Eating "food" again

[docsconz]

Examples of processed, refined foods include white flour and white rice. Surely those are sufficiently traditional as to be accepted parts of respectable foodways or whatever. You know, bread, the cuisine of China, stuff like that.

←

I am 100 per cent in agreement with FG on this.

This entire issue has been politicized.

The discussion has become rife with ill supported conventional wisdom.

It has been corrupted and confused by various groups with political agendas--so called movements.

There is also a nasty thread of anti capitalism, anti big business running through a lot of it that appeals to self loathing and self obsessed Americans.

I find it interesting that these discussions invariably turn from processed foods to corporate America and MacDonald's a linkage that always seems to be bubbling just below the surface.

The debate and discussion of interesting and important topics has become poisoned by a good vs evil mentality that has made rational thought something that just gets in the way of the cause.

For example the term "processed." Most every food is processed as has been noted here. yet we can't have the discussion because to many this is not really about what we eat etc it is about polemics--" processed" is a code word for MacDonald's et al. it really means "processed our way vs processed their way."

I also agree that leaving out a critical element like exercise renders most of these discussions about health and nutrition moot. Same for ignoring the reality of our overall health today vs the our health in the past.

Another factor often left out is taste and the pleasure of eating. Eating is about a lot more than nutrition, and health. I find the current selling of wine as a healthy product with claims of disease prevention obnoxious. How about we like it with our food and enjoy the effects of alcohol! That's good enough for me!

How about process with the goal of producing food that tastes good! Then we can talk about process in terms of saving the planet or the animals or the whatever.

All the agonizing over statistics and dire warnings of we're killing ourselves, processed food is killing us, we gotta join a movement --healthfood, slow food, organic food, no food, yadda yadda yadda.

Eating and health?

The answer may be all too simple. Moderation and exercise!

But hey--that's too easy. One can't sell many books based on advice that obvious.

←

Did you read the article? If so, I am not sure what you are ranting about here on this topic. The reason I suggested that this article be "required" reading before engaging in discussion in the politicized food topics is because I think it does a good job in conveying the complexities of the situation while also recognizing the realities of the issues facing today's world. Neither the issues nor the solutions are simple. They are complexly inter-related defying the easy fixes of nutritional supplementation, which are aimed squarely at a demographic looking to have their cake and eat it too. I would like those easy fixes too, but realizing that they don't exist, I am making a conscious decision to eat what pleases me and not pay too close attention to the purported health fads of the moment. I don't worry about it too much because I happen to enjoy eating a varied diet. I do, however, sometimes have trouble understanding what "moderation" means.

[Carrot Top]

The experimental input into the experiment on the lives and long term health of this generation has resulted not only from the choices made at the supermarket but also from the choices to eat out at restaurants and fast food restaurants at a pace very different from a generation or two before.  The latter choice also has significantly increased the amount of HFCS, transfats and just the plain old amount of food people have eaten in the last 25 years.  The first part of the experiment is already yielding easily observable results as evidenced by the much larger proportion of overweight and obese people in the population.  Is this a disputed fact?  I suspect that the remaining experimental results will start appearing soon.

←

Again, I'm going to agree. Then I'd wish to add that it is not just the fact that our choices at the supermarket are different than they were (more convenience foods, something lperry raised in her initial post in terms of "lack of time") or that we eat out at restaurants and fast places so much more than we did twenty-five years ago, but that it seems to me that it might be worthwhile to consider our reasons for doing so, if we are to take the debate anywhere except within its own academic circle of effect.

*Why* are people eating more (processed) convenience foods and going out to restaurants and fast food places (more processed foods) so much more than in the past?

Edited January 29, 2007 by Carrot Top (log)

[Fat Guy]

The first part of the experiment is already yielding easily observable results as evidenced by the much larger proportion of overweight and obese people in the population.  Is this a disputed fact?

←

Yes, it is disputed.

