Article Surfing Archive

I was just watering my garden (with bare feet because that's just like me and because the Price-Pottenger Foundation has recently run a story about how chronic inflammation can be mediated by merely touching your feet to the earth!) when the thought occurred to me about the notion of no controversy in American food when there should be a controversy.

Here is a central question to this issue: Are we all getting fat eating foods empty of nutrients?

In fact there are so many American food issues that I track that are to me the essence of controversy and while you hear about them from time to time you really don't get engaged because they seem to be only blips. Take the distance food travels from so-called farms to your table--an average distance of some 1,350 miles according to those who measure such things. Now that may seem unimportant but speed from harvest to table is at the center of nutritional worth: get food to the table with minimal processing in the kitchen as fast as possible because every hour wasted in transit is wasted nutrients for you. Food may look good but is largely empty of nutrients because of the time it takes to travel 1,350 miles not to mention the mechanical/distribution issues of loading and off-loading etc. So, the controversy here affects everyone who eats and this makes it a very big issue any any standard in any country let alone America.

You get the picture: this is a very controversial issue but where is the controversy?

In further fact when I pick up on a non-controversial controversial issue on American food and seek expert opinion and not only get the cold shoulder but also feel that others feel I must be contaminated or something to be mucking around in what must seem to them an off-beat issue that I get to feeling something must be the matter with me and the central point of the controversy is soundly distracted.

Ever happen to your food?