On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Asad Haider <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, of course, I've read all his books, which are often fine in their own > ways, but this is a somewhat separate issue and Pollan's view is too narrow > to really grasp it. The Atkins diet, however we feel about it (certainly it > ignored the important issue of the quality of meat, the methods by which it > is cultivated etc) did represent something of an epistemological rupture in > nutrition, irreducible to its often dogmatic vilification of carbohydrates. > The rupture was the attack on the idea that people get fat because they eat > too much. The new concept was that certain kinds of food, which, due to the > operations of the food industry, people eat in unprecedented quantities > (including the angelic hippie or yuppie foods free of animal-derived > villains) have altered the operations of the body (specifically the hormones > which regulate metabolism). No reason to ignore the content of the article > because it happens to mention the Atkins diet early on. Don't forget that > the dominant nutritional ideology put carbohydrates at the base of its > notorious food pyramid--any ideology critique will have to deal with that, > and perhaps emphasize it in its initial moments.
All of this is true and is tangential to the theme of over-consumption. I think it is a waste of time to argue about the merits of low-carb or low-fat diets or for that matter, vegan diets. I completely reject the premise of this argument that different foods can be compared and ranked on a scale of healthiness by analyzing its chemical constituents. This is scientistic reductionism gone mad! > What does this have to do with overconsumption? Well, it is one example of > the need for real conceptual shifts instead of simple inversions. There is > an ideology of the marketplace that says more is better, and a certain kind > of opposition now wants to argue that less is better. But if Americans eat > less of the things they currently eat, leaving more for the rest of the > world, it does not help anyone much; it just means that throughout the world > people will be satisfying basic energy requirements while getting obese, > diabetic and malnourished (in terms of micronutrients and any beneficial > compounds science has not yet isolated beyond the antioxidant fad), and yet > will feel strangely hungry all day. There is nothing here I disagree with. I think you are being unfair by portraying the over-consumption thesis in very crude terms. > A resolution to the food problem can > only come from seriously high-tech innovative farming solutions, which may > breach the "organic" orthodoxy (some good journalism on that: > http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/02/spoiled-organic-and-local-so-2008). > One pleasantly sci-fi example is the hydroponic skyscraper, but it all means > an end to the reliance on grains and the sensible integration of livestock, > which will eventually be killed and eaten by those interested in > participating in order to convert non-nutritive substances like grass and > worms into nourishment for humans (Pollan is pretty good on this). Ok, now I strongly disagree. There is no need for any new science to get us healthy food. All over the world, people have always had a rich tradition of food and there is a wealth of knowledge accumulated over the centuries about food, which is now being lost thanks to industrial agriculture. Instead of going around trying to invent new fancy technologies for growing food we would do well just to preserve this existing knowledge. -raghu. -- Never say, "Oops!"; always say, "Ah, interesting!" _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
