Feed the world! just not too much.....

my sense is that this article is directed at a straw man. first off, it's not plausible that locavore patterns are dominant. nor is it either reasonable or accurate to assume that even in places (subcults, basically) where it is that its even possible to *entirely* absent oneself from the industrial food system. nor is it obvious that anyone's actually saying that *all* food consumed should be locally produced.

on the other hand, the piece entirely avoids questions about the neo-colonial reorganizations of southern hemisphere agricultures. instead, you get some bland factoids about gambia---the underlying assumption appears to be that participation in the neo-colonial system is good because the populations in a position to play this (capital and resource-intensive) game can make money. while that's true for that segment of the population, it's merely a factoid--its meaning is asserted not argued.

on of the main arguments among people interested in organic food production--particularly in the aftermath of michael pollan's omnivores dilemma---concerns the scale of production behind which lurks the criterion of sustainability. the problem with that criterion is that no-one knows what exactly it means. this vaporousness opens space for multiple types of argument that mobilize it. kenny's deal appears to be: assume the existing system has to be as it is more or less (with tweaks)---if that's the case, is the locavore movement in principle functional inside it? the answer is obviously no because the centerpiece of the locavore position is an opposition to industrial farming, to monocropping, to gmo, to the kinds of resources that are required to keep monocrop systems going, etc. but within kenny's assumptions concerning frame, he's also able to make sustainability arguments---but they don't appear to mean the same thing as they do for someone like pollan. they're about adjusting the existing system to be somewhat more equitable. and while it's hard to oppose that in principle, that's a term-swap with respect to what he's actually arguing against. so the whole piece ends up sitting on a rhetorical slight of hand. which isn't good if the argument is to be taken seriously.

 

Let me rephrase.

Sugar is the cause of the majority of our health woes when it comes to how our health relates to the food we eat.

As you point out, it is the quantity of sugar that we are consuming that is the problem. Too much, too fast. What you left out was that the amounts of sugar we are eating is too much too fast. The average Western diet is consuming too much sugar, mostly in the form of empty calories.

Yes, we get sugars from proteins. Yes, we get sugars from fruits and vegetables.

Our body has mechanisms for using these, generally, small amounts of sugar. The problem is, the Western diet is overloading people's systems with sugar.

The odd thing is, it appears that our food policies encourage this sort of thing. Whether it is through farm subsidies or through food pyramids, we are being told or encouraged to eat things that are not always the best things for our health.

Obesity, in epidemic proportions, is a new thing. Ask yourself what's changed.

 

Of course the western diet is a problem. I merely wanted to point out that by singling out the intake 'carbs' or 'sugar' you're oversimplifying the problem. It's the amounts of certain sources of carbs, and their ability to enter the bloodstream rapidly, that are the problem. Highly processed plant products are for the most part terrible for you, are subsidized by the government and contribute to the obesity problem. By processing them they eliminate the parts with any nutritional value and leave the nutritional equivalent of table sugar. If I had a nickel for every time I told a person to compare the nutrition label of a can of soda to the label on a loaf of wonderbread...

The general rule I tell folks to follow is 'If it's made from plants it should have fiber, if it doesn't, don't eat it.' The problem is the structure of our food system makes that an expensive proposition.

 

Very interesting stuff. Thanks

 

The key is what Hectore and others have said... a balanced, healthy diet. This diet should include carbs, sugars, and starches, along with fiber, fats, proteins, etc. The real problem is over sugared, over salted processed foods which are sold under the guise of healthy or diet food. Lean Cuisine, Healthy Choice are some of the worst foods for your body. They have very little in the way of providing real nutrition. The US needs to get back to eating fresh, local produce which is in season, we've gotten way too far away from that.

 

Yeah, they eat a lot of rice as do most Asian countries but I'm almost certain that I read recently the percent of rice in their daily diet has steadily decreased. When I was in Tokyo 6 years ago, I could see two McDonalds from the front steps of the hotel I was staying at. McDonalds are everywhere in Japan. It was sickening to see how many US fast food restaurants were there.

 

Locally franchised? Our unhealthy western diet doesn't bear exportation for nothing. Allowing grain to rot on pavement denies the rights of children worldwide to live. If I understand starvation, which I probably don't, being what I am (an overfed yet malnourished USofAer) it's hard to get up & tend the fields when you're too weak to move. US troops could be more effectively used transporting food.

but: