Grain Poison and the Neuroses of so-called Affluence

While on yet another stroll through the grimy gardens of the latter day internet, I discovered a derailed conversation that sung the praises of Atkins diets and decried the horror that is carbohydrate. To prove their postulations participants in this conversation pointed to “research” showing the undeniable evidence that carbohydrates are the ultimate enemy of the first world over eater. Yet amid this storm, it seems to me that a few simple facts got buried, yet again, beneath the agenda of decontextualised, corporate aligned research practices.

As a cultural studies graduate the mantra of: “but by whom and for whom is the question asked and indeed what is the question being asked to produce this new knowledge”. It is no secret that the lion’s share of American based nutritional and agricultural research is performed with and for massive corporations who take masses of biological matter and turn it into money with little regard for the environment or human health as it functions in a whole context. So when I read about carbohydrates turning to poison in our bodies and the very reason for diabetes and obesity, I reach for my revolver.

First, some historical context. Carbohydrates, whether in the form of grains, tubers or other forms such as plantains and simple sugars are the very substances which have allowed human beings as a species to put distance between themselves and the borderlands of survival and extinction. Almost every culture on earth has utilised carbohydrates to ensure survival and eventually flourish. There are exceptions, such as the Arctic Circle indigenous people who rely on animal products to the exclusion (impossibility) of carbohydrates, but their proximity to survival/extinction is clearly indicated by the fact they have and abundance of caloric intake yet some of the shortest life spans of human beings outside of sub-Saharan Africa. Carbohydrates have provided human beings with sources of storable, portable and versatile caloric and nutritional intakes.

The opposition to carbohydrates stems mainly from first world nations, particularly in the Anglosphere where overconsumption is not only rampant but encouraged. Agricultural subsidies and other economic policies have seen carbohydrates in three main forms (grain, other, converted to sugar) become devalued to such an extent that they are now seen as adjuncts to the diet and not staples. Indeed, meat rich diets of these nations are in fact merely another form of converted grain incurring massive waste and environmental destruction. It is my argument that if we were to scale back the consumption habits of the modern affluent countries and reconfigure eating habits so that they were more in line with “whole context” approaches, we would see at worst a reduction and at best an elimination of a wide variety of lifestyle related diseases.

Why is this? The food chain is as most aspects of contemporary society dominated by economic interest rather than human well being. Arbitrary guidelines are set and are adhered to only to the extent that they do not impact on profit. After all, do we really need to eat fresh tomatoes in winter in temperate and northern climates? Is it necessary for the survival of the Australian people to grow massive amounts of rice on the Murray River, an essentially dead irrigation trough? Is our desire for hamburgers so great that we need to feed a quantity of grain and protein to cattle so that we can buy the end product at a price that does not justify the inputs? Eating closer to home and with the natural rhythms of the land would certainly reduce the availability of certain foodstuffs. But again, would this be such a bad thing anyway? After all, look where overconsumption has got us.

Are grains toxic? This question and the research around it appears to be somewhat of a wild goose chase, another instance of people chasing the dollar to questions that are asked for purposes we as consumers cannot know. It is harder to address the actual causes of illness, individual and societal than it is to create new knowledges which become through repetition and frequency new common senses which result in an continuation of lifestyle related diseases.

I feel that if we were to take into account the broader considerations of contemporary society and begin addressing fundamental questions of overconsumption and overproduction we might start to find ways in which to address illness that do not require fad diets, special chemicals or gene therapy. Consciousness and moderation, while less profitable to certain merchants are the cornerstone of happy, satisfied living. So for the time being, diets and research created in the lands of overabundance, overconsumption and overproduction will not sway me, I’ll stick with my bread sticks, bowl of rice and various tubers throughout the day. You do what you want but let us just stop the noise?

Postscript.

After a little scratching around, I found the homepage of Michael Greger, MD, which is essentially an encyclopaedic rebuttal of the entire Atkins’ mythology. Greger’s work is substantiated by literally thousands of actual academic studies from a stunningly broad range of sources as well supported by virtually all mainstream American medical and dietary organisations including: the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Dietetic Association, and the American Medical Association. Greger goes to extraordinary lengths to rebut many popular myths which have become truth through repetition throughout the internet (especially the one about “not all calories being equal”).

