• Not being given the correct information
• Being exposed to repeated misinformed messages in the media and advertisements, as well as having their mentoring physicians misguide them
• Having an awareness that all their friends and neighbors consume animal products
• Being emotionally constricted by the historical/cultural influence that their mothers, grandmothers, etc., ate this way
Cumulatively, these hurdles just become too much for the average person to overcome; it’s simply too heavy to push aside and to do the right thing.
I believe most people truly do care about their own health, but because of lack of proper information, only a few of them also truly care about the health of our planet. Of these, still fewer people have open minds to the extent that they not only care about their health and that of our planet, but they also have the ability to be enlightened when encountering new truths. Now, of this very small percentage of the human population, only a few are willing to seek proper change. Along the way, this process is constrained by numerous social, cultural, and political hurdles. One of the primary reasons I decided to write this book was to provide truths that will empower more people by giving them the proper information, so that there will be an increase in numbers overcoming these barriers. Then, ultimately, change will take place.
Let’s look briefly at the first step in this journey, which is caring about your own health. Many studies show that, in general, people care about their own and their family’s health. A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), however, found that people generally do not care enough about their health to actually implement change for themselves. The CDC 2009 obesity study, in particular, is alarming in three ways: First, the findings are in direct contrast to the public opinion that people do care about their health. Second, the statistics themselves indicate that Americans are becoming more obese and disease-prone. Third, and even more disconcerting, the report indicates that diet is the major contributor to health decline, but it does not elaborate on meat and dairy or their roles as principal factors to this relationship.123 Obesity rates in adults have doubled over the past twenty years, while the rates for those between ages six and nineteen years old have tripled. Another shocking finding is that 25 percent of children, ages five to ten years, have high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or other early warning signs for heart disease, with one in ten teenagers having advanced fibrous plaques in their arteries.124 The report further indicates that 70 percent of diseases and four out of six of the leading causes of death in America are “diet-related.”125 This and other reports by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and the USDA conclude that eating less meat and dairy could prevent yearly medical costs, ranging between $87 billion and $143 billion.126
What follows now is a simple overview of my journey and experiences with finding healthy alternatives to fast food and the many years spent researching the depletion of our health. At the very onset of this experience in 1976, I began to understand the reality of global depletion as it relates to food production and our everyday choices.
From 1976 through 2000, I exhaustively researched the fast-food industry, the eating patterns of Americans, the corporate objectives of the largest players (McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s), nutrition, the ecology of our diets, marketing patterns, and the evolution of fast-food availability. I did this because I saw the desperate need for a new approach. It was obvious that public demand for food in a quick-service venue would only escalate as society became more and more fast-paced. It was also quite clear that the current fast-food corporations that generated billions of dollars in revenue could not care less about our health or the health of our planet, regardless of their marketing façades. It became obvious to me that a healthy fast-food alternative business should be created—one with at least as many franchised outlets as those already in existence from the “Big Three.” Right? If we, as a nation, can support 51,000 units that serve unhealthy food, we should certainly and eventually be able to support at least the same number of units serving healthy food. The path seemed simple—an outlet should be created where only the healthiest food possible would be offered and where education and improvement of the health of our planet would be at the core of the business ethic. This was obvious. Well, disappointedly, I found out that although it was obvious to me, it certainly was not obvious to too many others.
From 1983 to 1998, I traveled around the country, speaking to CEOs, entertainers, politicians, and venture capitalists, explaining why this concept needed to be developed. During one presentation with a venture capital company, a member said, “Dr. Oppenlander, because you do not have an operational business to demonstrate that this would work, why don’t you put up one yourself, and then come back to us for mezzanine [second level] money?” In 2000, I launched “Ope’s—fast food the world can live with.” This was a wonderful quick-service restaurant that offered just what was needed. It offered not only those foods that tasted delicious and were created in an artisan fashion using sustainable methods, but also that would be healthy for the customer and the environment. Through our restaurant, I wanted no saturated fat, no cholesterol, no hormones, no pesticides or herbicides, no heterocyclic amines, no inefficiencies or burdens on our environment, so no animal products were used—only vegan and organic. We had oil-less French “fries”; chocolate, vanilla, and fruit shakes; seven different burgers; six single-serve pizzas; and nine varieties of our trademarked “Stuffed Sandwiches.” We also served salads, soups, and trademarked cookies. Everything was served to the customer less than five minutes after placing the order, and it was organic and sustainable. We developed team management and production protocols, and streamlined all food products and systems of operations. Additionally, proceeds were placed back into the business, with a large percentage donated to causes that would improve our environment globally.
