The best of these interviews so far has been with Amy Goodman and Sharif Abdek Kouddous on Democracy Now. They tell him at the beginning that their “food rule” for him is “no sound bites” and he plays along (probably eager for the chance to elaborate really). Even if you have read his books and/or heard him talk, and he does do a lot of repeating, as I guess is necessary, this interchange is worth watching. As he does in the other interviews, he really brings together the complexity of the food culture with clear ways out of many of the tangles we’re in but he goes a bit deeper than the rest and seems a bit more forthright.

My favorite point is his mention of the feminist/labor issues around food and how processed food and classic feminism went, unfortunately, hand in hand due to the need for more income and less entrapment of women in a domestic role. I think this questions gets to the heart of our daily food life; who cooks for us, why don’t we cook ourselves, why don’t we prioritize the time and money to eat well? I really feel that addressing these questions and making changes that align with our heart-of-heart values with the answers can be really empowering, healing, and have great impact on the world.

My least favorite point is his use of the word “fat” as if there is one category and none of the members of that category have any distinction. I know he understands this because he is very current on the research on the role of fat in the diet. People generally understand that there a “good fats” and “bad fats” so he could just at least say “bad fats” but he could take it a step further and separate out whole, traditional fats from industrial oils. He does this already with meat. There is no such thing as meat as one category- there are animals that are eaten that have completely different diets and nutritional profiles even though they are technically the same animals. He explains that he eats less meat than he used to and he eats different meat than he used to (only grass fed for beef for example). I wish he would make the same distinction with fat. He mentioned that school lunches are so deplorable because it is the disposal method for surplus cheap food and because the meals have calorie minimums not maximums. He says the meals need to have less fat- well school lunches have low-fat milk, but we know that’s not really the best choice in terms of providing whole food. So schools have followed the low-fat mantra, but are still terribly unhealthy. He doesn’t really mean that they need less fat, they need less of the processed foods and chemicals that are contributing to disease and obesity in children, which is not whole milk- it is soda (which he does mention), and highly processed carbs, and industrial fats. I wouldn’t change much about what he said, and I don’t think he should bring down the ease with which he communicates by bringing this up in such a way (as I do), but it would help his message stay consistent if he would at least make a careful distinction in this regard.

                          

In Nourishing Traditions, there is one instance that Sally Fallon gives a thumbs up to the increased globalization (and industrialization) of food and that is to the availability of a wide variety of fruits and vegetables year round, which insures that people will eat enough variety of plants. (I’m not sure if she still holds this feeling as so much of her work involves supporting small farmers to provide ecologically grown local food.) Nina Planck also admits that she goes beyond the farmer’s market in winter to have a fresh green salad every day, for her it’s worth it. Ultimately I would probably make the same choice if I didn’t live in a place where lettuce is bright and happy all year, but I wonder if we are “supposed” to eat the kinds of food we are able to find in a given season. Not just to ecological or economic reasons, but because of what our bodies need at a given time.

I’ve tried to explore an intuition that the foods in season are just the foods our bodies need in a given season. That is, could it be that collard greens, broccoli, brussell sprouts and butternut squash, carrots, and yams are all available right now and such timing matches up with my body’s particular nutritional needs in the winter?

It isn’t really an easy thing to answer since people live in such different climates (around the world and different from their ancestry). Apparently, in Traditional Chinese Medicine “the foods that are natural to a particular season carry strong messages of Qi balancing and tonifying for that season.” (more on that here) From my limited understanding of this body of knowledge it seems that winter is yin, and balance is created by consuming yang foods. Yang foods are warming and include crops that take a long time to grow and those that are eaten cooked. This means that the food needed for balance in winter are just those foods that are available in winter, which would make sense

In western medicine terms winter means cold and flu season and SAD (seasonal affective disorder). Both of these issue can be valiantly battled through food, but it isn’t clear to me that the foods available in winter are uniquely rich in immune supporting qualities (for cold and flu) and omega 3’s, Vitamin D, and antioxidants (for SAD). They all have all these things, but not, it doesn’t seem, in special winter abundance.

