Taper Madness Forum Index Taper Madness
Embrace the Madness! Marathon Training...and much more!!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The Omnivore's Dilemma
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Taper Madness Forum Index -> Menus
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Shug



Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 2698
Location: With my head in an oven

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:20 am    Post subject: The Omnivore's Dilemma Reply with quote

This is one of the most provocative and engaging books I've read in a while. I encourage you to read it too. Here's a review from The New York Times.

'The Omnivore's Dilemma,' by Michael Pollan
Deconstructing Dinner



Review by DAVID KAMP
Published: April 23, 2006
Life is confusing atop the food chain. For most animals, eating is a simple matter of biological imperative: if you're a koala, you seek out eucalyptus leaves; if you're a prairie vole, you munch on bluegrass and clover. But Homo sapiens, encumbered by a big brain and such inventions as agriculture and industry, faces a bewildering array of choices, from scrambled eggs to Chicken McNuggets, from a bowl of fresh strawberries to the petrochemically complex yellow log of sweet, spongy food product known as the Twinkie. "When you can eat just about anything nature has to offer," Michael Pollan writes in his thoughtful, engrossing new book, "The Omnivore's Dilemma," "deciding what you should eat will inevitably stir anxiety."

THE OMNIVORE'S DILEMMA
A Natural History of Four Meals.
By Michael Pollan.
450 pp. The Penguin Press. $26.95.
Related
The Modern Hunter-Gatherer: An Article in The New York Times Magazine, Adapted From 'The Omnivore's Dilemma' (March 26)

Questions for Michael Pollan (March 29)
Readers’ Opinions
Forum: Book News and Reviews
Nowhere is this anxiety more acute, Pollan says, than in the United States. Wealth, abundance and the lack of a steadying, centuries-old food culture have conspired to make us Americans dysfunctional eaters, obsessed with getting thin while becoming ever more fat, lurching from one specious bit of dietary wisdom (margarine is better for you than butter) to another (carbs kill). Pollan diagnoses a "national eating disorder," and he aims to shed light on both its causes and some potential solutions. To this end, he embarks on four separate eating adventures, each of which starts at the very beginning — in the soil from which the raw materials of his dinners will emerge — and ends with a cooked, finished meal.

These meals are, in order, a McDonald's repast consumed by Pollan with his wife and son in their car as it vrooms up a California freeway; a "Big Organic" meal of ingredients purchased at the upmarket chain Whole Foods; a beyond-organic chicken dinner whose main course and side dishes come from a wondrously self-sustaining Virginia farm that uses no pesticides, antibiotics or synthetic fertilizers; and a "hunter-gatherer" feast consisting almost entirely of ingredients that Pollan has shot dead or foraged himself.

Even if the author weren't a professor of journalism at Berkeley, and therefore by definition a liberal foodie intellectual, you could guess how this scheme will play out: the McDonald's meal will be found wanting in terms of nutrition and eco-sustainability; the Whole Foods meal will be decent but tainted with a whiff of corporate compromise; the Virginia farm meal will be rapturously flavorful and uplifting; and the hunter-gatherer meal will be a gutsy feast of wild boar and morels, with a side of guilt and some squirmy philosophizing on what it means to take a pig's life.

But for Pollan, the final outcome is less important than the meal's journey from the soil to the plate. His supermeticulous reporting is the book's strength — you're not likely to get a better explanation of exactly where your food comes from. In fact, the first quarter of the book is devoted to a shocking, page-turning exposé of the secret life of that most seemingly innocent and benign of American crops, corn.

The species Zea mays, for all its connotations of heartland goodness and Rodgers and Hammerstein romance ("as high as an elephant's eye"), has been turned into nothing less than an agent of evil, Pollan argues. Expanding on his articles for The New York Times Magazine, he lays out the many ways in which government policy since the Nixon era — to grow as much corn as possible, subsidized with federal money — is totally out of whack with the needs of nature and the American public.

Big agribusiness has Washington in its pocket. The reason its titans want to keep corn cheap and plentiful, Pollan explains, is that they value it, above all, as a remarkably inexpensive industrial raw material. Not only does it fatten up a beef steer more quickly than pasture does (though at a cost to ourselves and cattle, which haven't evolved to digest corn, and are therefore pre-emptively fed antibiotics to offset the stresses caused by their unnatural diet); once milled, refined and recompounded, corn can become any number of things, from ethanol for the gas tank to dozens of edible, if not nutritious, products, like the thickener in a milkshake, the hydrogenated oil in margarine, the modified cornstarch that binds the pulverized meat in a McNugget and, most disastrously, the ubiquitous sweetener known as high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Though it didn't reach the American market until 1980, HFCS has insinuated itself into every nook and cranny of the larder — in Pollan's McDonald's meal, there's HFCS not only in his 32-ounce soda, but in the ketchup and the bun of his cheeseburger — and Pollan fingers it as the prime culprit in the nation's obesity epidemic.Against this backdrop of cynicism and big bellies, Pollan finds his hero in Joel Salatin, an "alternative" farmer in Virginia who will sell his goods only to local customers. A cantankerous self-described "Christian-conservative-libertarian-environmentalist-lunatic," Farmer Joel has ingeniously marshalled the rhythms and symbioses of nature to produce a bounty of food from his hundred acres. For example, his cattle graze a plot of grass for a day or two and are then succeeded by several hundred laying hens, which not only nibble on the clipped grass but pick grubs and larvae from the cowpats, thereby spreading the manure and eliminating parasites. The chickens' bug-laden, high-protein diet results in fantastically flavorful eggs, while their excrement enriches the pasture with nitrogen, allowing it to recover in a matter of weeks for the cows to revisit.

THE OMNIVORE'S DILEMMA
A Natural History of Four Meals.
By Michael Pollan.
450 pp. The Penguin Press. $26.95.
Related
The Modern Hunter-Gatherer: An Article in The New York Times Magazine, Adapted From 'The Omnivore's Dilemma' (March 26)

Questions for Michael Pollan (March 29)
Readers’ Opinions
Forum: Book News and Reviews
Salatin seems to have found the secrets of sustainable agriculture. The shocker is that he doesn't want to be part of any national solution. He's an off-the-grid crank who hates the government, home-schooled his kids and declares to Pollan: "Why do we have to have a New York City? What good is it?" But Pollan, a nice-guy writer whose awe of Salatin is palpable, lets the farmer off lightly, saying that his provocative words "made me appreciate what a deep gulf of culture and experience separates me from Joel — and yet at the same time, what a sturdy bridge caring about food can sometimes provide."

If I have any caveats about "The Omnivore's Dilemma," it's Pollan's tendency to be too nice. He doesn't write with the propulsive rage that fueled Eric Schlosser's blockbuster "Fast Food Nation," nor does he take a firm stand on figures like the "Big Organic" pioneer Gene Kahn, an ex-hippie farmer from Washington State who decided that the only way to sustain his company, Cascadian Farm, was to sell it to General Mills. Pollan wryly notes that Kahn drives a late-model Lexus with vanity plates that say ORGANIC, but he calls Kahn "a realist, a businessman with a payroll to meet." Does this mean that Kahn is striking the right balance between mammon and the mission, or does Pollan think he's a hypocrite?

Likewise, I wish Pollan would stick his neck out and be more prescriptive about how we might realistically address our national eating disorder. We can't all go off the grid like Salatin, nor can we just wish away 200 years of industrialization. So what to do? Is the ever-growing organic-food industry already on the right path? Or is more radical action needed? Should the Department of Justice break up giant, soil-exhausting factory farms into small, self-sustaining polycultural organic farms? Perhaps it's greedy to demand more from a book already brimming with ideas, but what can I say? I'm an American, and I'm still hungry.
_________________
"You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."
-- Dorothy Parker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richfscott



Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 5390

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whoa.

Say it like Keanu.

My wife just (literally 90 minutes ago) picked up a copy of that book and pulled herself away long enough to go to the Y.

I've got second dibbs. Seems like a cool premise.

How'd you read it already? I thought it just came out. And finally, the April 3 issue of Time has a review as well.
_________________
Pleased to meet you, say your prayers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shug



Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 2698
Location: With my head in an oven

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Audible, Baby. Run and read and not bump into anything.
_________________
"You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."
-- Dorothy Parker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cpg



Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 4868
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whoa, Indeed.

I was at the bookstore this morning and stood reading through odd pages of this for a half an hour. Now I must read it. Thanks Melina.

Quote:
a liberal foodie intellectual



Yeah, baby. I think I'm in love.
_________________
www.whatwouldlizziebennetdo.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ck



Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 3284

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tell me that story again!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
littlewally and farnk



Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 3466
Location: club 337

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PFCK wrote:
Tell me that story again, but add frogs to it.!

_________________
BEER TALKS. PEOPLE BABBLE.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
evil don



Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 2738
Location: Close to my own Margaritaville, The Haliburton Forest

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whoa indeed ...

Lets get scientific for a minute:

Omni = all
Vore = one that eats

Hence we can eat all things, or anything .... Are you with me so far? Good! A subset of anything would be the set including beer, steaks, yorkshire pudding, red wine, ribs.

Can you explain once again where the dilemma arises??
_________________
Isn't this whole board just one big jimmy jam phorum? - TLF
Things I licked, things I didn't lick............. - Snowman
The definition of an adventure can be said to be adversity recalled in times of tranquility.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: For I'm God's Own Drunk and a fearless man!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
2Ls



Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 3317
Location: Orlando FL

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I ordered this book from Amazon (via the TM link) and it was delivered this past weekend! Can't wait to "dig in".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rita



Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 4469
Location: Alexandria, VA

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the dilema arises when we sit in front of computers all day & don't burn off the calories (lo carb or not) that we stuff into our faces...

I propose that the mental image of King Henry VIII of England was the beginning of the end... changed wives like some people change cars, started his own church to do so... ate everything he wanted, got fat... subliminally we all think that prosperous/successful = FAT... so when we get to the top of whatever emotional/mental ladder we are striving to climb we can afford to put on weight...

women get to blame it on having kids or horomones... we can all blame our thyroids... and now we'll be able to blame McDs & Twinkies for making nutritionally empty foods... I was at the store last week when this obese woman was complaining to the checkout clerk about how her son was SO overweight (he was) while she put chips, soda, cookies and candy on the conveyor belt... gee ya' think??? NO, I don't believe they do think...

glad that someone has written what sounds like an entertaining book and will make money off Americas issues...
-Rita
_________________
"We run, not because we think it is doing us good, but because we enjoy it and cannot help ourselves..." Sir Roger Bannister


freerice.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1L



Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8262
Location: Bay Village, OH

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rita T wrote:
glad that someone has written what sounds like an entertaining book and will make money off Americas issues...
-Rita


That is the culmination of the American Way - is it not?
_________________
-Miles of smiles, M i c h e l e

They are the sandbaggers, we are the sandbags - No Twitch Muscles 11/17/07

Marathon Total: 46; States: 26; Provinces: 1; Countries: 2

Maniac #795
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Doctor F



Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 9579
Location: The Empire State

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I read his article (perhaps an excerpt from the book) about the hunt for the wild boar in the NY Times Magazine section. 'twas fascinating.
_________________
http://www.teamcoco.com/poster
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dawnie



Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 1873
Location: PNW

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael Pollan will be at the Notebaert Nature Museum on Thursday evening (5/18/06) from 5:30 to 7:30.

