One thing I wondered about, though, is how seriously to take his suggestion to eat according to some traditional food culture. Didn’t he give an example of how one of those food cultures (Chinese and Japanese) were susceptible to an illness due to favoring white rice over the whole sort? This makes me think that while it’s not bad advice, it should be taken with a grain of salt ahem. Even traditional food cultures have some mistakes we can learn from rather than repeat.

(Except now I feel like I’ve insulted sushi chefs everywhere. Please forgive me! Do not withhold the delicious sushi!)

The only messages that ever escape the black hole of nutritional research is along the lines of “eat more oat bran because it’s healthy.” The research is never that unambigious, and “eat less of everything” is a more important message in the context of current American lifestyles. That message, hostile as it is to most agricultural and food business interests, always fails to build any momentum.

Nutritionism is a new kind of moralism, as dogmatic as puritanism or fundamentalism, and perhaps built on the same kinds of leaps of faith. The loudest voices on the front of nutritionism aren’t scientists, but gyms and alternative health practitioners and supplement-pushers and food manufacturers. Even people who fancy themselves independent of food manufacturers fail to realize the foundations of their nutritional understanding are built on research funded for by food and supplement companies.

The sort of “food as medicine” quirk of American consumption preferences bothers me, and I’m increasingly exhausted by it.

I have done product demonstrations of a candy (a fancy handmade prettily packaged candy virtually unknown in the U.S., but at its essence, a candy) in supermarkets and people regularly asked me what the health benefits of the product were. Why would you make your decision on which candy to eat based on perceived health benefits?

I’m equally hesitant to jump on the “green tea is healthy” train to promote tea products that I sell, because I am more concerned with whether the green tea tastes good and I’m not really going to be able to make any more sense of the published research than any other lay person.

On eGullet, I remember someone was concerned about the risk of cancer from certain vegetables like fiddlehead fronds and the like, and the gist was “why would you take the risk.” Well, smoked foods, seared meats, and any number of regularly consumed foods carry similar risks; you’re not eating a death sentence unless you’re being force fed like a lab rat.

If we stop treating food like medicine and spend more time just enjoying a variety of things in moderation, I’m sure we’d be better off for it.

And as much as I like high fiber foods, I’m thankful that oat bran is no longer so damned trendy.

There’s a nifty moving sidewalk underground between the two halves of the gallery. You walk by the bookstore, then the cafeteria, but the dull tunnel part has a moving sidewalk, which brings you right to the bookstore on the other side.

Come on Laurie, give us your take!

It reminds me of a conversation I had with my mother years ago, when I was learning about nutrition. She rolled her eyes and said: “First the egg was good for you, then bad for you, then good for protein, bad for arteries, the yolks were good, stay away from the yolks, eat only the whites, the yolks are the best part, eat eggs every day, eat them only twice a week, etc.”

She made a nice point.

I am a big fan of the closer it is to the ground, the better. Moderation and enjoyment of food…. and lots of red wine… and blog reading.

Oh, thanks for the article on The Idaho Club and Donaghe. We go through Sandpoint 1-2 times a year and will have to land at one of his tables!