So, there is some discrepancy on whether foods really appear during the season in which they are best for your body. But even if nature might not be writing me a seasonal prescription I still hold that eating in season is the best way to get the fullest variety of foods over the course of a year. Even though you might be getting less variety in a given season, you get more greens for your green because in-season food is cheaper and over the course of the year the variety is great because you are not just sticking to the veggies and fruits you are comfortable with, but are challenged to try favorite dishes with seasonal alternatives. Sally Fallon may be right that some people wouldn’t eat fruits and veggies at all in the winter if all they had only brassicas and roots to choose from, but maybe that’s only because they’ve never been challenged to go without. (I have to admit that I am still stuck in the naive assumption that fruits and vegetables are the only things that change with the seasons (besides getting venison at hunting season from family, crab for the first (only) time in the year around Christmas, and a limited supply of pastured eggs at the farmer’s market during winter). For a more complete understanding of the seasonality of food, I recommend reading this article from Mother Earth News by Joel Salatin the famous grass farmer.)

There is also the argument that seasonal veggies and fruits are more nutritional because the food is fresher; that is, you eat it closer to the time it was harvested and it was harvested ripe, which is when a plant is also most nutritious to those animals who eat it…clever plants.

In addition to my New Years resolution to eat more greens I am trying not to get too deep into the details of the nutritional profile for a given whole food. Basically, the  clearest way to talk about food in this culture is to use the terms and taxonomy of western science (The Chinese Medicine example above is a refreshing alternative, but unfortunately doesn’t translate as easily). But this view of food I think has obscured our understanding of what we eat, rather than expanded it. Michael Pollan dealt with this issue in his In Defense of Food, basing a discussion of the rejection of Nutritionism with a whole book about nutrition.  Ultimately a healthy relationship with real food will come from people not relying on lab work with fruit flies to tell them what feels good in their bodies. It seems that best place for this research is a kitchen counter or a table with loved ones. That all said though, if you are interested in knowing the nutritional profile (and much more) of a given food  I highly recommend this site (though their data on cholesterol is limited, like most healthy food sites). See what my orange and green winter meals are providing us here and here (respectively).

Also new this new year I started taking Cod Liver Oil (fermented actually). This is the only supplement I take and the reason is for the difficulty in finding food sources of vitamin D. From another Mother Earth News piece (about SAD actually):

Eat D-licious foods. Only a few foods contain much vitamin D. Sources of vitamin D include cod liver oil (1,360 IU per tablespoon); oily fish such as salmon, sardines and mackerel (about 350 IU per 3.5 ounces); eggs (about 20 IU per yolk); and fortified milk, soy milk and orange juice (98 IU per 8-ounce serving).

                          

Increasingly we seem to learn that there is mainly only disadvantage in the heavy processing and even the fortifying of foods. The more we learn about what whole foods have to offer, the more we seem to figure out that our refined-then-”enriched” versions are weak or even detrimental in comparison. A recent study of folic acid fortification shows flaws in the thinking that a vitamin is a vitamin is a vitamin no matter what the form or context.

Whole grains and greens are rich in folate, a B vitamin which has shown to be protective against colon cancer and other bowel issues and is just generally important for overall health. Folate deficiencies also cause fetal neural tube defects and thus pregnant women are urged to take a folic acid supplement. Folic acid is the supplement form of folate, and (doctors urging aside) does not impart the same positive results for cancer risk and whole-food derive folate. In fact as a recent NY Times article outlines, folic acid enriched foods may increase cancer risk.

This particular study lucked out with an easy control group (nutritional studies are difficult because control groups are hard to maintain) for folic acid consumption because Norway do not enrich their food with it like we do here in the US (lucky for the researchers and the Norwegians too apparently)

Turns out that folic acid enriched foods, mainly grains and cereals…um eaten particularly by children, increase cancer risk. So…no advantage there at all.

(Careful readers will note that the study of B vitamin consumption was originally aimed at understanding the relationship between B vitamins and heart disease, not cancer. In the previous post, on sick ancient Egyptians, this relationship was brought up as the likely cause of ancient cardio problems as the Egyptian Elite ate refined grains and were deficient in B vitamins that keep in check an amino acid that breaks down cell walls (which cholesterol goes in to fix…) I will not be at all surprised if the findings for b vitamins supplements (versus the stuff in whole foods) fails to show an impact on heart disease, but that will not be a good enough reason to discount the relationship until they look at food in the form it should be eaten. Maybe a start in the right direction to show the relationship to cancer)

Okay, so food in its most whole form provides all the nutrition we need without the fiddling from food scientists. Lesson: Avoid food with health claims and stick to those that have no package at all. That said, there are ways to “enrich” whole foods yourself and that is by pairing them with foods that help your body absorb all the goodness. And yes, this point loops back to the point about good fat and it being important and not causing heart disease.

I recently read author Nina Planck’s Real Food, What to Eat and Why. Of all of the points she made, I think the rundown of the usefulness of good quality whole fats in the diet was the most important. So I am just going to quote her verbatim: You can keep this all in mind with any catchy “holiday health hints” or such that tell you not to eat your turkey skin or eat low-fat dairy.

Eating protein with fat makes nutritional sense, because all food, and protein in particular , requires fat for proper digestion. As we saw with “rabbit starvation, without fat in the diet, digestion fails and you starve, but not for lack of calories. What is true of meat is true of all fat-and-protein pairs. They go together. Consider, for example, two near-perfect foods: eggs and milk. Both foods are a complete nutritional package, designed for a growing organism’s exclusive nutrition, and must contain everything the body needs to assimilate the nutrients they contain. The fats in the egg yolk aid digestion of the protein in the white, and lecithin in the yolk aid metabolism of its cholesterol. The butterfat in milk facilitates protein digestion, and saturated fat in particular is required to absorb the calcium. Calcium, in turn, requires vitamins A and D to be properly assimilated, and they are found only in the butterfat. Finally vitamin A is required for production of bile salts that enable the body to digest protein. Without the butterfat, then, you don’t get the best of the protein, fat-soluble vitamins, or calcium from milk. That’s why I don’t eat, and cannot recommend, egg white omelets and skim milk. They are low-quality, incomplete foods.

In each classic pair, fats help the body assimilate, use, or convert essential nutrient.

Fat and protein
Roast chicken (with the skin)
Eggs (with the yolks)

Fat and vitamins
Vitamins A, D,E and K are fat-soluble, eat them with fat

Fat and Beta-Carotene
Buttered carrots
Collards with fatback
Spinach salad with bacon
Flank steak with arugula
Beef with broccoli

Saturated fat and Omega-3 fats
Fish with butter or cream sauce

Saturated fat and calcium
Whole milk
Yogurt, cheese, and sour cream made from whole milk.

Each new piece of research reminds me that the most we should do with food is grow it in healthy soil, and prepare it in a way that our bodies can best use it. For some things that means raw (like dairy and fruit), eaten cooked or raw with some useful fats (like most veggies and meats), or fermented (particularly cabbage and other meant-to-ferment veggies as well as grains, ie sourdough, and some legumes ie soy)

Here are some particularly delicious whole meals:

                          

The first was a goodbye to Nancy’s whole milk yogurt. (sigh) I love Ken Kesey, I love Oregon, I love their containers. What I don’t love   is explained in the letter below that I sent through their website. I’ll let you know if I get a response.

Unless they can prove some careful way of preparing their powdered milk I will stick to Straus, which uses just whole milk and cultures.

Dear Nancy’s,

I am confused about discrepancy between the statements on your whole-milk products and your website which denounce the use of thickeners and your ingredient list which has non-fat milk powder as an additional ingredient to whole milk and cultures.

After years of eating your yogurt I have now switched to Straus Yogurt, who has nothing in their whole milk yogurt but whole milk. I eat whole-fat products because we need the fat to absorb the calcium and other nutrients and because low-fat products are processed foods which I stay away from. A main ingredient of low-fat foods I am interested in avoiding is powdered milk, used often to add body and flavor to a depleted product. Milk should not be subject to high heat as it damages the fats. As explained by Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food “powered milk contains oxidized cholesterol, which scientists believe is much worse for your arteries than ordinary cholesterol.”

So, why on earth do you add powdered milk to your whole milk products? And even more confounding, why do you say in multiple places that you only use “pure milk” or that “Because we take the extra time to fully culture our products, they are naturally thick and creamy. We never add ingredients that are meant to stabilise or thicken dairy products.” While non-fat milk powder isn’t artificial, it is still a processed food that hardly qualifies as pure. You may be following the letter of your statements but not the spirit.

I have shared the switch to Straus yogurt on my food blog, www.mindtomouth.org, and would welcome your comments if you care to explain the reason that you use non-fat milk powder and whether or not you have an explanation as why its use is consistent with your statements about not adding thickeners and only using pure milk.

Regards,

Sage

Okay, the second one is tricky, and honestly I don’t feel like I’ve gotten enough good information to make a really informed decision about the use of this product. But I feel like the lack of consistent information is what has made me decide to just avoid it.

I was attracted to agave because it is cheaper than maple syrup and, honestly, I was being well-marketed to. Lots of natural processed foods had agave on the label and that made them easier to buy (like ketchup or cookies). I was eating it on waffles and yogurt (Nancy’s whole milk at that point…).

The Weston A Price foundation recently published a piece about agave in their journal that explained agave’s high fructose levels as just as detrimental to the body as the High Fructose Corn Syrup. Both were explained as subject to industrial processing and should be avoided. You can see that report here (its a pdf).

But I don’t like to just follow WAPF blindly, and after looking into the brand I bought (Madhava) it seemed like there might be two different products, the syrup from the Blue Agave, same as tequila, and the syrup from the Salmiana agave, and two different processing methods, Blue agave using heat and possibly chemicals to extract the syrup and the Salmiana syrup is apparently processed using ” gentle enzymatic action”.

So the controversy actually gets a bit weird and comes down to two or three people with known and unknown special interests. There is not a lot of neutral information about agave and quotes from various sources (health blogs etc) about its production seem too come back to the same two sources (see articles below). The biggest problem I couldn’t solve is whether or not agave contains starch. That seems like a pretty straight forward inquiry.

Natural News published two articles that cover the question of the quality and healthfulness of the syrup (everyone agrees that it is not a traditional sweetener as the process for extraction was developed in the 90’s, and I think this is ultimately why WAPF is opposed).

One, the anti-agave side, is written by Rami Nagel and based on information largely from this guy Russ Bianchi (who has some company, adept solution inc. that has no website…). Nagel was the co-author on the WAPF article which is also dependent on a good deal of information about  agave processing from Bianchi. (It was a bit frustrating to see a lack of more rigorous fact-finding on the part of WAPF who I depend on for reliable information, just goes to show to always check out multiple sources).

The other article is a rebuttal to Nagel’s piece written by the owner of Madhava. He seems to know Bianchi personally and have some negative feelings about the problems Bianchi’s opinions about agave has caused to the industry. His information is convincing, but vague- things like “enzymatic processes” are not explained in a functional way, so it leads me to feel there is more marketing involved than education.