We were privileged to have developed a loyal following of appreciative patrons, but my concept of having this business available for the entire world fell short—we simply did not have the number of people in our area at that time who appreciated this type of food. I learned that it was a matter of geography but also of enlightenment. Not enough people were at a level of understanding to really care about improving their health and the health of our environment. Initially, this was disappointing, but it provided the impetus for me to develop a deeper understanding of those mechanisms that affected public food-choice awareness and for me to help facilitate much needed change.
In 2002, I closed the restaurant to move attention to our production facility, which concentrated on producing our trademarked organic signature items: Ope’s Organic Burgers, Ope’s Organic Stuffed Sandwiches, and Ope’s Organic Cookies. These items are sold to special retail outlets, hospitals, and universities. Along with their delicious gourmet taste, all of our Ope’s items provide an opportunity to improve your own and our planet’s health.
Through the combination of these experiences over the years, I have observed the interesting and very frustrating behavior patterns of Americans with regard to food choices, pathways of information and marketing of food, and the future perspectives.
Since 1987, I have lectured to numerous hospitals and school systems regarding the health benefits of a plant-based diet. Developing enlightenment with regard to food choices and creating change in those locations, although improving, continues to be challenging. Students, for example, are quite receptive to new information and how it might apply to them or our planet. Those in a supervisory position, however—those who actually can make proper decisions to invoke change—simply are not as receptive. They are either set in their ways and unwilling to become enlightened, or they are too passive and unable to commit, or they are overwhelmed by the political, social, and cultural issues such change may create.
All too frequently, I would conclude a presentation at a university, and a committee of ten or twelve student representatives unanimously would agree t
o incorporate the products my company offered. They recognized and appreciated that these products are plant-based and healthier for them and the environment. But weeks, months, or sometimes years later, none of our products would have been ordered, because the single individual who acted as food purchaser for the university would not take the steps to change. This was primarily because the purchaser was out of touch with the benefits of this type of food or was politically influenced by larger food providers. Sadly, this scenario was found repeatedly at most universities in Michigan and elsewhere across the Midwest. Interestingly, these are exactly the locations where healthier food products and information should be provided. Why? Because these same students are our future leaders and change-makers, and because the Midwest—and Michigan, in particular—is the area of the country where you’ll find the some of the unhealthiest states, with alarming rates of obesity, adult-onset diabetes, heart and cardiovascular disease, and some diet-related forms of cancer.
Alarmingly, the situation is the same with hospitals, where you would think only the best diet, with the most up-to-date science behind it, would be available. Given the revered status in which we have placed these institutions and physicians, certainly they should be doing the right thing with regard to diet and your health—but they are not. Some of the unhealthiest food available is offered and supported by physicians and dieticians and is found in all hospitals. Additionally, some of the most unaware and narrow-minded individuals in decision-making positions regarding food choices are found within the hospital setting. The frustration was never greater than when I found myself repeatedly offering our food products at the University of Michigan Hospital, products that were requested by the vast majority of their medical students. But the administrators and food purchasers simply could not grasp the idea or move forward with a food item that would be the healthiest offering for their customers and the healthiest for the planet, and which was their first 100 percent organic product. They also could not imagine how these new items could be procured outside of the normal chain of business vendors.
Ultimately, most hospitals did briefly offer our products but only after years of my meeting with them, and after years of many vocal and enlightened medical students insisting that change was in order. The irony of this situation is that while I was struggling with educating and convincing the administrators that ours (or similar organic, plant-based products) were necessary, the hospital at University of Michigan continued to promote and support an in-building unit of Wendy’s! You read that correctly. The University of Michigan built and promoted a Wendy’s franchise in their hospital, adjacent to their main cafeteria, for all their students, faculty, patients, and visitors, while at the same time struggling to justify purchasing the organic and healthy food items that my company could provide.
Today, the University of Michigan has evolved to the point where the Wendy’s unit has been eliminated, but there continues to be a severe inadequacy in providing truly healthy foods for its students, staff, faculty, and visitors. This inadequacy is fueled by a vivid dysfunction in the systems involved with their food procurement. In early April 2010, I met the Director of Food Purchasing for the entire university to discuss the disparity in what the students needed and wanted with regard to food choices and what they really were receiving from the university; I also provided a proper base of enlightenment for them. As I entered the hallway in a building on campus that led to the room where we were to meet, I stepped over a three-foot diameter rubber poster embedded in the floor, which stated: “Be part of the Blue Planet Movement”—this was a campus-wide initiative that encouraged the UM community to do things daily to improve the environment. At the same time, on the homepage of UM’s website, there was a photo of their university president, Mary Sue Coleman, with the following message:
The University of Michigan takes its responsibility of protecting and preserving resources very seriously, and every contribution can make a difference. I challenge everyone in our community to think about how even the smallest efforts will work to make our great institution even greener.
