Eating "food" again

[Carrot Top]

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? 

←

Do you remember "The Jetsons"? Food would appear hot and ready-to-eat whenever one wanted just by pushing a button on some machine in the kitchen. It was so easy to do that I even remember George Jetson doing it.

I believe this is many people's ideal. . .to be just like The Jetsons.

Edited January 30, 2007 by Carrot Top (log)

[Pan]

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.

←

Let me make my point more clearly, then: I don't think that people usually have the same motivation for getting a whopper that they have for getting prime beef and micro greens, nor do I think those three products are marketed to the same demographic or on the same basis, for the most part.

[hathor]

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.

←

Let me make my point more clearly, then: I don't think that people usually have the same motivation for getting a whopper that they have for getting prime beef and micro greens, nor do I think those three products are marketed to the same demographic or on the same basis, for the most part.

←

You know Pan, last week I would have agreed with you. But, last week, someone, gave me a light slap up the side head, and let me know that prime beef, micro greens, and whoppers, do co-exist within the same customer. It's more complex than you or I thought.

[docsconz]

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.

←

Let me make my point more clearly, then: I don't think that people usually have the same motivation for getting a whopper that they have for getting prime beef and micro greens, nor do I think those three products are marketed to the same demographic or on the same basis, for the most part.

←

You know Pan, last week I would have agreed with you. But, last week, someone, gave me a light slap up the side head, and let me know that prime beef, micro greens, and whoppers, do co-exist within the same customer. It's more complex than you or I thought.

←

Is anything simple or straightforward?

[Daniel Rogov]

In all of this let us also remember Gael Greene's dictum to the effect that "In the heart of every gastronoe lies the soul of a fast-food junkie".

There may be no real contradiction betwen the fine cut of beef and the Whopper or the Big Mac. All a question of different moods at different moments for different people.

And also to keep in mind that "fast food" is not a culprit in any way. If we want to point a finger it should be towards "junk food" and what is "fast" is not necessarily synonymous with "junk".

[Anna N]

. . .

And also to keep in mind that "fast food" is not a culprit in any way. If we want to point a finger it should be towards "junk food" and what is "fast" is not necessarily synonymous with "junk".

←

Good point, Daniel. The best and fastest food I have ever enjoyed is a carrot just pulled from the soil, rinsed under the hose and eaten in all its warm, wonderful sweetness. Good food doesn't get much faster than that.

[Daniel Rogov]

Agreed about the carrot! I also think though of oyster bars, knockwurst and bratwurst stands (imbis) in Germany and other countries, New Orleans spiced shrimp, the soups served up in Thai markets, an eclair purchased at a Paris patisserie, fine shwarma or donner kebab; felafel.......and on and on and on........

[lperry]

Good point, Daniel.  The best and fastest food I have ever enjoyed is a carrot just pulled from the soil, rinsed under the hose and eaten in all its warm, wonderful sweetness.  Good food doesn't get much faster than that. 

←

For me it was fresh corn. When I was a kid, my grandmother would put the pot on to boil and then send me and my cousins out to the field to pick the sweet corn. We would dash out there laughing, pull the ears off the stalks, and run back to the kitchen arriving breathless with our prize. Minutes later, we would be eating that corn, and it was sweet, full of flavor, and meltingly wonderful. Summer never comes soon enough!

[hjshorter]

Pontormo made a good point:

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.

The conversation seems to be focusing on weight. That's not what this is about.

Do you remember "The Jetsons"? Food would appear hot and ready-to-eat whenever one wanted just by pushing a button on some machine in the kitchen. It was so easy to do that I even remember George Jetson doing it.

I believe this is many people's ideal. . .to be just like The Jetsons. 

←

Surely many many people want to be like the Jetsons. Lots of people hate to cook, or consider a chore like washing the dishes or cleaning the toilet. We're a skewed sample here at eGullet.

And I would respectfully disagree with Nathan's statement upthread:

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.

It's not as simple as that. Edited January 30, 2007 by hjshorter (log)

[Carrot Top]

So is the problem a lack of time to cook?  A lack of prioritization of quality food?  Is my microcosm representative of yours?  It's all very curious.

←

Here's a modern story of fresh corn on the cob. That has to do with some things like lack of time, lack of prioritization of quality food, and microcosms.

Sometimes I do cooking "classes" of sorts at my children's schools. In general, schools and teachers do not like to mess around with food - it is messy, some kid might be allergic somehow or who-knows-what like a parent will call in hearing of the lesson, offended that one item is offered and another not that they think better or more appropriate somehow (sigh), the teachers "lack time" as they are always fast-tracking to stuff explicit information into the kid's heads so that the test scores in the Spring will be high enough so that everyone will look good and where on earth will cooking or food fit into that. . .blahblahblah.

Sometimes, though, I can invent a way to fit the cooking thing into an existing class such as Social Studies or English (which is now called Language Arts), in ways that will reinforce the existing lesson plan.

Yes, I actually do this for "fun".

Hah.

So, the lesson was to be on Corn. It was sixth-graders who were studying the Colonial United States.

I bought crates of fresh corn on the cob. Had all the info ready to go - all about corn and native Americans and settlers etc etc. We were going to learn how to cook corn on the cob. Simple enough.

The kids had no real problems answering my questions about the settlers or the Native Americans, and knew a bit about corn in general.

But then it came time to shuck the corn. Out of fifty kids (two classes combined, sixth graders) there were only about six kids that had actually ever shucked an ear of corn. The others had to be taught.

We live in an agricultural area, a university town, so it's not like these kids have spent their formative years on the subway.

They shucked their corn, we wrapped it up with seasonings in pieces of wax paper (for lacking real cooking things like stoves, the plan was to take it home and uh. . .microwave it for a snack).

Everyone had fun.

A bit later, I got some thank-you notes that the teachers had the kids make. Cute, some of them, little crayon drawings of ears of corn falling sideways and all.

But here is the best part of all - the part of all of it that seems representative of this "microcosm" thing, and I don't think this sort of behavior is all that odd in this microcosm of working parents with active school-age children. . .

One of the thank-you notes was a bit longer than the others. It was a happy note from an eleven year old boy. He said "Thanks, my Mom ate the corn straight from the wrapper while she was driving me to soccer practice. She liked it."

Nope, no time to even microwave the thing. One hungry Mom.

I can't say that this story holds the same essence of an ear of corn torn from a tall frond in a heat-soaked field with the scent of earth rising around one, the corn almost popping its juice in one's face as it's bitten into.

But it is, a very real microcosm, here and now, today. I never would have believed it had I not seen it with my own eyes, in this small but telling way.

[K8memphis]

Cheez Its! I promise there's some kind of tractor beam that draws me to those bright red boxes of crispy cheesey goodness. What could be a sweeter life.

I agree with you on this one. I'm pretty sure "natural flavor" in the ingredients list means "crack."

So nowadays, here on the other side of 50 I am forced to eat ingredients.

If this change was due to health issues, then you are illustrating one of Pollan's main points exceptionally well.

People have been setting off the fire alarm in the hall over this & that food forever. They should work so hard for world peace.

I'm sorry you didn't get a chance to read to the end of the article. If you have more time, you can read that he is not maligning a single food, but is concerned about our general food lifestyle and its resulting health, social, and economic effects. He even argues that studies about single foods and nutrients are part of the overall problem. I thought this article was a pretty balanced look at the different issues with food science, politics, and the way we eat.

Edited for spellage.

←

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

...

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.

←

Interesting. Every step I take every move I make. I'm only a committe of one but still...it feels a little stalk-y around here.

Before I lost 50 pounds a coupla years ago, I exercised 45 minutes a day, three times a week. I was toned I was beautiful. I was way over my body mass index and stayed there like a plump pretty and well toned rock. I lost not one ounce not one single ounce doing this religiously. I exercised for months and months. I am nothing if I am not anal. I was doing a The Firm routine with weights. No one was more dumbfounded than I was. I'm 55.

I weighed 199 at my highest usually around 185 but I hit it up big for the holidays 'cause we had planned the diet thing to correspond with a spring wedding in the family. To my utter shock and amazement I lost 40 pounds from January to April by correcting my diet. I'm not a 'dieter', I'm a lifelong baker because I love baked goods. During this time I did not work out. Too tired.

Then I started gaining again so I went back on it and lost 10 pounds for a total of 50 lost. If I stray off the proscribed eating very much I gain weight. I do need to incorporate the exercise more back into it so hopefully I can cheat more

But it's so interesting that you said 45 minutes of weights. Dude, it did not work and believe me, I was pissed. It's the whole insulin thing and glycemic index and the being 50. And eating like a baker would eat for all my years. I mean I started baking in my single digit years.

sniff

[JohnL]

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.

←

Let me make my point more clearly, then: I don't think that people usually have the same motivation for getting a whopper that they have for getting prime beef and micro greens, nor do I think those three products are marketed to the same demographic or on the same basis, for the most part.

←

You know Pan, last week I would have agreed with you. But, last week, someone, gave me a light slap up the side head, and let me know that prime beef, micro greens, and whoppers, do co-exist within the same customer. It's more complex than you or I thought.

←

Is anything simple or straightforward?

←

Let me clarify (I will try to be straightforward and simple!)

I believe that taste and flavor drive the success of most food items.

I recently bought some fresh ground natural beef.

It was pretty tasteless (I have had examples that were brimming with flavor--this is nature afterall).

So--I added a bit of garlick and some worcestershire sauce and served it on a bun with a slice of red onion and a touch of Dijon mustard.

In effect I was taking a processed product and processing it further to come up with something that tasted better.

Now--this is basically what MacDonald's does. They have additional criteria that come into play--profits they are reselling their product (this is similar to mom adding bread crumbs to meatloaf to stretch the budget).

The current trend in artisinal food products leading to smaller farms is IMOP really driven in large part, by chefs who are looking for better tasting items for their customers as well as coinciding with farmers looking for profits in an increasingly difficult atmosphere for smaller farming enterprises. The health benefits and the politics (save the earth) are adjunct to quest for profits and taste. There are similarities between great restaurants and large fast food chains. We often tend to overlook these because we often like to demonize large corporations and promote small enterprises.

Few people start a small farm and grow micro greens because of altruism.

I do think Pollan has correctly noted that there is now growth of businesses whose raison d'etre is not profits and good quality and good taste etc. The so called "healthfood" industry. I also believe that the dilemma that an operation like Whole Foods faces, causes them to wrestle with too many goals--the end result of juggling too many criteria is often expensive tasteless and mediocre in quality. people still look for taste--better put--no one buys a tasteless or bad tasting food item because doing so promotes a good cause or is politically correct!

There is some irony, at least for me, in a trend that sees chefs using the same chemicals that have long been used by the mass food industry to make foods taste better--gums, guar gum or xanthan gum for example. By the way--isn't arrowroot a chemical additive? Baking soda?

And isn't Homeru Cantu using products that are highly processed and of little nutritional value--edible paper for eg?

(just thought I'd throw this last stuff in to help--clarify the issue!)

In the end--there are no neat little packages of wisdom here. (Doc may be right).

We(the intellectuals who ponder all this) are in danger of paralysis due to intellectual overload.

It is one thing to ponder and quite another to agonize.

I do agree with Pollan that we should eat first and foremost for pleasure--we are truly blessed that we can do this--there are far too many people who eat to survive. But I believe that each person should balance their own criteria and choose their diet based on common sense and facts.

Pollan does a prety good job in the piece in question at providing some perspective but in the end he can't seem to avoid making a recommendation as to what and how we should eat.

another piece of irony--(I just can't seem to resist!)

those large multinational food conglomerates we love to trash are more likely to help solve world hunger (at least alleviate it) than any small local organic, biodynamic etc farms and farmer's markets!

see --simple and to the point!!!

[JohnL]

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.

←

Gee, Hollywood is just the place to go for an accurate assessment of things!

The movie you note sounds like a rehash of the concept presented in "Soylent Green" back in the seventies.

My main problem is that Hollywood (and certain intelligencia) believe that most of the population (especially Americans) are "stupid." (everyone else that is--not us )

We are all sheep (again the others not us) who are susceptible to clever marketing efforts promoting shameless and evil big (the bigger the more evil) capitalist corporations in collusion with corrupt government --in the end we will all die!

Unless of course we are saved by the smart and enlightened guys (and gals) who know what's best for us and.....

Actually, the "Idiocracy" movie sounds like fun--I would be rather skeptical of any "message" it is conveying (subliminally of course--we all know art is subtle)

[Fat Guy]

And regarding the discussions about how healthy or not we are now compared to previous generations, the real “experiment” will come to fruition when the people born after 1975 become older. 

←

I'm not sure the 1975 date makes sense. 1975 is when McDonald's opened its first restaurant in Hong Kong. It was already firmly established in the US in the 1950s. Nor was it the first such chain. White Castle dates to 1921. Moreover, people have been drinking Coca-Cola since 1886. My parents, born in 1937, grew up in the 1940s and 1950s drinking soda, eating the same commercial candy bars we eat now, grabbing fast-food burgers in their car, etc. They probably ate fewer vegetables -- especially fresh ones -- that today's kids. I think the baby boomers, who are slightly younger than my parents, are a generation we can examine to see the effects of the modern American diet -- and the news seems to be good. The boomers are incredibly vital as they approach retirement age. If current statistical projections hold, they will push the life expectancy average farther than it has ever been pushed before.

[JohnL]

And regarding the discussions about how healthy or not we are now compared to previous generations, the real “experiment” will come to fruition when the people born after 1975 become older. 

←

I'm not sure the 1975 date makes sense. 1975 is when McDonald's opened its first restaurant in Hong Kong. It was already firmly established in the US in the 1950s. Nor was it the first such chain. White Castle dates to 1921. Moreover, people have been drinking Coca-Cola since 1886. My parents, born in 1937, grew up in the 1940s and 1950s drinking soda, eating the same commercial candy bars we eat now, grabbing fast-food burgers in their car, etc. They probably ate fewer vegetables -- especially fresh ones -- that today's kids. I think the baby boomers, who are slightly younger than my parents, are a generation we can examine to see the effects of the modern American diet -- and the news seems to be good. The boomers are incredibly vital as they approach retirement age. If current statistical projections hold, they will push the life expectancy average farther than it has ever been pushed before.

←

One of my largest problems and complaints with a lot of this is too many "experts" do not have a firm grasp on the past. Worse many seem to ignore or misrepresent things to further their thesis.

The media is no help here either. The same papers (show, magazines etc) that promote tales of impending doom run pieces on how vital and longer living we are these days.

The doomsday message of social security heading into oblivion popular (we are living longer etc) in the headlines these days literally contradicts the doomsday message of how diet or cigarettes, or the environment or (pick your poison) is killing us off!

Another interesting historical note--I recall a robert Altman film circa 1994 called The Road to Wellville based upon a T. Coraghesson Boyle novel which dealt with the food and health fads of the early 20th century promoted by John Harvey Kellog a physician and founder of the cereal company.

Obsession with health and eating is not new. Interestingly, Kellog was viewed as somewhat of a nut or eccentric.

The proliferation of media outlets today has contributed to legitimizing many health issues and experts with answers as well as hucksters far beyond what ocurred in the past.

Also worth noting are the doom and gloom predictions of world famine (Erlich) of the early to mid seventies. (world hunger actually decreased contrary to Erlich and other's dire predictions).

We've also been through climate change crisis (both hot and cold) as well as numerous other impending catastraphies! All of which were backed by scientific data and loads of studies!!!!

[ludja]

And regarding the discussions about how healthy or not we are now compared to previous generations, the real “experiment” will come to fruition when the people born after 1975 become older. 

←

I'm not sure the 1975 date makes sense. 1975 is when McDonald's opened its first restaurant in Hong Kong. It was already firmly established in the US in the 1950s. Nor was it the first such chain. White Castle dates to 1921. Moreover, people have been drinking Coca-Cola since 1886. My parents, born in 1937, grew up in the 1940s and 1950s drinking soda, eating the same commercial candy bars we eat now, grabbing fast-food burgers in their car, etc. They probably ate fewer vegetables -- especially fresh ones -- that today's kids. I think the baby boomers, who are slightly younger than my parents, are a generation we can examine to see the effects of the modern American diet -- and the news seems to be good. The boomers are incredibly vital as they approach retirement age. If current statistical projections hold, they will push the life expectancy average farther than it has ever been pushed before.

←

It seems likely true that people's overall diet did continue to steadily improve in many ways following WWII as you pointed out and, of course, McDonald's and Coca-Cola existed and were well-beloved before the 1970's. I just wonder if some of the positive gains made during this period started to be overlaid with some negative trends at some point due to changes in portions, ingredients and dietary habits.

For example, your parents may have gone to burger places as teenagers on the weekend, but were they being brought there for dinner 2 or 3 times a week? They drank Coco Cola but were they downing it in Big Gulp sizes or in a 10 or 12 oz bottle? Did they have a cola when they went out to the burger place or were theyalso having it with their school lunches?

It is not that processed foods did not exist before 1975; it is more of question of whether a change in their pervasiveness, portion size and the frequency with which the are consumed will have an effect. (Maybe there are also 'bad' ingredients that have been added or maybe there are 'good' nutrients that are being lost.) How negative is this "negative trend" and how will it be counterbalanced with some of the gains you mentioned? I guess that is the experiment.

I chose a 1975 "start date" due to the reported much larger consumption of soda, for instance, starting roughly in the 80's. This is the time that McDonald's, Seven Eleven and other restaurants started increasing the sizes of fries, sodas, etc. The frequency of families eating out, not just at fast food restaurants, but at others too, I think really started to take off at this time also. I also witnessed with my own eyes the growth in processed and semi-premade food in supermarkets from the 1980's onwards. The 1980's would also correlate with the time that HFCS was being added to more foods and in larger amounts (raising the calories count) of "low fat" foods. HFCS-sweetened fruit juice seemed to have become a much more popular drink for children. I'm not sure what the transfat trajectory is in terms of abundance in processed foods. That may have already made healthy inroads before 1980, but I suspect that its use was increased during this time period in processed foods in order to label food products as containing 'no saturated fats' or as being 'low in cholesterol'. Increasing numbers of families with both people working or with only one parent may also have had an effect on the type of food that kids were raised on. I also wonder what proportion of children raised this way have kept on eating in that vein as they grew up just because they were used to larger portions, high sugar foods, eating out more often and not used to cooking "real" food or having the time to do it.

I did really mean that it was an experiment. I don't know if these dietary changes (to whatever extent they are different from previous times) will really have a significant impact on people's well being from a health perspective as they age. Maybe as you seem to suggest the sheer abundance and diversity of foods in our diet will still put people on this diet 'ahead' of other generations.

(In any case, to me, there are other benefits besides those related to health that recommend the kind of suggestions that Pollan makes.)

[JanMcBaker]

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.

←

Sounds good to me. And to add for myself, try not to pay attention to those reports about studies explaining what we should be eating or not eating....

[markk]

I think the baby boomers, who are slightly younger than my parents, are a generation we can examine to see the effects of the modern American diet -- and the news seems to be good. The boomers are incredibly vital as they approach retirement age. If current statistical projections hold, they will push the life expectancy average farther than it has ever been pushed before.

←

Wow, I would have come to exactly the opposite conclusion. I think that what's pushing the life expectancy of the boomers is medical science. What's coinciding with the boomers approaching retirement age is the fact that pharmacies now stay open 24/7 with pharmacists on duty round the clock because they otherwise wouldn't have enough time in the day to fill all the prescriptions that the aging boomers live on, and what's also coinciding is the larger and larger number of hospitals who have cath labs to pry open (via angioplasty) the arteries of the boomers which clogged up with saturated fats and triglycerides that proliferated in their diets when they were booming. I think that the advances in medical treatment, not only for diseases easily attributable to diet, but others as well, has simply outpaced the rate at which we've jeopardized lives with advances in "food science". And don't forget as welll those things that were discovered, added to and subsequently removed from our modern-process foods, when it was discovered that they were carcinogenic that medical science has tried to reverse.

Perhaps it's a romantic, and over-simplified notion that it may have been the physical energy that we had to expend tending the fields and hauling things to market that characterized the lifestyle invoked in the term "foods that your great grandparents would recognize", as well as the "natural" provenance of those foods themselves (grown in soils that were replenished by rotating crops and animal droppings, rather than by chemicals from bags, spread by machines that don't promote physical energy either, and protected by natural predators rather than chemical pesticides) - versus the notion that today's foodstuffs can sit on store shelves and the storage racks and freezers of the fast-food establishment's distribution centers for years at a time, because anything nutritious in them has been 'reifined' out by mechanical and chemical refinement, (and then packaged in capsules and tablets and sold in vitamin stores) - but I like the romantic notion that my nightly dose of nutritional values comes from a roasted, naturally raised chicken instead of a portion of "McNuggets" (which are made from... what, actually?), and a portion of natrual brown rice instead of a bun made from what little starchy byproduct was left (that Elmer's didn't need for glue) after the wheat berry was refined and had all its nutritional components sent off for use in bran, and vitamin supplements) - I like to eat my roast chicken and brown rice, instead of having the McChicken meal and combining it with a vitamin pill. To my mind, those two halves do not equal the whole, because, for one thing, we don't know what else in the original food sources that existed in synergistic relationships with the other compounds that Mother Nature put there, makes them work for us, and of course, we only know those components that we have isolated, which is exatly one of Pollan's main points. For me, it makes more sense to eat an apple, rather than a portion of "apple fiber" from one package and a tablet of multi vitamins and a capsule of multi minerals from another package.

I found that to be the point of Pollan's article.

To respond to another issue discussed above, do I enjoy a snack of McNuggets or a Whopper sometimes? I sure do! How can anybody who likes food not crave something that's salty and greasy and which you can get anytime you like without leaving your car! But I don't eat them thinking that they're a source of nutrition, and I don't eat them that often because of their salt and saturated fat content.

As far as the trend towards agribusiness, I don't think for a minute that they have any concern whatsoever for nutrition. My objection is not political, just that when they make it so appealing economically to be part of the agribusiness foodchain, they make it harder and harder for me to find and buy the foods I want to be eating. (That they don't stop the grinding machinery when human beings fall into the vat, and that we've all probably eaten ground human in our fast food burgers, well, how did they get the belt buckles and jewelry ground that fine is my wonderment?)

I'm currently reading Thomas Pawlick's "The End of Food", and learning more about what Pollan mentions briefly in his article: that item by item, the foodstuffs grown commercially in the US (tomatoes, potatoes, etc.) have been found in regular testing by the USDA to contain approximately 25-30% less nutrition (vitamins, minerals, fiber) than when they were tested at each previous ten-year interval.

So even if my great grandmother looked at a tomato today and said "I recognize that", her digestive system wouldn't after it finished with it. It's not just how much less would be left when the food processors got done processing it - it's how little nutrition it's going to provide when I buy it whole and take it home to cook as an alternative.

That's what's really frightening me.

[Nathan]

"But it's so interesting that you said 45 minutes of weights. Dude, it did not work and believe me, I was pissed. It's the whole insulin thing and glycemic index and the being 50."

well, the latter can certainly be a factor. It can prevent you from working out with sufficient intensity. From what I've seen, most people who lift for the cardio/caloric-reduction benefits don't lift anywhere near heavy enough....or do enough compound lifts.