At this point the whole thing became too much. I tried to parse out whether or not what I had been dripping on waffles was really going to hurt me, which seemed to come down how bad high level of fructose are for you, which seemed to come down to starch. Again, this could not be verified as there was too much conflicting information. The most consistent info did seem to come down in favor of agave, particularly on the glycemic index measure (which I think is misleading because it only looks at glucose, not fructose). I decided that just on the basis of it being a new process and a weird three-guy controversy I was just going to avoid it. (Not to mention the politics involved, and use of indigenous land and labor…)

Ultimately, I decided to put my mouth in charge and when I really really tasted the agave it just seemed a bit too intense. So raw honey and maple syrup it is. There is a positive side to these good sweeteners being expensive- forced moderation. I think that the taste-test is the ultimate lesson because many foods, not just agave, are mired in controversy (traditional fats for one) and it just doesn’t seem worth precious time to get caught up in the back and forth on the ever un-verifiable internet. I know that Straus tastes better than Nancy’s and Agave tastes processed and super sweet.

I think having good information about a product provides us with a much needed limit in choice when it comes to packaged food, but just a quick glance at the back of a product is revealing- if you need to research it, it is probably best avoided.

                          

How in the world is he going to determine which ones are “the best” for everyone?  Are these individual rules really improving people’s lives & health or are they just maxims?

(Maybe it was just the latest interview with him in Mother Jones that rubbed me the wrong way in terms of following his approach to things. When asked about reactions to they pithy subtitle of his last book he mentions that “mostly plants” got a reaction from the Weston A. Price Foundation who he describes as “fierce in their love of animal fat. And with pastured animal fat, healthy animal fat, a lot of what they say is right. But they really don’t like plants.” Sally Fallon did write an open letter to Pollan about the necessity of non-plant foods in the human diet but there is considerable use of plants in the foods supported by her and the research of Dr. Price.)

Maybe this rules project is his attempt to flesh-out that subtitle.  Attempts to distill a way of living into a few quick truths always leaves something out; that must be why we need  so many of the quick fixes- to fill in the blanks and contradictions.

What I think is funny about this whole thing is that the amount of responses seems to indicate that enough people have their own rules about eating and don’t really need books or tv shows (or blogs) to guide them. But sort of paradoxically the consumption of information about what to eat is higher than ever.

It seems that with each piece of new information the greater the number of little contradictions and conflicting guidelines with existing information, thus people feel compelled to consume more information and opinions in hopes of finally getting it right.

I read a lot of this stuff, from books to blogs to comment sections of the NY Times. Conflicting information abound and conversations about diet (As Pollan points out in the MoJo interview) has reached a level nearing religion, with certain miracles of changes in health proving that one sect of one diet or another is the ultimate truth. Why is it that we want to consume as much information about food as they want to give? Will Americans ever form a cultural diet that is sustainable (ie healthy) so we can stop trying to figure out what to eat?

(Recent tip lists include this from The Cheeseslave, which I pretty much agree with, and an increasing number of “healthy food on a budget” lists and “eating green” that I think give minimum guidance (cooking with a microwave??!!) and maximum magaziney turns of phrase)

                          

Wheatley’s work focuses heavily on leadership in and organization of the workplace. Particularly after reading Steven Greenhouse’s “The Big Squeeze” it is clear that most people’s jobs are like cogs in an awkward machine. If companies were to move into a more 21st century understanding of human potential and the important of relationship many of the problems in the treatment of workers described in Greenhouse book would be addressed.

In Michale Pollan’s most recent book “In Defense of Food; and eater’s manifesto” he describes the problem of nutritionism, which is basically a reductionist approach to food- an appreciation of only their specific parts (some isolated nutrients) and not of the relationships of those parts or the food’s relationship with our bodies’ systems. The video below talks about the book’s concepts generally but addresses the problems of reducing a carrot down to simply beta carotene that leaves us with very little understanding of the value of this vegetable. Worth watching.

In addition to needing better understanding of our food, our food system as a whole could improve with some of Wheatley’s ideas about organizations and leadership. Currently there are at least five agencies that have some role in regulating food and none of them work with each other (big surprise). Huge improvements would be made with greater communication between these agencies and a better understanding of the relationships between their various goals and interests would lead to a system much more in line with reality.

The approach to organizations and leadership that Margaret Whealey believes in is coherent and intensely positive. Recent events, like the election of Barack Obama, indicate to me that we are more than ready for a similar approach in our various efforts for change.

