4 ms·

I've been thinking for a long while, now, about how to stitch together the many threads of thought around diet, nutrition, environment, and economics: 1) eatin

by elangoc 13y ago

I've been thinking for a long while, now, about how to stitch together the many threads of thought around diet, nutrition, environment, and economics: 1) eating a plant-based diet is healthier (Mark Bittman), or at the very least, eating natural things (Michael Pollan) 2) eating meat costs more, and it threatens the environment (http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/commentary/worried-about-climate-change-eat-less-meat http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/commentary/...), including in China (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/11/china-meat.html http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/11/china-meat.html) 3) for that matter, others foods besides meat that come from animals (ex: dairy) have the same effect. Roughly 75% of the world has some degree of lactose intolerance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance) 4) nutrition is more than calorie counting -- it is about getting nutrients in the diet (http://supplementsos.com/blog/how-to-actually-eat-healthily-o-1-per-day/ http://supplementsos.com/blog/how-to-actually-eat-healthily-...) Lentils play an important part as a quality, cheap source of protein. 5) there are ways to make good food affordable to the people who can least afford it (http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/jul/28/new-mobile-food-truck-serves-san-diegos-homeless-d/ http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/jul/28/new-mobile-food-truck-s...) In fact, the idea (or 'business model') of making necessary things affordable to the people who can least afford it as been around for 50 years (http://infinitevisionaries.com/ http://infinitevisionaries.com/) 6) a very important factor to incentivize people to switch diets is knowing that the food will taste good. While it might involve a slight change in cultural diet, this is absolutely possible (http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-dosa-man-of-new-york http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-dos...) 7) the vegetarian diet of Tamils in Tamil Nadu (India) and Tamil Eelam (Ceylon) is wide & varied, largely dairy-free, and mostly gluten free. This largely applies for the other South India states, too. The diet consists in large parts of lentils, leafy greens, vegetables, and spices. 8) in particular, the diet in Tamil Nadu/Tamil Eelam of 50 years ago should be examined, which is before the Green Revolution occurred in India. Back then, many of the healthier grains eaten in large quantities by a large swathe of people (millet, sorghum, finger millet, etc.). 9) An unintended consequence of the Green Revolution in India and China in the 1950's is that, at least in India, many of the healthier grains eaten in large quantities by a large swathe of people (millet, sorghum, finger millet, etc.) were dropped in favor of the far less nutritional white rice, which was for many just a once-in-a-while treat. In North India, the favored, newly-proliferated crop of choice was wheat. (Both rice and wheat are dreadfully water-intensive.) Brown rice doesn't exist there, but in the region, only people in Kerala and Tamil Eelam eat a red rice that is similarly nutritious. Of course, this is said to be not as nutritious as things like finger millet or "thinai" (similar to quinoa). 10) People talk about the importance of vitamin B12, and that you can only get it from animal based sources. But this diet has been around for 4,500 years, people have been just fine. (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/01/indus_civilization_food_how_scientists_are_figuring_out_what_curry_was_like.html http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2013/01/indus_civili...) I'm sure people have been vegetarian for at least 2,000 years of that, if I judge based on the Thirukkural (2,000 year old literature of virtuous maxims, of which 10 talk about not eating meat). There are athletes and body-builders in America who are vegetarian and vegan. So I really think that a restaurant (or at the least, food truck) should pop up selling a variety of vegan Tamil food at a very low price. This would solve so many problems. I've been thinking of this for a long while now, but I would be just happy if someone 'steals' the idea and runs with it. (note: I'm sure there are other ways to achieve low cost, high nutrition, vegan diets in varied, tasty ways, but this is part of my birth tradition. You can treat that as a disclaimer / proof of authenticity. For me, personally, I'm fairly lactose-intolerant, and I'm wondering now that I might be gluten intolerant. I've been trying to be more vegan/vegetarian for the past 5 months, and it's helped a lot in my finances. It hasn't negatively impacted exercising. I'm hoping to see more change once I start cooking!...)

