|
I've been meaning to eply to the above since the day after, but I kept forgetting about it.
Keeping it short: last week, around Thursday or Friday, I caught a small segment of Public Access Television's TV 411. One of the small segments they ran was about nutrition, as well as how to better educate one's self when reading the ubiquitous black-and-white "Nutritional Facts" chart, found on nearly all prepackaged foods (by law). The point I was making, in contradiction to your oddly-superlative statement previously that such a statistic was appalling to your faculties, had to do with the 'common sense' practice put into use by a fair portion of the North American population.
Just because someone doesn't know that an average man's daily recommended intake of proteins should be 60-65 grams, (I didn't even know this "supposed" fact until last week) while a woman's should be closer to 50 grams per day, well does that make them any less worse for the wear, or unhealthier? It can stand to reason that it might be of benefit to some to keep this in mind, but not everybody needs to know this trivial concern of allotments, and certainly doesn't need to abide by them.
For the most part, in my idealized picture of North American consumers and regular eaters: I think that if they are alive, can smile and seem generally well-fit, as do most of the thousands of people I see in a given day, then I assume that they can fend for themselves, and a have relative knowledge of the two rules: "eat a li'l bit of everything" and "it's fine in moderation".
__________________
As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves. —Mohandas K. Gandhi
|