[lbo-talk] Pollan: The (Agri)Cultural Contradictions of Obesity

[Michael Dawson]

I agree with boddhisatva.  Pollan's argument is ass-backwards, as he
semi-admits in his final paragraph.  The federel government, staffed by
revolving-door insiders, sees its role as grooming of the conditions
required for operating corporate capitalist enterprises.  The Dept of Ag is
as pure an example of this fact as any other agency.  Meanwhile, Americans
eat more for four reasons: 1. big business marketing encourages and
facilitates it; 2. cars, suburbanization, TV-addiction, and crappy jobs
create the time crunch that makes convenience a dominant motive; 3. as the
above two force work across generations, there is personal deskilling, and
younger people forget how to garden and cook; and 4. life in Americ is
stressful and depressing, making fat, salt, sugar and other confort
substances more appealing.

Pollan is a good writer, but his piece here is hardly even useful as a
review of federal food policy.

Michael Dawson
Portland, OR
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jacob Conrad" <jakub at att.net>
To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Pollan: The (Agri)Cultural Contradictions of Obesity


> boddhisatva wrote:
>
> >   This article is completely stupid.<snip>
> >
>
> COMPLETELY stupid?  Utterly moronic?  Stunningly imbecilic?  That seems
> a bit overstated, no? :-)   Are changes in taste, particularly a greater
> preference for sweets, really sufficient to explain an "epidemic" of
> obesity in the US?  I thought the article was an interesting attempt at
> explaining how big changes in the technology and political economy of
> food production affect everyday life.  Pollan's citation of Rorabaugh's
> book _The Alcoholic Republic_, about how and why the US became a nation
> of drunkards in the 19th century, seems especially apt.  It didn't
> happen just because people (well, men) suddenly decided for individual,
> psychological reasons to drink whisky all the time, but in large part
> because farmers in the early republic hit upon distilling whisky as a
> way of transforming a glut of corn into some durable, easily
> transportable form.  I would tentatively hazard the suggestion (at the
> risk of being COMPLETELY stupid) that the epidemic of gluttony and the
> increased indulgence in sweets represent in part a further erosion of
> residual puritanism.  Puritanism is not without its virtues...
>
> Jacob Conrad
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk