social health. Many of these kids come from homes where families don’t eat together. Many end up on the streets and one step closer to prison.
One school decided it would no longer be a part of the pipeline. Appleton Central Alternative Charter High School (ACA) opened its doors in 1996 as a refuge for students who were severely at risk. Despite the fact that students who were struggling in conventional school settings got individualized attention, misbehavior, truancy, and failing grades were common. A local business began supplying ACA with free lunches in 1997. It brought in round tables, set up a lunchroom, and teachers ate with students. The following year, the business expanded the program to include breakfast. This wellness program provided healthy food to the school for five years.50
Before the implementation of this nutrition and wellness program, ACA had no kitchen or lunchroom with tables and chairs where students could sit and eat together. The only food and beverages available in the student lounge came from vending machines that sold sodas, candy bars, and chips. Students purchased this junk food from the vending machines throughout the day while sitting on couches or the floor, or they ate at computer stations.
ACA staff reported that students’ disruptive behavior and health complaints diminished substantially after the wellness program was established. Students also seemed better able to concentrate. One social worker noted that the “reduced amount of sugar and processed food in the students’ diets allowed them to be more stable and that this makes mental health and anger issues easier to manage.” One teacher said she saw a decrease in impulsive behaviors, fidgeting, and foul language. Fewer students were referred to the office for discipline, and fewer students complained about headaches, stomachaches, and fatigue. In the classroom, teachers were able to cover a greater amount of material at a more challenging level. The principal recorded that negative behaviors, including vandalism, drug use, dropping out, expulsions, and suicide attempts, ceased. State reports filed on student behavior pointed to improved rates of attendance and lower rates of suspension and truancy.51
ACA stumbled upon a basic principle. The presence of unhealthy foods makes socially impaired students difficult to teach. Similar to merely making healthy foods more available to urban inner cities, the problem with fast food diets is not solved by simply making healthy foods more available. In most cases, obesity levels and other social problems remain unaffected.52 ACA was different because it changed more than the menu: It simultaneously increased the school’s positive social energy. Round tables where students and teachers could interact and eat together replaced vending machines. Though the ACA diet was less than ideal, it was a vast improvement over the way students had been eating before. They consumed more vegetables and fewer high omega-6 oils. The improved diet and increased social energy led to a change of behavior inside and outside of school. Many ACA graduates went on to college, including some who might have otherwise ended up in prison.
PUT ON YOUR OXYGEN MASK FIRST
The United States is a great nation because our citizens frequently enjoy a high standard of living, but we are collectively suffering from poor health. Our country has the highest rates of obesity in the world and the highest rates of almost every chronic disease, yet other nations are catching up as we export our fast food culture to them. What if we could create a nutritional advantage for every single American? By harnessing the power of social energy and making high-nutrient foods universally available, we can give every person a nutritional advantage. This in turn would enable everyone to rise above his or her circumstances and overcome life’s adversities. This potential requires altruism, compassion, empathy, and knowledge.
We also have an obligation to take care of our own health. We need to be effective role models in order to maximize our favorable impact on others. We have to take care of our bodies and minds as we age to avoid becoming dependent on our children, so they don’t have to give up their own lives and care for us when we become sick, demented, and debilitated from eating improperly. When we don’t take care of our health, we don’t just hurt ourselves; we place undue stress on those we care about the most.
Changing one’s eating habits is not simple, and many people struggle with it. In my multiple decades of research and clinical practice, I have learned that the principal reason people struggle to adopt a healthy diet is because they have internal conflicts. One part of them wants to be healthy, while the other part wants to do something that results in the opposite of health. An unhealthy behavioral pattern, like eating a pint of ice cream, provides pleasure in the moment. In that moment when you hold the ice cream carton and spoon in your hands, you want to eat the ice cream; however, in the larger perspective, you want to be healthy and lead a long, productive life.
Adopting a healthy lifestyle generally requires change on many levels. Each level is controlled by a different region of the brain, and each level is like a different radio frequency or channel. To achieve permanent success in the health arena, we have to consider the complexity of human nature. We are physical, emotional, and social beings, and we must consider all of these factors when we seek to improve our health. If we don’t, many people will reject incorporating or even learning more about a health-supporting lifestyle. Initial interest will dissipate. This is a physical manifestation of a subconscious process. Our brains are designed to dim awareness to information that causes us anxiety. For most people, the idea of overhauling the way they think about food and the way they eat is a source of anxiety. Plus, unhealthy foods are a slow-working poison. Many ailments related to the foods people eat take years to develop, and the only visible issue for most people is their excess weight. Studies have shown that most overweight people routinely underestimate the extent of their obesity and do not see themselves as significantly overweight. Consequently, it is not too difficult to imagine how so many people can ignore the evidence. They often don’t see that it has anything to do with them.