                          

But its clear from presidential polls that the credit crisis may shift that advantage with growing support for the candidate that is more likely to address the root causes of the economic situation. So this uncertainty of the markets has a number of silver linings: more socialist solutions are seen as necessities- we might start to feel like we pay taxes for things that actually benefit the wellbeing of our communities rather than wars; support of a more comprehensive even holistic approach to policy making with equality at its core; and the simple fact that leaner times seem to be making us shift our resources to goods and activities that reconnect us with our communities, our families, our health.

Yes, I’m just so full of hope this Saturday afternoon- read The Food Issue of the NYT mag and get the same bug. Michael Pollan’s (long, but stick with it) piece (that I mentioned was coming), this new media piece about the refrigerators of food activists (note that they walk the talk- for the most part), and a refreshingly more extensive word from Mark Bittman (I love the videos, but I appreciate his actual articles as well)

P.S. How did they do this image?!

                          

Michael Dimock, president of Roots of Change discussed prioritizing these fundamental principles while raising these issues to a national and mainstream conversation:

Change the current goals which frame the system- currently the goal is cheap calories, shift this to health (of humans, communities, planet) and food sovereignty; Keep the process of feeding people properly connected to the health care system and ensure local control through national policies that support the regionalization of food.

Secretary of State of Minnesota, Mark Ritchie, had such a deep and broad understanding of these issues there was mention of him possibly filling the cabinet position on agriculture. I will take any opportunity there is to hear him speak again, he is spot on. Great to hear a non-Californian perspective on eating locally, how to make the case for local food systems in difficult climates (hint cabbage and canning). Of particular relevance was his insight into the the ways in which misguided or non-existent regulation is at the source of the crises in the food and financial sectors.

In regards to how the next president might specifically approach the issues with our food system Michael Pollan raised the point, which he will apparently also be addressing in the next Sunday NYTimes Magazine, that though the candidates do not address food issues per se in their stump speeches they do address them in their three main focuses of climate change, energy independence, and health care. Clearly no progress can be made to these agenda items without addressing the failing food system. More on Pollan’s point and specifics about the candidates position (or lack thereof) of food issues, see recent Grist article “Politics and the dinner table”

Judith of Full Belly Farms was very encouraging with her platform for a family farmer for every household. Why not? She also noted that the three newest and growing types of farmers are young people, women, and immigrants. (They have apprenticeships …tempting isn’t it?) Her farm is to be commended for their attention to labor, she spoke very well valuing of those that do physical work for the rest of us to live and also made the important point that a diverse farm like hers (versus a sprawling monoculture) can provide year-round work. This is crucial for allowing workers to have roots (so to speak) in their community and continuity in their lives.

Again, it being a food system reformer love fest the discussion continued to feel uplifting an encouraging (and I can’t say that wasn’t appreciated). Michael Pollan laid out his idea of the Sunshine Agenda, getting food off oil and back on solar power- shocking concept really.

Ultimately, the next administration is unknown so the question of what it should do on food issues was a little open ended and the conversation was all over the map. Eventually it got down to the responsibility of the consumer and, since it was held on a college campus, how to get involved. (Dimock encouraged everyone to work in DC, so props to the Blumenauer team for your hard work).

The take home message for me was not so much about the role of the president, but really about our personal role as consumers. Even, actually I think especially, during a time of great economic uncertainty it is crucial to support the positive aspects remaining in our food system and resist buying into cheap food. We need to convince producers that the bottom line is health and fairness, not cheap calories. Cheap food pays companies who only pay their workers enough to buy more cheap food and we see no progress.

As I try to demonstrate in previous and future posts there are ways to buy into better food by being aware of what you buy, what you cook, and the ways in which these two things can save you money in other areas even though, yes, you may in some cases have spent more on the actual food.

The more of us that do this the more of an impact it will have.

