"We are awash in a steady supply of low cost consumables, many of them laced with sugar, partially hydrogenated oils and soy-based people chow that encourage the manufacture and consumption of calorie rich nutritionally poor synthetic foods."

We have a long and storied history with bread dating back at least 10,000 years when the business of agriculture began to take root among human populations. In literature, 'bread' is often applied as a generic metaphor for the foods we consume to sustain our bodies. In the context of this web site, money refers to the cost in currency, labor and consequences associated with what we eat. Historically, bread (what we eat) and money (the price we pay for what we eat) have always been intertwined.

When our ancestors had to track, kill and butcher their food, there was always a tangible cost associated with that effort. It might take as long to run down a jack rabbit as a buffalo, so early hunters had to make intelligent decisions about which foods they pursued and the return, in nutritive value, on their choices. Today, government agricultural subsidies and a thriving food industry ensure that most of us never have to go a-hunting with spear and bow. For most people, food is quite plentiful. There is then, a general sense that the cost of the food we eat is quite low. This is true if the only consideration are the costs paid at the check out counter. Unfortunately for millions of Americans, there is another cost, incurred over a period of years or even decades. That cost comes as a bill in the form of poor nutrition and lifestyle choices. It is paid in a reduction in the quality of life, sickness, disease and premature death.

We are awash in a steady supply of low cost consumables, many of them laced with sugar, partially hydrogenated oils and soy-based people chow that encourage the manufacture and consumption of calorie rich nutritionally poor synthetic foods. In an ideal world, the availability of foods would be based on their nutritive value. The more nutritious a food item was, the lower its cost and the greater its promotion as a preferred food choice. Our health care system would be based on preventive medicine with an emphasis on teaching people how to eat for their health and on how to live active lives. Instead we live in an Alice and Wonderland world where up is down and black is white. The foods that are the least healthful for us are the cheapest and most plentiful. We have a healthcare system hopelessly addicted to aggressively marketed prescription pharmaceuticals designed to treat symptoms rather than the root cause of those symptoms: poor nutrition and obesity.

Not wanting to be seen as ineffectual, the US government has reluctantly joined in America's battle of the bulge. In 2004, Health and Human Services Secretary, Tommy Thomson, launched an emasculated campaign in the fight against obesity. Not surprisingly, this effort follows the lead of the food industry in its denial of corporate responsibility while preaching the doctrine of personal blame. Paradoxically, while telling Americans to take responsibility for their health, this same industry continues to churn out thousands of tasty new convenience foods each year, many targeted at children in an ever escalating campaign designed to motivate them to eat more. We're told that these new foods were developed to relieve an overworked multitasking populace of the tyranny of cooking, but to what end? If we are as inactive as recent studies and our bulging waistlines suggest, we should have plenty of time to cook.

Regardless of your opinion about the causes of poor nutrition and the increase in obesity, few people dispute the assertion that we have a problem. Some claim that we are drowning in a whirlpool of socially unconscionable economic and political policies that encourage over consumption and physical inertia. Others, the diet priesthood, that cabal of economic interests that have been telling us how to eat for the past 30 years, claims that we're just a lumbering herd of gluttons, bereft of sufficient willpower to resist the siren song of a frosted donut. They say we are masochists who actually chose to be obese so that we can enjoy the wonders of modern medicine while being treated for heart disease and a host of other delightful maladies. The bottom line is that whether you're part of the medical, pharmaceutical or food industry cartels, or just a bureaucrat in search of fat corporate gig after you've done your time in public service, there's plenty of money to be made in the war for and against obesity.

The point to be made here is that bread is money and money is bread. The food industry makes money on every piece of synthetic soy glop, donut and bottle of flavored sugar water sold. The pharmaceutical industry, profiting off the scare tactics of demonizing dietary fat, rakes in mountains of cash on cholesterol lowering drugs alone. Even the family doctor takes part in the feeding frenzy when he accepts or demands "gifts" from pharmaceutical reps who seek to influence your medical treatment by influencing your doctor. Given how much money is on the table, it is no wonder that little has been done or will be done by the people we look to for leadership.

So it really does come down to personal responsibility and whether or not you want to pay a little or a lot for what you eat. If you chose to pay a lot, corporate America thanks you for your sacrifice and the sacrifice of your children. On the othert hand, if you chose to pay a little by exorcising most processed foods from your diet and returning to a sensible diet of meat, dairy and produce, you'll realize a return on your investment that will continue to pay rich dividends for the rest of your life.