Vegetarian Me Part 2 – Nutrition, Tradition and Nonsense

This morning I read an article in the Sydney Morning Herald (yuck, right?) with the title: “Easy on the spuds...” (snipped for brevity). This article draws on a newly released report from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council entitled: Providing the scientific evidence for healthier Australian diets (again snipped for brevity) which yours truly took himself over to read.

The draft Australian Dietary Guidelines 2011 contains a number of points I would like to unpack a little. First the guidelines have been prepared based on a “whole” food approach. What this means is that it recommends nutrition based on actual foods rather than abstract vitamin and mineral intake values. To me this is a huge step forward from the pseudo-objectivity of RDI tables and fortified/augmented soft drinks.

Second is the concept of “adherence” to guidelines. Although exceptionally and deeply analysed (research was analysed from a wide variety of local and international sources from the period 2003-2009) the information on hand does not really tell us anything we do not already know: in spite of affluence both economic and educational, Australians seem for the most part unable to adequately incorporate sufficient whole foods into their lifestyles. The guidelines go on to report the following harrowing information:

(a) Australian children (2-18 years old) consume 41% of their caloric intake in the form of nutritionally unsound saturated fat sources.

(b) Australians overall consume 35% of their caloric intake in the form of nutritionally unsound sugar sources.

In other words for many Australian children (adults as well), junk food outside of meals constitutes up to a staggering 76% of their daily caloric intake. Even if you were a highly active person, if you were eating 176% of your calories daily you would have your work cut out for you trying not to gain weight. But in our current couch potato age where the caloric intake of a significant proportion of the population likely exceeds this 176%, the answer is weight gain, ill-health and death.

Third, what is especially interesting is the Herald’s misleading article title. It is also a point with which I disagree. Although the guidelines do advocate for a 40% reduction in potato consumption, this reduction is explicitly to do with potato as a “vegetable”. What this means is that within the spectrum of different vegetables required for optimum nutrition, the quantity of potatoes should be reduced. However, I would argue that when considered as a source of calorie rich carbohydrates potatoes function as an excellent option in themselves or as an adjunct to other grains (the quantity of each is adjusted accordingly. Indeed the sweet potato rich traditional diet of Okinawans (southern-most prefecture of Japan) is frequently pointed to as the reason for their longevity (hey, warm weather year round doesn’t exactly hurt either!).

I would go on to say that the Australian diet by and large contains a sizeable hole relative to root vegetables. In Japan, root vegetables are considered integral to the cuisine and range from potatoes, onions and carrots familiar to most Australians to more (so-called yet easily cultivated) exotic roots such as sweet potato (especially purple skinned yellow/white fleshed satsuma and to a lesser extent the purple/red fleshed beni-imo), taro (in the form of sato-imo), burdock (gobo), yam (known locally as yama-imo, which unlike many kinds of yam is non-toxic and is frequently eaten raw), daikon radish, turnip (kabu) and lotus root (renkon which may also be eaten raw). Almost all of these root vegetables could be substituted for potato in order to decrease caloric intake and increase fibre, vitamin and mineral intake. I would argue that the dearth of root-vegetables in Australian diets and the over-reliance on “colourful” and “leafy” vegetables is in need of a serious re-think.

Finally, under the grains section the emphasis is on “whole” grains. This I will leave short and sweet and can fully attest to the veracity and benefit of switching from white to brown. Recently, I received a 10kg bag of genmai (brown/whole Japanese rice) from an uncle who would/could not eat it. Although supplemented from time to time with plain white rice (like making fried rice), every meal at which I eat rice, I eat genmai. Since I started this pattern I not only lost a small amount of weight (a stubborn mini-pot belly) but become clockwork-like regular and felt lighter and more vital as a result!

So what does my opinion have to do with anything? Nothing really, but it is my view that Australians need to take more pride in local agriculture, and let me say that again: local. By actively supporting local agricultural industry in increasing demand, Australians could:

1. Improve health through increased consumption of fresh fruits, vegetables and whole grains.

2. Significantly reduce the environmental burden created by monocropping, over reliance on pesticides and herbicides for both local and export oriented markets.