On that note, one more point made at this talk was the call to have the next president turn the White House lawn into a functional organic kitchen garden. More about that can be read here with TheWhoFarm folks and their wacky bus (Which I saw outside the Obama Office in my neighborhood and assumed it was a Burning Man piece)

So, with a eye towards all these issues, Vote with Your Fork at your next shopping trip and Vote on election day.

                          

The reader’s question was originally posed to Michael Pollan and I assume was a response to this Earth Day article on the bothering to do ones part for the world by growing a garden. On the first read of this essay I thought it was a bit offensive and not as meaningful as he has the potential for. His use of a Chinese ‘evil twin’ to illustrate the futility of going green addresses the difficult fact that growing nations are becoming as limitless in their resource use as we are in the US but seems to shift the blame from our own communities’ contributions. His next door neighbor likely offsets any good his green efforts are making. And anyway it just isn’t helpful to think about your small individual efforts of conservation and sustainability compared to others who are living wastefully. Because forget evil twin, it’s way beyond a one to one canceling out- the negative lifestyles so outweigh the positive ones, it’s too overwhelming to even go there.

So Pollan was working to extol the virtues of growing a garden despite how insignificant it may seem. And this reader wonders what the practicality is of everyone growing their own food. As if we are there yet! Wouldn’t it be grand if this was an issue we had to deal with. There are lots of ways to rationalize yourself out of growing a garden- its hard work, you have no space, you don’t know how, it sounds boring…but not by wondering if its really so efficient for you to grow a garden, concerned that if everyone did it would be a wasteful use of their lawns.

Unlike the Freakenomics guys, I really don’t think the biggest concern with food should be efficiency. This is the kind of bottom-line thinking that got us into the wasteful and problematic system we are trying to reform today. The top concerns for food production should be health, flavor, and fairness. Using this reductionist analysis of the number of motions made towards the quantity of food we produce apparently works out that specialization and centralization is more efficient- but what does it mean for our society that most of us take no responsibility for what we eat all day? I don’t know that anyone would argue that this system of measuring success by the least number of motions required has gotten us anywhere desirable.

I’ve been thinking about these issues over the summer while creating our first substantial kitchen garden. While first starting out, heaving the dirt into a pile through the age-old practice of double digging under the hot and blue July sky I certainly felt inefficient. I am not great at shoveling and we are just learning the requirements of producing a reliable vegetable garden. But is it any more efficient for me to be sitting in my lawn chair reading a book eating tomatoes grown hundreds of miles away by someone who doesn’t have the opportunity for leisure? I could work on my tan and maybe later drive to the gym rather than wielding a shovel out in my yard. If we are measuring efficiency with the few bearing the bulk of work for the many it becomes necessary to weigh efficiency with fairness, with sharing the burden of everyone’s needs. I don’t really enjoy pulling the cat tongue textured green beans from awkward vines, but better me than anyone else right? Because I work in an office all day does that give me some kind of pass for not taking responsibility for my own food because I am not that good at it?

Specialization may work out on paper, but the fact that most of us do the same thing all day doesn’t make for the happiest and most fulfilled populous. I’m with Pollan that you should try growing some of your own food, because you can- for all that this ability means in today’s world.

                          

Why does the A.H.A. continue to insist that saturated fat should be avoided, if these trials repeatedly show that high saturated fat diets lead to better cholesterol profiles than low-saturated fat diets? And how many of these trials have to be done before the National Institutes of Health or some other august institution in this business re-assesses this question? After all, the reason the food guide pyramid suggests we eat things like butter and lard and meats sparingly (and puts them high up in the pyramid) is that they contain saturated fat. This is also the reason that the A.H.A. wants to lower even further what’s considered the safe limit for saturated fats in the diet.

Is Mr. Taubes right? If eating more saturated fat improved the dieters’ cholesterol profile (while also enabling them to lose weight even though their calories were not restricted), should the federal government and the American Heart Association stop warning people about saturated fats?

Hm, Eat whole foods and eat less. Sounds familiar. I nominate Michael Pollan for head of the FDA.