The objections of those unwilling to change their diets can sometimes have very little to do with food. It is often the direct result of low self-esteem, which makes them vulnerable to negative peer pressure, addictions, and emotional overeating. Some may fear appearing different from other people, and they think changing the way they eat will result in a loss or weakening of their social relationships. This is a subconscious perception, but some people are unknowingly governed by it. Others overeat to a stupor, raising hormones in the brain so that they can dull the frustration and pain of their lives.
Our brains release certain hormones when we have positive social interactions. If these interactions are eliminated, the brain will seek out other ways to produce the hormones and pleasurable stimulation. This is why people with strong social ties are far less likely to be drawn into compulsive overeating and other addictive behaviors. For people who lack the emotional fulfillment that social relationships can provide, consumption of high-calorie foods gives the brain the surge it is looking for. Therefore, they are more compelled to engage in addictive eating behavior. It is important to work on all aspects of one’s life simultaneously to successfully change eating behaviors.
Bad dietary habits can’t solve anyone’s social problems. Unhealthful behaviors lead to poor health, lower emotional well-being, and then advance this negative cycle. You have to address your beliefs, your thinking, your actions, and your diet because they work hand in hand. When you have a legitimate reason to believe in yourself, you will care for yourself better and be more inclined to eat right.
Feeling that you belong within a group of friends who help you to be a better person and with whom you have something in common raises your emotional health and self-confidence. It is far easier to change and transition into a healthy lifestyle when you have the support of others doing the same. The more your group embraces and supports you in your efforts to eat healthier and live a health-supporting lifestyle, the easier this becomes.
Our nation as a whole is eating itself to death. It is essential that we find smaller groups of support when attempting to move away from the deadly dietary norm. If you have a real and tangible positive social group, you are much less likely to be affected by the artificial ones created by advertisers, marketers, and technology.
If you want to get healthy, encourage others to join you and hang around other healthy people and those striving to be healthy.
Some people will try to make you feel uncomfortable because you are eating healthfully. Your change in behavior may make them uncomfortable because you are forcing them to examine their own unhealthy practices. If you look for approval from someone who is struggling on that issue, you will generally not get a positive response. Regardless of the illogical motives of the unconscious mind to “save face,” you actually lower your social energy by letting these forces govern your life’s choices.
Emotional health depends on feeling good about yourself. You need a legitimate reason to feel good about yourself and be enthusiastic about life. This can evolve from your efforts to make a difference and to value goodness around you—not trying to impress, not trying to make yourself look good, but rather trying to appreciate how much others have value and beauty in them. Feeling isolated and unconnected is worse than actually being isolated and unconnected. Fortunately nowadays, there are lots of ways to connect socially with others, particularly online. Online forums and various social media provide ways of communication and places where you can give and receive support. Obtaining peers who are also interested in healthy living is a great idea. Forming a support group or even joining a support group on the Internet can help you achieve personal success.
The good news is that you are not at the mercy of your genes or your subconscious mind, and you can control your health and weight. Heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, diabetes, allergies, arthritis, and other common illnesses are not predominantly genetic. They are the result of incorrect dietary choices. With knowledge, you can be empowered to make new choices by changing the way that you think.
It is important for all of us to understand the critical necessity to put in our mouths high-quality, nourishing food. Eat very little salt and fewer animal products. Eat mostly vegetables, beans, fruits, onions, mushrooms, nuts, and seeds. To paraphrase President John F. Kennedy, “It is not what your diet can do for you, it is what your diet can do for your country” (or something like that). By working together, we can become a healthier, more productive population. The burden of our health need not fall on our children, and the high cost of medical care should not be a fear that lives with us daily.
We are paying for this fast food genocide with our shared tax dollars. When people eat themselves into coronary bypass surgery or wind up in a nursing home, we all pay for it with our taxes and national debt. Our sickly population weakens our economy, and our businesses and industries can’t compete within a world market given our exorbitant medical expenses. The cost of treating just heart disease and stroke is expected to triple over the next twenty years to $818 billion. Eating right will protect you and also help our neighbors, our country, and our planet. It is the right thing to do.