3. Take pride in an increased national self-sufficiency production rate

4. Encourage the introduction and development of new and new varieties of fruits, vegetables and grains through selective breeding etc.

Or at least that is how it has worked here in Japan. C’mon Aussie, come o-o-o-n!

Vegetarian Me – Part 1

I have been vegetarian (meaning I eat eggs and dairy) for about fifteen years. In that time I have probably heard just about every criticism of vegetarianism that can be made. In the past I have assuaged such negativity by retreating into the world of knowledge and counter-arguments accumulated over the years. But the 60s, the 70s? They are no more. The zeal of that time, the zeitgeist has well and truly subsided. An inspired, environmental curiosity relegated to Woodstock documentaries and middle aged regret. The current age is one dominated by information, regardless of whether or not it is “true”. Indeed, much more important than truth is truth’s analog: the rhythm and distribution of repetition. If the same thing is said, over and over and in so many places then it cannot be anything other than truth. Such agglomerations of contemporary neurosis do not merely litter the internet, rather, they define it.

One particular issue I find confounding is that of soy. It has been for quite a number of years now, quite fashionable to not only question the so-called health benefits of soy but also to outright deny the little beans. I am reminded of 9/11 deniers, climate change sceptics and Obama birthplace doubters. The lines, as if read from a script have been repeated enough times that their veracity is irrelevant. What is most frightening is that these themes have become tangible enough in the minds of people as to have become truth ipso facto. Meanwhile, what seems to elude the staunchest critics of soy (fermented or otherwise) is that hundreds of millions of people in North East Asia (especially China, Korea and Japan) have been eating soy for thousands of years with no problems. Because the reality of this apparently cut-and-dry historical, cultural, geographical, biological and culinary fact, is well outside the experience of most Americans (and indeed their proxies in Australia, Canada etc), it simply cannot be comprehended. Let us turn toward what I believe to be the two key arguments against soy: industrial production and oestrogen.

Industrial production of soy, is led mostly by US farmers being crushed under the cruel boot of debt, soil salination, erosion and fluctuating (if only downward) commodity prices. Soy beans along with corn were the golden crop of American agriculture, used to make everything from food manufacturing ingredients such as lecithin, oil, MSG and protein powder to plastics, and nutritional supplements. Such widespread farming of soy has seen biotech companies invest massive amounts of money in unwanted plant and animal control, fertilizers, breeding and genetic engineering. The result being that along with corn, soy has entered the American (and international) food chain so thoroughly as to be inextricable. The opposition to this over-supply and over-consumption of soy is understandable. After all, if beans grown on dead soil, fertilised and protected with chemicals originating from crude oil and then harvested and processed using a wide variety of chemical technological practices, they are hardly food anymore, instead, just another substance in an agro-industrial money making system. To this degree, criticisms relating to toxicity and over-consumption are wholly understandable. This soy scoffing vegetarian pretty much agrees with them. Let us take a look at the second argument.

Soy isoflavons have been variously defined/defamed as being oestrogen analogs. But what does this actually mean? Apparently, soy isoflavons found in “unfermented” soy products send signals to the body to produce oestrogen. The criticism here is that producing too much oestrogen can have negative effects on health. This is a malady perfectly suited to the uber-Christian, homophobic American mainstream. “My son’s a fucking faggot because we gave him too much soy as a child”. Amid all the hollering about the evils of soy, the feminisation of boys seems to attract the loudest, most vociferous voices. If the result of so-called feminisation via soy is the social and economic stability evident in Japan, then I say: “Bring it on!”. In fact, why don’t we revisit the second paragraph: hundreds of millions of people have been eating unfermented soy for thousands of years with few, if any, ill-effects.

If there is anything actually “wrong” with soy, then I would attribute it to mass agro-industrial production more so than anything in the beans themselves. So soy deniers, go back to rejecting night-shades (tomatoes, potatoes, eggplants, chillies and bell peppers), hating on carbohydrates and blaming obesity on genetics rather than lifestyle and leave that little bean alone.