In 97 Orchard: An Edible History of Five Immigrant Families in One New York Tenement ($25.99 New York, 2010) Jane Zieligman writes:
In the early 1920s a Boston dietitian named Bertha Wood conducted a multi-ethnic study of immigrant eating habits, eventually published as a book, Foods of the Foreign Born in Relation to Health. As the title suggests, the book was written for health-care professionals–visiting nurses, settlement workers, dispensary doctors–who served the immigrant community.
Wood’s “curious little book” in Zeiligman’s words, blames a single food for much of the difficulty Jewish immigrants faced: that “much-loved Jewish staple: the pickle.”
The briny garlicky sour cucumber was the gateway intoxicant for Jewish kids, according to Zeiligman: “The undernourished child was drawn to pickles the same way an adult was drawn to alcohol. More than a food, the pickle was a kind of drug for tenement children, who were still too young for whiskey.”
In Zeiligman’s mouthwatering tour of the kitchens of the Lower East Side, contemporary reformers saw many dangers lurking in the immigrants’ foodstuffs. To name only a few:
- Home candy manufacturing;
- The pushcart markets;
- Excessive consumption of greens;
- Highly seasoned foods.
The superannuated antics of old-time public health reformers are good for a laugh. But in the folk memory of many Americans, the Keystone Healthkare Kops are still at work, trying to “tell us what’s good for us.”
The difference between public health law then and now has to be research. If today’s reformers want to change the way Americans eat, they must be damned sure that there is solid empirical evidence that
- the proposed changes in diet are good for the public health, and,
- the proposed changes in laws and regulations will change the public’s behavior.
A recent paper does shows how to do that. “A Framework for Public Health Law Research,” defines this emerging scientific discipline and explores the promise and challenges of studying the impact of laws on health.
Public health experts, legal scholars and policy makers are increasingly recognizing that laws can keep people safe and healthy; for example, by encouraging the use of seat belts and by keeping the environment safe from toxins. This growing recognition has led to the emergence of “public health law research”, a developing field aimed at studying the intended and unintended consequences of laws on public health as a way to support evidence-based policy making.
Scott Burris, director of Public Health Law Research, a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation administered through Temple University, wrote the paper with Michelle Mello of the Harvard School of Public Health, Alexander Wagenaar of the University of Florida College of Medicine, Jeffery Swanson of Duke University School of Medicine, Jennifer Ibrahim of Temple University, and Jennifer Wood of Temple University.
BURRIS, S., WAGENAAR, A., SWANSON, J., IBRAHIM, J., WOOD, J., & MELLO, M. (2010). Making the Case for Laws That Improve Health: A Framework for Public Health Law Research Milbank Quarterly, 88 (2), 169-210 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00595.x
Paul Statt Communications 