For example, in the New York Times article, "The Fat Epidemic: He Says It's an Illusion," Dr. Jeffrey Friedman, Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator and the discoverer of the gene for leptin, is profiled.

Ask anyone: Americans are getting fatter and fatter. Advertising campaigns say they are. So do federal officials and the scientists they rely on.

But Dr. Jeffrey Friedman, an obesity researcher at Rockefeller University, argues that contrary to popular opinion, national data do not show Americans growing uniformly fatter.

Instead, he says, the statistics demonstrate clearly that while the very fat are getting fatter, thinner people have remained pretty much the same.

More and more required reading piling up around here.

[lperry]

More and more required reading piling up around here.

Interesting.

Obesity, Dr. Friedman says, is a problem; fat people are derided and they have health risks like diabetes and heart disease. But it does no one any good to exaggerate the extent of obesity or to blame the obese for being fat.

Edited to say why I think this article is so interesting: There was a bit piece in Slate magazine a few weeks ago in which the author argued that fat is going to be the next tobacco. He portrayed an Orwellian world in which complete strangers will order you to drop the french fries. As I recall (I'll try to find it again), the overarching issue was one of rising health care costs and who should bear the responsibility for paying for obesity-related diseases. Now there's a topic for discussion.

Edited yet again to link to the article.

Slate article

Edited January 29, 2007 by lperry (log)

[ChefCarey]

The first part of the experiment is already yielding easily observable results as evidenced by the much larger proportion of overweight and obese people in the population.  Is this a disputed fact?

←

Yes, it is disputed.

For example, in the New York Times article, "The Fat Epidemic: He Says It's an Illusion," Dr. Jeffrey Friedman, Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator and the discoverer of the gene for leptin, is profiled.

Ask anyone: Americans are getting fatter and fatter. Advertising campaigns say they are. So do federal officials and the scientists they rely on.

But Dr. Jeffrey Friedman, an obesity researcher at Rockefeller University, argues that contrary to popular opinion, national data do not show Americans growing uniformly fatter.

Instead, he says, the statistics demonstrate clearly that while the very fat are getting fatter, thinner people have remained pretty much the same.

More and more required reading piling up around here.

←

America, you just gotta love it. The phrase in the article "the politics of obesity" really resonates with me. As does the business of obesity. Of course one's politics in this area tend to be influenced by one's business interests.

We now have the politics of nutrition, the business of nutrition. The politics of healthcare, the business of sickcare.

There is *so* much bullshit written and bandied about in these areas today. Much of it under the guise of scientific research. Today's scientific conclusions are tomorrow's "flawed study." Oops, we didn't think about that.

I'm pretty healthy for an old fart. But, I'm clueless - and know it- when it comes to determining how much of this is due to genes or diet, or just sheer dumb luck. I didn't really come into what is called "good food" until in my 20's. I ate a lot of burgers, pizza, steaks, chops, fries, chips, candy, and drank soft drinks as a youth.

But, at that time, there was a distinct paucity of what is called "processed food" today. And every child went outside and ran around in those days. We had to be called home at dark. Does this mean anything? Hell, I don't have a clue.

There is so little unequivocal, indisputable, factual data about our species in the areas of nutrition and health that any mention of them will generate an enthusiastic thread like this - postions are staked out, supporting evidence piled up, hackles erected and in the end everyone pretty much ends up where they began philosphically.

And the academics and scientists will continue to get grants for new studies.

Personally, I intend to just keep on eating what is called "good food" most of the time, stay on my feet and keep moving and never *ever* kick myself in the ass if I eat a candy bar or a greaseburger.

[Daniel Rogov]

At the risk of being one of the "outsiders", may I remind us all of the dictate of Brillat-Savarin to the effect that: "Animals eat, people dine and people of good taste dine well".

Indeed we must eat to survive but among the major reasons we dine is in the seeking out of a modicum of pleasure in a world too often too difficult. And, despite the Puritan Ethic, there is nothing whatever wrong with pleasure if it is sought in ways that are moderate, intelligent and informed.