"those large multinational food conglomerates we love to trash are more likely to help solve world hunger (at least alleviate it) than any small local organic, biodynamic etc farms and farmer's markets!"

The green revolution has certainly shown the truth of that.

[docsconz]

"those large multinational food conglomerates we love to trash are more likely to help solve world hunger (at least alleviate it) than any small local organic, biodynamic etc farms and farmer's markets!"

The green revolution has certainly shown the truth of that.

←

Maybe so, but is it sustainable?

On a separate note, one element that does not get nearly as much credit as it probably deserves in terms of increased longevity and quality of life is the major improvement in dental care in this country. Not only does that allow people to eat better for longer, it probably has very real benefits in terms of an individual's overall health. perhaps ironically, given the nature of this discussion, it is probably an additive, fluoride, that has done more than any other single thing to achieve the improvements seen.

[Carrot Top]

For example, your parents may have gone to burger places as teenagers on the weekend, but were they being brought there for dinner 2 or 3 times a week?  They drank Coco Cola but were they downing it in Big Gulp sizes or in a 10 or 12 oz bottle?  Did they have a cola when they went out to the burger place or were theyalso  having it with their school lunches?

←

That reminds me. I just saw a photo somewhere of a new model mini-van coming out this year that has been designed with a table and chairs in the back instead of regular seats.

( )

(No, I'm not kidding.)

[docsconz]

The current trend in artisinal food products leading to smaller farms is IMOP really driven in large part, by chefs who are looking for better tasting items for their customers as well as coinciding with farmers looking for profits in an increasingly difficult atmosphere for smaller farming enterprises. The health benefits and the politics (save the earth) are adjunct to quest for profits and taste. There are similarities between great restaurants and large fast food chains. We often tend to overlook these because we often like to demonize large corporations and promote small enterprises.

Few people start a small farm and grow micro greens because of altruism.

John, how many of these farmers, do you really know? I can introduce you to more than a few who would disagree vehemently with you. Sure they are in business and hope to turn a profit, for without one it is difficult to continue. I daresay, though that if not for altruism and desire for a certain lifestyle, most of these people would not be doing what they do. Unlike big agribusiness, there is not a lot of money in the field compared to the amount of work and risk that goes into it. The fact is that most of these farmers feel very good about what they do and for the reasons they do it. The financial returns simply are not the reasons though. That they do feel good about what they do and the reason that they are making enough money to stay in business, is largely for the reasons you ascribed, however, as chefs do appreciate and demand quality and an increasing segment of the population is as well - ue to a significant extent to article's like Pollan's and movements like Slow Food.

I do think Pollan has correctly noted that there is now growth of businesses whose raison d'etre is not profits and good quality and good taste etc. The so called "healthfood" industry. I also believe that the dilemma that an operation like Whole Foods faces, causes them to wrestle with too many goals--the end result of juggling too many criteria is often expensive tasteless and mediocre in quality. people still look for taste--better put--no one buys a tasteless or bad tasting food item because doing so promotes a good cause or is politically correct!

Sometimes people do, because it makes them feel good for other reasons. My wife recently bought some granola from a farmers market. I ate it expecting it to be good, but it was like eating sawdust. It was terrible. I certainly won't be buying that again no matter how good it might be for me.

There is some irony, at least for me, in a trend that sees chefs using the same chemicals that have long been used by the mass food industry to make foods taste better--gums, guar gum or xanthan gum for example. By the way--isn't arrowroot a chemical additive? Baking soda?

And isn't Homeru Cantu using products that are highly processed and of little nutritional value--edible paper for eg?

(just thought I'd throw this last stuff in to help--clarify the issue!)

