U.S. obesity problem intensifies

[ZirconBlue]

No. I'm pointing out that the original recommendation by the scientists was for less meat, not leaner meat -- and that the reasons for changing that recommendation to "leaner meats" were political and economic, not scientific (and that this is merely a single illustration of a much broader phenomenon).

Who cares where the message comes from, if it is, indeed, healthier? And, without specifying exact amounts and types, eating "less" meat might not be as healthy as eating leaner meat. Have you ever noticed how much leaner pork is now than it was 30 years ago? That's a change driven by a quest for "leaner", rather than "less".

We have been trained not to trust our instincts and intuitions about food choices

With good reason. Our instincts and intuitions about food developed in a very different environment to the one we live in now. One in which food was relatively scarce, regular exercise was required for survival, and people often didn't live long enough to suffer the long-term consequences of unhealthy diets. Their "instincts" drove them to get as many calories they could and kept them alive long enough to reproduce. That's a long ways away from an optimal diet that would keep them alive for 7, 8, or 9 decades.

It is our collective brainpower that has allowed us to extend our lifespans and improve our quality of life, not our instincts. At this point, our instincts are what's holding us back.

 

[tyr_13]

You know, I tried an approach quite similar to that with an English teacher once, and it flopped, big time.

I happen to have a degree in English, and can tell you exactly why that is. In Literature, the whole point is to discuss not only what the author said, but how they said it. It's entirely possible to discuss, analyze, and criticize specific idea put forward in a work, literature or scientific, without having read the work itself. One just needs the idea and the supporting, or unsupported, evidence.

I'm not criticizing his prose, grammar, or flow. I'm criticizing specific ideas. If he really didn't put forth these ideas, then that's a valid reason to not discuss his use of them. However, this thread isn't the 'Pollan's ideas on diet' thread, and we're free to discuss things besides his work.

How about you first explain to me why I should take even more time than I already have to explain to you what Pollan himself explains -- and much better than I could? What, you have time for typing, but no time for reading? Not even time to watch YouTube videos? You want links?

Because you seem interested in talking about it. If you can't or don't want to explain, that's fine. However, don't go whining and moaning about how I can't understand or talk about things if you don't.

I'm not buying his books. I don't care to. From what I've read so far, I wouldn't like them, and somehow it appears I'm pretty much already living his advise despite that.

I make it a habit not to watch every crank someone links to on YouTube.

Do you understand the nature and extent of the role played by government subsidies in agriculture?

Very much so to the point where, if you've read my posts, I'm very critical of them. Nice try though.

And you don't? I mean, I don't think I'd put it quite that way, but whatever the organic movement's roots are, it has absolutely been co-opted by the likes of General Mills -- to such an extent that the designation is essentially meaningless today.

If you want something to be anti-corporate, anti-industrial, then call it that. Don't make up standards like 'organic' and then cry about it when the professionals do it better than you do. It's always been an essentially meaningless designation, an advertising buzz word. So what that it isn't a buzz word that means 'anti-industrial' any more?

Tough to respond to that due to your use of that word: organic. If we can agree to use that here to refer to methods placing more emphasis on polyculture, and on integrated farming techniques, and other alternatives to chemical-based mass monoculture, then I'd ask: Efficient for whom? Do you suppose that farmers who practice large-scale monoculture farming make a lot of money doing so? Since you brought it up, what if the price of oil doubled a few times (and along with it, prices of petroleum-based fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides) -- would it still be more efficient then?

No, we can't agree on that because it's a clearly false dichotomy. polyculture and monoculture are one thing, but monoculture is in absolutely no way chained to 'chemical-based' and polyculture isn't chained to intergrated farming techiques. Besides that, polyculture and monoculture are not what I was talking about in the first place. I've already come out against monoculture.

No, I didn't bring up oil prices. If they went up industrial farming practices would change to adapt, just like they always have. Nice try, but this just isn't part of what we're talking about.

What I was talking about was professional farmers being thousands of times more efficient at growing things on the available land than part time farmers. Industrial farmers have specialized equipment and support businesses specifically for growing food well. Besides that, they constantly invent and adapt new techniques, and keep up on the latest science, to do better and better. No, amateur farmers and hobbyist are never in my lifetime going to be efficient at growing and producing food as the pros. What techniques and technology the pros use doesn't change that at all. Monoculture, polyculture, organic, 'chemical', doesn't matter. The pros are still pros.

One of Pollan's central points is that agriculture in the U.S. is largely designed around economies of scale. The way food is grown has as much to do with the way it is marketed as the other way around; perhaps more (if you're a buyer for a nationwide chain, you can't deal with a host of little guys; you need people who are playing on your level). The shift toward mass monoculture was largely driven by government policy, starting with Ag Secretary Earl Butz's admonition to farmers: "get big or get out".

Which I've already criticized and isn't an argument for horticulture, but ok.

I don't know about "individual scale" farming, but if some degree of de-centralizing and de-industrializing of our system of agriculture can't support our population then obesity may be far less a problem in decades to come, because if you really look at it close, you'll see that we are fast approaching a point at which we aren't going to have a choice about that. But you're assuming that "feeding our population" is the only reason we grow stuff. It isn't. Food exports are also a major source of global economic and political muscle (an observation which goes a long way toward understanding why agriculture is so heavily subsidized by the government).

Of course it isn't, but feeding our population, and other populations, is the main goal.

Population bomb? Not convincing. Even if it were, not an argument against modern agriculture.

 

[Dymanic]

Who cares where the message comes from, if it is, indeed, healthier?

Wait. I argue against the idea that we need scientists to tell us what to eat, then I point out an instance in which the opinion of scientists was trumped by beaurocrats under pressure from private interests, and your response is "Who cares where the message comes from"?

Our instincts and intuitions about food developed in a very different environment to the one we live in now.

Right. For one thing, it was an environment in which the most easily obtained calories were not those rich in fats and sugars, as in, say a Big Mac. A key thing to note is that if it were not for government subsidies insuring a steady supply of, in particular, cheap corn (used to make HFCS, and to fatten beef, and in a host of other products), our present environment would be very different than it is now.

One in which food was relatively scarce, regular exercise was required for survival, and people often didn't live long enough to suffer the long-term consequences of unhealthy diets. Their "instincts" drove them to get as many calories they could and kept them alive long enough to reproduce. That's a long ways away from an optimal diet that would keep them alive for 7, 8, or 9 decades.

I'm confused. Either it's that we now live long enough to suffer the consequences of unhealthy diets, or it's that we now have optimal diets that keep us alive for 7, 8, or 9 decades. I don't see how it can be both.

It is our collective brainpower that has allowed us to extend our lifespans and improve our quality of life, not our instincts.

In the context of health care reform, questions have been raised as to whether extended lifespan automatically equates to improved quality of life. But I think the instinct versus brainpower thing may be a bit of a false dichotomy; when I look back over my life, I realize that at some of those points at which I really got myself in trouble, part of the problem was that my instincts had full access to my brainpower. For all I know, it's happening again right now.

 

[Dymanic]

I'm criticizing specific ideas. If he really didn't put forth these ideas, then that's a valid reason to not discuss his use of them.

The problem appears to be that by obtaining the ideas second-hand, your understanding of them is compromised to a degree that puts you at a disadvantage when it comes to criticizing them. I am interested in what Pollan has to say, and have done my best to convey that, but it's still second-hand, and I don't have an unlimited amount of time available anyway. As a journalism professor, Pollan's skill at conveying ideas (and documenting the supporting evidence) can be expected to far exceed mine.

If you want something to be anti-corporate, anti-industrial, then call it that. Don't make up standards like 'organic' and then cry about it when the professionals do it better than you do. It's always been an essentially meaningless designation, an advertising buzz word. So what that it isn't a buzz word that means 'anti-industrial' any more?

I didn't invent the term "organic", and I'm not particularly interested in the semantics of that. I agree that it is now an essentially meaningless advertising buzzword. It doesn't seem to matter much whether it ever was anything more.

...monoculture is in absolutely no way chained to 'chemical-based' and polyculture isn't chained to intergrated farming techiques.

I agree, for some values of "chained". Large scale monoculture does rely very heavily upon chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, and is also very highly mechanized -- to the extent that planting methods, crop choices, and even the hybridization of seed strains are designed to accomodate the machines, rather than the other way around.

The pros are still pros.

To me, the word "professional" refers to a person who earns money engaging in an activity. Everybody in the food business makes money -- except those who actually grow the food; by the time they get done "supporting businesses specifically for growing food well", most of them are hard pressed to break even.

Population bomb?

No. Peak Oil. And Soil Depletion. The biggest problem I see with current methods of food production is that they are not sustainable.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Wait. I argue against the idea that we need scientists to tell us what to eat, then I point out an instance in which the opinion of scientists was trumped by beaurocrats under pressure from private interests, and your response is "Who cares where the message comes from"?

If the message is scientifically sound -- which you have not denied -- then I don't care who created the message.

Right. For one thing, it was an environment in which the most easily obtained calories were not those rich in fats and sugars, as in, say a Big Mac. A key thing to note is that if it were not for government subsidies insuring a steady supply of, in particular, cheap corn (used to make HFCS, and to fatten beef, and in a host of other products), our present environment would be very different than it is now.

To most people in developed countries, available calories are virtually unlimited. If that were not the case, then they would probably not be "developed" countries.

I'm confused. Either it's that we now live long enough to suffer the consequences of unhealthy diets, or it's that we now have optimal diets that keep us alive for 7, 8, or 9 decades. I don't see how it can be both.

We live longer today because of various scientific advancements, including not only advancements that prevent a lot deaths due to starvation and malnutrition, but also many advancements that have nothing to do with diet. I didn't say that our current diet is an optimal one, nor did I say it was the reason we have achieved longer lifespans.

In the context of health care reform, questions have been raised as to whether extended lifespan automatically equates to improved quality of life.

Yes, but those are discussions about people living into well into "old age". I don't think there are many people questioning that living to 70 is generally better than dying at 30.

But I think the instinct versus brainpower thing may be a bit of a false dichotomy; when I look back over my life, I realize that at some of those points at which I really got myself in trouble, part of the problem was that my instincts had full access to my brainpower. For all I know, it's happening again right now.

How about "instinct" vs "reason"? Our ability to reason, along with our collective accumulated knowledge and a systematic approach to evaluating and using that knowledge -- the scientific method -- are what have allowed us to improve both quality and length of life. We've used these abilities to alter our environment/society such that many of our instincts are now unhelpful or even harmful.

 

[ZirconBlue]

To me, the word "professional" refers to a person who earns money engaging in an activity. Everybody in the food business makes money -- except those who actually grow the food; by the time they get done "supporting businesses specifically for growing food well", most of them are hard pressed to break even.

Um, whether it's the most lucrative career or not, farmers certainly do earn money by farming*. Even if they are "breaking even", then they're earning just enough to offset their expenses. If they go very long not breaking even, they will have to cease being farmers and go into some other line of work.




*Well, those that farm for a living do. I suppose there may be some indepently wealthy hobbyist farmers around.

 

[Dymanic]

If they go very long not breaking even, they will have to cease being farmers and go into some other line of work.

After selling their farms for development. In recent years, it's been happening at an alarming rate in the central valleys of California, some of the richest agricultural land on the planet.

 

[casebro]

After selling their farms for development. In recent years, it's been happening at an alarming rate in the central valleys of California, some of the richest agricultural land on the planet.

Hurrah!

"Richest land" in this case means "most watered", up to 10 feet per year, to grow rice in a desert. Water that could be better spend inner city, so we don't have to drink recycled sewage. All so we can export rice, to maintain a balance of trade, so we can buy more tacky consumer goods from China.

I guess I can see the logic of developing more farm lands.

 

[Dymanic]

"Richest land" in this case means "most watered", up to 10 feet per year, to grow rice in a desert.

I won't argue for rice cultivation necessarily being the optimal use of that land, but in this instance, the "most watered" distinction probably better describes the crop itself than the land it is grown on. The central valleys of California are anything but deserts.

 

[casebro]

I won't argue for rice cultivation necessarily being the optimal use of that land, but in this instance, the "most watered" distinction probably better describes the crop itself than the land it is grown on. The central valleys of California are anything but deserts.

I've driven highway 5. Next time you do, look to the west, from San Jose's latitude down to L.A. The un-irrigated part. Maybe you don't know the definition of desert, but that is it. The fields may be rice paddies, but the valley is a desert.

Or drive Highway 8, to, through, and past the irrigated section of Imperial valley. 10 cuttings of hay per year. But tell me it's not a desert, while drive the to-past parts.

 

[Dymanic]

I've driven highway 5.

I've driven it enough times that I'm pretty sure I could draw a reasonably accurate diagram of every rest stop between LA and the Oregon border. I also once rode a ten-speed bicycle from North Hollywood to Phoenix --in August (past the Salton Sea, through the irrigated section of the Imperial valley you mention, and up through Yuma). I know a desert when I see one.