I have long grown weary of reading about what foods will be "good for me" or, for that matter what will be "bad for me". I cannot help but think that at least in the First World every person with a normally functioning brain knows basically what is good and bad for them, that especially extending to too much of anything,

May I humbly suggest that all such articles, no matter how intelligently or passionately written, belong in the trash and that when it comes to dining, smoking or drinking in moderation (!!!) the only rules that we follow are (a) to honor whatever foodstuffs or beverages that give us pleasure, (b) to set out to enjoy whatever enters our bodies as much as is humanly possible, © to realize that the life well lived is its own justification; and (d) there is no moral or physical wrong to the intelligent creation and consumption of things that add to the pleasure of our lives.

My rant for the week, I promise. I am just so sick and tired of hearing others tell me what is and what is not good for me. Why not, as in the film of old, simply walk now to your windows, open them wide and scream out to the world: "I won't take it any more".

[lperry]

I have long grown weary of reading about what foods will be "good for me" or, for that matter what will be "bad for me".  I cannot help but think that at least in the First World every person with a normally functioning brain knows basically what is good and bad for them, that especially extending to too much of anything,

My rant for the week, I promise. 

←

At the risk of ruining a good rant, the author both illustrates and supports your point of view in the article I cited. For this reason, I thought perhaps it might result in a different sort of discussion. Ah, well.

[JohnL]

Examples of processed, refined foods include white flour and white rice. Surely those are sufficiently traditional as to be accepted parts of respectable foodways or whatever. You know, bread, the cuisine of China, stuff like that.

←

I am 100 per cent in agreement with FG on this.

This entire issue has been politicized.

The discussion has become rife with ill supported conventional wisdom.

It has been corrupted and confused by various groups with political agendas--so called movements.

There is also a nasty thread of anti capitalism, anti big business running through a lot of it that appeals to self loathing and self obsessed Americans.

I find it interesting that these discussions invariably turn from processed foods to corporate America and MacDonald's a linkage that always seems to be bubbling just below the surface.

The debate and discussion of interesting and important topics has become poisoned by a good vs evil mentality that has made rational thought something that just gets in the way of the cause.

For example the term "processed." Most every food is processed as has been noted here. yet we can't have the discussion because to many this is not really about what we eat etc it is about polemics--" processed" is a code word for MacDonald's et al. it really means "processed our way vs processed their way."

I also agree that leaving out a critical element like exercise renders most of these discussions about health and nutrition moot. Same for ignoring the reality of our overall health today vs the our health in the past.

Another factor often left out is taste and the pleasure of eating. Eating is about a lot more than nutrition, and health. I find the current selling of wine as a healthy product with claims of disease prevention obnoxious. How about we like it with our food and enjoy the effects of alcohol! That's good enough for me!

How about process with the goal of producing food that tastes good! Then we can talk about process in terms of saving the planet or the animals or the whatever.

All the agonizing over statistics and dire warnings of we're killing ourselves, processed food is killing us, we gotta join a movement --healthfood, slow food, organic food, no food, yadda yadda yadda.

Eating and health?

The answer may be all too simple. Moderation and exercise!

But hey--that's too easy. One can't sell many books based on advice that obvious.

←

Did you read the article? If so, I am not sure what you are ranting about here on this topic. The reason I suggested that this article be "required" reading before engaging in discussion in the politicized food topics is because I think it does a good job in conveying the complexities of the situation while also recognizing the realities of the issues facing today's world. Neither the issues nor the solutions are simple. They are complexly inter-related defying the easy fixes of nutritional supplementation, which are aimed squarely at a demographic looking to have their cake and eat it too. I would like those easy fixes too, but realizing that they don't exist, I am making a conscious decision to eat what pleases me and not pay too close attention to the purported health fads of the moment. I don't worry about it too much because I happen to enjoy eating a varied diet. I do, however, sometimes have trouble understanding what "moderation" means.

←

Well depends upon what the meaning of is...is!