Details here
_________________
The first rule of Club Dawnie: Hardcore, all day, every day.

Don't hate the hill, hate the race director!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Bettu



Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 2318
Location: Boston-ish

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I started the book today. Unfortunately I had to stop when I got to work, just as he was getting into the mechanics of corn sex. If that doesn't get everyone to rush out and get a copy now, I don't know what will.
_________________
Beth
Walking far for no good reason.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JonD



Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 4252
Location: Don't ask...I'm lost

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've tried corn sex. It's not as good as fence...(inside joke #2684)
_________________
Get a bottle of bubbles. Get glow sticks. Cut open the glow sticks and dump them into the bubble solution. Turn off the lights and you got yourself glow in the dark bubbles. BOOM. You're welcome.

http://attwilightblog.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
no twitch muscles



Joined: 02 Sep 2005
Posts: 2790
Location: Tennessee

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jon Dikinis wrote:
I've tried corn sex. It's not as good as fence...(inside joke #2684)


Finally an inside joke that I know!
_________________
Ian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
JonD



Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 4252
Location: Don't ask...I'm lost

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stick around, Ian, and collect the whole set!
_________________
Get a bottle of bubbles. Get glow sticks. Cut open the glow sticks and dump them into the bubble solution. Turn off the lights and you got yourself glow in the dark bubbles. BOOM. You're welcome.

http://attwilightblog.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Snowman



Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 7076
Location: The Great Sout' Side of Chicago

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Doctor F wrote:
I read his article (perhaps an excerpt from the book) about the hunt for the wild boar in the NY Times Magazine section. 'twas fascinating.


I find hunting for boar much more productive in the Chicago Tribune Editorial Page.
_________________
Life is a breeze...of course some breezes fly up to 120 miles per hour, and get called hurricanes.
- drunk Larry King (link below)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KRUje1UQJs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Doctor F



Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 9579
Location: The Empire State

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jon Dikinis wrote:
I've tried corn sex. It's not as good as vaseline...(inside joke #2684.1)

_________________
http://www.teamcoco.com/poster
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shug



Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 2698
Location: With my head in an oven

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2006 1:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is Michael Pollan talking about Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms in Virginia: http://journalism.berkeley.edu/events/details.php?ID=164

The speech Pollan gives is a segment of Omnivore's Dilemma.
_________________
"You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."
-- Dorothy Parker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shug



Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 2698
Location: With my head in an oven

PostPosted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 2:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, yes, Richfscott! I will throw down with you again over this author. His message is too good. From today's New York Times:


January 28, 2007
Unhappy Meals

By MICHAEL POLLAN
Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

That, more or less, is the short answer to the supposedly incredibly complicated and confusing question of what we humans should eat in order to be maximally healthy. I hate to give away the game right here at the beginning of a long essay, and I confess that I’m tempted to complicate matters in the interest of keeping things going for a few thousand more words. I’ll try to resist but will go ahead and add a couple more details to flesh out the advice. Like: A little meat won’t kill you, though it’s better approached as a side dish than as a main. And you’re much better off eating whole fresh foods than processed food products. That’s what I mean by the recommendation to eat “food.” Once, food was all you could eat, but today there are lots of other edible foodlike substances in the supermarket. These novel products of food science often come in packages festooned with health claims, which brings me to a related rule of thumb: if you’re concerned about your health, you should probably avoid food products that make health claims. Why? Because a health claim on a food product is a good indication that it’s not really food, and food is what you want to eat.

Uh-oh. Things are suddenly sounding a little more complicated, aren’t they? Sorry. But that’s how it goes as soon as you try to get to the bottom of the whole vexing question of food and health. Before long, a dense cloud bank of confusion moves in. Sooner or later, everything solid you thought you knew about the links between diet and health gets blown away in the gust of the latest study.

Last winter came the news that a low-fat diet, long believed to protect against breast cancer, may do no such thing — this from the monumental, federally financed Women’s Health Initiative, which has also found no link between a low-fat diet and rates of coronary disease. The year before we learned that dietary fiber might not, as we had been confidently told, help prevent colon cancer. Just last fall two prestigious studies on omega-3 fats published at the same time presented us with strikingly different conclusions. While the Institute of Medicine stated that “it is uncertain how much these omega-3s contribute to improving health” (and they might do the opposite if you get them from mercury-contaminated fish), a Harvard study declared that simply by eating a couple of servings of fish each week (or by downing enough fish oil), you could cut your risk of dying from a heart attack by more than a third — a stunningly hopeful piece of news. It’s no wonder that omega-3 fatty acids are poised to become the oat bran of 2007, as food scientists micro-encapsulate fish oil and algae oil and blast them into such formerly all-terrestrial foods as bread and tortillas, milk and yogurt and cheese, all of which will soon, you can be sure, sprout fishy new health claims. (Remember the rule?)

By now you’re probably registering the cognitive dissonance of the supermarket shopper or science-section reader, as well as some nostalgia for the simplicity and solidity of the first few sentences of this essay. Which I’m still prepared to defend against the shifting winds of nutritional science and food-industry marketing. But before I do that, it might be useful to figure out how we arrived at our present state of nutritional confusion and anxiety.

The story of how the most basic questions about what to eat ever got so complicated reveals a great deal about the institutional imperatives of the food industry, nutritional science and — ahem — journalism, three parties that stand to gain much from widespread confusion surrounding what is, after all, the most elemental question an omnivore confronts. Humans deciding what to eat without expert help — something they have been doing with notable success since coming down out of the trees — is seriously unprofitable if you’re a food company, distinctly risky if you’re a nutritionist and just plain boring if you’re a newspaper editor or journalist. (Or, for that matter, an eater. Who wants to hear, yet again, “Eat more fruits and vegetables”?) And so, like a large gray fog, a great Conspiracy of Confusion has gathered around the simplest questions of nutrition — much to the advantage of everybody involved. Except perhaps the ostensible beneficiary of all this nutritional expertise and advice: us, and our health and happiness as eaters.

FROM FOODS TO NUTRIENTS

It was in the 1980s that food began disappearing from the American supermarket, gradually to be replaced by “nutrients,” which are not the same thing. Where once the familiar names of recognizable comestibles — things like eggs or breakfast cereal or cookies — claimed pride of place on the brightly colored packages crowding the aisles, now new terms like “fiber” and “cholesterol” and “saturated fat” rose to large-type prominence. More important than mere foods, the presence or absence of these invisible substances was now generally believed to confer health benefits on their eaters. Foods by comparison were coarse, old-fashioned and decidedly unscientific things — who could say what was in them, really? But nutrients — those chemical compounds and minerals in foods that nutritionists have deemed important to health — gleamed with the promise of scientific certainty; eat more of the right ones, fewer of the wrong, and you would live longer and avoid chronic diseases.

Nutrients themselves had been around, as a concept, since the early 19th century, when the English doctor and chemist William Prout identified what came to be called the “macronutrients”: protein, fat and carbohydrates. It was thought that that was pretty much all there was going on in food, until doctors noticed that an adequate supply of the big three did not necessarily keep people nourished. At the end of the 19th century, British doctors were puzzled by the fact that Chinese laborers in the Malay states were dying of a disease called beriberi, which didn’t seem to afflict Tamils or native Malays. The mystery was solved when someone pointed out that the Chinese ate “polished,” or white, rice, while the others ate rice that hadn’t been mechanically milled. A few years later, Casimir Funk, a Polish chemist, discovered the “essential nutrient” in rice husks that protected against beriberi and called it a “vitamine,” the first micronutrient. Vitamins brought a kind of glamour to the science of nutrition, and though certain sectors of the population began to eat by its expert lights, it really wasn’t until late in the 20th century that nutrients managed to push food aside in the popular imagination of what it means to eat.

No single event marked the shift from eating food to eating nutrients, though in retrospect a little-noticed political dust-up in Washington in 1977 seems to have helped propel American food culture down this dimly lighted path. Responding to an alarming increase in chronic diseases linked to diet — including heart disease, cancer and diabetes — a Senate Select Committee on Nutrition, headed by George McGovern, held hearings on the problem and prepared what by all rights should have been an uncontroversial document called “Dietary Goals for the United States.” The committee learned that while rates of coronary heart disease had soared in America since World War II, other cultures that consumed traditional diets based largely on plants had strikingly low rates of chronic disease. Epidemiologists also had observed that in America during the war years, when meat and dairy products were strictly rationed, the rate of heart disease temporarily plummeted.

Naïvely putting two and two together, the committee drafted a straightforward set of dietary guidelines calling on Americans to cut down on red meat and dairy products. Within weeks a firestorm, emanating from the red-meat and dairy industries, engulfed the committee, and Senator McGovern (who had a great many cattle ranchers among his South Dakota constituents) was forced to beat a retreat. The committee’s recommendations were hastily rewritten. Plain talk about food — the committee had advised Americans to actually “reduce consumption of meat” — was replaced by artful compromise: “Choose meats, poultry and fish that will reduce saturated-fat intake.”

A subtle change in emphasis, you might say, but a world of difference just the same. First, the stark message to “eat less” of a particular food has been deep-sixed; don’t look for it ever again in any official U.S. dietary pronouncement. Second, notice how distinctions between entities as different as fish and beef and chicken have collapsed; those three venerable foods, each representing an entirely different taxonomic class, are now lumped together as delivery systems for a single nutrient. Notice too how the new language exonerates the foods themselves; now the culprit is an obscure, invisible, tasteless — and politically unconnected — substance that may or may not lurk in them called “saturated fat.”