You are of course free to continue to define "desert" any way you want, but the way it is most often defined is a region receiving an average rainfall of less than 10 inches per year. Not only do the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys not meet that criterion, they also are named for rivers which drain enormous regions to the East. There are large areas of those valleys that would be more accurately defined as "wetlands" than "deserts". Besides that, I wonder if you've considered all of the possible reasons why areas which receive the most irrigation might also happen to be those with the richest soils?

But your mention of water issues is pertinent here, with California now in its third year of severe drought and hundreds of thousands of acres going uncultivated due to lack of water -- in part, so that homeowners in urban areas can enjoy the luxury of looking out on nice green lawns (which, by the way, require more water than just about anything else you can plant). Farms and orchards will fail as a result, and if the developers can get the financing, some of the land will go to strip malls (as if we needed more of those). And you see logic in this? I see it as madness of the highest order.

 

[ZirconBlue]

After selling their farms for development.

Is this a problem?

In recent years, it's been happening at an alarming rate in the central valleys of California, some of the richest agricultural land on the planet.

I'm from Illinois, originally. You know, where the glaciers flattened the land and deposited all sorts of rich, fertile soil? Color me unimpressed with the "rich" agricultural land in CA.

 

[Dymanic]

Is this a problem?

Absolutely.

I'm from Illinois, originally. You know, where the glaciers flattened the land and deposited all sorts of rich, fertile soil? Color me unimpressed with the "rich" agricultural land in CA.

California has been the number one food and agricultural producer in the United States for more than 50 consecutive years. It's also the number one dairy state. California not only produces more than half of the nation's fruit, nuts, and vegetables, but is fifth largest supplier of food and agriculture commodities in the world.

Impressed yet?

 

[casebro]

But your mention of water issues is pertinent here, with California now in its third year of severe drought and hundreds of thousands of acres going uncultivated due to lack of water -- in part, so that homeowners in urban areas can enjoy the luxury of looking out on nice green lawns (which, by the way, require more water than just about anything else you can plant). ...

Lessee, an inch per week, 52 weeks per year, 52 inches per year for the lawn. TEN FEET per year for Imperial Valley farms, that's 120 inches.

"require more water than just about anything else you can plant" ?

I don't think so.

 

[casebro]

Is this a problem?



I'm from Illinois, originally. You know, where the glaciers flattened the land and deposited all sorts of rich, fertile soil? Color me unimpressed with the "rich" agricultural land in CA.

Do you get 16 cuttings of hay in a good year?

 

[Dymanic]

TEN FEET per year for Imperial Valley farms.

The Imperial Valley IS in the desert, and receives something just over a tenth of the rainfall of the Central Valley region, of which it is NOT a part.

 

[bigjelmapro]

The obesity epidemic is a bunch of drivel. Sure, there's a bit of overall weight gain in the US, but this is what happens when you have an aging population coupled with the farce that a low cholesterol/low fat diet is a good one. Solution? A bit of walking (less driving), moderate cholesterol/low carb/moderate fat diet, less processed foods. And a redefining of what it is to be 'obese'. Lastly, to get rid of the assumption that if one is skinny, then they are automatically healthier than someone who is slightly overweight because we all know that this isn't really the case.

Its really not all that difficult.

 

[ZirconBlue]

California has been the number one food and agricultural producer in the United States for more than 50 consecutive years. It's also the number one dairy state. California not only produces more than half of the nation's fruit, nuts, and vegetables, but is fifth largest supplier of food and agriculture commodities in the world.

Impressed yet?

Not really. That has more to do with the climate than the fertility of the soil.

Do you get 16 cuttings of hay in a good year?

Again, that's more to do with a long growing season and mild climate, not soil fertility.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Yay! Thank you for fixing it. Now if I repost what I originally posted, will it break again...?

 

[Dymanic]

Not really. That has more to do with the climate than the fertility of the soil.

I see the problem. I used the phrase "richest agricultural land", which you (quite understandably) interpreted as "richest soil". "Most productive" would have been a better choice of words. The growing of crops requires three things: soil nutrients, water, and sunlight. You can artificially provide the first two, and even the third, though not very efficiently (except that soil quality is not simply a matter of nutrient content alone, but also of structure, and particularly, depth, and the more use of artificial means to provide water and nutrients, the more these aspects are compromised). Natural abundance of the first two (together) is most often found in river valleys. Those places that enjoy an abundance of all three are relatively scarce. The rate at which they are getting scarcer is of great concern to those who recognize it and appreciate the implications. Public awareness of the issue is probably a long way off; it's what journalists (and others) refer to as a "MEGO" issue: My Eyes Glaze Over.