My point is you speak of "the realities of issues facing today's world." Well, I am arguing that the "issues" as well as the "realities" are debatable. OK take obesity. Its importance as an issue is dependent upon the realities. As FG has pointed out in a few posts here the realities are in question. Same for the incidence of disease as compared to long ago.

The fact is, we are simply better off in most ways today than we were years ago. If one accepts this then the urgency of the current debate is much less dramatic.

I would argue that the increase in awareness of small farms and artisinal food products is driven not by ethics or a need to save the world or even eat healthier (whatever these mean) but rather a desire to eat things that taste good. The same drive that gave us the whopper also gave us prime beef and micro greens!

I am more fearful of "ethical" people who use their ethics and morals to ban things to tell us what we should eat or not eat and ultimately reduce our choices.

Life is so much better today-- but it is still too short!

[ChefCarey]

At the risk of being one of the "outsiders", may I remind us all of the dictate of Brillat-Savarin to the effect that: "Animals eat, people dine and people of good taste dine well". 

Indeed we must eat to survive but among the major reasons we dine is in the seeking out of a modicum of pleasure in a world too often too difficult.  And, despite the Puritan Ethic, there is nothing whatever wrong with pleasure if it is sought in ways that are moderate, intelligent and informed.

I have long grown weary of reading about what foods will be "good for me" or, for that matter what will be "bad for me".  I cannot help but think that at least in the First World every person with a normally functioning brain knows basically what is good and bad for them, that especially extending to too much of anything,

May I humbly suggest that all such articles, no matter how intelligently or passionately written, belong in the trash and that when it comes to dining, smoking or drinking in moderation (!!!) the only rules that we follow are (a) to honor whatever foodstuffs or beverages that give us pleasure, (b) to set out to enjoy whatever enters our bodies as much as is humanly possible, © to realize that the life well lived is its own justification; and (d) there is no moral or physical wrong to the intelligent creation and consumption of things that add to the pleasure of our lives.

My rant for the week, I promise.  I am just so sick and tired of hearing others tell me what is and what is not good for me.  Why not, as in the film of old, simply walk now to your windows, open them wide and scream out to the world: "I won't take it any more".

←

In the area of garrulouness no one has ever found me wanting I can usually be persuaded to wade into just about any depth of water - or sewage.

I have one thing to say about your post.

Amen, brother.

[annecros]

Everything in moderation. Including moderation.

Ya gotta live. Ya gotta eat.

[lperry]

I'm curious why the last few posts reflect much of Pollan's stance but then seem to be anti- the article in question. Has everyone read the assignment?

[JohnL]

At last the common sense emerges!

As always, brilliant Daniel!!!

and

Thanks to FG for showing that one should never accept the conventional wisdom without examining both sides of the argument. There are always facts and often there are other facts.

One can find an ethical dilemma in most everything.

One can also miss out on a lot of pleasure being consumed with these dilemma.

Life will always be too short!!!!

[annecros]

I'm curious why the last few posts reflect much of Pollan's stance but then seem to be anti- the article in question.  Has everyone read the assignment? 

←

I did. I thought it well written and thoughtful. Not anti anything he had to say.

I think other issues are brought out into the glaring light of day as one digests the content. Opinions are like - something else. Everyone has one.

[ludja]

The first part of the experiment is already yielding easily observable results as evidenced by the much larger proportion of overweight and obese people in the population.  Is this a disputed fact?

←

Yes, it is disputed.

For example, in the New York Times article, "The Fat Epidemic: He Says It's an Illusion," Dr. Jeffrey Friedman, Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator and the discoverer of the gene for leptin, is profiled.

Ask anyone: Americans are getting fatter and fatter. Advertising campaigns say they are. So do federal officials and the scientists they rely on.

But Dr. Jeffrey Friedman, an obesity researcher at Rockefeller University, argues that contrary to popular opinion, national data do not show Americans growing uniformly fatter.

Instead, he says, the statistics demonstrate clearly that while the very fat are getting fatter, thinner people have remained pretty much the same.

