Unhappy Meals

[hazel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magaz ... ei=5087%0A
This is an article called "Unhappy Meals" that is in the New York Times today. It is a little long, but I think you will enjoy it. Especially Tex and Polly and Joanna and others who are interested in food and nutrition.

[starfire]

Thanks, good article!!

Love, Shirley

[cludwig]

Thanks for sharing...That was a great article.

Love,
Cristi

[tex]

Thanks,

That is an excellent article, (and definitely long, also). I thought at first that he was just writing another pitch for vegetariansim, (well, he is, I guess), but he does have some very good points, along the way.

The best stuff seems to be on the last three pages, (well, I thought they were interesting observations, anyway). For example on page 10:

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.

On page 11, (this is something we already knew, of course):

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.

And on page 12, his final point is rather disappointing, since it is unattainable in a world that is already pushing it's food production limits. Prior to this, he has already admitted that only the well-heeled among us can afford to eat well, so this is no surprise, but the fact of the matter is, if we were to abandon the huge monoculture food production systems, and stop using commercial fertilizers and chemicals, (or even just significantly reduce their usage), starvation would envelope most of the world in a very short period of time. Eating healthy would quickly take a back seat to the reality of just trying to get enough food of any kind to stay alive. IOW, the "catch" is that only a small percentage of the population can take advantage of the advice in this article, because the world cannot support these changes for the masses.

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.

What he omits, in that conclusion, is the fact that diversificaton, and reduced inputs of commercial fertilizers and chemicals, will result in a huge reduction in overall production volume, and the world no longer has the luxury of having significant surplus production capacity. Population increases are pushing production technology to the limits, in many areas, and it can only get worse. Otherwise, a very good article, well researched, and filled with a lot of very good points.

Tex

[Polly]

Kathy,

Thanks for sharing this most interesting article. As you noted, I love to read the latest on nutrition. And this article covered so much important ground.

I am certainly not as qualified as Tex to comment on the food supply and production issues. But I do know that in my area, new little "mom and pop" organic farms are springing up every year. And they are very popular. Many of them run co-ops, and and the local chain grocery stores buy fresh produce from them to offer to customers. It is labelled as local organic produce and is bought immediately (and preferentially) by customers. The $$$ issue is a biggie, I agree (the fact that it costs $$$ to eat well).

Thanks again!

Love,

Polly

[barbaranoela]

Hazel/Kathy

Great article-----thanks---

And I am a *scanner* (not a good thing to do) but this article has my full attention----
Lou is reading after me----
And am sending it to my son too-----

Luve Barbara the X-scanner

[Liz]

Very intersting, thank you Kathy. Makes you wonder just what you should be comsuming with what??

I have sent a link to my daughter. She has advocated organic foods for some years & in fact the resturant that she & her husband owned was organic. It made the cost of food a fair bit higher but people are apparently will ing to pay for what they want.

Love

Liz