Ah, the "C" word! Not all "chemicals" are created equal and not all synthesized chemicals are either, a point that I expect you will agree with. That these "chemicals" have been around the food supply in one form or another in one place or another for quite some time is really beside the point. What makes them relevant for this discussion though is that in no case that I am aware of have nutraceutical claims been made for any of them. I am all for them if they are used in such a way as to enhance my gastronomic pleasure.

In the end--there are no neat little packages of wisdom here. (Doc may be right).

We(the intellectuals who ponder all this) are in danger of paralysis due to intellectual overload.

It is one thing to ponder and quite another to agonize.

I do agree with Pollan that we should eat first and foremost for pleasure--we are truly blessed that we can do this--there are far too many people who eat to survive. But I believe that each person should balance their own criteria and choose their diet based on common sense and facts.

Pollan does a prety good job in the piece in question at providing some perspective but in the end he can't seem to avoid making a recommendation as to what and how we should eat.

another piece of irony--(I just can't seem to resist!)

those large multinational food conglomerates we love to trash are more likely to help solve world hunger (at least alleviate it) than any small local organic, biodynamic etc farms and farmer's markets!

see --simple and to the point!!!

←

John, you are consistent in your defense of large agribusiness in this topic and elsewhere. One of the reasons many are so distrustful of them is that their raison d'etre is profit and not altruism. Of course not as that is what business is. If the nature of the business were to look for long-term profits and sustainability over short term gains and maximizing current profits for stakeholders, concerns would be much less. However, they are responsible to current stakeholders and maximizing current and near-term profits potentially at the expense of later generations. In addition the stakes are huge. Is it any wonder that so many are suspicious of their motives and their actions? It is not as if big business in general has historically cared for anything other than profits. That is not to say that big business is evil or hasn't contributed great things to the world or even that what large agribusiness is doing and has done is necessarily wrong or not good. At least some of it probably is. Sometimes the interests of big business and the rest of the world do intersect, but their motives must constantly be scrutinized.

[K8memphis]

"But it's so interesting that you said 45 minutes of weights. Dude, it did not work and believe me, I was pissed. It's the whole insulin thing and glycemic index and the being 50."

well, the latter can certainly be a factor.  It can prevent you from working out with sufficient intensity.  From what I've seen, most people who lift for the cardio/caloric-reduction benefits don't lift anywhere near heavy enough....or do enough compound lifts.

←

Good point. I sweated wrong three times a week for a year. My bad.

[annecros]

"But it's so interesting that you said 45 minutes of weights. Dude, it did not work and believe me, I was pissed. It's the whole insulin thing and glycemic index and the being 50."

well, the latter can certainly be a factor.  It can prevent you from working out with sufficient intensity.  From what I've seen, most people who lift for the cardio/caloric-reduction benefits don't lift anywhere near heavy enough....or do enough compound lifts.

←

Good point. I sweated wrong three times a week for a year. My bad.

←

Isn't muscle mass heavier than fat? Seems I remember that from son's lifting in high school and college.

[lperry]

Wow. I missed a lot while I was at work.

Thanks, Carrot Top, for the corn story. I'm going to look at it with my own biases and interpret it as a Mom who is short on time, but given the choice, would prefer a nice ear of corn (albeit, raw) over a candy bar. Where is that food replicator.....

I also want to go back to something that has sort of drifted in and out of the discussion, and that is the quality of our great great great grandparents' diet. I didn't interpret Pollan's stance as promoting that diet, just promoting the whole foods in it from a nutrition standpoint. For example, my ancestors are Irish. It would probably not be such a great thing for me to subsist wholly on potatoes. However, a potato is nutritionally superior to a box of instant potato powder. Tastes better too.

After reading everything I missed today, I'm also trying to find common ground among the people here, so here goes.

1. Food is good.

2. We should enjoy life.

3. Sometimes it's hard to get good food, and that can keep us from enjoying life to the fullest.

What constitutes "good" food, who should provide it, what their motives might be, and whether or not there really is a nutritional "crisis" seem to be the dividing factors. And those points bring us to the most mentioned common ground issue:

4. Ain't nobody gonna tell me what to do.