I'd just like to thank everyone who has contributed to this discussion this
past week.  It is very valuable, thought provoking and much appreciated!

Colleen

 -----Original Message-----
From: Health Promotion on the Internet [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of navessa me
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 5:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: community capacity for healthy eating






  I am in agreement with Joanna - we need to brainstorm solutions for the
problem of lower socio-economic populations not eating enough 'healthy"
foods.  The individualistic, lifestyle health promotion approach has
certainly proved inadequate.  Which is not to say that 'healthy eating
guildlines" are not important, since there are some who still don't
understand its importance.  Those who are 'unaware' of proper eating habits
are present in every social class - therein, justifying the need for these
health promotional materials.

  From a social determinants perspective however, not eating healthy foods
is probably not the only reason for the greater prevalence amongst poor ppl
to have poorer health.  We all know people who are 'better-off' and still
eat poorly, but seem to be quite healthy.  Treating healthy eating habits as
a sole determinant of health is not plausible.

  Joanna's smoking analogy offers a potential solution.  But from a
sociological perspective, those same smoking laws/restrictions have caused
social labelling of smokers as bad, deviant, and inconsiderate of others
(non-smokers & 2nd hand smoking diseases).  Is it appropriate to add another
label, given that the prevalence of such unhealthy 'lifestyle' choices
occurs in higher proportions amongst poorer populations?  In doing so, the
solution becomes another form of individualizing.  Thereby, maintaining onus
upon the poor person to eat healthy/not smoke.  Furthermore, what about the
social factors that have made it increasingly important/essential to eat
better, why do we have to get so many grams of vitamin D to benefit from
calcium? option a) a) because we're not getting enough sun (b/c some of us
don't know we need to or are too lazy) , b)  or because we're! not getting
sun, since it causes cancer because we're ruining the ozone layer.  Where we
lay the blame has huge implications.  And since we are amidst a shift/
between paradigms and there is no absolute concensus, we must ackowledge and
apply the views of each.  I think that most would agree: the location of
blame has not one single source.
  Vanessa Yu
  York University




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
  MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. Send one line:
unsubscribe click4hp to: [log in to unmask] to unsubscribe See:
http://listserv.yorku.ca/archives/click4hp.html to alter your subscription

Send one line: unsubscribe click4hp to: [log in to unmask] to unsubscribe
See: http://listserv.yorku.ca/archives/click4hp.html to alter your subscription