—U of M president, Mary Sue Coleman
Save energy. Save the planet. The difference starts with you!
Great message, right? Well, let’s look more closely at this. Following a more than hour-long discussion with the director, this is what I learned:
• He did not understand that food choices play one of the largest roles in the global depletion of our resources.
• He did not know that eating plant-based foods requires substantially fewer resources than eating animals or that plant-based foods are generally much healthier for the students. (In fact, he was eating a burger from McDonald’s as we began the meeting.)
• There is no program in place to provide ongoing education for the Director of Food Purchasing, his staff, the educators, or administrators of UM regarding the role of food choice in nutrition and sustainability.
• He thought the word “sustainability” meant “nutrition.”
• He did not understand the ecologic or general health benefits of foods grown organically, and there is no program established whereby organic foods are even considered for purchase.
• He was confused as to the concept of buying locally. To my question of “Do you feel there are reasons and benefits for you to purchase food produced locally or by Michigan businesses? And therefore do you and the UM have any specific programs in place to accomplish this?” The response was, “Yes, we buy some things from UNFI [United Natural Foods, Inc.].” I reminded him that UNFI is a distributor, not a local food producer; that it is based in Iowa; and that is does not carry any locally produced or grown food.
• The Director of Food Purchasing and UM have no policy or program for establishing proper allowances for pricing margins for organic and/or locally produced foods, and they have falsely thrown them into the category of potato chips, soft drinks, and candy bars in terms of retail pricing, economic gain to the university, and need for customer enlightenment.
Now consider that message from President Coleman. The “difference” she urges actually should start with her and with her staff, the administrators, the faculty, and the Director of Food Purchasing. This gross dysfunction is seen not only at UM but also at the majority of our learning institutions across the country. Those at the top, who are making policies and decisions, are disconnected from the reality of what occurs with their food choices. They owe it to their community to establish continuing-education programs and an accurate awareness base for themselves first, before they ask students to “make a difference.” The gap between what leaders are saying and the needs of all they serve is filled with layers of lack of enlightenment, irresponsibility, and resistance. Perhaps once they make an effort to understand what “sustainability” and “green” really mean, in terms of our food choices, then change in the right direction can occur.
There is another reason why individuals have not stopped eating meat and adopted a healthier plant-based way of eating. This reason is pervasive and is equally discouraging because many people do not care—they think that they are impervious to the effects of eating animal products. It’s the attitudes of “It will never happen to me” and “I won’t care until it happens to me.” I have witnessed many patients, friends, and relatives who have gone through the typical sequencing of eating unhealthy foods, with a large percentage of those foods being animal products—hamburgers, hot dogs, steaks, pork chops, bacon, chicken, turkey, fish, etc. They have eaten these foods day after day after day, over a period of many years. Then, not so mysteriously, they gain weight and develop one or more diseases—diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney or heart disease, or cancer. Eventually, they sustain a life-threatening heart attack or undergo life-changing surgery. They may suffer and die at an earlier age than normal. Many of these individuals feel this occurs because of genetics, which may be true to some extent, but no matter what the genetic predisposition to a certain disease state may be, I can assure you that e
ating animal products in any form will substantially raise the likelihood that you will contract and suffer from one of these debilitating diseases.
I have even witnessed extreme examples of this with my patients and friends who have eaten meat their entire lives. Some have contracted colon cancer at ages forty-five to fifty and have undergone multiple or extensive surgeries. Yet they then continue to eat meat, even after I presented them with the book Surviving Cancer by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which cites numerous studies and conclusions that eating meat can and does cause colon cancer, as well as other types of cancer. This, to me, is an excellent example of just how powerful our cultural, social, political, and media influences have been—and obviously still are—regarding the inappropriate perpetuation of the myth that eating meat is good for you. People are dying because of this.
Now, let’s talk about the physicians in whom we put our trust. A primary reason why people think meat is good for them is because their doctors believe it is healthy and convey that myth. And because doctors are the keepers of our health, we must follow.
Although consumption of animals for food is expected to double over the next two decades, there are stark differences in meat consumption between countries; for example, it’s eleven pounds per person per year in India as compared to the United States, which consumes meat at the rate of 270 pounds per person per year.127 The World Health Organization (WHO), Tufts University researchers, the PCRM, and others have consistently recommended lower intake of animal fat and red meat due to a clear relationship of various diseases (cardiovascular, diabetes, obesity, certain types of cancer) with the consumption of animal products.128
Comfortably Unaware Page 7