More and more required reading piling up around here.

←

Whether or not the new diet experiment of the last 25 years has or has not resulted in more overweight people, I would personally rather limit my participation as a test subject. I don't see any advantage to do so; only possible disadvantages.

(I"m not convinced by the article Fat Guy cited as well. I'd have to read quite a bit more on this topic. As far as I can tell, the conclusions in the article rely just as heavily on statistics as the conclusions it purports to overturn, namely, that more people are overweight now than before. Although I agree it's certain that genetics plays a significant part in body mass and type, I do also believe that diet and physical activity play a role.)

In any case, Pollan's advice is pleasing to me on many levels beyond just weight and potential health issues although roughly incorporating this approach in my life has incidentally helped me to regain a weight and fitness level I am very happy with.

Eating and cooking a diversity of "food" as he defines it and sharing it with family and friends is a true joy for me and its benefits are many. As a complete and non-apologetic omnivore, my diet and enjoyment of food has increased immeasurably as I've learned to cook with many more fruits and vegetables. By “limiting” the quantity of what I eat compared to what many of us have become accustomed to vis a vis the example of current restaurant portions, it has also been gratifying and possible too, to increase the quality of what I eat. To me these are all reasons enough, although, increasingly I do think it is important to also think of the impact that our choices make on the environment, and the people who grow our food, in the broadest terms. This concern and interest has just followed naturally from wanting to have access to a diversity of good ingredients.

I also agree with lperry in that I thought that Pollan’s article mirrored much of the philosophy put forth by Rogov. Pollan is exactly *not* recommending or prescribing an adherence to some particular nutritionism-guided fad or idealogy. He is simply saying, “Eat (real) food. Not too much. Mostly plants. “

The fact that people may use Pollan's points to advance their particular “agenda” is not relevant to me and I think the focus in this thread on looking at the suggestions as the political agenda of this or that group is throwing a red herring into the discussion of this article. Do you think the advice is good? I do; I think it is good, holistic advice for all of us who are endlessly bombarded by the marketing effects and "nutrition advice" that have produced the current prevalent style of food and eating in the U.S.

Pollan's advice yields many ”unintended” benefits and has the effect of reclaiming many positive aspects of eating and living. One simple benefit accrued: Spend the money and take the time to prepare and eat good food with family and friends.

Edited January 29, 2007 by ludja (log)

[ludja]

...

One can also miss out on a lot of pleasure being consumed with these dilemma.

Life will always be too short!!!!

←

Indeed, life is too short not to eat in a way similar to what follows from Pollan's suggestions. Spend the money and take the time to prepare and eat good food with family and friends. One might even gain some health benefits to boot!

Edited January 29, 2007 by ludja (log)

[hathor]

This entire issue has been politicized.

The discussion has become rife with ill supported conventional wisdom.

It has been corrupted and confused by various groups with political agendas--so called movements.

There is also a nasty thread of anti capitalism, anti big business running through a lot of it that appeals to self loathing and self obsessed Americans.

I find it interesting that these discussions invariably turn from processed foods to corporate America and MacDonald's a linkage that always seems to be bubbling just below the surface.

The debate and discussion of interesting and important topics has become poisoned by a good vs evil mentality that has made rational thought something that just gets in the way of the cause.

But hey--that's too easy. One can't sell many books based on advice that obvious.

←

  And, despite the Puritan Ethic, there is nothing whatever wrong with pleasure if it is sought in ways that are moderate, intelligent and informed.

May I humbly suggest that all such articles, no matter how intelligently or passionately written, belong in the trash and that when it comes to dining, smoking or drinking in moderation (!!!) the only rules that we follow are (a) to honor whatever foodstuffs or beverages that give us pleasure, (b) to set out to enjoy whatever enters our bodies as much as is humanly possible, © to realize that the life well lived is its own justification; and (d) there is no moral or physical wrong to the intelligent creation and consumption of things that add to the pleasure of our lives.