derleth 13y ago
Pollan's work has been questioned: http://saywhatmichaelpollan.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/in-defense-of-food-my-review/ http://saywhatmichaelpollan.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/in-defe... > Pollan’s central thesis is that introducing science into our food system has done more harm than good and that the best thing for all of us would be to go back to eating a more traditional diet. It’s fair to point out that nutritional science has led to some mistakes (such as recommendations to replace saturated fats with hydrogenated oils), but Pollan devotes too much of his effort to dismantling his own shallow caricature of science. It is, in short, the Naturalistic Fallacy run wild, which is quite common when the topic of nutrition comes up. In short: Something being 'natural' is orthogonal to it being 'good' or even 'good to eat'. http://courses.csusm.edu/fallacies/naturalistic.htm http://courses.csusm.edu/fallacies/naturalistic.htm > Roughly 75% of the world has some degree of lactose intolerance Which means nothing to the people who don't have it, whose ancestors evolved to retain lactose tolerance into adulthood for the simple reason that milk is good food, full of proteins, fats, sugars, and vitamins that are just as important to an adult as a child. Just because the default First World diet induces a calorie surplus at this point instead of a calorie deficit does not negate any of milk's benefits. > nutrition is more than calorie counting -- it is about getting nutrients in the diet Everyone knows this. That doesn't mean most First World people need supplements, because they don't. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/supplements/NU00198 http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/supplements/NU00198 > If you're generally healthy and eat a wide variety of foods, including fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, low-fat dairy products, lean meats and fish, you likely don't need supplements.
- elangoc 13y ago
  These points are interrelated. > Which means nothing to the people who don't have it So in the case of lactose intolerance, what's interesting, in fact, is the environmental impact of the fact that the people in the Western world are largely fine with lactose. As the PBS NewsHour story about the causes and effects of China's meat consumption habits shows, Western habits are having a significant influence in the diets of the younger generation in developing countries. The effects of large-scale pollution of water resources is horrific, and competition for water resources is, after oil, the next source of conflict in the world. So yes, it will affect everyone. > Everyone knows this. That doesn't mean most First World people need supplements, because they don't. Sure, First World people don't need supplements, if they have a varied diet. In North America, that's a big if. There are cultural impediments to that varied diet, even for those with the means to afford it. But for many lower-income families, and especially those living in low-income neighborhoods, they experience the "food desert" problem. And they lack the same access to quality foods as more affluent people. That is a systemic issue related to how society (via government) deals with the problem. And the economics of the prices of foods is, in some part, related to the energy requirements which is related to the 90% energy loss up each level of the food chain. There is an environmental impact there. btw: I just threw in the names of Bittman and Pollan as representatives of the ideas of plant-based and natural diets. It's not like they invented the ideas; they're just the most recognizable cheerleaders for them at the moment.

by elangoc 13y ago

derleth 13y ago

Pollan's work has been questioned: http://saywhatmichaelpollan.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/in-defense-of-food-my-review/ http://saywhatmichaelpollan.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/in-defe... > Pollan’s central thesis is that introducing science into our food system has done more harm than good and that the best thing for all of us would be to go back to eating a more traditional diet. It’s fair to point out that nutritional science has led to some mistakes (such as recommendations to replace saturated fats with hydrogenated oils), but Pollan devotes too much of his effort to dismantling his own shallow caricature of science. It is, in short, the Naturalistic Fallacy run wild, which is quite common when the topic of nutrition comes up. In short: Something being 'natural' is orthogonal to it being 'good' or even 'good to eat'. http://courses.csusm.edu/fallacies/naturalistic.htm http://courses.csusm.edu/fallacies/naturalistic.htm > Roughly 75% of the world has some degree of lactose intolerance Which means nothing to the people who don't have it, whose ancestors evolved to retain lactose tolerance into adulthood for the simple reason that milk is good food, full of proteins, fats, sugars, and vitamins that are just as important to an adult as a child. Just because the default First World diet induces a calorie surplus at this point instead of a calorie deficit does not negate any of milk's benefits. > nutrition is more than calorie counting -- it is about getting nutrients in the diet Everyone knows this. That doesn't mean most First World people need supplements, because they don't. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/supplements/NU00198 http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/supplements/NU00198 > If you're generally healthy and eat a wide variety of foods, including fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, low-fat dairy products, lean meats and fish, you likely don't need supplements.

elangoc 13y ago
These points are interrelated. > Which means nothing to the people who don't have it So in the case of lactose intolerance, what's interesting, in fact, is the environmental impact of the fact that the people in the Western world are largely fine with lactose. As the PBS NewsHour story about the causes and effects of China's meat consumption habits shows, Western habits are having a significant influence in the diets of the younger generation in developing countries. The effects of large-scale pollution of water resources is horrific, and competition for water resources is, after oil, the next source of conflict in the world. So yes, it will affect everyone. > Everyone knows this. That doesn't mean most First World people need supplements, because they don't. Sure, First World people don't need supplements, if they have a varied diet. In North America, that's a big if. There are cultural impediments to that varied diet, even for those with the means to afford it. But for many lower-income families, and especially those living in low-income neighborhoods, they experience the "food desert" problem. And they lack the same access to quality foods as more affluent people. That is a systemic issue related to how society (via government) deals with the problem. And the economics of the prices of foods is, in some part, related to the energy requirements which is related to the 90% energy loss up each level of the food chain. There is an environmental impact there. btw: I just threw in the names of Bittman and Pollan as representatives of the ideas of plant-based and natural diets. It's not like they invented the ideas; they're just the most recognizable cheerleaders for them at the moment.