Of any universal factor shared amongst humans and other organisms, food (or energy intake) is the simplest, and probably the least contested as far as food science is concerned. In industrial countries we have seen the integration of more and more science into what ends up on our dinner plate (not to echo Michael Pollan).
But George Costanza said it best: “Food and sex are the two great passions in my life.” Sex aside (another universal amongst humans, mind you), food is something that has constructed me, and in our society, thus so has science. To quote even more, “you are what you eat” is not far off.
Each day I am constructed both abstractly (as an identity) and tangibly (by the vitamins and minerals, fats and protein that go through my body).
There was a time in my rebellious high school years when I was a vegetarian. Vegetarianism is highly constructed, and limited in its signification by the many, many definitions placed upon it – there are so many “arians” (pollotarian, pescatarian, etc.) that it’s hard to keep track of prefixes.
But as a vegetarian, my motives and my identity were constantly questioned, and constructed based off of extraneous, outside factors, way beyond anything I have done or experienced. There are dozens of reasons to be a vegetarian: religion, environmental and political factors, health reasons, etc., but my reason came down to the science of food, despite what my fellow students wished to believe.
After reading tales of from authors that ran the gambit of non-fiction, New York Times bestsellers (Pollan) to famous philosophers (Singer), my views of food became heavily constructed by both sides of the “science wars.”
Going back though, as a child, I loved biology, specifically plant biology, (heck, I even tried affirming Mendel’s green/yellow pea results in a pot in our front yard when I was 12). I valued the science of plants (and food) because that’s what interested me. But beyond that, science was also something I believed beyond emotions or psychological data. When reading the packaging of food, I felt comfort knowing that this bread had 16g of whole grains and was correlated with lower risks of heart disease, and that this bag of Sun Chips was “natural” and didn’t have something called “MSG” in it.
Yet, science (or rather, scientists and corporations) have corrupted what we would call “true” science. Those anecdotes on packaging or advertisements don’t tell the entire story of food. In most industrialized countries we’ve been led to believe that as long as we get 100% of our nutrients and 2,000 – 2,500 calories, we’ve done our best to be healthy. Yet, taking a vitamin has shown to be as helpful to someone’s health as taking a plain sugar pill – there is something beyond “nutritionism” that food science has simply ignored, or in its ignorance, has failed to teach the public about. Food is more than just a number of nutrients, fat, and sodium – yet science treats it as such. In one sense, you could say that because of my changed opinion on food, other science (which in my opinion is more “correct”) has also constructed my view. Yet ultimately, in these ways, my views (and may others) have been constructed by science.
Eric Best
I have worked in the food industry since I could first legally work (age 14) and have been involved in almost every aspect - Subway sandwich monkey, grocery deli butcher, delivery driver and, presently, line cook. I've found it fascinating to observe what exactly people choose to put in their body. I was working as a butcher way back when the Atkins diet was all the rage and was completely astounded at how much red meat my regular customers were buying on a semi-weekly basis. There was no way it could have been healthy. There is always a new diet fad that shapes the way that people feed themselves and they all seem so extreme. Everyone is looking for a miracle diet where you can "eat as much as you want, just so long as you avoid **X**."
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned in my post, we seem to be living in a society where there is a "pill for every ill." Likewise, there always seems to be a new diet craze that claims to offer instant gratification. I will say with full confidence that when it came to physical health, the Noble Savage should be revered. Working to eat and eating to work. If you till the soil, harvest the crops, bale the hay and butcher the cow, you could probably eat as much as you damn well want.
Until the apocalypse, maybe folks should just be a bit more reasonable and moderate. It's OK to eat bread, cheese or bacon - just don't hire someone to walk your dog.
This conflict showed up on The Good Wife, smart fiction made out of real political controversy. What Latour calls 'Science's Public.'
ReplyDelete