←

Such passion on this thread.

FG: Are you saying that obesity is not a problem in the U.S.? That's it just a marketing ploy? Your defense seems to be implying that there really is no problem and we are all fine.

Johnl: I think the link between corporate America, processed foods and big business is not bubbling below the surface. Its as plain as the nose on your face, and as inevitable as night following day. Smithfield needs a lot of hogs to make their pork products. McDonalds and Lays need a lot of potatoes. You could no more eliminate politics from this discussion than you could eliminate exercise from a health promoting lifestyle.

And Mr. Rogov: if you are starting up a movement to encourage pleasure, and sanity, tell me where to sign up. I'm a firm believer in Intelligent Hedonism.

[ludja]

In reading my last post it made me think of another point. I do enjoy cooking and derive joy from cooking for family and friends. So, for me, it is easy to follow the now apparently "radical" idea of actually cooking foods from ingredients for the large part. What if one doesn't enjoy cooking? Besides the responsibility of taking some hand in ones own health, I still think that ones responsibility as a parent is to provide good foods and habits for ones children. I do think that cooking and eating together is an important aspect of raising a healthy and happy child. (And no, this doesn't mean that someone growing up without this experience might not be able to right things later on in their life.) How people feed their kids will of course vary according to their choices and needs, but the extreme approaches now of fattening kids on a primary diet of overly fattening and processed food is just not a step in the right direction.

I also thought again of Fat Guy's article which questioned whether or not there was really a "fat epidemic" which may very well not be the proper term to use. This is only from personal observation, but it surely seems that there are many more overweight schoolchildren now than there were in, say, the 1970's. (I think this has also been substantiated with studies but I don't have the references to them.) This would also counter the argument in that article cited. Namely, that it only seems that more people are overweight because the heaviest people are more overweight now than then.

So, it is true that this whole issue does very quickly hit many buttons and does have many ramifications beyond just ones personal likes and dislikes. This is probably one of the reasons that there are such impassioned responses against the reasonable suggestions made in the article.

Edited January 29, 2007 by ludja (log)

[Nathan]

every recent study that I'm familiar with boils down to three key things:

1. don't actually worry about the amount of nutrients or vitamins you get in your daily diet....trust me, we all get plenty. unless you go on one of those 1200 daily calorie diets (which may actually prolong your lifespan), there's simply no need to concern yourself with it. especially if you eat a fair amount of veggies.

2. most food-related health issues today relate essentially to calorie intake (yeah, some calories may be worse than others...but overall it's calorie count). with the diversity of modern diets, scurvy, pellagra, beri-beri etc. are things of the past.

3. you have two choices in how you can handle calorie intake -- diet (i.e. calorie limitation) or exercise (ideally, both).

if you workout enough (and the key here is intensity -- 45 minutes of intense free weights will burn a lot more than an hour and a half on the treadmill)....you can eat anything you want and as much as you want. literally. you just have to choose which tradeoff you want to work with.

[Fat Guy]

FG: Are you saying that  obesity is not a problem in the U.S.? That's it just a marketing ploy? Your defense seems to be implying that there really is no problem and we are all fine.

←

I'm saying the problem of obesity is wildly overstated, that many of the solutions are worse than the problem, and that the medical and weight-loss industries are just as callow and motivated by dollars as the largest, most evil agribusiness multinationals (indeed, they are sometimes just the same corporations hedging their investments, e.g., Nestle buying Jenny Craig, Heinz buying Weight Watchers). Moreover, I marvel at the willingness of so many people to accept the existence of an obesity epidemic as conventional wisdom despite the well-publicized avalanche of evidence questioning every aspect of it.

Barely a month goes by that there isn't a story like "Heavy People May Beat Critical Illness More Often" or "Some Extra Heft May Be Helpful, New Study Says" in the New York Times. Yet these reports, and there are many, are simply ignored by those who are invested emotionally (or financially) in the conventional wisdom. They are drowned out by ceaseless repetition of the same old claims.

[Daniel Rogov]

And Mr. Rogov: if you are starting up a movement to encourage pleasure, and sanity, tell me where to sign up. I'm a firm believer in Intelligent Hedonism. 

←

No problem and no need at all to "sign up". All one has to do is start living that way.

One important proviso, however, in addition to being intelligent, the hedonism in question also has to be moral. Surprisingly as it may sound, the concept of "moral hedonism" is not an oxymoron - the two can walk hand in hand quite nicely. In fact, as they do, life feels a heckuva lot better all around. And yes, tastes better too.

[Pontormo]

I've made it through the whole piece. While well written, it contains little insight...

The omission of physical activity from consideration is more than just a choice of battles. It's a cop out...In addition, the assumption that the way people used to eat is superior to the way they eat now is not self evident.

←

While I've read the entire article, I have read only the beginning of this thread.

First, I think Michael Pollan is more than a gifted putter-together of sentences. I think he's damned smart, funny and on a mission that makes a lot of sense to me.

I recall the reaction to Omnivore's Dilemma also took a major omission to task and returned to the glaring journalistic error over and over again.

The man's successful. Good for him. Good for us.

As for taking him to task for mentioning inhabitants of Crete during the 1950s did a whole lot of physical labor and the complex context in which they ate their Mediterranean diet was different from ours without dwelling upon the issue of our need to get more exercise?

The dual focus would undermine the thrust of the argument concerning what we should eat in moderation. His subject was food as food versus nutrition, not weight loss.

As to the final point made in the quotation I offer here, I have to agree. I would not exist were the Irish and Swedish ancestors on my paternal side eating as well as the average American eater of fast food.

* * *

What struck me as interesting was the number of times the phrase "whole foods" recurred in the essay, never at the beginning of the sentence, so it never appears with even one of the two syllables beginning with a capitalized letter. All uses of the term "whole foods" were positive, referring to things like tomatoes, leafy greens and so forth as opposed to boxes of processed items such as the boxes of fancy cake mixes made with natural ingredients that one finds on the supermarket shelves of Whole Foods.

Is the professor making peace with John Mackey?

Edited January 29, 2007 by Pontormo (log)

[Pan]

[...]I would argue that the increase in awareness of small farms and artisinal food products is driven not by ethics or a need to save the world or even eat healthier (whatever these mean) but rather a desire to eat things that taste good. The same drive that gave us the whopper also gave us prime beef and micro greens![...]

←

Please elaborate. How is the drive that gave us the whopper the same drive that gave us prime beef and micro greens? Do you mean the drive for profit or the drive for tastier food? I ask because I wouldn't associate the whopper with tastier food.

[annecros]

LMAO

Just for fun, throw the Atkins "Diet" into the mix. You shouldn't lose weight, it is sickening for me to think about living with, and it lowers cholesterol.

heh

[zoe b]

I just watched Idiocracy- and this movie, set in a future US with an extremely stupid population, covers some of the issues raised in Pollan's article in a pretty amusing fashion.

The crops are all dying--and Luke Wilson-- an average guy in the present --but the smartest man in the world in the future (never mind how he gets there), notices that green stuff is coming out of the irrigation sprayers--it turns out it's Brawn-something--a gatorade-like sports drink--this company has convinced the entire population that water is something that comes out of toilets--and why would you drink that?

The only thing that people seem to eat is a globby yellow fat of some sort that comes in giant tubs--people have stacks of them in their houses.

This future doesn't appear too far off to me.

I think Pollan's most important point is that a large part of the population is eating food that is cheap to produce and has a long shelf life--food that corporations prefer to sell--not the food that tastes the best and is the most enjoyable to eat.

[russ parsons]

How is the drive that gave us the whopper the same drive that gave us prime beef and micro greens? Do you mean the drive for profit or the drive for tastier food? I ask because I wouldn't associate the whopper with tastier food.

←

you might not, but many other people do. and they're not all innocent dupes of evil corporate mind-engineering.