CITY
JOURNALISM
REVIEW

 

ABOUT COMMENT PHOTO ARCHIVE REVIEWS RSS LINKS CONTACT



     

Is food killing us or are we just not controlling ourselves?

November 20 2007

If we believe every report and so-called research that comes up in the news, we would be hiding in bunkers, eating roots and turn into foodophobics, waiting for the human race to die out any time.

And who could blame us? The truth is that we are constantly overwhelmed by conflicting if not alarming reports of all kinds that manage to sneak into the news. Last week it was the sausage’s turn to take a beating and poor banger-lovers to be thrown into utter confusion and mad exasperation when the media revealed that its consumption was linked to cancer.

As the Daily Mail put it “the great war on bacon” had started, becoming the next target, or victim, of what can only be called a preposterous food police.
One only needs to glance back at previous articles to be overwhelmed by the ever increasing amount of conflicting findings that still manage to make it to front page.
 Take alcohol, for instance. It seems that the government’s health experts are telling pregnant women to avoid alcohol completely, and yet it had long been suggested that one or two glasses of wine a week were fine. While on the subject of wine, many findings have claimed that red wine could have a beneficial effect on health, reducing heart disease and cancer risks, encouraging us to indulge without the shadow of guilt lurking over our shoulders.
Unfortunately, the peace of mind was never meant to last as “new” research comes to light warning that the same, good old wine, could in fact lead to cancer and other diseases. Ironically, it almost feels as if the food inspectors relish the idea of waiting for us to pick up the glass before dropping the bombshell as we are about to indulge. It is not just alcohol that seems to attract so many different reports on a daily basis, but every day food such as red meat and fish. As we are told, that one day both are good for you, and potentially deadly the next day, because the former could lead to bowel cancer while the latter may simply have too much mercury in it.

The list goes on, and on...and on, along with cigarettes, salt, and even the so-called healthy fruit juice as part of the “five a day” recommendation because of its high sugar content that will rot your teeth and make you fat.
Perhaps what those reports are trying to tell us, albeit clumsily and rather ineptly, is that everything in life will probably kill us and that every single food product has been- or will be- linked to some form of cancer.

Taking the time to look at the small print will however uncover the most astonishing, if not revolting fact that they are mainly new findings based on percentages and relative risk which are then turned into flashy headlines meant to grab the public’s attention. The trouble with this is that we are soon faced with a plethora of conflicting evidence and left utterly confused as to who or what to listen to in the end.

What would make more sense would be for the media to wait for long-term research that could then be published to encourage or warn us, instead of grabbing every new health or food-related report and turning it into the next big controversy likely to be refuted in the next issue. Then again, it would probably mean that the media would no longer fall pray to easy-lazy sensationalism ready to grab any piece of study barely out of the lab to fill the news headlines.

By Sarah Nowakowska

BACK TO ARCHIVE