Midway through Day 2 of BEDA’s national conference, I continue to try to learn from those around me. This case in point: There is candy everywhere.
There are a dozen or more table sponsors, all of which have freebies to draw folks in. At least five of them include candy. Not only that, but the box lunch yesterday (and today, too, I assume, though I went out) contained two chocolate-chip cookies and a chocolate ball of some sort.
Many attendees have no reason to restrict their food choices; they work with binge eaters, but aren’t necessarily binge eaters themselves. So why not, right? But also, a very large contingent here believes that there are no bad foods, so again, why not?
Well, here’s why, from my narrow perspective: Even if there are no bad foods, there are foods that are bad for me, and I’m better off not eating them at all, instead of trying to manage them in reasonable portions. (As always, I try to speak from the first person, but often, what I’m saying could apply to others.) The more processed a food is, the more it is composed of empty calories, the more likely that food is to be bad for more, and possibly for others.
Essential to the mantra of “no bad foods” — which is wholeheartedly promoted by Big Food, of course — is “everything in moderation,” but that sense has no place, for example, among alcoholics and drug addicts. I think some substances, especially heavily processed substances, are akin to alcohol and drugs in this context, a view that is not widely held here.
A comment from a presenter today: “I had a brownie and ice cream last night, and it was good, but that was that. It doesn't lead to binging anymore.” OK! True for her, not for me.
Still plenty to take in.