Guest
02-15-2012, 02:12 PM
Did you know:
1) "....USF's College of Public Health [is] the nation's first College of Public Health to be created by a state legislature." That's a quote from information that was handed out at the first health lecture. I would just add that the state legislature has been controlled by Republicans for a considerable number of years.
2) The USF/Villages health study was made possible by federal grant money that was allocated to USF by the Republican legislature.
3) The Villages was chosen for the health study for various stated reasons, so it may be just a coincidence that The Villages has a high percentage of Republican supporters.
4) A health alliance between The Villages and USF implies a contract drawn up by lawyers to protect the interests of both parties. What's in the contract? When it comes to health, what does The Villages need to protect?
5) Out of 60 questions in the USF health survey, only one touched (just barely) on food quality: "Do you eat few fruits or vegetables (i.e., fewer than 3 vegetables and 2 fruits a day)?"
So if someone ate, for example, a ham sandwich for lunch with iceberg lettuce and 2 thin slices of tomato between two slices of white bread, they could call that a healthy lunch because it contains two vegetables. Then with a big serving of mashed potatoes for dinner they could claim they had more than 3 servings of vegetables.
Likewise, with 2 servings of raisin bran for breakfast you could claim to have met your quota for fruit. Or, how about one serving of raisin bran for breakfast and a prune danish as a snack? That could be counted as 2 fruits but says nothing about quality.
There are so many questions about quality that they could have asked but didn't. For example, how often do you eat fast food? How many servings of whole grains do you eat? How often do you eat dark leafy greens? How often do you eat cruciferous vegetables like broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage or Brussels sprouts?
That's why I have come to the conclusion that the USF health survey is biased. In my opinion, it's biased by the fact that the funding is allocated by a Republican legislature. USF can do whatever it wants with the money it has, I suppose, but if it hopes to get more grant money in the future, it knows it must tread lightly on the issue of food's relationship to health. (Does anyone doubt the enormous power of the food lobby?)
P.S. I'm debating whether or not I should send in my completed health survey. To do so, in my opinion, would be to participate in wasteful federal spending. How can we be against so many wasteful federal programs and not be against this largely wasteful health study?
What do you think? Can you send in your survey with a clear conscience?
1) "....USF's College of Public Health [is] the nation's first College of Public Health to be created by a state legislature." That's a quote from information that was handed out at the first health lecture. I would just add that the state legislature has been controlled by Republicans for a considerable number of years.
2) The USF/Villages health study was made possible by federal grant money that was allocated to USF by the Republican legislature.
3) The Villages was chosen for the health study for various stated reasons, so it may be just a coincidence that The Villages has a high percentage of Republican supporters.
4) A health alliance between The Villages and USF implies a contract drawn up by lawyers to protect the interests of both parties. What's in the contract? When it comes to health, what does The Villages need to protect?
5) Out of 60 questions in the USF health survey, only one touched (just barely) on food quality: "Do you eat few fruits or vegetables (i.e., fewer than 3 vegetables and 2 fruits a day)?"
So if someone ate, for example, a ham sandwich for lunch with iceberg lettuce and 2 thin slices of tomato between two slices of white bread, they could call that a healthy lunch because it contains two vegetables. Then with a big serving of mashed potatoes for dinner they could claim they had more than 3 servings of vegetables.
Likewise, with 2 servings of raisin bran for breakfast you could claim to have met your quota for fruit. Or, how about one serving of raisin bran for breakfast and a prune danish as a snack? That could be counted as 2 fruits but says nothing about quality.
There are so many questions about quality that they could have asked but didn't. For example, how often do you eat fast food? How many servings of whole grains do you eat? How often do you eat dark leafy greens? How often do you eat cruciferous vegetables like broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage or Brussels sprouts?
That's why I have come to the conclusion that the USF health survey is biased. In my opinion, it's biased by the fact that the funding is allocated by a Republican legislature. USF can do whatever it wants with the money it has, I suppose, but if it hopes to get more grant money in the future, it knows it must tread lightly on the issue of food's relationship to health. (Does anyone doubt the enormous power of the food lobby?)
P.S. I'm debating whether or not I should send in my completed health survey. To do so, in my opinion, would be to participate in wasteful federal spending. How can we be against so many wasteful federal programs and not be against this largely wasteful health study?
What do you think? Can you send in your survey with a clear conscience?