So... I just finished up the introduction to another Michael Pollan book: In Defense of Food. In it, he briefly describes what he believes to be the downfall and almost extinction of food. He claims that back in the day, our diet (the food we ate) was dictated primarily by culture and tradition. In other words: we ate what our momma gave us - there weren't any nutritional guidelines on the back of the milk cartons she bought from the corner store (there weren't any growth hormone surprises in them either for that matter). He claims that we were healthier back then and reaped not only the biological rewards but also the cultural ones - we enjoyed eating for eating's sake and had a closer connection to our food and the land from which it came. It had been this way for countless generations.Our contemporary situation, he claims is a world away from this. The "food" we now purchase in the supermarket has been through countless stages of processing, during which it's original state is drastically altered, turning out something that might resemble its original condition, but in actuality is far from it. One of his main points of concern is that during these processes, additional nutrients are added to the edible's make up - the problem being that these additional nutrients are dictated by nutritionists and scientists who's research and findings are flawed and continually changing. Not only that, but food has become a huge industry achieving billions of US dollars for those involved, changing the way that we manufacture (grow, process, distribute) and perceive it: Our food has been industrialized! He aptly names the result of this food mutilation as the "Western diet" stating that wherever this diet migrates, diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and the like are hot on its tale.
Now, this idea that Pollan promotes: the notion of returning to "the good 'ol days" of food, might seem like a highly romanticized one (one that is actually becoming easier and easier to do with the recent push for organic, sustainable local produce). However, he makes a good point by pointing out that the state of our health in the west, when compared to our well being not even a generation ago, is poor - which is kind of funny when you think about the push for "healthy" eating and good nutrition that we westerners have been experiencing over the past couple of decades.
Which brings me to my title question "Am I orthorexic?" Orthorexia: a condition in which people have an unhealthy obsession with healthy eating. What do you think, do we?
4 comments:
As a society I think that we have become orthorexic in a way. I think that they way we count calories and how everything has a low fat version is unhealthy. But I think that the reason that we have become so obsessed with those things is because too many of our foods have become industrialized. In turn making us as a society fatter. The fact that people have to write books to remind us that food that is natural is much better for us than that processed junk just goes to show how backwards everything is. Does that answer your question?
Jean Baudrillard has some interesting thoughts I think applicable to the subject. In a Reader's Digest version, consumers purchase not inorder to fulfill needs, but rather to pay into a system of participation. I think that more often than not, people are more interested in the idea or image of rather than the actuality of. At risk of sounding redundant to those that know me, nature's way is the better way. Period. Along with that are Nature's harsh realities, that we as a race have trouble choking down, specifically that we are not the end all of creation and our place is (justifiably) as precarious as any other's among the living. For us to think that we can cheat Nature and produce supplements and synthetics guised as nourishment only invites a rude awakening from the fantasy land of human=God.
I think you would like this book Ted. I'm almost done with it and am planning on recommending it to all I encounter (have started already).
One point, along the lines of nature that Pollan makes is that, sure it's healthy for us to eat whole, unprocessed foods, but it also ensures that we act as a responsible link in the food chain. As we choose to purchase locally produced, unprocessed "organic" food items, we help to support those (farmers and the like) who understand and allow nature's cycle to do what it's been doing for thousands of years, IE: fertilize and defend itself. Not only that, but we simultaneously choose not to support a system that promotes the opposite for financial profit.
In this book he lays out some practical advice on how we can go about doing this. One recommendation I like is that when shopping at the supermarket, pretend that your great-grandmother is by your side and only purchase those food items that she would recognize as food. When you look at it that we, you truly come to realize that the vast majority of items on the store shelves claiming to be food, really aren't.
I think in our society it would be easy to become orthorexic with the constant change in the definition of a "healthy diet". I can identify with the author's definition of the Western Diet after living in southern Germany for a year and observing their lifestyle along with their diet. We all know that as improtant as diet is, lifestyle and how active a person is will have a huge effect on health. I walked everywhere in Europe! Plenty of people don't even own a car yet as soon as I came home I didn't walk anymore because I have my car and that is our lifestyle! I know I am rambling but I also have a bone to pick with how food here has become industrialized. I personally don't mind spending extra to eat organic and healthy but there are some low income families that can't afford it. I find that sad and frustrating.
Post a Comment