The linguistic capitulation did nothing to rescue McGovern from his blunder; the very next election, in 1980, the beef lobby helped rusticate the three-term senator, sending an unmistakable warning to anyone who would challenge the American diet, and in particular the big chunk of animal protein sitting in the middle of its plate. Henceforth, government dietary guidelines would shun plain talk about whole foods, each of which has its trade association on Capitol Hill, and would instead arrive clothed in scientific euphemism and speaking of nutrients, entities that few Americans really understood but that lack powerful lobbies in Washington. This was precisely the tack taken by the National Academy of Sciences when it issued its landmark report on diet and cancer in 1982. Organized nutrient by nutrient in a way guaranteed to offend no food group, it codified the official new dietary language. Industry and media followed suit, and terms like polyunsaturated, cholesterol, monounsaturated, carbohydrate, fiber, polyphenols, amino acids and carotenes soon colonized much of the cultural space previously occupied by the tangible substance formerly known as food. The Age of Nutritionism had arrived.

THE RISE OF NUTRITIONISM

The first thing to understand about nutritionism — I first encountered the term in the work of an Australian sociologist of science named Gyorgy Scrinis — is that it is not quite the same as nutrition. As the “ism” suggests, it is not a scientific subject but an ideology. Ideologies are ways of organizing large swaths of life and experience under a set of shared but unexamined assumptions. This quality makes an ideology particularly hard to see, at least while it’s exerting its hold on your culture. A reigning ideology is a little like the weather, all pervasive and virtually inescapable. Still, we can try.

In the case of nutritionism, the widely shared but unexamined assumption is that the key to understanding food is indeed the nutrient. From this basic premise flow several others. Since nutrients, as compared with foods, are invisible and therefore slightly mysterious, it falls to the scientists (and to the journalists through whom the scientists speak) to explain the hidden reality of foods to us. To enter a world in which you dine on unseen nutrients, you need lots of expert help.

But expert help to do what, exactly? This brings us to another unexamined assumption: that the whole point of eating is to maintain and promote bodily health. Hippocrates’s famous injunction to “let food be thy medicine” is ritually invoked to support this notion. I’ll leave the premise alone for now, except to point out that it is not shared by all cultures and that the experience of these other cultures suggests that, paradoxically, viewing food as being about things other than bodily health — like pleasure, say, or socializing — makes people no less healthy; indeed, there’s some reason to believe that it may make them more healthy. This is what we usually have in mind when we speak of the “French paradox” — the fact that a population that eats all sorts of unhealthful nutrients is in many ways healthier than we Americans are. So there is at least a question as to whether nutritionism is actually any good for you.

Another potentially serious weakness of nutritionist ideology is that it has trouble discerning qualitative distinctions between foods. So fish, beef and chicken through the nutritionists’ lens become mere delivery systems for varying quantities of fats and proteins and whatever other nutrients are on their scope. Similarly, any qualitative distinctions between processed foods and whole foods disappear when your focus is on quantifying the nutrients they contain (or, more precisely, the known nutrients).

This is a great boon for manufacturers of processed food, and it helps explain why they have been so happy to get with the nutritionism program. In the years following McGovern’s capitulation and the 1982 National Academy report, the food industry set about re-engineering thousands of popular food products to contain more of the nutrients that science and government had deemed the good ones and less of the bad, and by the late ’80s a golden era of food science was upon us. The Year of Eating Oat Bran — also known as 1988 — served as a kind of coming-out party for the food scientists, who succeeded in getting the material into nearly every processed food sold in America. Oat bran’s moment on the dietary stage didn’t last long, but the pattern had been established, and every few years since then a new oat bran has taken its turn under the marketing lights. (Here comes omega-3!)

By comparison, the typical real food has more trouble competing under the rules of nutritionism, if only because something like a banana or an avocado can’t easily change its nutritional stripes (though rest assured the genetic engineers are hard at work on the problem). So far, at least, you can’t put oat bran in a banana. So depending on the reigning nutritional orthodoxy, the avocado might be either a high-fat food to be avoided (Old Think) or a food high in monounsaturated fat to be embraced (New Think). The fate of each whole food rises and falls with every change in the nutritional weather, while the processed foods are simply reformulated. That’s why when the Atkins mania hit the food industry, bread and pasta were given a quick redesign (dialing back the carbs; boosting the protein), while the poor unreconstructed potatoes and carrots were left out in the cold.

Of course it’s also a lot easier to slap a health claim on a box of sugary cereal than on a potato or carrot, with the perverse result that the most healthful foods in the supermarket sit there quietly in the produce section, silent as stroke victims, while a few aisles over, the Cocoa Puffs and Lucky Charms are screaming about their newfound whole-grain goodness.

EAT RIGHT, GET FATTER

So nutritionism is good for business. But is it good for us? You might think that a national fixation on nutrients would lead to measurable improvements in the public health. But for that to happen, the underlying nutritional science, as well as the policy recommendations (and the journalism) based on that science, would have to be sound. This has seldom been the case.

Consider what happened immediately after the 1977 “Dietary Goals” — McGovern’s masterpiece of politico-nutritionist compromise. In the wake of the panel’s recommendation that we cut down on saturated fat, a recommendation seconded by the 1982 National Academy report on cancer, Americans did indeed change their diets, endeavoring for a quarter-century to do what they had been told. Well, kind of. The industrial food supply was promptly reformulated to reflect the official advice, giving us low-fat pork, low-fat Snackwell’s and all the low-fat pasta and high-fructose (yet low-fat!) corn syrup we could consume. Which turned out to be quite a lot. Oddly, America got really fat on its new low-fat diet — indeed, many date the current obesity and diabetes epidemic to the late 1970s, when Americans began binging on carbohydrates, ostensibly as a way to avoid the evils of fat.

This story has been told before, notably in these pages (“What if It’s All Been a Big Fat Lie?” by Gary Taubes, July 7, 2002), but it’s a little more complicated than the official version suggests. In that version, which inspired the most recent Atkins craze, we were told that America got fat when, responding to bad scientific advice, it shifted its diet from fats to carbs, suggesting that a re-evaluation of the two nutrients is in order: fat doesn’t make you fat; carbs do. (Why this should have come as news is a mystery: as long as people have been raising animals for food, they have fattened them on carbs.)

But there are a couple of problems with this revisionist picture. First, while it is true that Americans post-1977 did begin binging on carbs, and that fat as a percentage of total calories in the American diet declined, we never did in fact cut down on our consumption of fat. Meat consumption actually climbed. We just heaped a bunch more carbs onto our plates, obscuring perhaps, but not replacing, the expanding chunk of animal protein squatting in the center.

How did that happen? I would submit that the ideology of nutritionism deserves as much of the blame as the carbohydrates themselves do — that and human nature. By framing dietary advice in terms of good and bad nutrients, and by burying the recommendation that we should eat less of any particular food, it was easy for the take-home message of the 1977 and 1982 dietary guidelines to be simplified as follows: Eat more low-fat foods. And that is what we did. We’re always happy to receive a dispensation to eat more of something (with the possible exception of oat bran), and one of the things nutritionism reliably gives us is some such dispensation: low-fat cookies then, low-carb beer now. It’s hard to imagine the low-fat craze taking off as it did if McGovern’s original food-based recommendations had stood: eat fewer meat and dairy products. For how do you get from that stark counsel to the idea that another case of Snackwell’s is just what the doctor ordered?

BAD SCIENCE

But if nutritionism leads to a kind of false consciousness in the mind of the eater, the ideology can just as easily mislead the scientist. Most nutritional science involves studying one nutrient at a time, an approach that even nutritionists who do it will tell you is deeply flawed. “The problem with nutrient-by-nutrient nutrition science,” points out Marion Nestle, the New York University nutritionist, “is that it takes the nutrient out of the context of food, the food out of the context of diet and the diet out of the context of lifestyle.”

If nutritional scientists know this, why do they do it anyway? Because a nutrient bias is built into the way science is done: scientists need individual variables they can isolate. Yet even the simplest food is a hopelessly complex thing to study, a virtual wilderness of chemical compounds, many of which exist in complex and dynamic relation to one another, and all of which together are in the process of changing from one state to another. So if you’re a nutritional scientist, you do the only thing you can do, given the tools at your disposal: break the thing down into its component parts and study those one by one, even if that means ignoring complex interactions and contexts, as well as the fact that the whole may be more than, or just different from, the sum of its parts. This is what we mean by reductionist science.

Scientific reductionism is an undeniably powerful tool, but it can mislead us too, especially when applied to something as complex as, on the one side, a food, and on the other, a human eater. It encourages us to take a mechanistic view of that transaction: put in this nutrient; get out that physiological result. Yet people differ in important ways. Some populations can metabolize sugars better than others; depending on your evolutionary heritage, you may or may not be able to digest the lactose in milk. The specific ecology of your intestines helps determine how efficiently you digest what you eat, so that the same input of 100 calories may yield more or less energy depending on the proportion of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes living in your gut. There is nothing very machinelike about the human eater, and so to think of food as simply fuel is wrong.

Also, people don’t eat nutrients, they eat foods, and foods can behave very differently than the nutrients they contain. Researchers have long believed, based on epidemiological comparisons of different populations, that a diet high in fruits and vegetables confers some protection against cancer. So naturally they ask, What nutrients in those plant foods are responsible for that effect? One hypothesis is that the antioxidants in fresh produce — compounds like beta carotene, lycopene, vitamin E, etc. — are the X factor. It makes good sense: these molecules (which plants produce to protect themselves from the highly reactive oxygen atoms produced in photosynthesis) vanquish the free radicals in our bodies, which can damage DNA and initiate cancers. At least that’s how it seems to work in the test tube. Yet as soon as you remove these useful molecules from the context of the whole foods they’re found in, as we’ve done in creating antioxidant supplements, they don’t work at all. Indeed, in the case of beta carotene ingested as a supplement, scientists have discovered that it actually increases the risk of certain cancers. Big oops.

What’s going on here? We don’t know. It could be the vagaries of human digestion. Maybe the fiber (or some other component) in a carrot protects the antioxidant molecules from destruction by stomach acids early in the digestive process. Or it could be that we isolated the wrong antioxidant. Beta is just one of a whole slew of carotenes found in common vegetables; maybe we focused on the wrong one. Or maybe beta carotene works as an antioxidant only in concert with some other plant chemical or process; under other circumstances, it may behave as a pro-oxidant.

Indeed, to look at the chemical composition of any common food plant is to realize just how much complexity lurks within it. Here’s a list of just the antioxidants that have been identified in garden-variety thyme:

4-Terpineol, alanine, anethole, apigenin, ascorbic acid, beta carotene, caffeic acid, camphene, carvacrol, chlorogenic acid, chrysoeriol, eriodictyol, eugenol, ferulic acid, gallic acid, gamma-terpinene isochlorogenic acid, isoeugenol, isothymonin, kaempferol, labiatic acid, lauric acid, linalyl acetate, luteolin, methionine, myrcene, myristic acid, naringenin, oleanolic acid, p-coumoric acid, p-hydroxy-benzoic acid, palmitic acid, rosmarinic acid, selenium, tannin, thymol, tryptophan, ursolic acid, vanillic acid.

This is what you’re ingesting when you eat food flavored with thyme. Some of these chemicals are broken down by your digestion, but others are going on to do undetermined things to your body: turning some gene’s expression on or off, perhaps, or heading off a free radical before it disturbs a strand of DNA deep in some cell. It would be great to know how this all works, but in the meantime we can enjoy thyme in the knowledge that it probably doesn’t do any harm (since people have been eating it forever) and that it may actually do some good (since people have been eating it forever) and that even if it does nothing, we like the way it tastes.

It’s also important to remind ourselves that what reductive science can manage to perceive well enough to isolate and study is subject to change, and that we have a tendency to assume that what we can see is all there is to see. When William Prout isolated the big three macronutrients, scientists figured they now understood food and what the body needs from it; when the vitamins were isolated a few decades later, scientists thought, O.K., now we really understand food and what the body needs to be healthy; today it’s the polyphenols and carotenoids that seem all-important. But who knows what the hell else is going on deep in the soul of a carrot?

The good news is that, to the carrot eater, it doesn’t matter. That’s the great thing about eating food as compared with nutrients: you don’t need to fathom a carrot’s complexity to reap its benefits.

The case of the antioxidants points up the dangers in taking a nutrient out of the context of food; as Nestle suggests, scientists make a second, related error when they study the food out of the context of the diet. We don’t eat just one thing, and when we are eating any one thing, we’re not eating another. We also eat foods in combinations and in orders that can affect how they’re absorbed. Drink coffee with your steak, and your body won’t be able to fully absorb the iron in the meat. The trace of limestone in the corn tortilla unlocks essential amino acids in the corn that would otherwise remain unavailable. Some of those compounds in that sprig of thyme may well affect my digestion of the dish I add it to, helping to break down one compound or possibly stimulate production of an enzyme to detoxify another. We have barely begun to understand the relationships among foods in a cuisine.

But we do understand some of the simplest relationships, like the zero-sum relationship: that if you eat a lot of meat you’re probably not eating a lot of vegetables. This simple fact may explain why populations that eat diets high in meat have higher rates of coronary heart disease and cancer than those that don’t. Yet nutritionism encourages us to look elsewhere for the explanation: deep within the meat itself, to the culpable nutrient, which scientists have long assumed to be the saturated fat. So they are baffled when large-population studies, like the Women’s Health Initiative, fail to find that reducing fat intake significantly reduces the incidence of heart disease or cancer.

Of course thanks to the low-fat fad (inspired by the very same reductionist fat hypothesis), it is entirely possible to reduce your intake of saturated fat without significantly reducing your consumption of animal protein: just drink the low-fat milk and order the skinless chicken breast or the turkey bacon. So maybe the culprit nutrient in meat and dairy is the animal protein itself, as some researchers now hypothesize. (The Cornell nutritionist T. Colin Campbell argues as much in his recent book, “The China Study.”) Or, as the Harvard epidemiologist Walter C. Willett suggests, it could be the steroid hormones typically present in the milk and meat; these hormones (which occur naturally in meat and milk but are often augmented in industrial production) are known to promote certain cancers.

But people worried about their health needn’t wait for scientists to settle this question before deciding that it might be wise to eat more plants and less meat. This is of course precisely what the McGovern committee was trying to tell us.

Nestle also cautions against taking the diet out of the context of the lifestyle. The Mediterranean diet is widely believed to be one of the most healthful ways to eat, yet much of what we know about it is based on studies of people living on the island of Crete in the 1950s, who in many respects lived lives very different from our own. Yes, they ate lots of olive oil and little meat. But they also did more physical labor. They fasted regularly. They ate a lot of wild greens — weeds. And, perhaps most important, they consumed far fewer total calories than we do. Similarly, much of what we know about the health benefits of a vegetarian diet is based on studies of Seventh Day Adventists, who muddy the nutritional picture by drinking absolutely no alcohol and never smoking. These extraneous but unavoidable factors are called, aptly, “confounders.” One last example: People who take supplements are healthier than the population at large, but their health probably has nothing whatsoever to do with the supplements they take — which recent studies have suggested are worthless. Supplement-takers are better-educated, more-affluent people who, almost by definition, take a greater-than-normal interest in personal health — confounding factors that probably account for their superior health.

But if confounding factors of lifestyle bedevil comparative studies of different populations, the supposedly more rigorous “prospective” studies of large American populations suffer from their own arguably even more disabling flaws. In these studies — of which the Women’s Health Initiative is the best known — a large population is divided into two groups. The intervention group changes its diet in some prescribed manner, while the control group does not. The two groups are then tracked over many years to learn whether the intervention affects relative rates of chronic disease.

When it comes to studying nutrition, this sort of extensive, long-term clinical trial is supposed to be the gold standard. It certainly sounds sound. In the case of the Women’s Health Initiative, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, the eating habits and health outcomes of nearly 49,000 women (ages 50 to 79 at the beginning of the study) were tracked for eight years. One group of the women were told to reduce their consumption of fat to 20 percent of total calories. The results were announced early last year, producing front-page headlines of which the one in this newspaper was typical: “Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks, Study Finds.” And the cloud of nutritional confusion over the country darkened.

But even a cursory analysis of the study’s methods makes you wonder why anyone would take such a finding seriously, let alone order a Quarter Pounder With Cheese to celebrate it, as many newspaper readers no doubt promptly went out and did. Even the beginner student of nutritionism will immediately spot several flaws: the focus was on “fat,” rather than on any particular food, like meat or dairy. So women could comply simply by switching to lower-fat animal products. Also, no distinctions were made between types of fat: women getting their allowable portion of fat from olive oil or fish were lumped together with woman getting their fat from low-fat cheese or chicken breasts or margarine. Why? Because when the study was designed 16 years ago, the whole notion of “good fats” was not yet on the scientific scope. Scientists study what scientists can see.

But perhaps the biggest flaw in this study, and other studies like it, is that we have no idea what these women were really eating because, like most people when asked about their diet, they lied about it. How do we know this? Deduction. Consider: When the study began, the average participant weighed in at 170 pounds and claimed to be eating 1,800 calories a day. It would take an unusual metabolism to maintain that weight on so little food. And it would take an even freakier metabolism to drop only one or two pounds after getting down to a diet of 1,400 to 1,500 calories a day — as the women on the “low-fat” regimen claimed to have done. Sorry, ladies, but I just don’t buy it.

In fact, nobody buys it. Even the scientists who conduct this sort of research conduct it in the knowledge that people lie about their food intake all the time. They even have scientific figures for the magnitude of the lie. Dietary trials like the Women’s Health Initiative rely on “food-frequency questionnaires,” and studies suggest that people on average eat between a fifth and a third more than they claim to on the questionnaires. How do the researchers know that? By comparing what people report on questionnaires with interviews about their dietary intake over the previous 24 hours, thought to be somewhat more reliable. In fact, the magnitude of the lie could be much greater, judging by the huge disparity between the total number of food calories produced every day for each American (3,900 calories) and the average number of those calories Americans own up to chomping: 2,000. (Waste accounts for some of the disparity, but nowhere near all of it.) All we really know about how much people actually eat is that the real number lies somewhere between those two figures.

To try to fill out the food-frequency questionnaire used by the Women’s Health Initiative, as I recently did, is to realize just how shaky the data on which such trials rely really are. The survey, which took about 45 minutes to complete, started off with some relatively easy questions: “Did you eat chicken or turkey during the last three months?” Having answered yes, I was then asked, “When you ate chicken or turkey, how often did you eat the skin?” But the survey soon became harder, as when it asked me to think back over the past three months to recall whether when I ate okra, squash or yams, they were fried, and if so, were they fried in stick margarine, tub margarine, butter, “shortening” (in which category they inexplicably lump together hydrogenated vegetable oil and lard), olive or canola oil or nonstick spray? I honestly didn’t remember, and in the case of any okra eaten in a restaurant, even a hypnotist could not get out of me what sort of fat it was fried in. In the meat section, the portion sizes specified haven’t been seen in America since the Hoover administration. If a four-ounce portion of steak is considered “medium,” was I really going to admit that the steak I enjoyed on an unrecallable number of occasions during the past three months was probably the equivalent of two or three (or, in the case of a steakhouse steak, no less than four) of these portions? I think not. In fact, most of the “medium serving sizes” to which I was asked to compare my own consumption made me feel piggish enough to want to shave a few ounces here, a few there. (I mean, I wasn’t under oath or anything, was I?)

This is the sort of data on which the largest questions of diet and health are being decided in America today.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

In the end, the biggest, most ambitious and widely reported studies of diet and health leave more or less undisturbed the main features of the Western diet: lots of meat and processed foods, lots of added fat and sugar, lots of everything — except fruits, vegetables and whole grains. In keeping with the nutritionism paradigm and the limits of reductionist science, the researchers fiddle with single nutrients as best they can, but the populations they recruit and study are typical American eaters doing what typical American eaters do: trying to eat a little less of this nutrient, a little more of that, depending on the latest thinking. (One problem with the control groups in these studies is that they too are exposed to nutritional fads in the culture, so over time their eating habits come to more closely resemble the habits of the intervention group.) It should not surprise us that the findings of such research would be so equivocal and confusing.

But what about the elephant in the room — the Western diet? It might be useful, in the midst of our deepening confusion about nutrition, to review what we do know about diet and health. What we know is that people who eat the way we do in America today suffer much higher rates of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity than people eating more traditional diets. (Four of the 10 leading killers in America are linked to diet.) Further, we know that simply by moving to America, people from nations with low rates of these “diseases of affluence” will quickly acquire them. Nutritionism by and large takes the Western diet as a given, seeking to moderate its most deleterious effects by isolating the bad nutrients in it — things like fat, sugar, salt — and encouraging the public and the food industry to limit them. But after several decades of nutrient-based health advice, rates of cancer and heart disease in the U.S. have declined only slightly (mortality from heart disease is down since the ’50s, but this is mainly because of improved treatment), and rates of obesity and diabetes have soared.

No one likes to admit that his or her best efforts at understanding and solving a problem have actually made the problem worse, but that’s exactly what has happened in the case of nutritionism. Scientists operating with the best of intentions, using the best tools at their disposal, have taught us to look at food in a way that has diminished our pleasure in eating it while doing little or nothing to improve our health. Perhaps what we need now is a broader, less reductive view of what food is, one that is at once more ecological and cultural. What would happen, for example, if we were to start thinking about food as less of a thing and more of a relationship?

In nature, that is of course precisely what eating has always been: relationships among species in what we call food chains, or webs, that reach all the way down to the soil. Species co-evolve with the other species they eat, and very often a relationship of interdependence develops: I’ll feed you if you spread around my genes. A gradual process of mutual adaptation transforms something like an apple or a squash into a nutritious and tasty food for a hungry animal. Over time and through trial and error, the plant becomes tastier (and often more conspicuous) in order to gratify the animal’s needs and desires, while the animal gradually acquires whatever digestive tools (enzymes, etc.) are needed to make optimal use of the plant. Similarly, cow’s milk did not start out as a nutritious food for humans; in fact, it made them sick until humans who lived around cows evolved the ability to digest lactose as adults. This development proved much to the advantage of both the milk drinkers and the cows.

“Health” is, among other things, the byproduct of being involved in these sorts of relationships in a food chain — involved in a great many of them, in the case of an omnivorous creature like us. Further, when the health of one link of the food chain is disturbed, it can affect all the creatures in it. When the soil is sick or in some way deficient, so will be the grasses that grow in that soil and the cattle that eat the grasses and the people who drink the milk. Or, as the English agronomist Sir Albert Howard put it in 1945 in “The Soil and Health” (a founding text of organic agriculture), we would do well to regard “the whole problem of health in soil, plant, animal and man as one great subject.” Our personal health is inextricably bound up with the health of the entire food web.

In many cases, long familiarity between foods and their eaters leads to elaborate systems of communications up and down the food chain, so that a creature’s senses come to recognize foods as suitable by taste and smell and color, and our bodies learn what to do with these foods after they pass the test of the senses, producing in anticipation the chemicals necessary to break them down. Health depends on knowing how to read these biological signals: this smells spoiled; this looks ripe; that’s one good-looking cow. This is easier to do when a creature has long experience of a food, and much harder when a food has been designed expressly to deceive its senses — with artificial flavors, say, or synthetic sweeteners.

Note that these ecological relationships are between eaters and whole foods, not nutrients. Even though the foods in question eventually get broken down in our bodies into simple nutrients, as corn is reduced to simple sugars, the qualities of the whole food are not unimportant — they govern such things as the speed at which the sugars will be released and absorbed, which we’re coming to see as critical to insulin metabolism. Put another way, our bodies have a longstanding and sustainable relationship to corn that we do not have to high-fructose corn syrup. Such a relationship with corn syrup might develop someday (as people evolve superhuman insulin systems to cope with regular floods of fructose and glucose), but for now the relationship leads to ill health because our bodies don’t know how to handle these biological novelties. In much the same way, human bodies that can cope with chewing coca leaves — a longstanding relationship between native people and the coca plant in South America — cannot cope with cocaine or crack, even though the same “active ingredients” are present in all three. Reductionism as a way of understanding food or drugs may be harmless, even necessary, but reductionism in practice can lead to problems.

Looking at eating through this ecological lens opens a whole new perspective on exactly what the Western diet is: a radical and rapid change not just in our foodstuffs over the course of the 20th century but also in our food relationships, all the way from the soil to the meal. The ideology of nutritionism is itself part of that change. To get a firmer grip on the nature of those changes is to begin to know how we might make our relationships to food healthier. These changes have been numerous and far-reaching, but consider as a start these four large-scale ones:

From Whole Foods to Refined. The case of corn points up one of the key features of the modern diet: a shift toward increasingly refined foods, especially carbohydrates. Call it applied reductionism. Humans have been refining grains since at least the Industrial Revolution, favoring white flour (and white rice) even at the price of lost nutrients. Refining grains extends their shelf life (precisely because it renders them less nutritious to pests) and makes them easier to digest, by removing the fiber that ordinarily slows the release of their sugars. Much industrial food production involves an extension and intensification of this practice, as food processors find ways to deliver glucose — the brain’s preferred fuel — ever more swiftly and efficiently. Sometimes this is precisely the point, as when corn is refined into corn syrup; other times it is an unfortunate byproduct of food processing, as when freezing food destroys the fiber that would slow sugar absorption.

So fast food is fast in this other sense too: it is to a considerable extent predigested, in effect, and therefore more readily absorbed by the body. But while the widespread acceleration of the Western diet offers us the instant gratification of sugar, in many people (and especially those newly exposed to it) the “speediness” of this food overwhelms the insulin response and leads to Type II diabetes. As one nutrition expert put it to me, we’re in the middle of “a national experiment in mainlining glucose.” To encounter such a diet for the first time, as when people accustomed to a more traditional diet come to America, or when fast food comes to their countries, delivers a shock to the system. Public-health experts call it “the nutrition transition,” and it can be deadly.

From Complexity to Simplicity. If there is one word that covers nearly all the changes industrialization has made to the food chain, it would be simplification. Chemical fertilizers simplify the chemistry of the soil, which in turn appears to simplify the chemistry of the food grown in that soil. Since the widespread adoption of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers in the 1950s, the nutritional quality of produce in America has, according to U.S.D.A. figures, declined significantly. Some researchers blame the quality of the soil for the decline; others cite the tendency of modern plant breeding to select for industrial qualities like yield rather than nutritional quality. Whichever it is, the trend toward simplification of our food continues on up the chain. Processing foods depletes them of many nutrients, a few of which are then added back in through “fortification”: folic acid in refined flour, vitamins and minerals in breakfast cereal. But food scientists can add back only the nutrients food scientists recognize as important. What are they overlooking?

Simplification has occurred at the level of species diversity, too. The astounding variety of foods on offer in the modern supermarket obscures the fact that the actual number of species in the modern diet is shrinking. For reasons of economics, the food industry prefers to tease its myriad processed offerings from a tiny group of plant species, corn and soybeans chief among them. Today, a mere four crops account for two-thirds of the calories humans eat. When you consider that humankind has historically consumed some 80,000 edible species, and that 3,000 of these have been in widespread use, this represents a radical simplification of the food web. Why should this matter? Because humans are omnivores, requiring somewhere between 50 and 100 different chemical compounds and elements to be healthy. It’s hard to believe that we can get everything we need from a diet consisting largely of processed corn, soybeans, wheat and rice.

From Leaves to Seeds. It’s no coincidence that most of the plants we have come to rely on are grains; these crops are exceptionally efficient at transforming sunlight into macronutrients — carbs, fats and proteins. These macronutrients in turn can be profitably transformed into animal protein (by feeding them to animals) and processed foods of every description. Also, the fact that grains are durable seeds that can be stored for long periods means they can function as commodities as well as food, making these plants particularly well suited to the needs of industrial capitalism.

The needs of the human eater are another matter. An oversupply of macronutrients, as we now have, itself represents a serious threat to our health, as evidenced by soaring rates of obesity and diabetes. But the undersupply of micronutrients may constitute a threat just as serious. Put in the simplest terms, we’re eating a lot more seeds and a lot fewer leaves, a tectonic dietary shift the full implications of which we are just beginning to glimpse. If I may borrow the nutritionist’s reductionist vocabulary for a moment, there are a host of critical micronutrients that are harder to get from a diet of refined seeds than from a diet of leaves. There are the antioxidants and all the other newly discovered phytochemicals (remember that sprig of thyme?); there is the fiber, and then there are the healthy omega-3 fats found in leafy green plants, which may turn out to be most important benefit of all.

Most people associate omega-3 fatty acids with fish, but fish get them from green plants (specifically algae), which is where they all originate. Plant leaves produce these essential fatty acids (“essential” because our bodies can’t produce them on their own) as part of photosynthesis. Seeds contain more of another essential fatty acid: omega-6. Without delving too deeply into the biochemistry, the two fats perform very different functions, in the plant as well as the plant eater. Omega-3s appear to play an important role in neurological development and processing, the permeability of cell walls, the metabolism of glucose and the calming of inflammation. Omega-6s are involved in fat storage (which is what they do for the plant), the rigidity of cell walls, clotting and the inflammation response. (Think of omega-3s as fleet and flexible, omega-6s as sturdy and slow.) Since the two lipids compete with each other for the attention of important enzymes, the ratio between omega-3s and omega-6s may matter more than the absolute quantity of either fat. Thus too much omega-6 may be just as much a problem as too little omega-3.

And that might well be a problem for people eating a Western diet. As we’ve shifted from leaves to seeds, the ratio of omega-6s to omega-3s in our bodies has shifted, too. At the same time, modern food-production practices have further diminished the omega-3s in our diet. Omega-3s, being less stable than omega-6s, spoil more readily, so we have selected for plants that produce fewer of them; further, when we partly hydrogenate oils to render them more stable, omega-3s are eliminated. Industrial meat, raised on seeds rather than leaves, has fewer omega-3s and more omega-6s than preindustrial meat used to have. And official dietary advice since the 1970s has promoted the consumption of polyunsaturated vegetable oils, most of which are high in omega-6s (corn and soy, especially). Thus, without realizing what we were doing, we significantly altered the ratio of these two essential fats in our diets and bodies, with the result that the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 in the typical American today stands at more than 10 to 1; before the widespread introduction of seed oils at the turn of the last century, it was closer to 1 to 1.

The role of these lipids is not completely understood, but many researchers say that these historically low levels of omega-3 (or, conversely, high levels of omega-6) bear responsibility for many of the chronic diseases associated with the Western diet, especially heart disease and diabetes. (Some researchers implicate omega-3 deficiency in rising rates of depression and learning disabilities as well.) To remedy this deficiency, nutritionism classically argues for taking omega-3 supplements or fortifying food products, but because of the complex, competitive relationship between omega-3 and omega-6, adding more omega-3s to the diet may not do much good unless you also reduce your intake of omega-6.

From Food Culture to Food Science. The last important change wrought by the Western diet is not, strictly speaking, ecological. But the industrialization of our food that we call the Western diet is systematically destroying traditional food cultures. Before the modern food era — and before nutritionism — people relied for guidance about what to eat on their national or ethnic or regional cultures. We think of culture as a set of beliefs and practices to help mediate our relationship to other people, but of course culture (at least before the rise of science) has also played a critical role in helping mediate people’s relationship to nature. Eating being a big part of that relationship, cultures have had a great deal to say about what and how and why and when and how much we should eat. Of course when it comes to food, culture is really just a fancy word for Mom, the figure who typically passes on the food ways of the group — food ways that, although they were never “designed” to optimize health (we have many reasons to eat the way we do), would not have endured if they did not keep eaters alive and well.

The sheer novelty and glamour of the Western diet, with its 17,000 new food products introduced every year, and the marketing muscle used to sell these products, has overwhelmed the force of tradition and left us where we now find ourselves: relying on science and journalism and marketing to help us decide questions about what to eat. Nutritionism, which arose to help us better deal with the problems of the Western diet, has largely been co-opted by it, used by the industry to sell more food and to undermine the authority of traditional ways of eating. You would not have read this far into this article if your food culture were intact and healthy; you would simply eat the way your parents and grandparents and great-grandparents taught you to eat. The question is, Are we better off with these new authorities than we were with the traditional authorities they supplanted? The answer by now should be clear.

It might be argued that, at this point in history, we should simply accept that fast food is our food culture. Over time, people will get used to eating this way and our health will improve. But for natural selection to help populations adapt to the Western diet, we’d have to be prepared to let those whom it sickens die. That’s not what we’re doing. Rather, we’re turning to the health-care industry to help us “adapt.” Medicine is learning how to keep alive the people whom the Western diet is making sick. It’s gotten good at extending the lives of people with heart disease, and now it’s working on obesity and diabetes. Capitalism is itself marvelously adaptive, able to turn the problems it creates into lucrative business opportunities: diet pills, heart-bypass operations, insulin pumps, bariatric surgery. But while fast food may be good business for the health-care industry, surely the cost to society — estimated at more than $200 billion a year in diet-related health-care costs — is unsustainable.

BEYOND NUTRITIONISM

To medicalize the diet problem is of course perfectly consistent with nutritionism. So what might a more ecological or cultural approach to the problem recommend? How might we plot our escape from nutritionism and, in turn, from the deleterious effects of the modern diet? In theory nothing could be simpler — stop thinking and eating that way — but this is somewhat harder to do in practice, given the food environment we now inhabit and the loss of sharp cultural tools to guide us through it. Still, I do think escape is possible, to which end I can now revisit — and elaborate on, but just a little — the simple principles of healthy eating I proposed at the beginning of this essay, several thousand words ago. So try these few (flagrantly unscientific) rules of thumb, collected in the course of my nutritional odyssey, and see if they don’t at least point us in the right direction.

1. Eat food. Though in our current state of confusion, this is much easier said than done. So try this: Don’t eat anything your great-great-grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food. (Sorry, but at this point Moms are as confused as the rest of us, which is why we have to go back a couple of generations, to a time before the advent of modern food products.) There are a great many foodlike items in the supermarket your ancestors wouldn’t recognize as food (Go-Gurt? Breakfast-cereal bars? Nondairy creamer?); stay away from these.

2. Avoid even those food products that come bearing health claims. They’re apt to be heavily processed, and the claims are often dubious at best. Don’t forget that margarine, one of the first industrial foods to claim that it was more healthful than the traditional food it replaced, turned out to give people heart attacks. When Kellogg’s can boast about its Healthy Heart Strawberry Vanilla cereal bars, health claims have become hopelessly compromised. (The American Heart Association charges food makers for their endorsement.) Don’t take the silence of the yams as a sign that they have nothing valuable to say about health.

3. Especially avoid food products containing ingredients that are a) unfamiliar, b) unpronounceable c) more than five in number — or that contain high-fructose corn syrup.None of these characteristics are necessarily harmful in and of themselves, but all of them are reliable markers for foods that have been highly processed.

4. Get out of the supermarket whenever possible. You won’t find any high-fructose corn syrup at the farmer’s market; you also won’t find food harvested long ago and far away. What you will find are fresh whole foods picked at the peak of nutritional quality. Precisely the kind of food your great-great-grandmother would have recognized as food.

5. Pay more, eat less. The American food system has for a century devoted its energies and policies to increasing quantity and reducing price, not to improving quality. There’s no escaping the fact that better food — measured by taste or nutritional quality (which often correspond) — costs more, because it has been grown or raised less intensively and with more care. Not everyone can afford to eat well in America, which is shameful, but most of us can: Americans spend, on average, less than 10 percent of their income on food, down from 24 percent in 1947, and less than the citizens of any other nation. And those of us who can afford to eat well should. Paying more for food well grown in good soils — whether certified organic or not — will contribute not only to your health (by reducing exposure to pesticides) but also to the health of others who might not themselves be able to afford that sort of food: the people who grow it and the people who live downstream, and downwind, of the farms where it is grown.

“Eat less” is the most unwelcome advice of all, but in fact the scientific case for eating a lot less than we currently do is compelling. “Calorie restriction” has repeatedly been shown to slow aging in animals, and many researchers (including Walter Willett, the Harvard epidemiologist) believe it offers the single strongest link between diet and cancer prevention. Food abundance is a problem, but culture has helped here, too, by promoting the idea of moderation. Once one of the longest-lived people on earth, the Okinawans practiced a principle they called “Hara Hachi Bu”: eat until you are 80 percent full. To make the “eat less” message a bit more palatable, consider that quality may have a bearing on quantity: I don’t know about you, but the better the quality of the food I eat, the less of it I need to feel satisfied. All tomatoes are not created equal.

6. Eat mostly plants, especially leaves. Scientists may disagree on what’s so good about plants — the antioxidants? Fiber? Omega-3s? — but they do agree that they’re probably really good for you and certainly can’t hurt. Also, by eating a plant-based diet, you’ll be consuming far fewer calories, since plant foods (except seeds) are typically less “energy dense” than the other things you might eat. Vegetarians are healthier than carnivores, but near vegetarians (“flexitarians”) are as healthy as vegetarians. Thomas Jefferson was on to something when he advised treating meat more as a flavoring than a food.

7. Eat more like the French. Or the Japanese. Or the Italians. Or the Greeks. Confounding factors aside, people who eat according to the rules of a traditional food culture are generally healthier than we are. Any traditional diet will do: if it weren’t a healthy diet, the people who follow it wouldn’t still be around. True, food cultures are embedded in societies and economies and ecologies, and some of them travel better than others: Inuit not so well as Italian. In borrowing from a food culture, pay attention to how a culture eats, as well as to what it eats. In the case of the French paradox, it may not be the dietary nutrients that keep the French healthy (lots of saturated fat and alcohol?!) so much as the dietary habits: small portions, no seconds or snacking, communal meals — and the serious pleasure taken in eating. (Worrying about diet can’t possibly be good for you.) Let culture be your guide, not science.

8. Cook. And if you can, plant a garden. To take part in the intricate and endlessly interesting processes of providing for our sustenance is the surest way to escape the culture of fast food and the values implicit in it: that food should be cheap and easy; that food is fuel and not communion. The culture of the kitchen, as embodied in those enduring traditions we call cuisines, contains more wisdom about diet and health than you are apt to find in any nutrition journal or journalism. Plus, the food you grow yourself contributes to your health long before you sit down to eat it. So you might want to think about putting down this article now and picking up a spatula or hoe.

9. Eat like an omnivore. Try to add new species, not just new foods, to your diet. The greater the diversity of species you eat, the more likely you are to cover all your nutritional bases. That of course is an argument from nutritionism, but there is a better one, one that takes a broader view of “health.” Biodiversity in the diet means less monoculture in the fields. What does that have to do with your health? Everything. The vast monocultures that now feed us require tremendous amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides to keep from collapsing. Diversifying those fields will mean fewer chemicals, healthier soils, healthier plants and animals and, in turn, healthier people. It’s all connected, which is another way of saying that your health isn’t bordered by your body and that what’s good for the soil is probably good for you, too.

Michael Pollan, a contributing writer, is the Knight professor of journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. His most recent book, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” was chosen by the editors of The New York Times Book Review as one of the 10 best books of 2006.
_________________
"You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."
-- Dorothy Parker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Trent



Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5743
Location: Deep Wells, TN

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shug, thanks for the post. This is an awesome article. Wow.

After reading the whole thing and thinking on it, there is one thing I did not quite get. Pollan suggests that we eat food, specifically plants (check) and focus on leaves rather than seeds. But where do fruits and veggies fall in this? Are they more to the seed or the leaf side of the balance?
_________________
We've got big hills.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tom L



Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 2230

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Remarkably, despite all the gloom and doom from authors like this, Americans live longer than ever before.

If we replaced agribusiness with small, family owned, organic farms, then we would need to return to the days when a substantial portion of the population were farmers. We would also stop being the breadbasket of the world, and an incredible number of people around the world would die from starvation.

If you want to have a reasonably healthy lifestyle, you can. If you want to eat too much, eat the wrong things and not exercise, then you can do that too. It’s supposed to be a free country.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ed



Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 2429
Location: The Republic

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pollan makes a lot of sense sometimes. Unfortunately, since he only seems to publish for readers of the New York Times, he's mostly preaching to the converted. What about the vast majority of Americans, particularly the working poor? Imagine a single mom with two hungry children, working two jobs just to throw food on the table -- what is she going to do with Pollan's advice such as "Cook. And if you can plant a garden," or "Pay more, eat less," or "Eat more like the French"? I think she's going to tell him about three hundred different ways to go to hell, is what I think. If she had time.

And I completely disagree with some reviewer's statement that Pollan is too nice. The last thing we need in the current nutritional debate is more self-righteous anger about the way everyone but us are eating. "Fast Food Nation" and its ilk are certainly entertaining, but ultimately merely polarizing and change nothing.

We don't need any more from Pollan preaching to his high-income, college-educated organic bretheren. It sounds smart, but it's going nowhere. We need someone who can talk compassionate, practical nutritional sense that addresses the issue from the perspective of how most people actually live.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ck



Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 3284

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ed wrote:
We need someone who can talk compassionate, practical nutritional sense that addresses the issue from the perspective of how most people actually live.


PFO - ARE YOU LISTENING?!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
7



Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 3776
Location: Anywhere I need to be Sonny's Wingman

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ck wrote:
Ed wrote:
We need someone who can talk compassionate, practical nutritional sense that addresses the issue from the perspective of how most people actually live.


PFO - ARE YOU LISTENING?!


This thread has potential. I'm putting it on my radar.
_________________
Don't Fok with my envision.

"nothing is more deceitful than the appearance of humility. It is often only carelessness of opinion, and sometimes an indirect boast"

Please support my 2011 Marathon Charity
--k r i s h m d
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bettu



Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 2318
Location: Boston-ish

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There were too many words in that article. But the basic advice to stick to foods your grandmother would recognize sounds like good, practical advice that can be used by anyone.
_________________
Beth
Walking far for no good reason.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shug



Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 2698
Location: With my head in an oven

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

America hasn't been the "breadbasket to the world" in decades. Indeed, Wal-marts food aisles are stocked with organic produced shipped directly from China. And Chile. And Peru. Not Iowa.

There are loads of good organizations out there (such as Growing Power) that work hard to bring affordble produce to underserved communities. Indeed, this high quality produce is cheaper than much processed foods. If anyone is interested in establishing a CSA in their community, feel free to PM me and I'll put you in touch with this terrific organization.

Tom, saying that people are fat because they make poor choices in what they eat is callous and naive. Sometimes processed foods are the only options people have. If I am a single-parent in the city and don't have a car, I may have to travel over a few communities to even get to a store with fresh produce.

Many Americans are living longer than they did in the days of yore. But they are not enjoying healthy lives. Obesity is at an all time high and the complications suffered from this condition are taxing our medical system in dramatic ways. This can be directly attributed to the glut of cheap, calorie dense but nutritionally weak processed foods.
_________________
"You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."
-- Dorothy Parker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snowman



Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 7076
Location: The Great Sout' Side of Chicago

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Beth wrote:
the basic advice to stick to foods your grandmother would recognize sounds like good, practical advice that can be used by anyone.


Can we make it "someone's grandmother" would recognize? The other night we were having chick peas and rice for dinner, and my wife (we both read the Pollan piece, and she's just finishing Om Dil) noted that her Eastern European grandmother wouldn't have known a garbanzo, nor would she have had any clue what to do with it if she met one.

(Oh, and she did try to cook Leslie's cat once in her later years, but we don't advocate kitty cookery.)
_________________
Life is a breeze...of course some breezes fly up to 120 miles per hour, and get called hurricanes.
- drunk Larry King (link below)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KRUje1UQJs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bettu



Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 2318
Location: Boston-ish

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snowman wrote:
Can we make it "someone's grandmother" would recognize? The other night we were having chick peas and rice for dinner, and my wife (we both read the Pollan piece, and she's just finishing Om Dil) noted that her Eastern European grandmother wouldn't have known a garbanzo, nor would she have had any clue what to do with it if she met one.

Huh. My Eastern European grandmother not only knew what a chickpea was, but she cooked them. There's even a Yiddish name for the dish -- arbis.
_________________
Beth
Walking far for no good reason.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snowman



Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 7076
Location: The Great Sout' Side of Chicago

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting...but you see the general point. We draw from many cultures beside our own...

So, is this a "tipping point"? The guy who delivers the mail at my office building loves to stop in and tell me what he's been reading or watching or listening to. He's a fascinating person, broadly read and broadly experienced (former soldier, former ballet dancer).

Today, he comes in the door and says, "I've been reading the most amazing book...The Omnivore's Dilemma." Sounds like a copy arrived here for the public affairs folks to review and no one wanted it, so he dug in.
_________________
Life is a breeze...of course some breezes fly up to 120 miles per hour, and get called hurricanes.
- drunk Larry King (link below)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KRUje1UQJs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Trent



Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5743
Location: Deep Wells, TN

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snowman wrote:
Interesting...but you see the general point. We draw from many cultures beside our own...


In the article, the point he makes is that you can pick any traditional culture and eat from it. It does not matter which. The idea being that traditional foods are more likely to be made from relatively natural and unprocessed ingredients. Of course you can get processed feta, but why would you...
_________________
We've got big hills.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ck



Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 3284

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trent wrote:
Of course you can get processed feta, but why would you...


...when you have a cow named Ophelia (Greek for Bessie -- well, Greek for anything) grazing in your back yard on Tennessee blue grass.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1L



Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8262
Location: Bay Village, OH

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not to belabor a point, but as far as the "bread basket" comment goes, as of the last statistic I could find for 2006, the US is still the largest exporter of wheat in the world with Australia, India, France, and China following up. Of course, this is changing.
_________________
-Miles of smiles, M i c h e l e

They are the sandbaggers, we are the sandbags - No Twitch Muscles 11/17/07

Marathon Total: 46; States: 26; Provinces: 1; Countries: 2

Maniac #795
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Trent



Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5743
Location: Deep Wells, TN

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ck wrote:
...when you have a cow named Ophelia (Greek for Bessie -- well, Greek for anything) grazing in your back yard on Tennessee blue grass.


Bluegrass is sooo Kentucky. But then again, I am from Kentucky. Except for those few years in Chicago. But I digress.

Cow. Feta. Click.
_________________
We've got big hills.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Shug



Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 2698
Location: With my head in an oven

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1L wrote:
Not to belabor a point, but as far as the "bread basket" comment goes, as of the last statistic I could find for 2006, the US is still the largest exporter of wheat in the world with Australia, India, France, and China following up. Of course, this is changing.


Belabor your point, but check your facts. We may export a lot of it, but we grow half of what China grows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_wheat_production_statistics
This information was cross-referenced against other sites like this one:http://nue.okstate.edu/Crop_Information/World_Wheat_Production.htm

We export primarily to countries like Japan-- not the third world. And we are likely to lose that business as Round-up Ready wheat enters the scene.
_________________
"You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."
-- Dorothy Parker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bob



Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 4197

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Subway-Eat Fresh!
_________________
"I'm getting excited just talking about it."
G$ discussing Dave-O. 3/5/08
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ed



Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 2429
Location: The Republic

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shug wrote:
There are loads of good organizations out there (such as Growing Power) that work hard to bring affordble produce to underserved communities. Indeed, this high quality produce is cheaper than much processed foods.


We may be working hard to get it to them -- but what are they going to do with it once it's available? Many don't have time to cook or even the time to research how to cook. And if you have a weekly food income of about 50 dollars, have 2 jobs to work and 2-3 kids to feed, are you going to spend a lot of time in the produce aisle putting together ingredients for recipes that require some thought, work, and time, or are you going for the quickly prepared, bulk, preprocessed stuff that will fill bellies and last a couple of days in the refrigerator? A Kraft macaroni and cheese dinner costs 69 cents, takes about ten minutes to prepare, and feeds a family. For a family struggling from paycheck to paycheck, what in the produce aisle can possibly compare to that?

I'm not saying it's wrong to want to make healthier foods available to lower income or underserved communities. But making it available is about 1/5 of the battle.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1L



Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8262
Location: Bay Village, OH

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shug wrote:
1L wrote:
Not to belabor a point, but as far as the "bread basket" comment goes, as of the last statistic I could find for 2006, the US is still the largest exporter of wheat in the world with Australia, India, France, and China following up. Of course, this is changing.


Belabor your point, but check your facts. We may export a lot of it, but we grow half of what China grows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_wheat_production_statistics
This information was cross-referenced against other sites like this one:http://nue.okstate.edu/Crop_Information/World_Wheat_Production.htm

We export primarily to countries like Japan-- not the third world. And we are likely to lose that business as Round-up Ready wheat enters the scene.


Correct, but I always use the term as one for whom we feed. We grow far less wheat than in the past since countries like China who have large populations and need to feed them have started to grow such commodities. However, we stil export much of ours.
_________________
-Miles of smiles, M i c h e l e

They are the sandbaggers, we are the sandbags - No Twitch Muscles 11/17/07

Marathon Total: 46; States: 26; Provinces: 1; Countries: 2

Maniac #795
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cpg



Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 4868
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am always feel fortunate when two informed, thoughtful people such as Melina and Ed offer opinions and facts on complex issues such as this.

The Omnivore's Dilemma offers valuable, life- and perhaps even planet-saving information and recommendations. Ed brings up the salient idea that the information is in the hands of the people who are probably already on board, or can afford to get on board. Which leaves us with "What to do with the population that have huge hurdles to clear before they can even think about getting on board."

It seems almost insurmountable. It would make most sense to get the policy makers on board, and work for a trickel-down effect: FDA, USDA, World Health Organization, and the like. As my husband is always saying, "Knowledge is the first, best key to solving every puzzle."

But if the knowledge stays within the covers of the book, it is useless. For wise choices to be made, I guess there needs to be more choices. I keep trying to fish upstrem of the problem, but I just hit more hurdles: "OK, if single mothers just made a better wage, then perhaps...But that means equal pay for women...And if they had a better education they would not be in poorly paid jobs...But if marriage vows were taken more seriously, then many single parents would not BE single...But then maybe better health care would mean fewer unplanned pregnancies and fewer children born into illness and poverty...And then if we earmarked more funds to go to developing nations and make them part of the solution...But then that means we need to ....

Wow... It's food. But it is making my head hurt. I keep coming back to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. "

It's food... but it's politics and religion all wrapped up in a complicated little package.

Melina and Ed, I hope you're happy. My day is shot.
_________________
www.whatwouldlizziebennetdo.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ed



Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 2429
Location: The Republic

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cpg wrote:
Melina and Ed, I hope you're happy. My day is shot.


I'm just a crank who's delaying going back to work. It's my mission to glibly present the unsolvable and say, "So, just what are you going to do about that?" and walk away, a smug smile on my face.

I'm insufferable, but I try to make that your problem.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cpg



Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 4868
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I'm insufferable, but I try to make that your problem.



Ha. Karma's a bitch, Ed.
_________________
www.whatwouldlizziebennetdo.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ck



Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 3284

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ed, you're only 1/5 of my problem.


I think a portion of the obstacle you raise is perception. Is it really easier to cook a box of mac and cheese than it is to slice and apple and spread it with peanut butter? Pour a bowl of whole grain cereal, rinse some berries, and dump them in the bowl with milk? Spread all-natural peanut butter on whole-grain bread, and slice a banana on top? Peel a carrot, clean a stalk of celery, rinse some cherry tomatoes?

Nope. Just as fast, if not faster. If you have access, and the price is right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bob



Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 4197

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think my wife would bitch slap me if she came home and I told her "don't worry about dinner, honey, I made the kids apple slices and Jif for dinner."
_________________
"I'm getting excited just talking about it."
G$ discussing Dave-O. 3/5/08
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ck



Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 3284

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bob, Lisa bitch slaps you for sport. And you're not a single mom with limited income. Again, perception. Why can't dinner be apple slices and peanut butter with cheese and crackers, or a bowl of cereal and fruit? You want a hot meal? Oatmeal -- even the old-fashioned oats -- only takes 5 minutes to cook. You can top that will all kinds of fruit. If you can get it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GregC



Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 3601

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So far I'm OK with this conversation, but if you guy start raggin' on Ramen Noodles, I'm gonna get angry, which means Bob gets bitch-slapped.
_________________
"God Determines how fast you're going to run. I can only help with the mechanics." -- Bill Bowerman

"Shut Up Bob!!"

New and mediocre as ever:
http://running-against-time.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TLF Big Papi



Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 4122
Location: RSN

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ramen Noodles are evil.
_________________
-T 0 b y L a F r a n c e
"We all have the power to make moments of happiness happen." - Wayne Coyne on NPR "This I Believe" 2/26/07
"Great run or erotic dream ... you decide!" - ED 5/4/06

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richfscott



Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 5390

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And also Ramen Noodles have been the root cause of every war, ever.

Seriously, just get used to the fact that #2 corn rules the world. Don't fight it. Just drink in its high-fructose goodness. #2 corn pays for my health insurance.
_________________
Pleased to meet you, say your prayers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snowman



Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 7076
Location: The Great Sout' Side of Chicago

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

richfscott wrote:
Seriously, just get used to the fact that #2 corn rules the world. Don't fight it. Just drink in its high-fructose goodness. #2 corn pays for my health insurance.


And your corn-syrup touting Senator is also one of the leading political critics of media's role in obesity. Shocked
_________________
Life is a breeze...of course some breezes fly up to 120 miles per hour, and get called hurricanes.
- drunk Larry King (link below)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KRUje1UQJs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Trent



Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5743
Location: Deep Wells, TN

PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:38 pm    Post subject: Re: The Omnivore's Dilemma Reply with quote

Shug wrote:
This is one of the most provocative and engaging books I've read in a while.


I just started. Hard to put this tome down. Wow...
_________________
We've got big hills.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Trent



Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5743
Location: Deep Wells, TN

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The latest from Pollan:

You Are What You Grow
By MICHAEL POLLAN

A few years ago, an obesity researcher at the University of Washington named Adam Drewnowski ventured into the supermarket to solve a mystery. He wanted to figure out why it is that the most reliable predictor of obesity in America today is a person’s wealth. For most of history, after all, the poor have typically suffered from a shortage of calories, not a surfeit. So how is it that today the people with the least amount of money to spend on food are the ones most likely to be overweight?

Drewnowski gave himself a hypothetical dollar to spend, using it to purchase as many calories as he possibly could. He discovered that he could buy the most calories per dollar in the middle aisles of the supermarket, among the towering canyons of processed food and soft drink. (In the typical American supermarket, the fresh foods — dairy, meat, fish and produce — line the perimeter walls, while the imperishable packaged goods dominate the center.) Drewnowski found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips, he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice.

As a rule, processed foods are more “energy dense” than fresh foods: they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace, which is why we call the foods that contain them “junk.” Drewnowski concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational economic strategy is to eat badly — and get fat.

This perverse state of affairs is not, as you might think, the inevitable result of the free market. Compared with a bunch of carrots, a package of Twinkies, to take one iconic processed foodlike substance as an example, is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture, involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots?

For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill. This resolutely unglamorous and head-hurtingly complicated piece of legislation, which comes around roughly every five years and is about to do so again, sets the rules for the American food system — indeed, to a considerable extent, for the world’s food system. Among other things, it determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root. Like most processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat — three of the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) For the last several decades — indeed, for about as long as the American waistline has been ballooning — U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy.

That’s because the current farm bill helps commodity farmers by cutting them a check based on how many bushels they can grow, rather than, say, by supporting prices and limiting production, as farm bills once did. The result? A food system awash in added sugars (derived from corn) and added fats (derived mainly from soy), as well as dirt-cheap meat and milk (derived from both). By comparison, the farm bill does almost nothing to support farmers growing fresh produce. A result of these policy choices is on stark display in your supermarket, where the real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (a k a liquid corn) declined by 23 percent. The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow.

A public-health researcher from Mars might legitimately wonder why a nation faced with what its surgeon general has called “an epidemic” of obesity would at the same time be in the business of subsidizing the production of high-fructose corn syrup. But such is the perversity of the farm bill: the nation’s agricultural policies operate at cross-purposes with its public-health objectives. And the subsidies are only part of the problem. The farm bill helps determine what sort of food your children will have for lunch in school tomorrow. The school-lunch program began at a time when the public-health problem of America’s children was undernourishment, so feeding surplus agricultural commodities to kids seemed like a win-win strategy. Today the problem is overnutrition, but a school lunch lady trying to prepare healthful fresh food is apt to get dinged by U.S.D.A. inspectors for failing to serve enough calories; if she dishes up a lunch that includes chicken nuggets and Tater Tots, however, the inspector smiles and the reimbursements flow. The farm bill essentially treats our children as a human Disposall for all the unhealthful calories that the farm bill has encouraged American farmers to overproduce.

To speak of the farm bill’s influence on the American food system does not begin to describe its full impact — on the environment, on global poverty, even on immigration. By making it possible for American farmers to sell their crops abroad for considerably less than it costs to grow them, the farm bill helps determine the price of corn in Mexico and the price of cotton in Nigeria and therefore whether farmers in those places will survive or be forced off the land, to migrate to the cities — or to the United States. The flow of immigrants north from Mexico since Nafta is inextricably linked to the flow of American corn in the opposite direction, a flood of subsidized grain that the Mexican government estimates has thrown two million Mexican farmers and other agricultural workers off the land since the mid-90s. (More recently, the ethanol boom has led to a spike in corn prices that has left that country reeling from soaring tortilla prices; linking its corn economy to ours has been an unalloyed disaster for Mexico’s eaters as well as its farmers.) You can’t fully comprehend the pressures driving immigration without comprehending what U.S. agricultural policy is doing to rural agriculture in Mexico.

And though we don’t ordinarily think of the farm bill in these terms, few pieces of legislation have as profound an impact on the American landscape and environment. Americans may tell themselves they don’t have a national land-use policy, that the market by and large decides what happens on private property in America, but that’s not exactly true. The smorgasbord of incentives and disincentives built into the farm bill helps decide what happens on nearly half of the private land in America: whether it will be farmed or left wild, whether it will be managed to maximize productivity (and therefore doused with chemicals) or to promote environmental stewardship. The health of the American soil, the purity of its water, the biodiversity and the very look of its landscape owe in no small part to impenetrable titles, programs and formulae buried deep in the farm bill.

Given all this, you would think the farm-bill debate would engage the nation’s political passions every five years, but that hasn’t been the case. If the quintennial antidrama of the “farm bill debate” holds true to form this year, a handful of farm-state legislators will thrash out the mind-numbing details behind closed doors, with virtually nobody else, either in Congress or in the media, paying much attention. Why? Because most of us assume that, true to its name, the farm bill is about “farming,” an increasingly quaint activity that involves no one we know and in which few of us think we have a stake. This leaves our own representatives free to ignore the farm bill, to treat it as a parochial piece of legislation affecting a handful of their Midwestern colleagues. Since we aren’t paying attention, they pay no political price for trading, or even selling, their farm-bill votes. The fact that the bill is deeply encrusted with incomprehensible jargon and prehensile programs dating back to the 1930s makes it almost impossible for the average legislator to understand the bill should he or she try to, much less the average citizen. It’s doubtful this is an accident.

But there are signs this year will be different. The public-health community has come to recognize it can’t hope to address obesity and diabetes without addressing the farm bill. The environmental community recognizes that as long as we have a farm bill that promotes chemical and feedlot agriculture, clean water will remain a pipe dream. The development community has woken up to the fact that global poverty can’t be fought without confronting the ways the farm bill depresses world crop prices. They got a boost from a 2004 ruling by the World Trade Organization that U.S. cotton subsidies are illegal; most observers think that challenges to similar subsidies for corn, soy, wheat or rice would also prevail.

And then there are the eaters, people like you and me, increasingly concerned, if not restive, about the quality of the food on offer in America. A grass-roots social movement is gathering around food issues today, and while it is still somewhat inchoate, the manifestations are everywhere: in local efforts to get vending machines out of the schools and to improve school lunch; in local campaigns to fight feedlots and to force food companies to better the lives of animals in agriculture; in the spectacular growth of the market for organic food and the revival of local food systems. In great and growing numbers, people are voting with their forks for a different sort of food system. But as powerful as the food consumer is — it was that consumer, after all, who built a $15 billion organic-food industry and more than doubled the number of farmer’s markets in the last few years — voting with our forks can advance reform only so far. It can’t, for example, change the fact that the system is rigged to make the most unhealthful calories in the marketplace the only ones the poor can afford. To change that, people will have to vote with their votes as well — which is to say, they will have to wade into the muddy political waters of agricultural policy.

Doing so starts with the recognition that the “farm bill” is a misnomer; in truth, it is a food bill and so needs to be rewritten with the interests of eaters placed first. Yes, there are eaters who think it in their interest that food just be as cheap as possible, no matter how poor the quality. But there are many more who recognize the real cost of artificially cheap food — to their health, to the land, to the animals, to the public purse. At a minimum, these eaters want a bill that aligns agricultural policy with our public-health and environmental values, one with incentives to produce food cleanly, sustainably and humanely. Eaters want a bill that makes the most healthful calories in the supermarket competitive with the least healthful ones. Eaters want a bill that feeds schoolchildren fresh food from local farms rather than processed surplus commodities from far away. Enlightened eaters also recognize their dependence on farmers, which is why they would support a bill that guarantees the people who raise our food not subsidies but fair prices. Why? Because they prefer to live in a country that can still produce its own food and doesn’t hurt the world’s farmers by dumping its surplus crops on their markets.

The devil is in the details, no doubt. Simply eliminating support for farmers won’t solve these problems; overproduction has afflicted agriculture since long before modern subsidies. It will take some imaginative policy making to figure out how to encourage farmers to focus on taking care of the land rather than all-out production, on growing real food for eaters rather than industrial raw materials for food processors and on rebuilding local food economies, which the current farm bill hobbles. But the guiding principle behind an eater’s farm bill could not be more straightforward: it’s one that changes the rules of the game so as to promote the quality of our food (and farming) over and above its quantity.

Such changes are radical only by the standards of past farm bills, which have faithfully reflected the priorities of the agribusiness interests that wrote them. One of these years, the eaters of America are going to demand a place at the table, and we will have the political debate over food policy we need and deserve. This could prove to be that year: the year when the farm bill became a food bill, and the eaters at last had their say.

Michael Pollan, a contributing writer, is the Knight professor of journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. His most recent book is “The Omnivore’s Dilemma.”
_________________
We've got big hills.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Taper Madness Forum Index -> Menus All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group